The problem is that we're not talking about some aesthetic issue like tabs vs. spaces but rather large groups of peoples’ ability to participate in this industry. Shrugging it off with “what good does it do?” is only possible if you aren't affected by that and it's not a neutral position since it's effectively saying that the reactionary position is okay with you.

It also ignores a lot of good which has come out of these discussions. I've seen a number of colleagues become far more thoughtful about interaction patterns, social structure, etc. in response to this discussion and they've uniformly reported that this has improved the quality of work, too.

That should not be surprising: after all, do problems in your applications go away if you don't monitor or discuss them? You may similarly have to deal with the guy who's really defensive to protect his perceived status but … he's not going to cause fewer problems if you don't.

> Shrugging it off with “what good does it do?” is only possible if you aren't affected by that and it's not a neutral position since it's effectively saying that the reactionary position is okay with you.

You know nothing about me.

I work in academia. We have one of the largest "Gender Studies" (Read womens' studies, men need not apply). Yet our IT in my group is 100% sausagefest.

I know of women who've applied. I'm not privy to the interviews at my time and tenure... but it's completely bullshit to say that every woman is not competent to do my job.

What can I do? I'm sure I could do an email campaign like this. But I'm 1 person, and I'm looking to work elsewhere due to managerial "issues". It's not MY problem to solve ineffectual and bad management. But my solution is to leave.

> It also ignores a lot of good which has come out of these discussions. I've seen a number of colleagues become far more thoughtful about interaction patterns, social structure, etc. in response to this discussion and they've uniformly reported that this has improved the quality of work, too.

If one of the most "Liberal" universities can't get it right, why would I expect most anywhere to?

> That should not be surprising: after all, do problems in your applications go away if you don't monitor or discuss them? You may similarly have to deal with the guy who's really defensive to protect his perceived status but … he's not going to cause fewer problems if you don't.

The nail that sticks out gets the hammer.

I'm not saying you're a bad person, only that the conversation is important to people who don't have the option of ignoring it. No, you can't change the world but that doesn't mean we should give up and not even talk about the problem.

Also, having spent a fair amount of time in academia, describing it as liberal utopia is simplistic to the point of being wrong. Right-wing media loves to describe it that way but it's not example hard to find examples of universities fighting against fair wages, unionization, etc. — just watch what happens if someone suggests grad students or adjuncts should have financial security — and there are no shortage of examples of men who might even make a pretense of being feminist while ignoring or even stymieing support for working mothers, fair hiring or promotional practices, etc.

The only thing I've seen make any of this improve is sunlight.

> I'm not saying you're a bad person, only that the conversation is important to people who don't have the option of ignoring it. No, you can't change the world but that doesn't mean we should give up and not even talk about the problem.

Thank you. I do try the fight, when I see a potential gain. I also see a great deal of flailing around, just because. Maybe they're trying to find their area they can change things. Who knows.

I do know I'm a white guy. Tall one.I know Ive never bought into the victimhood culture of SJWs, but yes, bad shit does indeed happen to women and minorities. I've seen it.

> Also, having spent a fair amount of time in academia, describing it as liberal utopia is simplistic to the point of being wrong. Right-wing media loves to describe it that way but it's not example hard to find examples of universities fighting against fair wages, unionization, etc. — just watch what happens if someone suggests grad students or adjuncts should have financial security — and there are no shortage of examples of men who might even make a pretense of being feminist while ignoring or even stymieing support for working mothers, fair hiring or promotional practices, etc.

Err, not quite. Yes, the University is still subject to capitalist forces. So they're against graduate student rights, uses a great deal of temp and "part timers" to skirt around full time employment benefits. I know there's a few profs in Labor Studies that rattle the Communism banner. But they can, because they are tenured.

Me? Since I'm IT/professional, I don't qualify for the union. So, no protections. That means anonymous commentary. Cause just like this (presumed) guy, I nor any of my co-workers can speak out.

Look at how upper management is already responding to this? "If he reported to me, I'd fire him myself"... Literally anyone who shares even partial agreement with his email is being blackballed.

Some of my friends called it the Liberal Circular Firing Squad. If we all don't get in line, exactly as others have, we're wrong. Blammo. The Republicans don't seem to do that, although they do have their spats.

>Look at how upper management is already responding to this? "If he reported to me, I'd fire him myself"... Literally anyone who shares even partial agreement with his email is being blackballed.

But his reasoning for that is pretty legit though. If someone is willing to call a third of your colleagues incompetent to their face, I'm not sure how they'll be able to work together in that team and hope to actually make things happen. It's hard to expect the women on his team to continue working with him after he calls their competence into question after they've proved themselves by climbing to the same position he holds.

I feel like the reasons for the firing were not that he had different views, it was that he did not have the tact to approach this problem properly, and handled it really badly. There are much better ways to have a discussion around this than this manifesto, and those are discussions worth having. But not this one, this is just inciting a flame war.

I'm curious, what do you think about ebola1717's argument above in this thread?

> seriously, modded down? I'd much prefer why you think I'm wrong. I've seen 300+ comment threads about "sexism in the tech workplace" more than a few times. They devolve to screaming matches and dry commentary nobody responds to.

"To answer the question, what good does discussing this do?"

I think your frustration with the non-objective treatment of the subject is justified. There are a lot of strong feelings around the issues. Confronting our own biases is difficult for most of us.

In a way, silent modding down (now -1) posits the view that the guy who posted that 10 page paper had issues with.

If anyone dares discuss it, it's because they are on the "Wrong Side", and thus blackballed, punished, or fired. In my case, silenced.

This paragraph in the 10 page document says the following:

"De-moralize diversity.

As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”"