Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually he did not. He presented research that showed that women and men have different focuses, thus trying to achieve a workforce that matches the demographic distribution of the US is doomed to failure, or requires inequality to achieve. Whether that research is accurate is obviously like all research up for debate, but he did do his homework (which you'd see assuming you're not snatching snippets from Gizmodo).
Look women can be Marines, Rangers, Fighter pilots. Nothing stopping them, how many are those things in comparison to men? Why?
Firstly the error is that all people have the ability to be GOOG level developers there aren't many, and I've seen Devs from MSFT, AMZN, ORCL, crash and burn, I've also seen GOOG Devs crash and burn at other companies. That is not reality, even those with the ability may not wish to work in that environment, they will not commit to the demands of the position. So it's a choice, that's demonstrated by enrollment figures in higher education that shows that demographically CS and hard sciences are over subscribed by Asians and Caucasians, and men over women. That's just education, not putting that education to use in the real world, where there aren't resits and make up classes, but money and resources wasted on goose chases. That isn't going to change in the next decade, so there's already an impossible goal of trying to achieve in the next decade, demographic distribution at parity with the general US population demographics.
Secondly there's the implication that men and women have identical thought processes and problem solving. Is this true? If so then why are men and women treated differently in all walks of life? Why is it OK to sexually objective men, but not women (and it's not really men objectifying men for women's consumption)? Why do mothers almost exclusively receive primary child custody? Why is a man saying 'How you doing?' to a woman suspect harassment, but the converse is not? Since WW2 with increasing equality there are still industries that predominantly are dominated by one gender or the other, is it all because of oppression of one of those genders? Or is it that the gender that is less represented as a group prefers to choose other industries? If so does this not indicate fundamental differences in viewpoints that have a gender bias? If this is true then how can we achieve demographic parity?
So put those together and if you have 1% of the population who COULD meet the demands of the position (not gender specific) but 25% of men would commit to those demand, but only 10% of women would you've already got a 5:2 discrepancy ratio that's not going to change (unless you force women to enter SW Dev, and I mean dev, not scripting, not laying out images, but schedulers, memory managers, inter process communications, network stacks, etc.). That said it's worse than this because without track record you're not going to get interviewed, and primary track record is education, once you've had a job, it becomes progressively less important. If the distribution in education is imbalanced, and the numbers prepared to commit are imbalanced, that 5:2 becomes 10:2 or more really quickly.
So how do you employ these people, if basing your choices on merit? Do you cast a wide net and interview? Bear in mind a typical loop will cost around $10k in lost production, regardless of outcome. Or do you set the bar according to the candidates demographics? If you do that then is that not the epitome of Unequal Opportunity?
I read over it when it first hit the news, but frankly, it's not all stuck with me because I'm not overly concerned about it. My first thought was that he may have some good points, but they're lost in the WAY he attempted to communicate them.
Which is more the issue that exactly what he was trying to communicate, in terms of this lawsuit.
At the end of the day, it's going to come across to a diverse bunch of employees as "X people are not suited for X job(s), so if you hire them, you're only doing it to satisfy diversity quotas."
This sort of idea would have been best received if presented to senior management along with (as you mentioned at the outset) a plan for how to do it "better" than Google is doing it, which would benefit EVERYONE who works for Google or who wants to work for Google.
I see him on right-wing talk shows opining on the discriminatory practices in SV and how they're holding down the white man and it cracks me up because this is still the USA and white guys still have their white guy network and are still viewed as desirable hires, no matter how hard any company tries to create a diverse population. If he didn't like the way Google did things, a more discreet conversation or two with management and/or looking at another company would have been the thinking man's way to solve his problems.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Did the guys put the "sexist" pictures on the screen intentionally to bug the women or did they already have them and had to get rid of them because women were now present?
I worked at a huge tech company years ago and these things were not an issue until two women made it an issue. I couldn't care less what anyone has on their screens.
It is hard to force young people not to talk and socialize and tell dirty jokes when they are together all day in a boring office.
It was deliberate. There were a few who always had pinups but some of the stuff got a little raw. Some of the ladies handled it well but we had one who was difficult and the boys played to her. She and I in fact collaborated on one project with very good results. It was basically a software/hardware implementation and she dealt with the fuzzy problem much better than most. We actually fixed the problem before the team who should have done it realized it existed. They even did a skit about her at a xmas party. Could have killed them.
I read over it when it first hit the news, but frankly, it's not all stuck with me because I'm not overly concerned about it. My first thought was that he may have some good points, but they're lost in the WAY he attempted to communicate them.
Which is more the issue that exactly what he was trying to communicate, in terms of this lawsuit.
At the end of the day, it's going to come across to a diverse bunch of employees as "X people are not suited for X job(s), so if you hire them, you're only doing it to satisfy diversity quotas."
This sort of idea would have been best received if presented to senior management along with (as you mentioned at the outset) a plan for how to do it "better" than Google is doing it, which would benefit EVERYONE who works for Google or who wants to work for Google.
I see him on right-wing talk shows opining on the discriminatory practices in SV and how they're holding down the white man and it cracks me up because this is still the USA and white guys still have their white guy network and are still viewed as desirable hires, no matter how hard any company tries to create a diverse population. If he didn't like the way Google did things, a more discreet conversation or two with management and/or looking at another company would have been the thinking man's way to solve his problems.
The way is unimportant. What he says not how he said it is the critical information. How someone says something is an opinion, what they said is a fact. Tech companies run on facts not opinions (or the good ones do anyway). Examples "That's BS" and "The information presented does not support the argument" both mean the same thing (the what), but how they're expressed doesn't change that meaning.
Just because SV is 80% Asian/Caucasian and/or male does not mean that hiring practices are not discriminatory. If today people are being hired for the same positions with different expectations on their abilities subject to their intrinsic characteristics (gender, ethnicity, etc.), then that would be discriminatory.
So you're saying they were NOT going to hire whites and it would just be like a company making a memo saying they were going to hire every race except blacks, correct? That IS illegal!
Uh..yah. That's the point. What exactly are you trying to argue?
Um, you don't always say "this is the guy we're gonna hire" on the first interview. If anything the name gets highlighted and kept in the bank to see if someone rates higher. Honestly I wish we were beyond sexism and racism and to an extent ageism but if anything I've seen since Trump started running for President, we're not and we sadly due need discrimination laws. I wish we didn't, but we have too many people that are racist, sexist and ageist.
What a load. That crap restarted again under Obama, don't even try to rewrite history.
As for what was said, I was paraphrasing. It's very evident that many of you have not read a single word of that lawsuit. You're clearly getting your "opinions" from someone on the news somewhere. READ the fricken thing. JC!
What a load. That crap restarted again under Obama, don't even try to rewrite history.
As for what was said, I was paraphrasing. It's very evident that many of you have not read a single word of that lawsuit. You're clearly getting your "opinions" from someone on the news somewhere. READ the fricken thing. JC!
I am sick and dog dead tired, of the fact that our government puts a quota on hiring....like each and every company, police force, and any hiring institution in the U.S. including sub-contracting, must, hire, a certain percent of minorities. I know for a fact police forces that have actually had to lower the testing standards so they could hire minorities, which is a load of crap.
The best man, most qualified person should get the job.
What a load. That crap restarted again under Obama, don't even try to rewrite history.
As for what was said, I was paraphrasing. It's very evident that many of you have not read a single word of that lawsuit. You're clearly getting your "opinions" from someone on the news somewhere. READ the fricken thing. JC!
When Trump announced candidacy, Obama WAS President That said it wasn't a "Oh Trump is being, offensive so we can to" deal, as it goes back to even Bush era, but Trump did cause it to be a lot more "acceptable."
I don't have to read the lawsuit to know the issue. It is over what he said a political view and that trumps how he said it and breaking company protocol, or if because of how he did it it broke company protocol and that supersedes the fact that you cannot fire based on political ideaology.
I don't have to read the lawsuit to know the issue.
Yeah, you do. Here's the proof:
Quote:
It is over what he said a political view and that trumps how he said it and breaking company protocol, or if because of how he did it it broke company protocol and that supersedes the fact that you cannot fire based on political ideaology.
,Where is it written you cannot fire over political views? Far as I can tell that would be legal. You cannot fire for male or white or age. But politics is not a protected class. I think Google will lose over the whit,e male issue.
And for the record the female and minority issue has been wizth us over forty years. It is actually a lot better than it used to be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That said it wasn't a "Oh Trump is being, offensive so we can to" deal, as it goes back to even Bush era, but Trump did cause it to be a lot more "acceptable."
