If Google HR believes there are no differences between men and

File: Berkeley-Riot-1.jpg (242KB, 751x1001px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 751x1001px

>>136470401
This heteronormative advertising is quite problematic

File: 1488902578823.jpg (190KB, 1000x963px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1000x963px

>>136470401
This is an argument.

>>136470401
It's not contradictory to believe that there are no natural sex differences in behavior, while also believing that there are socially conditioned differences in behavior between men and women.

Not necessarily saying that these beliefs are correct, but I just don't think that you presented a slam dunk against them.

>>136472398
>socially conditioned differences
so you're saying google should promote social constructs!? YOU SHITLORD!

>>136472398

i think the point is that no one actually believes that when it comes to marketing and selling products.

There is ample evidence through google analytics that women have vastly different preferences and behaviors than men, so much so it can be quantified, qualified and mapped to make marketing more efficient.

This is much different than a socially conditioned opinion or behavior. Those will fluctuate and are often more of a reflection of a cultural mores.

>>136472631
I guess they could argue that there is a difference between promoting it vs. reacting to the present reality.

>>136472398
The argument is that Google's demographic analysis shows differences that they deny exist in employment. The cause (biological, societal, or blend between the two) is irrelevant. The differences exist.

The good news is that this guarantees Google's failure. Another company will eventually challenge them that takes a more sensible approach to employment, and they will erase Google's market share.

It may take time, but it is inevitable. Companies that deliberately deny reality in either marketing or employment always die.

Is he seriously suggesting that GQ & erectile dysfunction cream is only for men!?
What an incredible bigot!

>>136473159
Again, they could see that there are differences, but they don't attribute them to biological causes.

You are giving another premise not present in the OP or the Tweet in the image posted, and I want to know how you think these kinds of marketing analyses would tell the difference between natural behaviors versus socially ingrained behaviors.

You say that we would expect a lot more fluctuation from purely culturally influenced behaviors, but behaviors related to cultural traditions or the core values of a society tend not to change so easily, and I doubt that marketing analysis would be long term enough to capture fluctuations here.

Another point is that how exactly men behave vis a vis women is something that has fluctuated over decades in our societies. Biology, now seen as either a neutral or feminine subject, was before associated with men as it was a science and back then science was culturally associated only with men.

>>136470401
Google HR on suicide watch

>>136474024
I'm sure that when people refer to sex differences, they usually refer to the biology (hence the use of the word sex). But perhaps Google did mean what you say they mean, I'm responding to the post only according to the information the OP gave. But if I don't have the pertinent information that you may have, then I do retract my responses.

Just to clarify again, I'm not saying there are no sex differences, I'm just critiquing an argument