I won’t claim I’m looking too hard, but I have yet to find a criticism that actually addresses what Damore actually said instead what they imagine he said. There is, however, one thing I see consistently: a pervasive set of automatic double standards.
Wikipedia, self-reporting observational studies conducted in science from 10 — 20 years ago and blog posts are not debate material rooted in current theory of sex linked genetics. A large portion of his citations were contradictory to his argument and he fails to grasp basic junior level engineering competencies required to be a successful programmer.
Suddenly we need hard science, citations more comprehensive than Wikipedia, updated data, and non self-reported studies. You are not the only one to demand this higher standard, of course — it’s present in every essay that purports to debunk Damore’s memo.
Which is great! I’m all for rigorous science. But there are just a few problems:
- Where is the science to show systematic sexism against hiring women?
- Where is the science to prove patriarchy theory?
- Where is the science to validate the gender pay gap?
- Where is the science to show that a shallow diversity of skin color and genitals causes — not correlate — with improved business?
- Where is the science to show women are in anyway treated worse than men in corporate America?
- Where is the science to show feminism is needed in current year?
I’ve looked at some of those studies myself, and some are far worse than a Wikipedia citation in reliability. Not only is evidence that supports progressive ideologies very weak , there is often evidence in the reverse direction. But that’s often ignored because it’s wrongthink.
Why is there only a demand for scientific rigor when someone presents evidence that opposes mainstream, politically correct views? Why does ideology always inform the science and not ice-versa?
Mr. Manifesto dude is not SME for women. He has no real way to know our preferences and therefore should not go asserting them for us. He’s not a scientist or a psychologist. And even if he was, it would still mean that he doesn’t get to be the mouthpiece for women anymore than you’d tolerate me acting a mouthpiece for men.
It’s a good thing he never claimed to speak for women then! He only talked about population-level statistics, not individual competencies or experiences for women.
No, that guy did not have what HE needed to be an effective engineer. So he blamed those outside of himself…Maybe he had enough talent to correct his self-aggrandizing attitude? I sure as hell wish we could have found out.
Really? When did he ever make any claims about his personal skill set? Why does talking about population level statistics mean he must be lashing out? How are you suddenly able to determine his engineering competencies from afar? HR staff everyone would love to know your secret!
Of course Google fired Damore. When you consistently cater to the most mediocre people, you get mediocre results. How does lowering the bar for women in anyway help already meritous women — whom were already in great demand? It only helps the mediocre women. Now every woman in tech is now viewed with suspicion as a diversity hire and sadly with good reason.
How has this advanced merited women in tech positively? Perhaps instead it’s only advanced women who could never compete under a strict meritocracy and would rather spend their time virtue signaling about “literally shaking” than being awesome engineers that are already respected. 🤔
(Shoutout to Lisa Su! 😍)
