News2 mins ago
It Seems We Are Not Allowed A "wrong" Opinion!
122 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Granted you may believe that, but the guy whose opinion we are discussing here very specifically said that, and I quote, "Many of these [biological] differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women..."
Either you agree with him or you don't, but he's talking about small and, for any given individual, insignificant biological differences between the genders and you are of the opinion that there are large (individually significant) ones. Either you agree with him or you don't but it seems that you ought to read it, at least partly, to find out, no?
Either you agree with him or you don't, but he's talking about small and, for any given individual, insignificant biological differences between the genders and you are of the opinion that there are large (individually significant) ones. Either you agree with him or you don't but it seems that you ought to read it, at least partly, to find out, no?
OG in common with most companies, on your own time and speaking privately as yourself, you can hold your own opinions, no matter how stupid or biased. On company time, within the company, or speaking as someone whose published opinions can bring the company into disrepute, then you are expected to keep them to yourself. Its the same in our NHS down to quite a junior level as I know from personal experience, public services in general and most businesses.
After the bullet points following "These differences aren't just socially constructed because:" and then about five lines down.
As I say, he says small, you say large, and you both ought to try and explain why biological differences are essentially the main reason for gender disparities across the board -- as opposed to any other factor. The memo seems to stop there and poses this thesis unsupported.
As I say, he says small, you say large, and you both ought to try and explain why biological differences are essentially the main reason for gender disparities across the board -- as opposed to any other factor. The memo seems to stop there and poses this thesis unsupported.
Oh, right. I published the link to the actual text on the last page. Here it is again:
http://
http://
Getting back to discussing the premise.....I do wonder how many of the differences between the two ends of the gender scale are at least magnified by societal expectation or stuff which used to be necessary but no longer is.....like “protecting" women because that increased the survival rate of the children?
My other comment is that in a world where gender is increasingly seen as not a binary aspect of the whole person....maybe the opinions and suggestions in this memo are already behind the beat?
My other comment is that in a world where gender is increasingly seen as not a binary aspect of the whole person....maybe the opinions and suggestions in this memo are already behind the beat?
What drives the lack of interest though? Is it set from birth, or has it more to do with upbringing? With what you were exposed to, say, or what advice you were given, or what perceptions and stereotypes we hold about each job. Stereotypes in particular can be rather self-reinforcing, and certainly can't be regarded as any less important than biological factors; probably more so.
In the long run, as I say, there may be a time when you have eliminated social biases, but there are *still* differences in representation in a given field, and voila, there's your statistical measure for the biological differences. At the very least, it seems remarkable to assume that we are already at such a point, when the biases in question certainly existed within the lifespan of many of us still alive today.
In the long run, as I say, there may be a time when you have eliminated social biases, but there are *still* differences in representation in a given field, and voila, there's your statistical measure for the biological differences. At the very least, it seems remarkable to assume that we are already at such a point, when the biases in question certainly existed within the lifespan of many of us still alive today.
If gender is a spectrum rather than binary....maybe those “gender differences” are also on a spectrum rather than, as indicated by he memo, binary?
Personally I doubt the strength of the “hard wired”argument. Historically women have be popularly assumed to be not capable of using a typewriter, flying a plane, driving a car and so on.
Personally I doubt the strength of the “hard wired”argument. Historically women have be popularly assumed to be not capable of using a typewriter, flying a plane, driving a car and so on.
It's both... and obviously there are always exceptions, so you can't rule anybody out because of their gender- but there are many areas where I just would not expect 50/50 anyway.
There was an interesting documentary about baboons (being close to humans) where they threw in a load of toys and all the young females played with the dolls and all the young males picked up the trucks.
In humans, no doubt there is some stereotyping and environmental factors. But also, where did they come from?
In my (girls') school, two Physics options were dropped at A Levels because of he lack of interest, but the equivalent boys' school introduced an extra. It was not for want of encouragement either- just a natural lack of interest.
There was an interesting documentary about baboons (being close to humans) where they threw in a load of toys and all the young females played with the dolls and all the young males picked up the trucks.
In humans, no doubt there is some stereotyping and environmental factors. But also, where did they come from?
In my (girls') school, two Physics options were dropped at A Levels because of he lack of interest, but the equivalent boys' school introduced an extra. It was not for want of encouragement either- just a natural lack of interest.
I'm glad we have differences. It would be a dull world if we were all the same (Liberals take note). In addition if you are better in different ways then you make a better team.
It's only when one skill is thought of as better than another and then that skill is attributed to a sex then it becomes a problem. This memo did not do that, in fact quite the opposite.
It's only when one skill is thought of as better than another and then that skill is attributed to a sex then it becomes a problem. This memo did not do that, in fact quite the opposite.
"...there are many areas where I just would not expect 50/50 anyway. "
Sure, and the emphasis on 50/50 is a little misleading anyway, because random sampling doesn't work like that. But the point I was making is that you don't have to "not expect 50/50" to be just a little, shall we say, "surprised" when the actual split in question is 80% men to 20% women. At that point you should surely start questioning if, at least, the biological differences are being heavily exaggerated.
I think at one point the writer also says that, "We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism," and that's something else I agree with, in as much as the gender gap can have more to do with how many men and women are applying. But then the question still is: "why aren't women applying in the numbers needed that would lead naturally to equal representation?" And, if they aren't applying because they generally aren't interested, why are they not interested? What is it about the job, or the environment, or whatever, that is putting them off?
There's just so many factors at play, that to reduce things to "oh, it's just biological and there is therefore nothing you can do about it" is clearly simplistic, given what is a *huge* disparity in some instances, and probably wrong a lot of the time too. Perhaps there will come a day when there is nothing left to explain the difference but the innate, but I don't think anyone can seriously believe we are there yet.
Sure, and the emphasis on 50/50 is a little misleading anyway, because random sampling doesn't work like that. But the point I was making is that you don't have to "not expect 50/50" to be just a little, shall we say, "surprised" when the actual split in question is 80% men to 20% women. At that point you should surely start questioning if, at least, the biological differences are being heavily exaggerated.
I think at one point the writer also says that, "We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism," and that's something else I agree with, in as much as the gender gap can have more to do with how many men and women are applying. But then the question still is: "why aren't women applying in the numbers needed that would lead naturally to equal representation?" And, if they aren't applying because they generally aren't interested, why are they not interested? What is it about the job, or the environment, or whatever, that is putting them off?
There's just so many factors at play, that to reduce things to "oh, it's just biological and there is therefore nothing you can do about it" is clearly simplistic, given what is a *huge* disparity in some instances, and probably wrong a lot of the time too. Perhaps there will come a day when there is nothing left to explain the difference but the innate, but I don't think anyone can seriously believe we are there yet.
I work in IT.
I've worked in IT for a quarter of a century.
I have observed no differences due to biology which would make a woman less suitable as a coder, network engineer, database administrator or project manager.
...except one.
As Yonatan Zunger, who until recently was a senior software engineer at Google puts it:
//Engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers,” He went not to say that women are “socialised to be better” (note, not genetically pre-programmed) “at paying attention to people’s emotional needs and so on” – but this makes for better engineers.//
Zunger says that James Damore was wrong on three counts:
(1) Despite speaking very authoritatively, the author does not appear to understand gender.
(2) Perhaps more interestingly, the author does not appear to understand engineering.
(3) And most seriously, the author does not appear to understand the consequences of what he wrote, either for others or himself.
I couldn't agree more.
I've worked in IT for a quarter of a century.
I have observed no differences due to biology which would make a woman less suitable as a coder, network engineer, database administrator or project manager.
...except one.
As Yonatan Zunger, who until recently was a senior software engineer at Google puts it:
//Engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers,” He went not to say that women are “socialised to be better” (note, not genetically pre-programmed) “at paying attention to people’s emotional needs and so on” – but this makes for better engineers.//
Zunger says that James Damore was wrong on three counts:
(1) Despite speaking very authoritatively, the author does not appear to understand gender.
(2) Perhaps more interestingly, the author does not appear to understand engineering.
(3) And most seriously, the author does not appear to understand the consequences of what he wrote, either for others or himself.
I couldn't agree more.
Pixie have you got a link to that docco? I can stretch to believe that wild female baboons could recognise dolls made to look like humans as baby baboons....but it is a stretch....but I cannot get why male baboons would be attracted to toy trucks or what they thought they were.
That “natural lack of interest” that you talk about.....both the boys and the girls were raised in a society that by and large has gender expectations. They have seen TV, read books, interacted with adults and so on....all of which still today has gender expectations....so I don’t think you can call it a “natural lack of interest"
That “natural lack of interest” that you talk about.....both the boys and the girls were raised in a society that by and large has gender expectations. They have seen TV, read books, interacted with adults and so on....all of which still today has gender expectations....so I don’t think you can call it a “natural lack of interest"
No- I agree totally. There are many many factors. I just have always thought the biological one is underrated. If you look at MPs, I can't see why any woman would want to work in that way, in that environment. It's partly that to succeed a and fit in, they have to partly emulate men- and everyone loses out then. We need to scrap everything and start from scratch:-)
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Christmas In The Good Old Days
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
News11 mins ago
Editor's Blog17 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.