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.
No. What "smacks of entitlement" is evidence in the lawsuit itself stating "white males: boooo" and that some people at Google weren't going to hire on merit or the most qualified, ("sometimes the most qualified is the first one, but you have to be patient...." paraphrasing from an actual message written and provided in the lawsuit), but hire based on gender and race, as long as that gender and race is not "white males". You're very disgustingly wrong on this.
Some of you all need to just stop. Read the lawsuit. ALL of it and then come back and start talking, because right now, it's very evident who has not actually read that suit.
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!
How often did you go to the management with a solution like "we shouldn't try to be diverse here because women are too emotional to be good at running a company?"
Because, that was the gist of his treatise and if you'd done that, I will suggest that you'd have been shown the door, just like he was.
It was disgustingly misogynistic.
And untrue.
To be fair, I think Gungnir wasn't saying he was against diversity the way this idiot was. This idiot was basically saying that white males were not welcome in Google which would be the same as saying black people shouldn't work for Trump International. If you work in that company and you do it publicly, don't expect to walk away with nothing. You're likely to get fired and have a somewhat hard time finding work, especially if you sue.
Gungnir to his credit (I think they're a he considering the reason for "his" departure) left and didn't badmouth Goggle, this way. They and others saw that the culture was changing to something that they rather not work for and found jobs elsewhere. Damore could have easily done that as well. Instead, he was a snowflake and according to the CEO violated the code of conduct. My question is, if it broke the code of conduct to make a statement like he did and with the content he did, yet California has political ideology as a protective class, what does that mean and what should win? I honestly don't know, because ideology isn't biological and you typically sign on with a company, knowing what they value too...
Basic rule in high tech fast growing environments. You need a few well placed adults so the inmates do not get to run the establishment. These workers mean well, see the truth clearly and end up often with an echo chamber that reinforces their belief. You need a few adults to thwart them.
Dealt for some years with the problem a couple of decades ago. It was complex and difficult then. Finding good female engineers was very difficult and getting the male engineers to behave reasonably was tougher. At one point when we had a couple of ladies doing well it got so bad I or my assistance were reduced to prowling the cubicles to get the boys to stop with the sexist pictures on the screens. Finally had to threaten to bounce one very bright idiot who was taking great pain to find something that was really annoying.
On the other side you never let the discussion at work cross over into the social. They are simply different arenas. I don't care what the top software engineer thought about gays...good or bad...I also don't care who he actually sleeps with as long as it is not a direct report or someone close organizationally. And even then I don't care of they keep it out of the workplace.
These people at Google have simply lost it and are going to get creamed as well they should.
Again you need a few adults so the young and opinionated don't lose their reference frame.
No. What "smacks of entitlement" is evidence in the lawsuit itself stating "white males: boooo" and that some people at Google weren't going to hire on merit or the most qualified, ("sometimes the most qualified is the first one, but you have to be patient...." paraphrasing from an actual message written and provided in the lawsuit), but hire based on gender and race, as long as that gender and race is not "white males". You're very disgustingly wrong on this.
Some of you all need to just stop. Read the lawsuit. ALL of it and then come back and start talking, because right now, it's very evident who has not actually read that suit.
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.
Google, Yahoo, Twitter, Facebook, MSN, etc all censor conservative views. They get away with it because they are private companies run by far Left zealots.
I had a girlfriend who warned me, many years ago, that there is nothing more dangerous than zealots or extremists, and that goes for any political affiliation.....
It's one thing to believe, and another to go crazy....like what these woman are doing right now.
Look at Oprah....her speech, which mind you was good, but then her pictures are all over the internet with Weinstein. ??????
Sorry, but that doesn't cut it...I'm certain all these rumors about him are true....however, there were an awful lot of woman that went along with him, b/c they wanted to get somewhere....
plus as you grow older your priorities change, however, they go to the extreme....and it's sickening. Some people the more you give them the more they want....
Totally agree. Glad someone else is saying it too!
yes, but the sad part is, there are a whole lot of Americans who do not understand. I have seen thing going on for years with the news, however, most don't pick up on it.....if a liberal is President, they compound his accomplishments over and over again....and if a repub is in there, they wipe his butt all over the place trying to find grim on him.
They can't get anything on Trump really, yeah, he made some comments about women, years ago, what 11 years ago....and he talks ridiculously sometimes, but deep down, he has a kind heart and is trying so hard to help people, but because he is on the side of Republicans and wants to enforce laws that are already on the books, he's a bad person.....
Makes no sense, and the hate that is generating b/c they can't get their way is down right scary.
How often did you go to the management with a solution like "we shouldn't try to be diverse here because women are too emotional to be good at running a company?"
Because, that was the gist of his treatise and if you'd done that, I will suggest that you'd have been shown the door, just like he was.
It was disgustingly misogynistic.
And untrue.
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?
The guy is an attention-seeking snowflake. He could have just gone in and done his job, but instead apparently he couldn't work without whining about his political beliefs that no one wanted to hear, so now he's a victim.
It was nothing like that at all. His employer set up a forum for discussion of these issues. And you know what he did? He presented ideas that SUPPORTED his employer, which was under criticism for not hiring enough women coders. He was 100% in the right in every respect.
Basic rule in high tech fast growing environments. You need a few well placed adults so the inmates do not get to run the establishment. These workers mean well, see the truth clearly and end up often with an echo chamber that reinforces their belief. You need a few adults to thwart them.
Dealt for some years with the problem a couple of decades ago. It was complex and difficult then. Finding good female engineers was very difficult and getting the male engineers to behave reasonably was tougher. At one point when we had a couple of ladies doing well it got so bad I or my assistance were reduced to prowling the cubicles to get the boys to stop with the sexist pictures on the screens. Finally had to threaten to bounce one very bright idiot who was taking great pain to find something that was really annoying.
On the other side you never let the discussion at work cross over into the social. They are simply different arenas. I don't care what the top software engineer thought about gays...good or bad...I also don't care who he actually sleeps with as long as it is not a direct report or someone close organizationally. And even then I don't care of they keep it out of the workplace.
These people at Google have simply lost it and are going to get creamed as well they should.
Again you need a few adults so the young and opinionated don't lose their reference frame.
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.
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.
