Thank you for a sane, reasonable response.
My interpretation of the manifesto is that it was a humbly submitted, thoughtful alternative to current initiatives… initiatives that have failed to deliver desired goals. Damore said basically this: Google can’t change people, but they can change job descriptions. Instead of convincing women to pursue tech jobs they may not want, why not make those jobs more appealing to women in the first place? Never did he say women weren’t biologically suited to tech jobs. He said women don’t prefer tech jobs in their current form.
I teach computer science. I ask female students why they aren’t taking my classes and they tell me they are not interested in this field. They don’t feel inferior to the guys. They are just not interested. Those who are interested attend my classes and generally do well. The gender percentages in my classes are in line with both the “anti-diversity” manifesto and Google’s reported workforce demographics. As an aside, I do give credit to Google and other tech firms for reporting that data.
I’ve been in tech long enough to remember a time when women’s advancement in male-dominated industries was attributed to their looks or the cliche “slept their way to the top”. That is a stereotype worth fighting. This? Please. We have an overreaction by social media and an overcorrection on Google’s part.
Perhaps the cure is worse than the disease. What should I tell my female students now?
“Study hard, do what you love, but when you land that job at Google, the world will know Google thought so little of you, your merits, and your ability to compete, they had to artificially stack the cards in your favor. In doing so, they alienated a whole group of people who love the same things you love, just for having outdoor plumbing. You could have blazed a trail… but now your achievements will forever be tarnished with the skepticism that you may have had (real or perceived) an unfair advantage.”
One step forward, two steps back. PC has to get off feminism’s podium.
