milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 12, 2017 16:26:21 GMT -5
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 12, 2017 16:42:08 GMT -5
I just skimmed it. I don't know if he should have been fired over it, but Google wasn't about to allow anything that might make them look bad slide.
I agree with a lot of what was in there - that on the whole, men and women do TEND to have certain characteristics. Doesn't mean women can't be successful in tech or men successful in teaching/nursing/etc. It just means certain personality traits/types will thrive in certain areas and suffer in others.
It reminds me of one of the State of the Business meetings at my former employer. One of the things discussed was how to get more women into executive level positions. From what I've seen, the average age of an executive of a large company is late late 40s/early 50s, and they have at least 20 years of business experience. So you'd have to find a pool of highly experienced businesswomen in their late 40s/early 50s who want to work the long hours, travel many weeks out of the year, and are either childless/family-less or okay with almost never seeing their families. From what I've seen, men are more apt to take these roles - maybe it's because they see the money they earn as their greatest contribution to the family. And maybe women view their greatest contributions as more intangible things (like being able to cook dinner nightly and help with homework), or at least a split between their earnings and their time.
*I AM NOT SAYING ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THIS AND ALL MEN ARE LIKE THIS. IT'S AN OBSERVATION.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 12, 2017 17:29:28 GMT -5
I read it because I'm seeing increasingly that news headlines exaggerate or even outright mischaracterize the substance of what is being reported on. So when controversial things happen, I don't trust that the headline is correctly labeling what happened and I like to see what source data I can find to either support the headline or call it into question.
There are parts of the memo I agree with, parts I disagree with. The news headlines have been misleading, though. After reading the text of the memo, I completely disagree with headlines characterizing the memo as "anti-diversity" or "sexist." I also wouldn't call it "incendiary" other than the fact that it's not acceptable to discuss any non-PC opinions.
This is not an employee I would have fired at my company (of course I do not face any public scrutiny like Google does, so their criteria is different.) It's an employee I would have engaged with to discuss his ideas. Would I have agreed with or implemented his ideas? I don't know. But I didn't read this as a sexist or anti-diversity screed, I read it as an examination of whether Google's current methods are reasonable and effective.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 9:11:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 17:56:20 GMT -5
Always try to read the source data!
It didnt strike my interest so I never looked it up. I'll try to look at it later.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 9:11:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 18:23:39 GMT -5
I read the first half and skimmed the second.
My main thought is that he is wrong about social constructs. He says women are more interested in work/life balance, for example. Women traditionally must be since they bear the primary responsibility for children. Some of that is genetic; most animals have the mother take care of the young. But humans aren't most animals. When our society finds it equally acceptable for either men or women to be the primary caregiver, we may find that women are less interested and men more interested.
The point I am trying to make is that just because something happens across the board and frequently does not mean that it is genetic. Women may not really be more people oriented. It may be that they have been pushed to be more people-oriented . . . to be popular, make cheerleader, etc. We don't have beauty contests for men, for example. Hillary was disliked by many for being so ambitious and driven, the same qualities that are admired in men.
I just find his reasoning flawed because it is primarily personal opinion. You need evidence to back up personal opinion if you want to persuade me.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 12, 2017 18:31:01 GMT -5
I read the first half and skimmed the second. My main thought is that he is wrong about social constructs. He says women are more interested in work/life balance, for example. Women traditionally must be since they bear the primary responsibility for children. Some of that is genetic; most animals have the mother take care of the young. But humans aren't most animals. When our society finds it equally acceptable for either men or women to be the primary caregiver, we may find that women are less interested and men more interested. The point I am trying to make is that just because something happens across the board and frequently does not mean that it is genetic. Women may not really be more people oriented. It may be that they have been pushed to be more people-oriented . . . to be popular, make cheerleader, etc. We don't have beauty contests for men, for example. Hillary was disliked by many for being so ambitious and driven, the same qualities that are admired in men. I just find his reasoning flawed because it is primarily personal opinion. You need evidence to back up personal opinion if you want to persuade me. Do you think the memo was harmful or that his views represented sexism/anti-diversity for which he should be fired?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 9:11:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 18:40:23 GMT -5
I read the first half and skimmed the second. My main thought is that he is wrong about social constructs. He says women are more interested in work/life balance, for example. Women traditionally must be since they bear the primary responsibility for children. Some of that is genetic; most animals have the mother take care of the young. But humans aren't most animals. When our society finds it equally acceptable for either men or women to be the primary caregiver, we may find that women are less interested and men more interested. The point I am trying to make is that just because something happens across the board and frequently does not mean that it is genetic. Women may not really be more people oriented. It may be that they have been pushed to be more people-oriented . . . to be popular, make cheerleader, etc. We don't have beauty contests for men, for example. Hillary was disliked by many for being so ambitious and driven, the same qualities that are admired in men. I just find his reasoning flawed because it is primarily personal opinion. You need evidence to back up personal opinion if you want to persuade me. Do you think the memo was harmful or that his views represented sexism for which he should be fired? The memo was harmful to Google's public presence. As a teacher, I am constantly reminded that I am a representative of the school 24/7. There is no real line of separation. Any action that I take that is harmful to the school district is a fireable offense. We don't have unions in Alabama, remember, although the politicians like to call our professional organization a union. It only has the power to lobby, not negotiate. We are not allowed to talk to the press since anything we say may be taken as an official statement. We were chastised for posting on FB how happy we were about a snow day because that implied to our parents that we didn't enjoy teaching their darlings. If it is acceptable to place those parameters on teachers, then I assume most employees check their freedom of speech rights at the door when it comes to their companies. I don't necessarily agree, but he made Google look bad. If a teacher did that in our district, he/she would be fired.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,377
|
Post by NastyWoman on Aug 12, 2017 18:45:08 GMT -5
I read the first half and skimmed the second. My main thought is that he is wrong about social constructs. He says women are more interested in work/life balance, for example. Women traditionally must be since they bear the primary responsibility for children. Some of that is genetic; most animals have the mother take care of the young. But humans aren't most animals. When our society finds it equally acceptable for either men or women to be the primary caregiver, we may find that women are less interested and men more interested. The point I am trying to make is that just because something happens across the board and frequently does not mean that it is genetic. Women may not really be more people oriented. It may be that they have been pushed to be more people-oriented . . . to be popular, make cheerleader, etc. We don't have beauty contests for men, for example. Hillary was disliked by many for being so ambitious and driven, the same qualities that are admired in men. I just find his reasoning flawed because it is primarily personal opinion. You need evidence to back up personal opinion if you want to persuade me. Do you think the memo was harmful or that his views represented sexism/anti-diversity for which he should be fired? His memo was deemed to have violated the code of ethics (CoE) at Google, and California is an employment at will state. If the guy had an EQ in the double digits he should have been able to predict this reaction. I don't know how it works at other companies, but I have to read the CoE every year at mine, and certify that I will abide by it.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 12, 2017 18:53:26 GMT -5
I definitely think the controversy made the company look bad, but I'm trying to dig down to figure out if the memo and sentiment is the problem or if there was mischaracterization and that mischaracterization was the problem.
No company wants to be labeled as one that supports or shelters sexism; especially if the company has already been accused of not having enough diversity. Headlines like that kill company profits, make it harder to hire good employees, impact stock prices and are just generally harmful. But are the headlines always accurate? In this case, is this an employee who exemplifies sexism and wrote an anti-diversity memo or is this an employee who was labeled incorrectly by the media?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 9:11:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 18:54:15 GMT -5
I don't know, I felt undertones. I also felt he consistently employed the same things he railed against?
I agree on lack of evidence. Evidence would have gone a long way.
Google didnt need this while fighting pay gap issues.
I dont know if i if I would have let him go? I'd probably need more info. I understand why google let him go.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 9:11:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 18:57:05 GMT -5
Questioning whether diversity programs accomplish what the organization wants to accomplish... good thing I think. Suggesting programs that attempt to increase diversity are 'discriminatory' ... against white males obviously... that's the type of tonality that bothers me. I'd have to annotate to give a better explanation. Don't have the time right now
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Aug 12, 2017 19:09:08 GMT -5
I just skimmed it. I don't know if he should have been fired over it, but Google wasn't about to allow anything that might make them look bad slide. I agree with a lot of what was in there - that on the whole, men and women do TEND to have certain characteristics. Doesn't mean women can't be successful in tech or men successful in teaching/nursing/etc. It just means certain personality traits/types will thrive in certain areas and suffer in others. It reminds me of one of the State of the Business meetings at my former employer. One of the things discussed was how to get more women into executive level positions. From what I've seen, the average age of an executive of a large company is late late 40s/early 50s, and they have at least 20 years of business experience. So you'd have to find a pool of highly experienced businesswomen in their late 40s/early 50s who want to work the long hours, travel many weeks out of the year, and are either childless/family-less or okay with almost never seeing their families. From what I've seen, men are more apt to take these roles - maybe it's because they see the money they earn as their greatest contribution to the family. And maybe women view their greatest contributions as more intangible things (like being able to cook dinner nightly and help with homework), or at least a split between their earnings and their time. *I AM NOT SAYING ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THIS AND ALL MEN ARE LIKE THIS. IT'S AN OBSERVATION. For me and from the people I've talked to who have read it, it seems most have things they agree and disagree with. I think what he was trying to get across was that you can't FORCE diversity. You can't make women want to work as programmers, or get them to like the demands of the job, etc. I think he didn't proof read the memo well enough to make sure his points didn't come across as too offensive. But, frankly, too many people are so overly sensitive in this day and age that you can't really say anything without offending them. I mean, shit, you can't even tell some women they look nice anymore without being sued for sexual harassment!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 9:11:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 19:13:48 GMT -5
It felt final copy revised to me. That is why the undertones bothered me. They were manifest of his underlying personal tenets. A more sterile report would have been better, but I think he thought he WAS giving a sterile report. So the bias means more, if that makes sense.
Again, evidence would have helped.
|
|
Rob Base 2.0
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 23, 2017 18:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 1,538
|
Post by Rob Base 2.0 on Aug 12, 2017 19:15:33 GMT -5
It's unfortunate. The media no longer seeks the truth. They seek an agenda. And they try their best to mold the stories to that agenda. It happens on both ends of the political spectrum too.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,369
|
Post by Tiny on Aug 12, 2017 19:18:39 GMT -5
So, is the fired guy in charge of other employees OR does he have a say in other people's review/raise/career moves?? Cause as a woman in tech, I'm not sure I'd want to be on his team OR have him be part of a peer review (ok, if there's more than 3 or 4 people doing the peer review - I'd probably suck it up - but if it was only 2 people... I'd be concerned that his review would not be particularly fair. It's hard to be that kind of biased AND fair. )
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,369
|
Post by Tiny on Aug 12, 2017 19:37:22 GMT -5
OK. the guy lost any credibility in my eyes when he decided to base his claims on the genetic differences between men and women -- and then that laundry list of "women's traits".
(and if any of you men want to argue with me about this - I'll be sure to point out that it's pretty obvious YOUR mother didn't have the right mix of testosterone while YOU were in her womb because your ability to think and reason is way off - maybe almost woman-like.) <-- that's sarcasm. the bad kind.
I wouldn't want to work with this guy - I don't think he would be fair in office politics and I'd be afraid he wouldn't be above blaming the women on his team (or the end users or any woman involved in a project) for the traditional things that go wrong with projects. Even if a project isn't a failure, I'm pretty sure he'd beef about how the 'girls didn't do their job'. <-- and why yes, I have worked for a male manager like that (and a female manager who need someone to throw under the bus and it couldn't be a guy).
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Aug 12, 2017 19:39:51 GMT -5
Do you think the memo was harmful or that his views represented sexism for which he should be fired? The memo was harmful to Google's public presence. As a teacher, I am constantly reminded that I am a representative of the school 24/7. There is no real line of separation. Any action that I take that is harmful to the school district is a fireable offense. We don't have unions in Alabama, remember, although the politicians like to call our professional organization a union. It only has the power to lobby, not negotiate. We are not allowed to talk to the press since anything we say may be taken as an official statement. We were chastised for posting on FB how happy we were about a snow day because that implied to our parents that we didn't enjoy teaching their darlings. If it is acceptable to place those parameters on teachers, then I assume most employees check their freedom of speech rights at the door when it comes to their companies. I don't necessarily agree, but he made Google look bad. If a teacher did that in our district, he/she would be fired. You are absolutely correct. Freedom of speech is only guaranteed in respect to criticizing our government. Your employer, whether it is a school district or another type of business, can exercise control over your speech and behavior. Make any variety of discriminatory comments, criticize your boss or employer, or exhibit behavior that impinges on the protected rights of others and you could be subject to adverse employment consequences.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 12, 2017 19:39:56 GMT -5
.... Suggesting programs that attempt to increase diversity are 'discriminatory' ... against white makes obviously... that's the trup of tonality that bothers me. .... Is a person who believes "attempts to increase diversity are 'discriminatory'... against white males" by definition a sexist or racist?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 9:11:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 20:01:20 GMT -5
I think its problematic when people from the majority group couch the programs to assist minority groups as oppressive of the majority... who by demographics we know are still in the majority.
I personally have made the point more than once that not having a 50/50 M/F enrollment in engineering, for instance, is not an issue... The issue needs to be one of opportunity, so anyone who wants to and is able can. There are issues of social programming and education, etc which still can be worked on to increase opportunities and options, but I don't think 50/50 is going to be likely for most things. Nor does it necessarily need to be the goal.
If I were him and going to for instance, challenge the practice of recruiting and supporting women in tech positions, and my premise was that women really don't want to work in tech. I'd be looking for in house data to support the fact, how much longer does an employment search last if a woman is hired, how many more resumes reviewed, interviews, time invested, etc. How many alternative candidates passed over. etc. Is the cost to the company producing measurable benefits (some of these he will miss because undoubtedly some of the WHY of diversity programs are different from what he noted, at least for the groups he feel shouldn't necessarily be courted... he actually did support diversity for groups he supported).
Anyway. That's a short version. I really should be working Lol .
|
|
svwashout
Established Member
Joined: May 22, 2011 12:41:13 GMT -5
Posts: 377
|
Post by svwashout on Aug 12, 2017 20:07:35 GMT -5
This is not an employee I would have fired at my company (of course I do not face any public scrutiny like Google does, so their criteria is different.) It's an employee I would have engaged with to discuss his ideas. Would I have agreed with or implemented his ideas? I don't know. But I didn't read this as a sexist or anti-diversity screed, I read it as an examination of whether Google's current methods are reasonable and effective. Where I work a condition of employment is that we treat our private personal views with the same discretion we give to confidential company documents. For a memo like that we'd be out on a security violation. Applies to everyone from senior management to interns. This is the life he'll miss out on-- www.businessinsider.com/rest-and-vest-millionaire-engineers-who-barely-work-silicon-valley-2017-7
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Aug 12, 2017 20:15:25 GMT -5
.... Suggesting programs that attempt to increase diversity are 'discriminatory' ... against white makes obviously... that's the trup of tonality that bothers me. .... Is a person who believes "attempts to increase diversity are 'discriminatory'... against white males" by definition a sexist or racist? An idiot.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 12, 2017 20:15:50 GMT -5
This is not an employee I would have fired at my company (of course I do not face any public scrutiny like Google does, so their criteria is different.) It's an employee I would have engaged with to discuss his ideas. Would I have agreed with or implemented his ideas? I don't know. But I didn't read this as a sexist or anti-diversity screed, I read it as an examination of whether Google's current methods are reasonable and effective. Where I work a condition of employment is that we treat our private personal views with the same discretion we give to confidential company documents. For a memo like that we'd be out on a security violation. Applies to everyone from senior management to interns. He posted the memo on an internal Google site designed to promote discussions within Google and only accessible to Google employees. After the controversy started, someone anonymously leaked the memo to the media; not sure of the timeline but I believe the entire memo wasn't leaked until after there were headlines in the media about the controversy at Google regarding a "sexist" and "anti-diversity" treatise that an employee wrote. Are you saying the views themselves were wrong and shouldn't be put on an internal, private company site accessible only to Google employees? (Assuming he's not the one that leaked the memo to the media.) Are his views problematic and the "security violation" or was it the leaking of the memo that would be the security violation?
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 12, 2017 20:35:12 GMT -5
I absolutely think Google needed to fire this guy. The optics of keeping someone that has been labeled an anti-diversity sexist would be horrible. There are few companies who would want to have anything to do with this. No debate from me about whether a company should fire an employee who has been publicly labeled sexist or anti-diversity.
What I'm trying to figure out is based on a read of the actual document, was it reasonable for him to be labeled an anti-diversity sexist? I'm not sure.
It seems very easy for people to mislabel others and for those labels to stick. Especially in regards to lightning-rod issues like diversity.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Aug 12, 2017 20:43:14 GMT -5
OK. the guy lost any credibility in my eyes when he decided to base his claims on the genetic differences between men and women -- and then that laundry list of "women's traits". (and if any of you men want to argue with me about this - I'll be sure to point out that it's pretty obvious YOUR mother didn't have the right mix of testosterone while YOU were in her womb because your ability to think and reason is way off - maybe almost woman-like.) <-- that's sarcasm. the bad kind. I wouldn't want to work with this guy - I don't think he would be fair in office politics and I'd be afraid he wouldn't be above blaming the women on his team (or the end users or any woman involved in a project) for the traditional things that go wrong with projects. Even if a project isn't a failure, I'm pretty sure he'd beef about how the 'girls didn't do their job'. <-- and why yes, I have worked for a male manager like that (and a female manager who need someone to throw under the bus and it couldn't be a guy). And I've worked with women that spend more time pissing and moaning about aspects of their jobs then they do actually working their jobs. And they piss and moan about it to me - someone who has zero power to change anything about their jobs!
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Aug 12, 2017 20:46:45 GMT -5
This is not an employee I would have fired at my company (of course I do not face any public scrutiny like Google does, so their criteria is different.) It's an employee I would have engaged with to discuss his ideas. Would I have agreed with or implemented his ideas? I don't know. But I didn't read this as a sexist or anti-diversity screed, I read it as an examination of whether Google's current methods are reasonable and effective. Where I work a condition of employment is that we treat our private personal views with the same discretion we give to confidential company documents. For a memo like that we'd be out on a security violation. Applies to everyone from senior management to interns. This is the life he'll miss out on-- www.businessinsider.com/rest-and-vest-millionaire-engineers-who-barely-work-silicon-valley-2017-7Except that he posted this to an internal-only sounding board within the company. It was some other schmuck that posted it to an outside/public forum. So, really, if this guy is fired, then so should the person who posted the internal document to the public be fired as well.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Aug 12, 2017 21:06:15 GMT -5
OK. the guy lost any credibility in my eyes when he decided to base his claims on the genetic differences between men and women -- and then that laundry list of "women's traits". (and if any of you men want to argue with me about this - I'll be sure to point out that it's pretty obvious YOUR mother didn't have the right mix of testosterone while YOU were in her womb because your ability to think and reason is way off - maybe almost woman-like.) <-- that's sarcasm. the bad kind. I wouldn't want to work with this guy - I don't think he would be fair in office politics and I'd be afraid he wouldn't be above blaming the women on his team (or the end users or any woman involved in a project) for the traditional things that go wrong with projects. Even if a project isn't a failure, I'm pretty sure he'd beef about how the 'girls didn't do their job'. <-- and why yes, I have worked for a male manager like that (and a female manager who need someone to throw under the bus and it couldn't be a guy). And I've worked with women that spend more time pissing and moaning about aspects of their jobs then they do actually working their jobs. And they piss and moan about it to me - someone who has zero power to change anything about their jobs! And i've worked with men who spent more time pissing and moaning about aspects of their jobs than they did working their jobs. What's your point?
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,369
|
Post by Tiny on Aug 12, 2017 21:29:19 GMT -5
OK. the guy lost any credibility in my eyes when he decided to base his claims on the genetic differences between men and women -- and then that laundry list of "women's traits". (and if any of you men want to argue with me about this - I'll be sure to point out that it's pretty obvious YOUR mother didn't have the right mix of testosterone while YOU were in her womb because your ability to think and reason is way off - maybe almost woman-like.) <-- that's sarcasm. the bad kind. I wouldn't want to work with this guy - I don't think he would be fair in office politics and I'd be afraid he wouldn't be above blaming the women on his team (or the end users or any woman involved in a project) for the traditional things that go wrong with projects. Even if a project isn't a failure, I'm pretty sure he'd beef about how the 'girls didn't do their job'. <-- and why yes, I have worked for a male manager like that (and a female manager who need someone to throw under the bus and it couldn't be a guy). And I've worked with women that spend more time pissing and moaning about aspects of their jobs then they do actually working their jobs. And they piss and moan about it to me - someone who has zero power to change anything about their jobs! Oh the Piss and Moaners do it to their bosses too. I know guys NEVER do that kind of stuff. You should feel honored they think highly enough of you to include you in their 'carp about work' sessions. Hopefully, the boss will know that only the women are slacking off while they are p&m ing to you - and that YOU are actually working. ADDED: I've got lots of good stories from managers about the P&Mers and having to listen to it too and then try to give 'professional' advice instead of a "jeez, quit your bitchin! Why do you care that X does y - you should be more worried about not getting your work done - you are already 2 days behind"
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,369
|
Post by Tiny on Aug 12, 2017 21:35:19 GMT -5
And I've worked with women that spend more time pissing and moaning about aspects of their jobs then they do actually working their jobs. And they piss and moan about it to me - someone who has zero power to change anything about their jobs! And i've worked with men who spent more time pissing and moaning about aspects of their jobs than they did working their jobs. What's your point? It's not pissing and moaning if you have a penis. It's pointing out things that are wrong that need to be fixed, it's 'nice' criticism of the work/boss, it's being an involved in one's job employee, it's just being one of the boys - it's something to bond over with one's coworkers.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 9:11:53 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2017 21:47:21 GMT -5
This wasn't drafted like a 'what do you think on this' memo. It was drafted more like an academic, researched thesis. It wasn't though. It wasn't documented. It was just his opinions and conceptions. He prettied it up because he wanted to give it more weight (my take) but to me this makes it worse. If the misconceptions and ideas were proffered informally they would be open to a different kind of feedback. It would also be able to give it just throwing it out there weight. The tinges of bias slipping out in his chosen format, and his decision to write in this format, to me point to potentially broader red flags. Maybe just me.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Aug 12, 2017 22:15:47 GMT -5
I think he should've stuck with coding, and left the social science to the women-folk. ;-p He made some really piss-poor arguments, with bad execution.
|
|