And women are much more severely underrepresented in tech. So why argue against fixing that? It will simply make the tech industry better.

This is a strawman. Neither I nor the manifesto author has argued in favor of sexism.

Why did you call out "white men" in an article about representation at Google? It doesn't make any sense when white people are underrepresented at Google.

edit: Now the parent has edited their comment to remove "in favor of sexism".

Here is where the author argues for sexism (from his TL;DR)

> Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

The implication here is that equal representation of women at Google is bad for business. That women aren't in tech and leadership positions because of biological traits.

This is sexism.

Right here. This point and its thorough embedding in every aspect of the article.

> The implication here is that equal representation of women at Google is bad for business. That women aren't in tech and leadership positions because of biological traits.

This is an incomplete picture of what that statement says. It does not say that 50% representation would necessarily be bad for business, but that discriminating against men to achieve this goal would be bad for business.

Helping others succeed and building a diverse environment is not discriminating against men.

Having an agenda of hiring and promoting women over men is discriminating against men. Very few people dispute this happens.

No it is not discriminating against men. It is fighting existing discrimination against women. Women are already discriminated against in these fields, to try to stop that we have to encourage them to participate. Because it is Really Hard to join an industry or field where you are discriminated against.

I can't emphasise enough that this is not discrimination.

Discrimination is the "unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people."

Google only has finite resources. Diverting them to assist the oppressed class (women) is not discrimination against the dominant class (men). It is simply a way to correct for existing discrimination against women.

As someone who takes these kinds of larger social issues fairly seriously, and supports many efforts to correct the long lasting effects of discrimination, I think viewing this issue in such a binary fashion(that is that women as a class are oppressed and men are the oppressors) is both incorrect and unhelpful to the cause you seem to be supporting. Privilege, oppression, and discrimination exist over multiple overlapping spectrums. The notion that in a country like the US white women(due to their being women) are somehow oppressed by black men(due to their being men) is both incorrect, and quite frankly, somewhat insulting. You will not win any allies to your cause by framing these very important issues in such a binary, and unnuanced way.

I don't think the original author argued against fixing it, I think he advocated different approach to fixing it, based on different understanding of what "it" is.

By eliminating programs intended to help increase diversity, by "de-emphasising empathy" and by making Google more of a safe space for people with viewpoints similar to his own. Got it!

> By eliminating programs intended to help increase diversity

The key words here are "intended to". There's a difference between doing something and intending to do something. Unfortunately, intending to do something is sometimes not enough to actually do something - you also have to do it in the right way, otherwise you might intend to do one thing and instead do another thing.

> de-emphasising empathy

Not the best sound-bite, which of course means it will get quoted a lot. Happens to techies, not all of them are good writers, yet less of them can write a text that would be robust under hostile interpretation. The point, however, was to use data instead of feel-good anecdotes.

> making Google more of a safe space for people with viewpoints similar to his own

What's wrong with making Google more safe for people working there?