So. If you’ve been paying attention to the news recently, you know about a guy who wrote a 10 page paper on why Google isn’t diverse and enforcing diversity is wrong. You might even have an opinion on it. But there’s a non-zero chance that you haven’t read the thing. So! Here I am, to rectify that, and add my own comments.
Reply to public response and misrepresentation
I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.
- Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
- This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
- The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
- Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
- Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
- 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. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
First, you should put the TL;DR at the end of the screed, or at the very beginning, and clearly mark where the TL;DR ends and the document begins. Otherwise it gets a bit confusing.
Second: Some behaviors deserve scorn and ostracism. If you don’t want to be treated like a Nazi, don’t act like one, otherwise, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Echo chambers are dangerous, however. Perhaps your document could have been used as a discussion point about how, indeed, biases do exist and they hold people back unfairly.
People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to
I strongly, strongly disagree here. People generally do not have good intentions. They are generally selfish and uncaring, and are only kind and compassionate when guided to be so, or when they think they can benefit from being kind. Altruism is a rare motivation in Human society. More often, what seems to be altruism is a ‘scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.’ There are exceptions to the rule, but in general, the above observations, at least in my circle, seem to hold true.
us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document. Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.
At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.
Ya had to go make it political, didn’t you? Well, best to get it out of the way early!
- Compassion for the weak
- Disparities are due to injustices
- Humans are inherently cooperative
- Change is good (unstable)
And this a load of bullshit. How about: Change is inevitable. Those who anticipate it can blunt the pain against those who aren’t so good for anticipating it.
Overall, a rather biased observation of what motivates the left, with a value judgement (“unstable”) as well. I agree about compassion, but the rest of this is the Left viewed through a Right-wing lens. Let’s continue.
Respect for the strong/authority
Disparities are natural and just
Humans are inherently competitive
Change is dangerous (stable)
And the Right view is pretty favorable compared to the Left, down to the value judgment of “stable”. Change is dangerous, but avoiding change doesn’t lead to stability. It leads to stagnation. Both the Left and the Right are viewed through simplistic lenses. I could go into the merits of Left vs. Right and what defines the Left and the Right, but I’ll leave it at this.
Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.
Seriously, it’s like in your little world, there’s Left, and there’s Right, but there’s no Center. This is bullshit. Google doesn’t overly trust its employees or competitors, and you work in IT, where change is as close as Moore’s Law. Your failure to grasp this is reason enough for letting you go.
Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence.
Oh, poor, pitiful you, told you can’t be a douchecanoe on company time or on company resources. It’s almost like you set this up so you could become a Martyr for the Alt-Right or something.
Google isn’t telling you you can’t discuss things on your private time. They’re merely saying that when you act as an agent for the company, don’t do things that will get them on the evening news. You know, things like a 10 page screed on how unfair liberals are and how women should just suck it up and accept they’ll be second class citizens? Because biology?
This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.
This old screed is getting tired, honestly. But at least after a page and a half of rambling nonsense about how unfair the Left is, we’re to your thesis statement. You’re an Engineer at Google, who’s probably gone to the best schools, written your fair share of term papers, and knows how to do this, right? Well, my first literary critique of your screed is your thesis statement is weak. Show. Don’t tell. But a paper can survive a weak thesis statement with a well reasoned argument. Let’s see what you got!
Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech 
At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.
So far, still weak.
On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
- They’re universal across human cultures
- They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
- Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
- The underlying traits are highly heritable
- They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
[Citation Required]. Seriously. You’re three paragraphs in, with a bullet pointed list, and not one damn citation. So, we’re just to accept this because you say it’s true? First thing you learn in freshman composition is that without proof, your ideas are worthless. Let’s pick them apart point by point.
- No. Your cultural norms are not universal across human cultures. Here’s some examples.
- In Japan, women are responsible for everything from the family finances through juggling a very hectic schedule for children. If you think this is an easy task, try taking over the chores of shuttling your nieces and nephews around (because I can’t believe you have kids), or in the very, very unlikely chance you are a father, take over the kid management duty for a week.
- Ancient Egypt had a hefty respect for women, including women emperors/pharoahs, the right to borrow money and sign contracts, bring lawsuits, and a whole host of other, ‘progressive’ rights we’d recognize as women’s desires today. While there were some limits to what an ancient Egyptian woman could do, they did have strong representation in the broader economy. Given the amount of physical labor that went down in that economy, it’s actually more surprising.
- Paleolithic cultures showed far more egalitarian gender roles than in modern society, with males and females to this day contributing equally to societies.
- Even studies of bonobos vs common chimpanzees shows how both an egalitarian society can function and how patriarchal societies function (and are more violent! I’d prefer a bonobo society to a chimpanzee society).
- I’m interested in your links to this. Specifically, how does prenatal testosterone influence a girl’s ability to do math. But you know what DOES impact a girl’s ability to do math? The The preconceived notion that women are no good at math. In fact, it’s very hard to get good at math when, even though you’re doing everything right and coming up with the right answer, your teachers score you poorly because of what you don’t have in your pants.
- Transgender men and women both would like to have a word with you about your total failure to grasp the concept that a person doesn’t feel like their body matches their mind. While they’re at it, maybe they can point out that it doesn’t matter, again, whether or not you have a penis (or were born with one and don’t have one any more, or didn’t have one at birth and have one now) on how well you can program a computer, or solve a math problem.
- Sure, traits are inheritable, which means that if your parents are dim bulbs, you’re likely to be dim too. But….again. Girls are better at math than boys when not scored through the lenses of gender bias. Doesn’t mean boys shouldn’t be in Math, of course, because if boys can do it with an unfair leg up, then boys should be allowed to do it. But…no. Math ability is not a Y-linked genetic trait. :3
- Evolutionary Psychology? So in addition to being a software developer, you’re an evolutionary psychologist as well?! BS. The studies supporting this are BS as well, cooked up by male supremacists trying to protect their power. Unbiased studies show that men and women both handle modern roles extremely well, which means that men and women should have equal shots at your job.
I hope that a woman wins your job, and does it so well that Google never regrets having let you go.
Women, on average, have more:
- Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
- Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
- Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.
Pure, unmitigated bullshit. And what do you know. As citation free as the rest of your BS. Let’s look deeper at this though.
“Openness towards feelings and aesthetics vs. ideas.” Seriously, dude? 1) Do you know who the first coders were? Here’s a hint. ADA, a programming language you might be familiar with, was named for a name you should be familiar with — Ada Lovelace. Why do I mention her? Because she was the first damn computer programmer in the fucking world, that’s why! Without her, and the field she created, you wouldn’t be doing your work today. And you know what?
She recognized something Babbage himself didn’t recognize. His device, which he thought would just be a glorified calculator, could be extended beyond simple calculations. She didn’t have a professor teaching her how to write code, or a book with instructions on programming languages to work with. She sure didn’t have the Internet to work with. All she had was her own head, filled with….wait for it.
WAIT FOR IT…
IDEAS. You know, pure logical thought. “How can I take this thing and make it more useful.” Don’t you feel like an ass when you realize your entire FUCKING FIELD was started by a woman, who did something you accuse women of not being able to do.
And it gets even better. You see, until the 1970s, programming was a woman’s occupation. You see, back before the glitz of computers was real, and computers were giant machines hidden in the basement of buildings, no one wanted the drudgery needed to program the things. So, the job fell to women, as the job of mathematics did before. In fact, ‘computer’ used to be an occupation — a job where a woman would sit down with a spreadsheet and pencils and painstakingly work through calculations. Men got to play with the hardware, but didn’t want to do the drudgery of the calculations, so women took the ‘busywork’, and in that, were the first modern programmers. Jean Bartik, a calculator who had done computational work for artillery, got her first software developer job writing for none other than ENIAC. She and many other women who got their BS in Mathematics, came to the service of their country to first write up artillery tables, and then program that into a computer so it would do those calculations, and like Baroness Lovelace, realized that they could do far more with computers.
You probably dismissed the movie Hidden Figures, but know that that movie is more documentary than entertainment, and yes, a black woman DID run from building to building doing the math that put John Glenn into space.
Segwaying into personal opinion for a moment here, dude? I want to take a trip out to Hampton, Virginia, to give that woman a hearty handshake and a heartfelt thanks for everything she has done for math, science, and engineering. That woman is a hero. You? Not so much. BUT LET’S MOVE ON!
Men’s higher drive for status
We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
Status is the primary metric that men are judged on, pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.
Non-sequitur. The reason men do dangerous jobs like coal-mining and garbage collection is that strength is useful in those professions. The only reason why men outnumber women today can be found in my link above. You only bring this up because you know your argument is weak.
Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap
Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:
- Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).
- Women on average are more cooperative
Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education.
- Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
- Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
- The male gender role is currently inflexible
Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.
Bullshit abounds here.
Women are as diverse in their interests as men are, and while they are definitely more cooperative than competitive, they see the appeal of a sexy computer as much as any man does (my wife is a good example of that!). As for stress responses? Men and women do not have a better or worse approach. They have different, but still quite effective responses to stress. Men give in to the Fight or Flight instinct, which prepares them for combat. Their cortisol and epinephrine levels spike, and they gear up for a competitive drive, or simply lock down their emotions and wait until it passes. Women have a similar response, but the addition of a third hormone, oxytocin, causes them to engage an alternative stress reflex, one in which they start coordinating and befriending. Here’s a secret. To achieve your goals, you need _both_. And you don’t need stupid politics to understand that!
Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.
The Harm of Google’s biases
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race 
A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination 
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology that can irreparably harm Google.
I always know that when I see someone referencing ‘left ideology’ as a harm, it’s because they want to be an asshole, and fear that their livelihood is threatened by some unfair protection against assholish behavior. I’m also certain that this guy will end up screaming martyr over this. It’s so fucking transparent.
Why we’re blind
We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.
BS is a kind term to use for this discussion, honestly. We’re getting deep into the Alt-Right’s beliefs that they’re right and everyone else is wrong. But what really stood out to me in this paragraph were the footnotes! I was like, “Hey, maybe he DID cite his sources!” I start scanning to the bottom to see what sort of sources this fellah used? And lo and behold…all I saw was personal interjections and more BS.
I’m going to call [citation required] again on the claim that IQ and sex varies in a statistical meaningful manner.
In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.
More Left-Wing bashing in an article that’s supposedly about why it shouldn’t be necessary to attract women to tech jobs. Reads more like Leftie-bashing.
The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness, which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.
I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).
My thoughts here: It’s not that the Left has an intolerance for ideas not of their own. I really don’t see that. But what I do see is that the Left has an intolerance for ideas that are not grounded in reality or fact, and especially for ideas that are grounded in keeping the established power structures, where white men have all the advantages and if you are not white and not male, you have no chance, in power.
Basically, the core of the Alt-Right position.
My concrete suggestions are to:
As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”
Ah, the crux of the argument! So, basically, women and minorities should just sit down and accept what society calls for them, because there’s nothing moral about keeping them down.
Bullshit. Women didn’t get run out of Computer Science until men decided that job was too prestigious for them. Had nothing to do about cost-benefits analysis.
Stop alienating conservatives.
Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
Conservatives wouldn’t be alienated if they weren’t dickwads to so many people. Argue for allowing a company to fairly compete in the marketplace as much as you want. Just realize that there are limits. You can’t treat your fellow humans as disposable crap. You can’t sully the environment. You can’t put out shoddy crap that hurts people. This is why conservatives get crap. And yes. Your ‘classically liberal’ (anarcho-libertarian) position will be criticized. That’s part of living in a free society, and the price you pay for associating with misogynists and racists.
Confront Google’s biases.
I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
Everyone views the world in terms of their biases. While I would accept that we should gather data on this to better formulate discussions, that was not the spirit this was offered in.
Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.
Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.
Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.
We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.
I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.
Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.
Be open about the science of human nature.
Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.
Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.
We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).
I decided I didn’t want to deign the rest of the comments here with a response. They’re basically boiled down to ‘let me be an asshole to other people, officially with company support, without consequences’.
 This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.
 Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.
 Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.
 For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.
 Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.
 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.
 Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”
 Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.
 Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.
 “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”
 Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.
I thought seriously about snipping this BS, but remembered that my purpose here was to allow people who have not seen the original post the opportunity to read and react to it.
I take specific exception to 11. Political Correctness is really nothing more than not saying to other people what you’d not want turned around and used on you. Political correctness is a shorthand for the Wil Wheaton principle: “Don’t be a dick.” It’s a shorthand you can use in polite speech, and it’s sad that political correctness has been turned into some ugly caricature of itself. What this entire document has said is the author wishes he could be a dick to everyone without consequence. Thankfully, Google said, “No. No, you can’t. Your ignorance of the history of your profession shows through. Your inappropriateness for our company shows throw. Your poor fit is clearly demonstrated. We made a mistake in hiring you, and this letter gives us a clear justification in rectifying that mistake. Clean out your desk and turn your badge in on the way out. Good luck with Unemployment and finding your next job. Maybe Breitbart or Alt-Right.com are hiring.”
Update 7:25pm ET: Google’s new Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance, Danielle Brown, issued the following statement in response to the internal employee memo:
I’m Danielle, Google’s brand new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance. I started just a couple of weeks ago, and I had hoped to take another week or so to get the lay of the land before introducing myself to you all. But given the heated debate we’ve seen over the past few days, I feel compelled to say a few words.
Many of you have read an internal document shared by someone in our engineering organization, expressing views on the natural abilities and characteristics of different genders, as well as whether one can speak freely of these things at Google. And like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. I’m not going to link to it here as it’s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.
Diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture we continue to cultivate. We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company, and we’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul. As Ari Balogh said in his internal G+ post, “Building an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. ‘Nuff said. “
Google has taken a strong stand on this issue, by releasing its demographic data and creating a company wide OKR on diversity and inclusion. Strong stands elicit strong reactions. Changing a culture is hard, and it’s often uncomfortable. But I firmly believe Google is doing the right thing, and that’s why I took this job.
Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.
I’ve been in the industry for a long time, and I can tell you that I’ve never worked at a company that has so many platforms for employees to express themselves—TGIF, Memegen, internal G+, thousands of discussion groups. I know this conversation doesn’t end with my email today. I look forward to continuing to hear your thoughts as I settle in and meet with Googlers across the company.