Except he did say the reason why women were not as drawn to the tech field was due to biological differences, wherein the differences and the studies were only cited within the sphere of American technical aptitudes. In this same vein, his analysis ended on the borders of the USA, wherein in India women make up over half of the employment ratio in tech. So that part of his manifesto was completely off-base and not grounded in anything realistic.
If we go with the fact that his analysis started and ended in the USA. And we go with the fact that his crux for creating the manifesto was because there were poor performers on the team, and he blamed diversity initiatives for it. And if we go with the fact that he still doesn’t understand the problem with sexist and discriminatory hiring practices in tech in the USA…
We can then look at the Google Manifesto in question and see with trained eyes that it is a gish-galloping clusterfuck for lack of a better term, and created by a man who doesn’t understand the privilege he has. And instead decided to take it upon himself, instead of talking to management, to create an email blast to his coworkers, and it was honestly one of the worse decisions I’ve ever seen someone take in such a position of career-power in tech. It blew up in his face, and rightly so.
So I am able to look at the Manifesto and actually read that he did mean that women were biologically ill-suited. Because of all the points above. I suggest you actually read and understand the Manifesto without your man-blinders on. I read it, having been told it was actually a thorough and good article to be plain by a fellow friend in tech. And upon reading it once, I thought it was fine.
Then I read it again, and really dug into what he was saying, and why he was saying it. And nearly everything he said was about as enjoyable as dog-food and about as factual as Pizzagate. The only thing I agreed with is that we need to make these conversations known and discuss these ideas. Hiring practices in tech. And tech work-life in general, from a lot of different sides.
Furthermore, yes, she has a PhD. This is about the fifth time I’ve seen some random dude on the internet try to tell a woman with a PhD in something that she’s wrong. The last time was particularly in a conversation on Quora about the Evolutionary Science angle of the Google Manifesto. The woman in question had a PhD in evo-sci, but the man arguing with her had ‘a blog / forum where a bunch of guys talked about the manifesto’.
I have to ask you, honestly; where does the hubris and entitlement come from that you think you could speak on something you obviously have no clue about, and also try to discredit a well-fleshed out analysis and series of experiences by a woman who has reached farther standings than you ever could as a holder of a Doctorate degree? I’ll answer: male privilege.
Comments like your own are an absolute joke.
