Some of your story actually had me sympathizing with you for a minute. I do believe that there are real sexists out there and that women should not have to deal with them. Dealing with being asked out, has a protocol that you might have considered. But honestly, as far as that goes, I would have to agree.
I actually thought for a minute that you were looking at things from an objective point of view. Sadly, you ended up mimicking most of the tired old talking points that are either hypocritical or simply don’t stand up to empirical evidence.
First of all, for decades, there is consensus data that shows when data is broken down where a comparison is between “women never married” or “women who have worked a continuous full-time career”and essentially all men, there is no disparity in wages earned overall in the entire work force.
Comparing women any other way creates a natural disparity due to their own choices and should therefore not be included in a comparison. If a woman chooses to work part time after child-bearing or not work at all while the father remains the main bread-winner, then this would have a tremendous impact on a general comparison of all men versus all women and the outright number would be considered arbitrary to a scientific minded individual such as yourself.
You are, by your own admission a scientist of sorts. Therefore, it is expected that you would view ALL data through a more skeptical lens, questioning ALL angles and ALL possibilities. Essentially true science is not about proving something as much as evaluating all aspects surrounding a topic in an unbiased manner until all affects, impacts, and so fourth are taken into an account.
A number of years back I wanted to find out if garden spiders die after egg-laying because of natural processes or as a result of the harsh elements of the winter environment — decreased temperatures with ice and snow, and no winter time insects — or if it indeed simply died no matter what the conditions.
I took three spiders home, three separate years, created a warm environment, gave them insects, etc, but on each occasion, the spider indeed became listless a week after making its egg sack and eventually stopped eating(even though it would still kill any live insects in its web) and simply died.
I was convinced then, as now that the spider simply dies as part of its own natural life process. But seriously, as much as I tried to replicate the outdoors, there were surely things that I could have done better and by no means was it good science because I simply could not spend the time trying this with hundreds of spiders and then there is the affect of captivity that I could certainly not rule. Some organisms simply can not survive in any kind of captivity.
Anyway, the point is, it wasn’t real science. Real science would have required ruling out everything completely before I could ever validly make the statement of conclusion.
What you are engaging is a pseudo-science, possibly backed up by a string of bad luck which has allowed your emotion to get the best of you.
You attacked America for voting for the President as if it had to do with sexism. You based it on comments that he made 15 or so years ago, “guy talking” in the presence of someone that he trusted. So what? That women and men both voted for him proves what? Does it prove that America didn’t want a woman president?
(P.S.If you have gotten this far, I am impressed. Most academics think they know everything which is really “collectivist” thinking based on emotion and not on data. Therefore they are not truly interested in learning or at least evaluating all sides of a matter.)
If this is your claim, where is your empirical data? There are many other women that I could think of BASED ON HONESTY OR MERIT, that would make great presidents. Michelle Bachman is one, she actually represented her constituents and NEVER voted against what she promised the people. But she is only one, there are many, trust me, many that I would have voted for instead of what was offered. I also have a particular fondness for Margaret Thatcher.
So what does that suggest about you? Science would say that ALL things be taken into account. The other candidate not only stood by her husband( a huge faux pas for feminists) through his sexual misconduct, but actually went after and threatened those who accused him. The last I checked, feminists and progressives are apparently against those men who force themselves on women.
In addition, her foundation received millions from leaders around the world that hold women AND gay rights in low esteem. This is clearly not a woman that stands for women’s rights. While this is certainly NOT to support Donald Trump (I would have rather had Cruz or Paul) it is safe to say that there was other data made her a bad candidate. She had certainly many scandals to deal with. The punishment for some of these scandals 50 or 60 years ago would have meant death had she been convicted.
You don’t think Americans see what is happening around them? Instead, according to you, simply because she was a woman, we were supposed to vote for her anyway? So, vote for a woman BECAUSE she is a woman? Isn’t that giving an unfair advantage to the cause you seem to be working so hard for? Are you suggesting that people should have voted for Hillary Clinton because she was unable to EARN it on her own meritthroughout the United States?
Is that not contradictory of the very ideology you follow?
Moving on to the Google memo you mentioned. James Damore penned a memo which was asked for by Google when, during a diversity meeting, it was encouraged to share ideas. Personally, I feel that Google has the right to terminate anyone it want to terminates. It is after all a company and exercises the right to have who it wants working for it. But an open-minded company, it is NOT.
Damore actually wrote a very scientific memo that addressed shortcomings within the Google organization. One of the things that he pointed out was outward shaming by “diverse”employees OF other employees on the basis of race and gender.
Again, based on your past in academia and in the sciences, I hope you can continue to follow. However, if you truly are of the sciences, I find it difficult to believe that you read the actual memo. Here is a telling first part.
“ I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired.”
Your own logic is completely failed here. You suggest that ANY disparity between men and women in the work force is necessarily because there is a bunch of evil men keeping women down. This simply is not true and there is no data to back this up. Your allegation is that Google doesn’t hire enough women, and what Damore is basically saying in his memo is that they are simply not applying.
Here is a part that goes directly with the ideology you espouse — shutting people down regardless of evidence. The following demonstrates that Damore had to work in an environment that was actually hostile for him, but according to your thought process, “who cares, he wasn’t a woman.” Next quote:
“ At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.”
He then addresses how this is essentially pseudo-science in the following: “Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.
Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. 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.”
So based on what YOU have written, you must necessarily agree that it is a requirement for anyone who works with you to be close minded to anything that YOU dislike or disagree with regardless of information or supporting data. By slamming this guy, who by the way, received a glowing evaluation by Google prior to this, you must believe that he should be a robot programmed with your politically correct beliefs.
He then goes on to say something that must have been shocking to you, “Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors”
“Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. 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.”
The fact you mentioned that he posted was with a list of actual scientific backed information that was probably too much for you to take. However, he also was quick to point out that some men and women overlap one another. In other words, the science shows that NOT all women are not meant to be in tech and NOT all men are meant to be in tech.
There was much empirical data on there that most psychologists would agree with. The problem is that you are not willing to place women with ANY of the responsibility regarding this. According to you, “men holding women back” is an axiom without question.
Google is obviously doing everything it can by holding these meetings and shaming those who are not “diverse enough” and firing anyone who shares solicited thought, to hire women. The truth is ma’am, they simply are NOT applying.
But, again, no matter what Google does, in your basic ideology, “Men hold women women back”.
Where is your empirical evidence? And no, I don’t mean overall figures that put all men against all women. How does the country you live in fair against many others in the world? Is it so horrible here?
What is your real goal? Are you trying to make men women and vice versa? Yes, sexism exists, albeit not the way you claim it does, but it does indeed exist. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to choose a woman to do a job that she is less qualified for than an available man solely on the basis that she has a vagina?
If you and your daughter are trapped in a burning building 6 floors up, do you want a firefighter that is qualified, or a firefighter that is a woman to save you? And don’t assume for a second that I mean “qualified” to mean ONLY a man either. That would be a horrible stereotype on your part. But, honestly would it be so important to have a woman save you that you would jeopardize your life?
As I said at the start, I honestly was interested in what you were saying. I thought perhaps that you might actually be open minded. But, as it turned out, you were not. In fact, in spite of all your hard work and accomplishments, you have really become nothing more than a typical pseudo-intellectual, part of the intellectual class, blaming everyone but yourself.
You blame every man that has been in your way because you apparently would allow men to decide your fate. You even blame the 63 million Americans that didn’t vote the way you did, and for what? Your horrible life? Sounds like you have really had a pretty good life and accomplished much. But, don’t listen to me, I am just an evil MAN!
(Pardon my horrible writing)
