So you actually do (objectively) agree with basically the entire manifesto. The only source of disagreement is when the author of the original manifesto mentioned biology may play a role in why we will never reach a perfect 50/50 ratio of Women in tech, of which you actually do agree with.
In Reference to “Point 0”
In your statistical example you mention how 68% of women probably do not maintain an interest in STEM related fields under the normal distribution model. This large normative grouping would be women who are in jobs like Marketing, Public Relations, Writing, etc (jobs where women hold a near 50/50 ratio with men or a slight edge over men).
You also conclude that 32% of women therefore fall outside of the normal distribution, which is true. However, really half of that number is actually women who would be in the extreme on one end of the “norm” and the other half are women on the other extreme. In our example one of these two extremes would women who are drawn towards female dominated careers (like say Modeling or Hair Styling) and the other extreme would be women drawn towards male dominated careers (like software engineering, or stock trading).
So in this example, really only 16% (the extreme to one end of the norm) would be the women attracted towards male-dominated fields, which is the group applicable in this example.
The exact numbers and percentages are mostly irrelevant and impossible to obtain (no study could ever be completely accurate on this matter). But if we all want to use the normal bell curve as the model than it does illustrate the point effectively. I just wanted to point out that again you are talking about 16% (or we could just round up to say 20%) of the female population would be drawn to these career fields.
The author of the manifesto does mentions the overlap of how many women are indeed interested in programming as a career, but concludes that the majority of women do not engage in that interest. This is where the “biology” debate that has everyone up in arms about came from, is that most women are born with traits that make them less interested in pursuing careers in fields like software engineering. For this you do objectively agree, as 16%-20% of women maintain an interest in software engineering and this is in fact less than the majority.
If you put men on the same distribution curve given in the example, the “Software Engineering” career would fall into the Normative Majority area of the bell curve (the 68% part) as opposed to where it falls on the female curve in the Leading minority (the 16% part). This is where the author references the “overlap” between the curves. They overlap, but where they overlap, it is a minority part of the female curve and the majority part of the male curve.
—
Now, none of this has anything to do with a woman’s ability to be a software engineer. When it comes to that, a male or female are both equally qualified in a software engineer role. It is just that fewer females are seeking those careers when compared to males, and when you look at all software engineers as a whole, women represent a smaller portion of that whole. Representation has nothing to do with qualification. This creates a disparity where even if you are 100% fair and equal in your hiring process it will lead to a less than “equal” ratio between the two.
The author is arguing that Google’s attempt to create that 50/50 representation ratio is futile because it actually leads to you discriminate towards the female population. To reach a 50/50 ratio, you would eventually hit a point where you need to hire a woman who is less qualified, in order to boost that ratio closer to 50/50 (that is assuming an equal percentage of qualified female and males).
—
In Reference to Point 1:
You mention agreeing to point 1 in the article you wrote, and again I agree with you. I particularly liked the part where you said:
I fundamentally disagree with this former Google exec, who claims that he would never assign someone, especially a woman, to work with the author of the manifesto, and then goes on to say he would fire him for expressing these opinions. I think that kind of mentality is the root of the problem.
(emphasis my own)
It was good to hear your opinion on this (since as a man I can not speak for women on this issue) and I think that you mention something that is truly the root of the manifesto. The author wrote the manifesto entitled: Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber and the core tenant that he was trying to address (hence the title of the manifesto) was that Google has created an environment where it is not safe to express opposing views.
By firing this employee because of the opinion he expressed, Google has only further re-affirmed the core tenet of the manifesto, it is in fact not safe to express an opposing viewpoint at Google.
Instead, Google should have come out and expressed that they disagreed with him, and opened up discussion among its employees on this issue. We did in fact hear many Google employees actually agreeing and thanking the author of the manifesto for what he wrote. To fire this employee only further demonstrates the problem even stronger than the original manifesto ever could.
—
I believe (like you do) that open discussions like this benefit everyone involved. As the author wrote in the manifesto, Google does appear to be an echo chamber of its own beliefs. As much as Google wants to believe otherwise, it is shuttering the voices of its employees. Google prides itself on diversity and the power that diversity brings to software and world views. This is so very true and is the same reason that I believe in workplace diversity between all groups (introverts/extroverts, race, gender, religion, age, etc). However, if you are going to shutter opposing viewpoints (and as we saw here, fire someone) to re-affirm your own beliefs, then you in fact nullify the purpose and benefits of diversity in the workplace.
It doesn’t matter if you have diverse opinions or voices, if no one is allowed to express them.
PS, I thank you for the article as it was very informative and rationally written (unlike most of the articles I have seen on this topic). I have not written a response to this topic on any other post because it seemed pointless, as the author of the posts were not nearly as thoughtful and poignant as you. I would happily have taken you up on the offer to discuss if over coffee, but unfortunately I do not live in Silicon Valley so it would be difficult. Best of luck to you.
