Did google bro deserve to get fired? They said his sexist post

>>39003109
All I heard was that he made some thing about anti-diversity since the diversity policy they were implementing was actually hurting the company, didn't hear anything about the women part though. Taking off a week for being a """traumatized""" woman (from some statement from some random guy) really shows the gigantic scale of how far women will go in manipulating their environment and others, as well as their laziness.

I hate CS majors because they've always been uppity cunts, but I just so happen to hate women a lot more.

You know he's had limited socialization when he thought it was a good idea to bring that up during this time at fucking Google

>>39003109
He was a sexist pig ofc he deserved it

>>39003109
Everything in his memo was scientifically accurate. Read it.

>>39003109
who cares. he's some jew who is trying to get popular over writing a baby-tier argument that says nothing new

>>39003217
He criticised google giving affirmative action to women and he cited psycholoy studies showing women were less interested in technical fields and more interested in people oriented fields and said this is why there would never be a 50/50 gender balance. He also criticised google for being a liberal echo chamber.

Yeah he deserved it. What if he'd said it about blacks instead of women? It would have been equally valid and equally discriminatory.
Demographics don't do things, people do. And you can't judge people from their demographics.

>>39003217
If anyone took a week off from my workplace without a month of notice they wouldn't have a job when they came back.

>>39003109
the dog whistles were obvious, he looked at women as his inferior
That creates an uncomfortable workplace that Google wants to avoid

>>39003290
This is the most retarded thing I've read all day I hope to god it's troll

>>39003290
But he said not to judge people by demographics in his post. Plus he also discussed the science like the impact of testosterone on brain development . That's not something different between races.

Google shouldn't have fired him as he's now an alt right martyr with a law suit.
Should have just disciplined him and made him jump through HR hoop until he quit

>>39003109
Is this sarcastic? I really can`t tell because r9k is usually borderline /pol.
Also his memo doesnt appear very sexist to me. I think he is really trying to work for diversity and most of all freedom of speech, which the google ecochamber seems to oppress at times. Firing him was wrong and probably a shot to their own foot.

>>39003109
They're crumbling from the inside.

>>39003109
>Did google bro deserve to get fired
Yes, Google is not a public forum.

Can anyone link the memo thanks

>>39003109
Google couldn't afford the bad press this caused during all their current discrimination lawsuits. They only had one option and they took it.

That being said, having read the memo, it's more of a think piece on providing more opportunities for women in tech based on their psychological differences, like making the work have more social aspects that women respond to. It's actually quite reasonable and well researched, and presented as a start of a conversation not this attack on women.

But voicing your opinion? As a white man? in 2017?
Hit the bricks.

Love all the retards thinking that this doesn't hurt free speech. When you create an environment where what you say can affect your livelihood, that's a problem. And freedom of speech isn't just a government amendment, it's a human right. Being able to voice opinions without repercussions is how humans deal with disputes and arguments. By silencing people that disagree with you, you're not defeating them, you're doing the opposite. You're showing that you can't.

>>39003440
Oh and i found this interesting. https://diversitymemo.com

>>39003714
>Google couldn't afford the bad press this caused during all their current discrimination lawsuits. They only had one option and they took it.

By firing him they broke multiple laws. You can't fire people for having opinions in California, you can't fire them for making suggestions to improve workplace conditions, and you can't retaliate for complaints submitted to the labor board.

>>39003440
>freedom of speech

Ummm, sorry but free speech isn't hate speech, drumpfkin.

>>39003290
>What if he'd said it about blacks instead of women? It would have been equally valid and equally discriminatory

Slow your road bitch

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5ge3np_dave-chappelle-who-suffered-more-2017_fun

File: images.jpg (6KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 300x168px

>>39003109
All the LGBTQ people at Google took advantage of the situation and wanted to get an reaction.

>>39003714
They fired him for "advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace."

It's horseshit, cause that's not what the memo is about, but that's the stated reason.

Google's not autistic enough to outright fire him for a different opinion as their stated reason, so don't pretend that they are, as that serves no purpose.

Why did he even write that? He's an engineer not a CEO.

He should have known better.

>>39003109
he's a sensible person in a world of neurotic dumbasses.

He didn't get fired for his opinion, he got fired for being "uppity", he was just an engineer.

Also the potential lawsuits from his memo against google.

He's a dumbass that created a liability , they had no choice.

Not discussing whether he's right or wrong, but it definitely wasn't his place to set a memo like that as an engineer

If they didn't fire him, google would get even more lawsuits than just his.

Why did he even write that? Who did he address it to? If it was meant to be private to let's say one boss higher up, firing could have been avoided.

But if he addressed to everyone, then he brought it on himself.

>>39003290
a better analogy would be if a company decided that we need to represent children under 5 better, so we hire a bunch of 5 years olds to high paying, high stress jobs and threaten to blacklist anyone who disagrees or questions the viability of doing that. and then someone wrote about children being less competent than what the company needs.

i would support any number of laws and movements to encourage women to pursue those tech jobs and get hired without fear of harassment. women can work if they really want to and should get an equal chance regardless of why they are interested. but measuring progress on how many women there are and how "diversity" appears in theory is counterproductive and in this context might replace competent engineers with employees who just talk the talk and are team players, but likely lack engineering discipline. it's just too rare that you have all of the above, and it's certainly the case in some tech companies that sociability (or race/class) comes first. and there is a very clear distinction sometimes where standards are lower if you aren't white or male. it can still work out but you'll always lose to core teams of white guys (which google and microsoft and facebook still mostly are lol)

>>39003234
he said the memo had been around for a month and only recently been leaked

>>39003288
>affirmative action
secretly giving it to them and possibly illegally

>>39004097
>>39004443
Google is a large innovative company that hires the best of the best. Discussions from their highly intelligent employees on how the company is run are encouraged.

>>39003109
How fucking underage are you to say a thing like "I like Google"? And this is totally not taking into account the last 2 weeks.

You should do everything in your power to distance yourself from Google. They are not your friend just because they draw smiley faces in their cutesy UI. Their business is to spy on you. They want to know where you are at every moment of your life and what you are doing. They are your enemy.

>>39003665
http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320
It's pretty shocking how out of his way he went to appear politically correct and still got canned.

>>39004443
Because he knows he's skilled enough to get another job if needed, and doesn't just bow down and eat shit when the boss tells him to.

People not flipping burgers can do such a thing.

>>39003308
>he looked at women as his inferior
t. didn't read the memo

>>39003109
It's a terrible environment. Women are encouraged to be women (read: accentuate their beauty in all environments, at all times).

In the workplace women make sexist remarks about men all the time; the men dont respond, presumably out of fear of being sexist, or not caring. Women are a 10x more competent than men in the workplace, because it's their environment. The men are weak, indecisive, etc.

Im looking to leave to workplace all together at some point soon - I hate the dynamic.

>>39004206
>>39004097
You sound like the same faggot shill for Google.

>>39005224
Does disabling the GPS locationing on android actually turn it off or not? It's just a software switch and google makes the software.

>>39004813

I think I missed something, what's happened in the past 2 weeks?

>>39005468
This >>39004832

I purely meant ignoring this latest development and how you feel about it you should not think of Google as your friend.

>>39005347
You've misunderstood me, I don't work for Google. Went on a bit of a ramble there. I was just talking about the workplace in general.

>>39003898
>LGBTQ
>Q

Woah the added another mental disorder?

There are biological differences in traits between men and women caused by differences in hormone levels. These differences are a result of years of evolutionary selection. Early in human history, aggressive, dominant, mechanically inclined, risk-taking males who were better able to protect the group, create tools, and kill dinner would be seen as more valuable and would be more likely to mate. At the same time women who cared enough to feed and nurture the infants were more likely to have her offspring to survive. Testosterone, estrogen, progesterone, oxytocin, growth hormone etc. exist at different levels between the sexes because they produce traits and physical differences that were favorable for the survival of the species.

Today we are less focused on immediate survival but evolutionary differences in traits between men and women may partially explain why they select different jobs. However, obviously there are sociological differences that also are at play in why certain jobs have disparities in gender. Evolutionary psychology and sociology say nothing about the capability of any individual but may explain why more women choose to be nurses and more men choose to be software developers. Scientifically much of what the google memo guy said is well-documented. As a society we should value diversity but not overly push for diversity simply for the sake of diversity itself. We don't tell nursing schools that they should be ashamed if 50% of their incoming class isn't male and we shouldn't give tech companies that message either. It's sad to read so many critiques of this guy's memo on social media that start with "I didn't read the memo but I know this guy is a sexist scumbag."

>>39006394
>However, obviously there are sociological differences that also are at play in why certain jobs have disparities in gender.
I know you know this but I'm not sure the average r9k poster does so I'm just going to mention it.

He addressed this multiple times in the memo. Both the fact that biological differences are not the entire cause for disparancies but rather a part of it that should not be entirely ignored, and the fact that statistics like these cannot be applied to individuals. That's why I was so surprised to see the outrage.

Then again I may be overestimating people when I assume they got outraged by the memo. These people didn't even read it, did they? They got outraged by a clickbait title.

i am a woman who works at google and I wasn't given any time off lol

how do i sign up?

>>39006583
All you have to do is hop on this dicc bby, ill give that time you need

>>39003109
I have t read the memo, but I'm guessing it's a bunch of "I'm not a mysoginist, but...". Then we find out later he posts on r/incels and r9k

>>39006907
>I admit I know nothing of the subject, but here's my opinion

>>39006907
Honestly its not that bad. He cites a lot of scientific studies on gender differences and show why google's 50% women goal was wrongheaded. More intelligent than anything that gets posted here or reddit.

>>39006907
nothing in the document is remotely misogynistic, that's just a willful misinterpretation

>>39004778

Discussions where? They have a forum or something? Or meetings?

So he was just like "yeah well women are bad workers".

Lmao

>>39007446
They have like 4 internal networks to promote discussion and new ideas, one of which the memo was shared to.

Worst part is that he didn't exactly mail it to everyone in the company, he shared his thoughts in a closed group, some other fag (woman, more likely) decided to send it to everyone at google. That person is currently not fired and not even punished.

>>39007564
It was on an internal discussion board for google employees for a few months. His haters leaked it to the press and it became a national story.

>>39007548

Then the whole situation could have been avoided by having a mod delete it.

He's been hanging around moot too much.

No, he didn't. Google proved his point by firing him and nothing he said was incorrect.

Men and women are different and have different personalities.

Men are more conscientious and are interested in THINGS

Women are more agreeable and are interested in PEOPLE

That's not to say that there's not an overlap. You get agreeable men and conscientious women. But mens and womens personalities mean they choose different careers. (also the explination for the """wage gap""")

If a woman wants to work in STEM, there's nothing stopping her succeeding and being just as capable as men in that field if they choose to pursue it. Nothing in the memo says that women are biologically inferior to men.

I'm sure he got a few warnings about it to delete it.

When they encourage discussion, I'm sure it's to promote teamwork with the people you have instead of trying to create a hierarchy based on gender. It creates a hostile work environment.

This isn't league of legends, you can't just be doing that, no matter how nicely you try to coat it.

When it got leaked it was too late.

You can't just be flaming people bro.

Having an opinion like that isn't enough to be fired over imo, but if he got warned to delete it and didn't because "muh freedom of speech", that's insubordination.

I blame moot for this. I bet he put him up to this.

File: 1502330642938.jpg (103KB, 595x602px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 595x602px

>>39004623

This is like the broker who got called a sexist pig because he said women (especially mothers) have no place in the economic and financial sectors when it comes to stock brokering, because they cannot devote 100% of their waking time to the job, which is what is required to get to that level of success. He argued that women in the financial sectors are prone to getting in family relationships because of the stability that financial success brings, which hinder their ability to do the job 100% efficiently nd allowing them to rise to the top, because they need to devote some time to children or husbands.

he basically said that men can become autistically detached from society becasue they cant get pregnant in addition to living in the financial sector bubble, but most women want to have families, and few are devoted enough to forgo any sort of non emotional based relationship. In other words, women have the inherent ability to have babies, which is a risk to becoming an elite stock broker

AS TO THE GOOGLE GUY

>He had a degree in the field he was discussing

>he statistically analyzed a situation in terms of cost benefit

>he drew conclusions based on the data to support his statement

>his argument was logical and devoid of emotion, more like one would assess a pack of animals behaving in the wild

>he lost his job because google was exactly the inefficient SJW safe space he claimed it was

>>39003109

I don't necessarily think he deserved to be fired but I also wouldn't float out a memo about my company's hiring practices to be seen by the entire company unless I had been directed to do so by a supervisor or something.

I don't know what he was thinking given he seems to have been very aware of what Google's stance on this issue is and likely how they would react.

Any time an employer tells you they want you to share your thoughts and opinions openly they are lying. Freedom of speech doesn't necessarily mean freedom from consequences of your speech. I think it looks bad on Google to fire this guy though and this behavior just exhibits all the things wrong with him. They're within their rights to fire whoever they choose for whatever reason imo, but I think it's dumb.

>>39003290
>And you can't judge people from their demographics.

Lol that's literally what they're doing now.

>>39003109
I would have submitted this sort of manifesto anonymously

We all know how virulent the SJW menace is

>It can't be sexist he sites scientific sources
Yeah sources like Simon Baron-Cohen's infant study. Which is outdated, lacked measures to control for experimenter bias, and has not been replicated by any other study. Not even by Baron-Cohen.

Honestly this guy's whole post is kinda freshman tier report. He probably just searched differences in brain sexes and just skimmed the first page of results. Which is fine if you just want to get through a 101 course and get on to other stuff, less so for a company presentation thing.

One thing that kind of stuck out at me was he made a passing mention of IQ and how "the left" denies differences in IQ. Which is weird because as far as I know there's no statistical difference between IQ in the sexes. Reminds me of how some reactionary types claim there's clear biological proof of racial disparity and we need eugenics you know the lines. May have been a dog whistle but could also have just been shit writing maybe. I mean the whole thing is written a bit oddly. He starts saying that this is about costs and pragmatic corporate analysis. Yet he starts going on about how men are biologically disposable to society at large and makes these weird moralizations. It's weird.

File: 584032.jpg (39KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 640x480px

>>39003109
Yes.

I think women are a bunch of terrible people too but I don't send out an email to everyone I work with about it because I don't have high-octane autism like this pointy-faced ghoul does.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPGXkPVw93A

Shapiro interviewed this cunt and he sounded like a complete idiot, terrible public speaking

File: 1491204530410.jpg (51KB, 600x596px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 600x596px

>>39003868
That's right, in Liberal World, "free speech I don't like" is "hate speech", isn't it?

>>39003109
Have you, or anyone here shitposting, actually read the fucking memo he sent out? It's not even /remotely/ sexist. It's honestly some pretty respectful and practical shit.

>>39003109
So this beta virgin nerd dared to complain about how women and non-whites were shitting up the company and making it harder for them to do a good job?

Glad he got fired. I mean, it's 2017 for goodness sakes, leave the sexism and racism to Donald Drumpf, right guys? He thought the wrong things and deserves to be fired for it. No if, ands, or buts about it.

>>39009612
A private company can fire whoever it wants for any reason. He said things that people didn't like so they fired him. Deal with it you little capitalist shitstain. This is the system you advocate for. Either play by the rules you argue for and accept that me and my people run everything or die alone.

>>39009554

Almost as though he had a lot of pent-up frustrations about being a man that he couldn't find a way to express and searched for rationalizations to make them sound more important and/or believable.

>>39009554
>Which is weird because as far as I know there's no statistical difference between IQ in the sexes.
It's weird that you don't know very much?

>Reminds me of how some reactionary types claim there's clear biological proof of racial disparity
100% of gold medal sprinters have sub-sarahan ancestry. Do you think that is due to sociological factors or racial disparity?

>>39009672
A "yes" would've been sufficient, thank you.

File: 1502481716588.jpg (44KB, 550x377px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 550x377px

>>39003109
hahaha another beta male bites the dust. when will you guys realize everyone hates you, white women dont want you, we Chads only keeps you around to make us a lot of money. if we had our way we would just keep you in pens, making us money and hookup apps, while we wouldn't have to see your beta ass faces. remember you are at the bottom of society, forced sterilization coming soon for all robots, or at least mandatory hrt so we can fuck some boipucci.

>>39009674
Well he doesn't call them roasties or anything, but it feels like for all his talk about emotional detachment he's angry at something.
>>39009763
Do you have peer reviewed research showing that men or women have different IQs? Because the average usually comes out to 100 from both usually.

It's actually fairly interesting, but the answer is mostly sociological. For most black athletes track and field was far more accessible historically. It had fewer overhead costs, didn't necessitate teams, was able to be done in any environment. And even when things opened up more you had whole countries whose biggest Olympic success was in running. So the government is obviously going to invest in it more, the media will focus more attention on it, and people will be more inclined to participate and train in it than anything else.

Like black kids and basketball scholarships. There's actually literature about this that's really interesting.

>>39004730
People probably didn't wanna get shot by the racist sexist pepe guy

>>39003109
yes because he was a pussy and wrote a bunch of insincere bs about how he cared about diversity and you can't judge individuals by statistics.

File: Government-backed misandry - WR 2 (Apr 15, 2017).jpg (134KB, 988x659px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 988x659px

>>39009554

He wasn't writing a scientific paper, though. He's just writing a memo with a few references, it doesn't have to be up to a scientific standard.

Here's the thing - in both official politics, in legislation, in popular culture - it's seen as perfectly ok to talk shit about men and to argue for gender differences WHEN IT DENIGRATES MEN. This is what men have a problem with, most men are not super-sensitive about a few general statements about men being dopes or something, in fact in most cases most men at first are oblivious to the problem of this culture because they keep telling themselves it's not a major issue. For many men, though, they realise that this is ENTIRELY one sided.

>Men sentenced to imprisonment are sentenced to MALE ONLY prisons, something feminists fought for.
>Domestic violence is framed as a "male issue", even though all the statistics show that not only are a minority of males victims but a huge number of victims, and women are a huge number of perpetrators.
>'Wage gap' activism focuses on things like lack of women in tech - but in most cases absolutely ignores the reality that fields like nursing and teaching and retail work are entirely dominated by women and that BOTH sexes rate the type of jobs that women get as more desirable - that women take the jobs with the best conditions, etc. What's interesting about this is that common sense says that if certain fields are dominated by women, women are going to be lacking in other fields - so addressing lack of men in say nursing would perhaps help increase women in tech, but no this gets ignored.

Pic related. In Australia the government itself promotes this sort of gender framing of issues. It's not much different to politics anywhere else on Earth.

Why don't women want to be construction workers or janitors?

Why do women instantly say they want to be engineers and directors and CEOs, but they never say they want to be mechanics?