google employee's internal diversity memo goes viral

[dowie]

granted this is a bit dubious but still quite amusing:

 

[StriderX]

No, that would be an example of how patriarchy harms men as well as women.

So you're implying that what was once the pleasure of only male thinkers (education), the downfall of men in the profession is due to men? That isn't very patriarchal...

A patriarchy aims to control every aspect of life from birth to death purely by the machinations of men, leaving an inextricably important part of this to women is probably counter-productive.

 

[Caged]

I'd have fired someone for thinking that anybody wanted to read 10 pages of their personal manifesto, regardless of the content.

 

[StriderX]

I'd have fired someone for thinking that anybody wanted to read 10 pages of their personal manifesto, regardless of the content.

Considering a group of scientists would have given it a A- as a PhD thesis, it's hardly a manifesto.

 

[DIABLO]

This leftist crap is really getting out of control, where has the common sense gone...

 

[Oz!asM!dwinter]

An example of doubleplusungood thoughtcrime, now he's an unemployee/unperson. Bone up on your newspeak otherwise you'll end up in miniluv.

 

[V F]

This leftist crap is really getting out of control, where has the common sense gone...

 

[Angilion]

How is that male patriarchy?

Everything bad is the fault of all male people. That's the basic tenet of the faith. So even if it's bad for male people, it's still their fault because everything is.

It all makes sense once you realise that the basic tenet of the faith is that everything bad is the fault of all male people. Or the fault of maleness itself.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
Also, if there's no differences between men and women, why pursue diversity at all? The generally argued reason for having men and women on boards is that both male and female styles of thinking are represented, not so two different types of genitals are present. So surely that implies different modes of thinking by default?
[..]

That's a good point. The usual rationalisation clearly contradicts itself.

Of course, the real reason for "diversity" (which is the opposite of actual diversity because it relies on the belief that all people in a biological group are the same) is to enforce fashionable irrational prejudice and discrimination but it hasn't yet gone far enough for them to be honest about that so they need some lies to rationalise it.

 

[TJM]

I'd have fired someone for thinking that anybody wanted to read 10 pages of their personal manifesto, regardless of the content.

I'd sack him for wasting so much time writing something that was destined to blow up in his face. 0/10 for judgement.

 

[Angilion]

Please quote where I claimed that all men are the same and all women are the same.

If you can't I'll be instructing my lawyer, Leonard Crabs, to sue you for libel.

I'll just repeat the rest of that post:

It's a prerequisite for believing that diversity is about biological characteristics and that those biological characteristics define a person's life experiences, which is what you're arguing. Group identity, i.e. "they're all the same".

Herpes is the in thing for legal cases, not crabs

 

[Angilion]

Well I'm fine to leave a massive global company to their recruitment policy and you to your left wing ideology.

And I'm fine to leave you wrong and knowing it. You have no counter-argument to the idea that hiring people for jobs requiring a specific ability should be based on a relevant test for that ability and you know it.

I am interested in why you think that idea is "left wing ideology", though. Would you care to explain why you think that?

 

[jsmoke]

TP. First time ever.

 

[jsmoke]

TP. How did that happen.

 

[Amp34]

Your source here is a quote from Vince Cable. Do you have the actual data points and definitions that support them? It may be some countries have different definitions of what makes an engineer. Also that figure seems to reference graduates, not people who stay in the sector.

So yeah, more than happy to discuss, but first you need to provide meaningful data.

You're going to have to clarify what you mean there. I'm referencing the graph on page 15 (as I mentioned in the original post).

It clearly says it's data from the European labour force survey, and it even says "engineering professionals", with this bullet to go with it

The UK has the lowest proportion of female engineers in the European Union, less than one in ten engineering professionals is a woman. It is less than 10% comparing to Latvia 30% and some following countries like Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Sweden who also stand significantly higher than UK.

So where's the link to Cable and graduates?

You may be correct about what is defined as an engineer though, the UK is very lax on its definition as it's not a protected term, hence the reason the gas fitter that comes round to service your boiler is called an engineer, something that they couldn't be called in many other countries.

So now we've cleared that up, care to discuss then?

 

[Mr Jack]

How is that male patriarchy?

Patriarchy casts men as the rational, strong, tough ones and women as the soft, emotional, caring ones. This logic pushes women out of engineering and leadership roles but also stops men from taking up roles gendered as 'female'. Overall this tends to benefit men as we get the higher paid, higher status roles but it also limits the options available to men and demeans men who take 'female' roles.

(Also 'male patriarchy' is a tautology, you don't need the 'male')

 

[LateX'Dog]

Patriarchy casts men as the rational, strong, tough ones and women as the soft, emotional, caring ones. This logic pushes women out of engineering and leadership roles but also stops men from taking up roles gendered as 'female'. Overall this tends to benefit men as we get the higher paid, higher status roles but it also limits the options available to men and demeans men who take 'female' roles.

(Also 'male patriarchy' is a tautology, you don't need the 'male')

And there goes your Patriarchy. Maybe this will help you

Regression in the Kibbutz

Attempts to achieve sexual equality are not unique to present-day Anglo-American society. A brave and fascinating experiment in women’s liberation was conducted by the Israelis when they set up their rural communes, the kibbutzim, during the colonization of Palestine in the early part of this century. A central part of their semi-Marxist ideology was the total emancipation of women from all inequalities (sexual, social, economic and intellectual) that had been imposed upon them by traditional society.

According to Israeli Utopian theory, the burden of child-rearing and home-making was the root cause of sex-role differentiation and female inequality. Therefore radical changes in family structure were instituted. Traditional marriage was replaced by a system of cohabitation in which a man and woman were assigned shared sleeping accommodation within the commune but retained their separate names and identities. The children were removed from special contact with their parents and reared with others of the same age in community-run nurseries where they played, ate, slept and were educated. Adults were supposed to think of all the kibbutz children as joint social property and were discouraged from developing particularly close relationships with their own offspring.

Thus freed from the ‘domestic yoke,’ women were expected to engage in agricultural and productive work to the same extent as men, and men were likewise expected to share in traditional female work. Classically feminine clothes, cosmetics, jewellery and hair-styles were rejected. In order to be equals of men, it was thought women would have to look like men as well as share traditionally male roles.

When anthropologists Melford and Audrey Spiro examined the achievements of the kibbutzim in 1950, the experiment appeared to have been largely successful and their preconception of human nature as ‘culturally relative’ was held to be confirmed. However, in 1975 Melford Spiro returned to the kibbutz for a follow-up study and was surprised to discover that in the intervening quarter-century striking changes had occurred in the domain of marriage, family and sex-roles which ‘all but undid the earlier revolution’ (Spiro, 1979). The younger generation of women, although raised with unisex models (women driving tractors and men in domestic service occupations) and taught from early childhood that men and women are the same in nature, were now pressing to be allowed fulfilment in the role of mother. ‘Women’s rights’ had taken on almost exactly the reverse meaning to that in our society.

Can we make boys and girls alike?

The experiment collapsed within a generation, and a traditional family and gender system reasserted itself. Why? Those who believe in hardwired natural differences obviously would say that cultural conditioning couldn’t remove the sexes’ genetic programming. Indeed, in his now-infamous conference remarks, Lawrence Summers invoked the history of the kibbutz movement to help make his case that biology might partially explain sex roles.

Feminists, though, say that the kibbutz experiment didn’t get a fair chance. However committed to gender justice the kibbutzniks might have been, they were all traditional Europeans by upbringing. Somehow they must have transmitted the old cultural messages about gender to the children. Perhaps, too, those messages came from the larger Israeli society, from which it was impossible to shelter the boys and girls entirely. What’s more—and Chodorow would doubtless emphasize this fact—the kibbutz child-care nurses were all women. A 50/50 male-female mix might have done the trick.

Yet American androgyny proponents rarely refer to the kibbutz experiment—for understandable reasons. Its failure—even if you accept their own cultural explanation for it—puts a serious damper on the idea of androgynizing America. In the U.S., after all, there’s nothing remotely approaching the level of commitment to surmounting gender found among the early kibbutzniks. If androgyny proved unattainable in a small socialist society whose citizens self-selected for radical feminist convictions, how could one bring it about in contemporary America, where most people don’t want it? It would take a massive amount of coercion—unacceptable in any democracy—to get us even to the point where the kibbutzniks were when they failed to build a post-gender society.

The best account of the experiment’s breakdown, offered by anthropologist Melford Spiro in his books Gender and Culture and Children of the Kibbutz, points out an even bigger obstacle to androgyny. Ultimately, Spiro argues, the kibbutzniks didn’t succeed because the mothers wanted their kids back. They wanted to take care of their young children in the old-fashioned way, themselves. Two hours a day with their kids wasn’t enough. Even among the kibbutz founders, Spiro notes, women often agonized over the sacrifice of maternal pleasure that their egalitarian ideology demanded. He quotes from one mother’s autobiography: “Is it right to make the child return for the night to the children’s home, to say goodnight to it and send it back to sleep among the fifteen or twenty others? This parting from the child before sleep is so unjust!” Such feelings persisted and intensified, until collective pressure forced the kibbutz to let parents spend extra time with their kids.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

So now we've cleared that up, care to discuss then?

The one that has this note?

Figures are statistically less reliable hence need to be treated with caution

 

[Nasher]

granted this is a bit dubious but still quite amusing:

Lol, but is true in many places. Seen it myself :/

Tick, tick, tick

 

[Ayahuasca]

Lol, but is true in many places. Seen it myself :/

There's only one level below a CIS white male, an unattractive, nerdy CIS white male because whilst some of these women will happily want eqaulity and not to be discriminated themselves for who/what they are they absolutely despise and look down upon those men for how they look and act and there's a large number of men in software development with autism/aspergers but real disorders don't matter compared to made up ones.