Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 21 replies
  • Subscribers 10 subscribers
  • Views 569 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Google fire man who claims that women are underrepresented because they are biologically different, not because of bias....

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
Ok, there's a bit more to it than is in the headlines, but you can see the full "anti-diversity manifesto" here. It's quite a read!


My personal reading is this was written by someone well-meaning but extremely mis-led and confused about why tech companies need to address diversity. It's also full of conjecture and is unnecessarily divisive (constant references to "left" and "right").


Were they right to fire him? Or was he perfectly entitled to publish his thoughts, regardless of whether or not we (or his employer) like it? Any other thoughts on the manifesto? Was there a fair point buried somewhere in the ranting?




  • 0

    Edwin Morton:

    It would also be valuable to know the ratio of male to female engineers in the workforce in Iran.  For that matter, it would be valuable to understand the social and cultural drivers that shape the choices that people and families in different cultures make when a young person makes the choice to become an engineer.  Not sure if that wealth of data is available.


    Edwin





    I suspect not as high as the student ratio.  Some interesting data to mine for many countries.:



  • 0

    Theresa Simpkin:



    ... so I'll not even start to pick this apart ... The capacity to have children is not a debility.  The fact that women have periods is not a debility.  Neither of those things should devalue the contribution of women in society or in their work. I don't know where you work or how you engage with the wider world, but it is possible to have children, manage menstruation and put in a full day's worth of work.  A vast plethora of research also indicates that women often bear the brunt of domestic duties ... "Ladies" know the source of their worth it's a pity that it's seen differently by people such as yourself who appear to be resigned to this as if it were the natural order of things.



    Your view is what I see all the time and you actually fail to see that I am on your side. But you have just exhibited the female characteristics alluded to above. You have failed to read, digest and understand. And so you and you compatriots stumble on blindly not solving the problem. I'm 64yrs now and I noticed something was wrong when I was 18yrs when I tried to decide for whom to vote at the general election in 1971/2 (if my memory is correct). This problem began a whole train of thoughts about life that have led me here. In the mid-70s I discovered that my girlfriend who was renting was paying more than a mortgage so I suggested she apply for one. She gave me a withering look as she announced that she was not eligible because she was a woman; for that she would have to be married! I was too young to know this and it seemed so unfair that it began my quest to understand why. And now I believe I know. Your attitude is common of many I have met and is part of the problem. As I said there are none as blind as those who WILL NOT see.
    "so I'll not even start to pick this apart " You have to pick my arguments apart otherwise you will not progress. Is it difficult? Yes, it is. But you will not learn if you don't make the effort. I'm certainly going to pick your comments apart...
    "The capacity to have children is not a debility.  The fact that women have periods is not a debility.  Neither of those things should devalue the contribution of women in society or in their work." You see you didn't read and understand the text. It's not YOUR valuation of your worth, or an HR manager's value of your worth, it’s the INDUSTRIALIST'S value. He who pays the piper etc. When conducting such an analysis it's necessary to look at the facts - the things that "are", not your preferences or feelings or fairness or what you would like to be. These things are irrelevant. The facts tell the true story of reality - what is going on. So to continue: if you try to force the industrialist to value women more than his business sense tells him they are worth then initially he will do as little as he can to comply. He will drag his feet. If it becomes an issue in Parliament and our MP's approach the industrialist and tell him that he has to comply, he will use his trump card - he will begin by inviting the MP to dinner, and a round on the golf course and during the conversation allude to the difficulty in continuing to support the party if this "business" gets serious. Let’s face it - ultimately MP's are paid by the industrialist. This is capitalism - the system that you vote for and support... But it appears you don't see it (or don't want to see) and so that problem persists. You are your own worst enemy! Oh, and as to my comment "look at the facts", I offer this evidence. When was equal pay introduced? 1970? (I was so young then, anyway...)  And just a quick trawl of Google found this in the Guardian from Nov2016 "Here we go again. The Equal Pay Act was introduced 46 years ago and yet from Thursday this week the UK’s female workforce will effectively be working for free until 31 December, due to the scale of the gender pay gap." FOURTY-SIX years and no change! How much evidence do you need?! This is foot-dragging on a monumental scale. There are skid marks going back into history and yet you ladies keep thinking you will succeed. You will not in a capitalist environment because the people with the money make the decisions. You have to change society to a system which allows you to be valued and paid equally. However…
    …my deliberations have helped me realise that we are trying to solve the wrong problem. The pay inequality has been caused by our belief that the welfare of the family is enhanced (or proportional to) the increase in the value of the economy. Or in minimal words - that the welfare of the family is proportional to the value of the economy. So we believe and live life as though it is necessary for the economy to increase to increase the welfare of the family. This is wrong in my estimation. It's the reverse - ie "the welfare of the family is inversely proportional to the value of the economy". The main consequence is that as the economy increases the welfare of the family reduces. The evidence is overwhelming in my view. By reaching this conclusion it explains every ill of our society. The reasoning always ends up with this truism. And one of the implications of taking the path we have is that we have reached the crazy situation where women have kids and then dump them in crèches so they can go to work - because they HAVE to go to work. I acknowledge at this point that there are great variations in society. But one truth is that many women will want children and another is that children need mum at home, and another is that many women want to be at home with their kids. The exceptions are part of the evolutionary process and often result in kids who do not reproduce. So the “mum at home” model wins out…
    "but it is possible to have children, manage menstruation and put in a full day's worth of work" Yes possible, but I understand that many women don't want to; and those who do will in many cases be limiting the welfare of their kids. This is the issue of doing a job we can but don’t want to. And the consequences are unhappiness. Yes women can put their kids into crèches, but do they really want to? I suggest not. Does it do the kids any good? On balance I understand not.
    It takes a while to fathom my assertion above and most people initially are included to disbelieve, but the evidence is in front of our eyes. The consequence of believing that the “welfare of the family is proportional to the value of the economy” is that we push the economy forward at all costs, which includes women having to work, which demands that kids are incarcerated all day without their parents. And the evidence for this? Well, when was the last time you spent time gardening or taking it easy like your grandparents? They had lots of time to chill out and take it easy. They probably went to work on foot, cycle or the bus. They may well have spent hours in the garden. Look at the time people spend travelling to work now or trapped on the M25 or standing in a commuter train. And yet we crave for growth in the economy in the belief it will help our families. NO, it only helps the industrialist. But dare suggest “allow the economy to wane” and the one group of people that will string you up very promptly are the very ones being strung up by the industrialist and their economy – yes, THEIR economy, not yours - you are the worker-ants who do until you die, and leave your deprived kids to carry on your futile life’s work at the behest of the industrialist. As for solving the problem of working with the truism that “welfare of the family is inversely proportional to the value of the economy”, well I suspect that will take a lot of thinking about and probably needs another discussion.
    "Ladies" know the source of their worth it's a pity that it's seen differently by people such as yourself …” And there you go again, failing to understand the text. It’s not the ladies’ worth to themselves that matters; it’s their worth to the industrialist. And it’s his choice to give that worth; you cannot change that. If you try he will take his business elsewhere and leave you to rot which seems to be happening more and more.
    And it happens I value ladies enormously. To see a mum hugging her kids is magic. But this is not the discussion. It’s “why across society are women taking home less than men and being valued less than men?” I believe I have answered that question. I believe you will only change the situation if you change from capitalism to another system. I believe that society has misunderstood the relationship between the economy and the welfare of the family, and that this fuels the situation where women are forced to work.

     

  • 0

    Edwin Morton:

    ... when a young person makes the choice to become an engineer...




    I suspect there is a hidden discussion here which has largly been ignored in the UK and results in a gas man being called and engineer. It's one thing making a choice to become an engineer (or to take the job of an engineer) it's completely another issue of whether the person is or has the aptitude to be and engineer. That said, there is evedence of much amazing engineering around us but also there is evidence of much misguided engineering too. Just becasue you can create it does not mean it is wise to...

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    I have to say that I did not want to take part in this very unpleasant discussion. I believe that it is more unpleasant for the women readers, especially since there have been such cynical views throughout. I would like to just bring your attention to a couple of things.


    Dear Stephen,

    In my view, you should be extra careful when mentioning that kids need their mums at home, UNLESSS you accompany it with kids need their dads at home as well.

    Furthermore, "And it happens I value ladies enormously. To see a mum hugging her kids is magic. " is the exact phrase and propaganda that many misogynists use. This is not to say that you are one, but they way you put it is not great.


    In my opinion, yes, capitalism is a big problem but thigns can get better through it as well. And I believe that gender gap has improved over the years. You mentioned "The Equal Pay Act was introduced 46 years ago and yet from Thursday this week the UK’s female workforce will effectively be working for free until 31 December, due to the scale of the gender pay gap." FOURTY-SIX years and no change!"

    I believe this is wrong, as the 'working for free days' are becoming less every year. I do not have the reference handy at the moment, but I will try to find it and post it.

    Furhtermore, more regulations and laws protecting the workers' rights can be put in place even in a capitalistic system.


    In other news, here is a funny read related to the discussion:  www.mcsweeneys.net/.../im-a-google-manufacturing-robot-and-i-believe-humans-are-biologically-unfit-to-have-jobs-in-tech
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Previous UK Equal pay days:

    2016: 10th November

    2015: 9th November

    2014: 4th November

    2013: 7th November


    This was discussed here: communities.theiet.org/.../21014

  • 0

    "Posted by Antonia Tzemanaki on Aug 10, 2017 11:34 am



    I have to say that I did not want to take part in this very unpleasant discussion."

    And your reply is yet another example of why your cause fails. You see what you want to see and still do not solve the problem. You do not say why it is an unpleasant discussion. I venture to suggest that in view of the fact that you have picked out and tried to make an issue of all my comments about motherhood and work you are yet another example of a woman who has an anti-male bias and let's her emotions cloud her reasoning. Hence the discussion is unpleasant...
    If you had focused on the facts - that it's the industrialist who determines your worth and that it's this "worth" to which all the discussions are referring, then we may get somewhere; you – women-kind may get somewhere, but you have just degenerated your own argument into misogynism. As someone once said "I don't believe it!" The industrialists reading this must be laughing their heads off…
    If you want to solve this problem, stick to the reasoning and facts. You can’t begin crying or getting all huffy and complaining that men hate us and have a hope in hell that you will solve the problem. Get a grip or you will continue as per you forebears. And so far it appears (46 years later) that this is exactly what is happening. Here am I pointing out where you are making a big mistake and you are trying to lynch me! No wonder women get nowhere with this issue.
    And as for things getting better, please look at the facts: has family life been improving or regressing? Have women got anywhere near being paid the same as men? NO! And to me I see nothing to suggest things will improve but only that they will get worse.
    “Regulations and laws protecting the workers' rights can be put in place even in a capitalistic system.” Well you will have to live your life to see that such laws have no teeth eg the Equal Pay act. If you put the industrialist in gaol who will create industry? No, you are greatly mistaken but you will have to live your life to see that I am pretty close to the truth… For goodness sake, why are we still having this discussion if change was happening? If anything was going to change then it would have done years ago.
    And as for the relevance of Dads in this discussion, that is irrelevant. They are very relevant in the discussion about family life, but we are discussing why women are not valued the same as men at work.

     

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Maybe you should consider that you might be stuck in this 'industrialist idea' instead.

    In other words, apologies, I am emotional, on my period and hysterical. Obviously I cannot make any arguments as my judgement is clouded by the entirety of my situation. I think I will stick to the robot story and let you discuss. Apologies that I cannot continue with this, I have to go work for free.


    Oh, yes in my spare time I venture into my male-bias and organise groups of celebrating our hate.


  • 0
    How disappointing. I was hoping to discuss this issue with people who wanted to be part the of the investigation and solution, not who are determined to remain part of the problem...
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Stephen, I think the discussion you're trying to have is a slightly different one to the discussion that was started. 


    Can we get back on track and comment on the Google story?
  • 0
    OK

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines