Not true, he distributed the memo on a mailing list called "skeptics."
I would like to hear from someone at Google what kind of discussions happen on the "skeptics" list. Have there have been any negative stereotypes about Christians voiced on that mailing list, for instance? Was political discussion normal on that mailing list? Was criticism of Google normal?
Of course, you can find instances of James being lauded and of Susan Fowler being called an "attention whore," if you really go searching for them. But neither are the majority, by far.
What the article says:
> Sexist assumption 6: Gender bias is not a real issue. Anyone who thinks so is blinded by political bias.
What the memo says:
> Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.
Literally, can anyone argue against the guy without misrepresenting and demonizing his argument? I don't even agree with him and find this stuff head-ache inducing.
> We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10].
"Gender issue issue", as in complaining that gender issues are taken too seriously?
Damore kept saying he acknowledges that sexism exists, but none of his suggestions actually address it. It's as though he paid just it enough lip service to scrape by. The thrust of his argument is that the gender gap can be entirely explained by personal choices or innate qualities.
I agree the rebuttal gets off to a rocky start because the assumptions seem hyperbolic. It gets better by the end, as each one is explained.
> "When a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men"
>
> In no way is that referring to "complaining that gender issues are taken too seriously?"
It is saying that gender issues which affect men are not taken seriously and are discarded. To quote the associated sources TL;DR
Both genders have issues
> The thrust of his argument is that the gender gap can be entirely explained by personal choices or innate qualities.
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.
> Read the link cited with that sentence and you might understand it
better. It is saying that gender issues which affect men are not taken
seriously and are discarded.
It's hard to accept that there is nuance in the memo, because it's only found in broad sentences like this one:
> 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.
What about all these documented biases? Surely these are affecting womens' careers too:
* Men get better assignments. https://hbr.org/2013/09/women-in-the-workplace-a-research-ro...
* People assume mothers to be inherently less competent and less committed than fathers. https://hbr.org/2013/09/women-in-the-workplace-a-research-ro...
* Women negotiate as often as men, but face pushback when they do. https://womenintheworkplace.com/
* Women get less access to senior leaders. https://womenintheworkplace.com/
* Women ask for feedback as often as men, but are less likely to receive it. https://womenintheworkplace.com/
* Women get less useful feedback than men. https://hbr.org/2016/04/research-vague-feedback-is-holding-w...
* Women get criticized more than men. http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-gender-bias...
* Women are more frequently characterized as “too agressive”. https://www.wsj.com/articles/gender-bias-at-work-turns-up-in...
* Women leaders face higher standards and lower rewards than men leaders. http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/double-bind
* Women leaders are perceived as competent or liked, but rarely both. http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/double-bind
* Women’s code is accepted more often than men’s, but only if gender is hidden. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35559439
Sure, he says that innate traits are only part of the cause. But the rest of his essay implies they are the primary cause.
> I wonder what gender issue Damore found himself facing.
Homelessness? Murder? And when he raised those issues he
was labeled a misogynist? That doesn't seem to fit.
Being a "nerd" he almost assuredly deals with and has delt with male gender issues such as "lacking masculinity" his entire life.
Playing a game of "my problems worse than yours". Or "your problems are trivial" is not a great way to win over an audience wouldn't you agree?
[0] https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/2016/08/06/a-non-femini...
That failure makes his audience significantly less receptive, and puts them on the immediate defense. He should spend some serious time reading "Difficult Conversations" and other books of it's ilk. As much as he wants to avoid feelings, feelings always matter. Hence the justified accusation of his memo being "tonedef".
And you are not considering the context in which it was written, or are missing key statements like:
> For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the
extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to
differential treatment and the authoritarian element
that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal
representation.
Something he states. Multiple times. Throughout the document.
> Sure, he says that innate traits are only part of the cause. But the rest of his essay implies they are the primary cause.
Therefore, from the inter-individual perspective,the
individuals who pursue STEM careers are more likely to
be male than female. For example, assuming that
individuals within the highest 25% of a population
interest distribution are likely to make occupational
choices consistent with an interest type, the number of
women entering the engineering occupation, then, is only
19.5% of the number of men entering the field. This
percentage is very similar to the actual female–male
ratio of individuals employed in engineering. In science
and mathematics interest distributions, the female–male
ratios in the upper 25% asymptote are 0.60 and 0.64,
respectively. However, the actual female–male ratio of
individuals employed in the field of physical sciences
is only about 0.40 and, in mathematics, it is about
0.45. This discrepancy between interest data and real
employment composition indicates that there may be
reasons other than sex differences in interests that can
account for gender disparity in science and mathematics.
1) Google tends to pull a lot from Science and Math, not just engineering, in the "tech world". Dalmore is one such individual. This indicates the ratio should be much more skewed to an even makeup.
2) Even without that Google is still pretty "male" compared to what the research indicates.
3) Research on interests is largely still post social, so we don't really have a good feeling for the biological vs social components that drive the interest rates we see today. We know some pre-social effects exist, but we don't really have a good grasp on the magnitude of such effects. His memo fails to make this differentiation.
Btw, maybe I'm reading this wrong, but your block quote seems to make the opposite point that you think it does. You said the research "indicates that interests are a primary driver in the discrepancy," but the quote said:
This discrepancy between interest data and real employment
composition indicates that there may be reasons other than
sex differences in interests that can account for gender
disparity in science and mathematics.The assumptions are stated bluntly, but I don't find them inaccurate.
The rebuttal gets off to a rocky start, but each assumption is explained. If you object to a particular one, please point it out.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/clareoco...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technolog...
No matter where you stand on the issue, he disseminated a company wide memo criticizing the company-wide hiring practices in a preachy way that didnt leave room for the company to answer back. In what company would that not be labeled insubordination?