Posted on 08/06/2017 8:10:28 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Internet giant Google has been accused by one of its own employees of “alienating conservatives” with its politically correct left-wing bias.
A senior software engineer at the company claimed in a document that was distributed to colleagues that right-wing employees were forced to keep their views “in the closet” to avoid hostility.
The unnamed employee’s outburst also triggered a gender row as he suggested “biological causes” and “neuroticism” were responsible for the lack of women in top tech jobs.
His arguments that men have a higher drive for status and women are “more prone to anxiety” triggered an angry backlash on social media with demands for the author to be fired.
The controversial 10-page document — which was first published by technology news site Motherboard and has been circulated on social media — argues that different traits between men and women are key to understanding why women are under-represented in technology companies.
The engineer claims Google’s “left bias” has created “a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence”. …
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Some other sources (guess which way they lean) are calling this an “anti-diversity manifesto”.
The causes of the backlash are twofold:
1) A lot of the men want him fired because they think if guys like this lose their job, it might help them move up to more prestigious positions.
2) A lot of the women want him fired because guys like him make them really nervous and worried.
Every job I’ve ever had the males worked far harder/longer than the females in the work place. The memo writer is correct: it’s due to human biology.
WTF is a “Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance,”?
L
This is the company that ignores Easter for Cesar Chavez, and seems to promote some gay or diversity crap on its homepage every other week.
99% of the claims made by the MSM are absolutely wrong.
It isn't even a manifesto. It is just a series of somewhat related observations and recommendations. I think the MSM is calling it a manifesto so they can claim this guy is no better than the Unabomber.
What he says is no different than what Jordan Peterson has been saying. Nowhere does he call women neurotic.
Reading the "manifesto" you can see how the guy is constantly walking on eggshells and being very careful to say exactly what he means and no more.
Yet if all you knew was what was reported by the MSM you'd think this guy was a misogynistic prick who just rambled on against women.
MSM: Lies, damned Lies, and faulty statistics.
Perhaps the women are just “really nervous and worried” because they’re “more prone to anxiety”. :=)
Google is owned and operated by the state. The state is liberal. Ergo conservatives need not apply.
It is so refreshing to see Danielle, a VP, yet, practice the diversity of thought and inclusions of stimulating ideas that she is paid to proclaim.
My take away on this is that the whole Google culture is NUTZ, and notwithstanding some impressive tech achievements, it is shooting poison into its veins with this kind of toxic rigidity.
The intolerance of conservatives is tempting to pick up and defend, but if you do so without clarifying (and even if you do) you will basically paint all conservatives as knuckle-dragging idiots, thanks to the rest of this guy’s rant.
This is where we are now, in a world of pink and blue, with an increasingly long list of characteristics stereotyped as either one “gender” or another instead of being common property. This impulse to categorize everything (OK, it IS Google!) only adds fuel to the cultural dumpster fire that is currently enabling gender reassignment to begin in elementary school!
The conservative angle needs to be uncoupled from the rest of it because most of what he says doesn’t pass muster as conservative. Instead, he is overreaching and playing right into Leftist thought.
By which I mean to say, the complaint about intolerance of conservatives needs to be separated from the rest of this guy’s baggage.
Helpful perspective — thanks.
I read the whole email, and didn’t see anything I disagreed with.
Have you read the guy’s entire piece or are you going by media reporting on it? I’m hearing he was walking on eggshells and taking pains not to overstate things but now I’m hearing he comes off like a knuckledragger. I guess I’m just going to have to look it up and read it for myself.
Under “Right” and “Left” biases he claims that the right views change as dangerous, yet he also views the right as pragmatic. Change is inevitable. To believe that change is “dangerous” as he attributes to the right, or “good” as he attributes to the left, are BOTH ideological stands. Neither is pragmatic. In fact, both categories as written are thoroughly idealistic.
The “Neuroticism” is very problematic. Just not even hunting through studies, the higher incidence of male suicide seems to argue against what he says.
There is a lot to unpack, but are you saying that you agree with this guy on the two above points?
He’s equating a sort of deterministic idealism as being conservative. He doesn’t seem like a bad person, and I can see that he has taken pains, especially as he has proposed some ideas for reform. He’s made an awful lot of assumptions though.
he discusses the idea that “Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males” as a large part of the justification for his opinion about women. If this is an argument about why women should be paid less money and hired less often, you would think that he would give a reason that does not involve a castrated boy faced with Door A and Door B. Who in their right mind is going to willingly pick Door B?!
My observation is that it's a person willing to spout non-provable assertions about the "value" of employing diverse populations in a work setting while consuming a significant 6-figure salary that has absolutely no link to the accomplishment of the organization's mission. I could go on but that's about the sum of it.
Very good points.
I agree (with some exceptions), but now is this related to biology or entitlement? Decades ago (before the politicization of gender) it seemed my female coworkers were much more motivated and capable; now I still see that with some older ones but they are the exceptions. The rest act like affirmative action hires with a sense of entitlement - they don’t believe they can be touched.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.