he didnt suggest that at all, badly written articles like this are why this problem even happens
When you have a narrative to push, you keep telling lies. Not surprising to see this repeated over and over again. Instead, they could just link to Damore's memo: https://www.quotev.com/story/9922506/James-Damores-Diversity...
Elsewhere on the internet you find that using outright violence against individuals is acceptable in service of this ideology (or you know, just search "antifa" on youtube, to see that whatever these people are, they have zero interest in bringing us a more peaceful planet). I assure you, this will get worse, far worse, before it gets better.
And the irony is, that the base instinct that causes racism is the same as the instinct that drives these efforts. People wanting to feel better about themselves, without, of course, actually doing anything for it. "Action", by attacking others, nothing else.
The ideologies always start with a core of people that are actually admirable. But at some point they decide to grow their movement, and feel the need to include every brutish idiot moron they can to achieve their aims. From that point forward, however, their aims are nothing more than entertaining brutish morons. Worse than that, this forces their opponents to do the same, or face getting beaten up or worse.
The issue is that if you try to objectively voice your opinion on this saying that medias are misrepresenting the Memo in order to fit a narrative, you are automatically seen as anti-progress anti-women-in-tech.
Opposing view on homosexuality? Abortion? Religion? Get out of here, you don't fit the status quo.
I've found that the most 'tolerant' people are in fact quite the opposite, and the echo chamber that is the current state of affairs isn't helping.
Nobody wants to hear the opposing viewpoint, they all just want their views confirmed, and to be seen doing "the right thing" by a specific group of people.
There are more men who can lift 50 pounds over their heads than women. It does not mean that a woman cannot be hired for a job that requires her to lift 50 pounds over her head. It means that there will be a smaller pool of candidates so expecting a 50/50 hiring is stupid.
why are you not able to see the whole thing and how it shows that men and women are clearly interested in different things on average? why is that even controversial?
> the distribution of ... abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes
The parent:
> No he is not ["saying that women are less qualified biologically"].
Unless Damore claims that this distribution makes women worse tech workers, then the parent comment's claim remains unsubstantiated.
Higher variance among men
Among most psychological characteristics, including IQ, populations of men have higher variance than women even when the average is the same: there are more men on both the top and the bottom of the curve.
This may lead to more male CEOs and geniuses, but also more homeless males and school dropouts. This has likely evolved because individual males can have many children and are biologically disposable: populations are reproductively constrained by the number of its women, not men. The historically higher variance of outcome can also be seen in our genetics; we have twice as many female ancestors as male ancestors. As a corollary, if Googlers are only from the top of the curve, then this may cause us to have more men than other, less selective, tech companies.
Edit: I dug up the Gizmodo article from 2017. This is the first public posting of the memo from what I read (in case the PDF I linked to above was edited seeing as it has 1.1 in the file name). I still can't find the phrase you're quoting: https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di...
Maybe it’s a little more nuanced than “suggesting women are biologically less-qualified than men for tech jobs." But it’s not a gross oversimplification.
If the industry is structured in such a way that certain groups who are qualified have less interest in participating, then there is a problem in that industry.
I've worked in tech all of my adult life and I rarely see women in this field. The few that have come through my places of work usually stay to get some basic computer experience and then move on to whatever they wanted to do in the first place. I have yet to meet a woman that has the same passion for all things tech that I and a lot of my male friends have.
But let's say you're right...how would you propose that tech companies generate more interest that would appeal to women? I mean we all know women love to USE technology, apps, games, etc., but how can we get them to crossover to the side of creating, maintaining and supporting these things?
interests are completely different from qualifications
everyone is qualified to work at mcdonalds or drive a garbage truck or work in construction but most people arent interested in doing that
No; it says: "distribution of ... abilities"
why must everyone confuse abilities with interests? women can do the job but they choose not to. they also choose not to be mechanics or construction workers but nobody whines about that do they?
"Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership."
"On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. ... Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things ... Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average"
He is clearly using softer language to make his point, but he spends multiple paragraphs explaining why biological reasons are behind the lack of women in tech.... which boils down to "men are biologically better suited for tech work."
It isn't a bad characterization to say that is saying women are biologically less qualified than men for tech jobs.
My reading of the memo, way back when it broke, was that his argument was more about differences in interest/inclination rather than ability.
I have no particular stakes on this discussion besides this one, I just dropped by to say this: I don't see any problem with the construction of that statement. At least as an informal or "folk" logic argument.
how do you know either things and why does the first mean the other is not possible?
also your example is using "from space" which is obviously fictional compared to "biological" which there is plenty of evidence for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_education#H...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_education#C...
If the pressure in the US is on average higher for males to focus on career, then that will influence overall percentages in top competitive careers. It doesn't at all imply that the women in the top are unqualified, it just explaining why they make up a smaller percentage.
Talking about averages is not "softer language". It's not related to making generalizations at all.
This is not a pedantic distinction. Your summary states that Damore uses biology to say that women are worse at performing in tech roles, whereas the memo was focused on women entering or not entering the field as a whole (though to be fair many news outlets promulgated the same incorrect summary).
Furthermore it also seems to erroneously imply that Damore claimed that biology is the exclusive reason for low rates of women in tech, which is not the case.
Are you qualified to paint a house? Are you interested in painting a house? Are those the same exact sentences?
I think that it is a bad characterization to make that leap of logic. Just considering the statements that you've chosen, I see nothing that says anything about whether either sex is more qualified, only statements about the sex distribution in tech.
Is there something that more directly relates to qualifications inside of his essay? I have not read it.
This text was in a diagram caption that (along with the embedded hyperlinks) was stripped out of the version that most people saw.
At no point the memo is stating that women are less capable than men.