Intelligent Design

Delicious Irony at Google, or Do We Need to Bring Some Swooning Couches in Here?

Spread the love

Concerning the now infamous diversity memo that led to the ouster of a heretical engineer at Google, Kelly Ellis reports that “some women who still work at the company stayed home Monday because the memo made them “uncomfortable going back to work.”

Oh the irony.  Daniel Payne informs us that the heretic, James Damore, explained, in part, why he believed there is a “gender gap” in tech fields—namely because, on average, women are, in a variety of ways, predisposed to avoid the high-stress world of technology.”

And women at the company react by — wait for it, wait for it — avoiding a high-stress situation at the company.

All of which makes me wonder whether Google should install in its offices some Victorian-style swooning couches like the one pictured above.  This will allow these delicate flowers to actually come to work, but at the same time give them a place to swoon and wave hankies when they have a case of the vapors.

Thankfully, O’Leary is made of sterner stuff.

 

32 Replies to “Delicious Irony at Google, or Do We Need to Bring Some Swooning Couches in Here?

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    I smell a lawsuit coming. Or two. lol.

  2. 2
    aarceng says:

    In Australia this is known as “taking a sickie”.

  3. 3
    mike1962 says:

    And women at the company react by — wait for it, wait for it — avoiding a high-stress situation at the company.

    It’s delicious, ain’t it.

    Given that Google is a uber leftist PC fascist organization that bullies conservatives, these female cry-liberals had nothing to fear. Prolly just used it as an excuse to stay home, smoke weed and braid their armpit hair.

  4. 4
    News says:

    mike1962 at 3, in fairness, we do not know that. They may be genuinely distressed by encountering an alternative
    view. That is actually much worse news than if they were merely canoeing on company time. But we can’t rule it out.

  5. 5
    Bob O'H says:

    Another explanation is that problems such as harassment are genuine, and that this is an issue Google needs to address. Without knowing the particulars, I’m not sure we can come to a conclusion either way.

  6. 6
    Charles says:

    Promise equality and deliver servitude.

    What’s the difference between Google and Venezuela?

    Google’s enforcers don’t like guns.

  7. 7
    asauber says:

    I’m not sure we can come to a conclusion either way.

    Bob O’H,

    I find your need to include me with your ‘we’ highly offensive.

    Stop obsessing. It might get you into trouble someday.

    😉

    Andrew

  8. 8
    Barry Arrington says:

    Bob:

    “Another explanation is that problems such as harassment are genuine”

    Fascinating. Unpack this for us Bob. Who was harassing whom? This is a previously unreported angle to the story. What do you know that the rest of us do not?

  9. 9
    Bob O'H says:

    Barry – I’d hope its clear that I’m saying that I don’t know more than everyone else. My comment was based on the reputation the the industry has for sexism (e.g. the gamergate controversy).

  10. 10
    john_a_designer says:

    Is it sexist to ask, why aren’t women as good as men when it comes to playing poker? Yet all the evidence points to the fact that they aren’t.

    Consider for example the World Series of Poker (which is and has been open to women.)

    it took 27 years before the first female won an open bracelet event. In 1996, Barbara Enright won the $2,500 Pot-Limit Hold’em for $180,000. Her win was in the 315th WSOP open event ever held. Enright has since gone on to win two more gold bracelets and be inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame. In 1995, she made the final table of the WSOP Main Event and is the only woman in the history of the game to reach that pinnacle in the “grand daddy of them all.”

    https://www.pokernews.com/news/2015/02/first-female-wpt-champ-20641.htm

    Is it sexist to ask if there is some underlying biological basis for this discrepancy? Is that something which is not logically possible?

    Similarly isn’t that all that James Damore was asking about tech job discrepancies at Google. What’s unethical about a question like that?

  11. 11
    Mung says:

    > Is it sexist to ask if there is some underlying biological basis for this discrepancy?

    Yes.

  12. 12
    Barry Arrington says:

    Bob: “My comment was based on the reputation the the industry has for sexism”

    So you admit that your comment has absolutely nothing to do with the specific facts of this case. All you are doing is throwing some random noise out there to try to distract attention away from Google’s fascism.

    Classic case of “when the facts are with you, pound on the facts; when the facts are against you, pound on the table.”

    Whatever it takes to support your fellow progressive fascists, eh Bob?

    BTW, Bob, your initial comment implied that someone was being harassed. I assume you are ready to admit that you have zero evidence to support such an assertion since you retreated to the more generic “sexism” in your second comment. Pound away Bob.

  13. 13
    Bob O'H says:

    No, Barry, I’m trying to make the point that there is a lot we don’t know.

    Classic case of “when the facts are with you, pound on the facts; when the facts are against you, pound on the table.”

    So what facts do you have to say that none of these women are being harassed at Google? I assume you have some otherwise you wouldn’t be so firmly convinced that I’m wrong (and yes, I may well be wrong, and women don’t face any problems at Google).

  14. 14
    Barry Arrington says:

    Bob:

    “So what facts do you have to say that none of these women are being harassed at Google?”

    My God Bob. Do you have no shame?

    Uhh, how about the fact that no one has ever accused the engineer of being fired for harassing anyone?

    “there is a lot we don’t know”

    No, Bob, there isn’t. We know exactly what the memo said. And we know that he was fired for no other reason than what the memo said. Now, you can pretend there is something else going on behind the scenes. But all you are doing is innuendo and misdirection.

    Your tactics are really quite despicable. I suppose I should not be surprised; you are, after all, attempting to defend the indefensible.

  15. 15
    Mung says:

    It’s what evolutionists do.

  16. 16
    asauber says:

    there is a lot we don’t know

    This is in the same league as “we don’t know if Bob O’H is a serial sexual harasser or not.”

    Bush League Trolling Bob.

    Andrew

  17. 17
    john_a_designer says:

    Have you ever heard someone from the secular-progressive left say, “we need to have a conversation about race and gender?”

    Isn’t that what James Damore was trying to do? In fact wasn’t that what Google was encouraging him to do?

    Is it just me? Or does anyone else think that when people on the left say, “we need to have a conversation about race and gender,” they are being more than a little disingenuous?

  18. 18
    Barry Arrington says:

    John @ 17.

    “does anyone else think that when people on the left say, “we need to have a conversation about race and gender,” they are being more than a little disingenuous?”

    No, they are not being disingenuous. You just don’t know what they mean. For you and me, “we need to have a conversation about race and gender” means something like “let’s sit down and exchange views candidly and in good faith to see if we can resolve our differences.”

    But for progressive fascists like Bob O’h and the goons at Google, it means something like “let’s sit down and I will tell you you all the ways you are a racist and sexist bigot if you don’t agree with me.”

    It is all comes down to being able to parse fascist-speak. Read 1984 for pointers.

  19. 19
    ET says:

    Unfortunately Barry is spot on with his comment. Liberals only want to discuss things if you already agree. If you disagree with them then it’s open season on you.

  20. 20
    Bob O'H says:

    Barry @ 14 – You’ve completely mis-construed what I was arguing, I’m afraid. At no point was I saying that this engineer had harassed anyone. I was, at worst, suggesting it was possible that there was/is some harassment at Google, and that the release of the memo may have exacerbated this (or the fear of harassment) – regardless of whether that was anyone’s intent.

    If there is harassment, by anyone at Google, that has been made worse by the release of the memo (whether that was intended or not), isn’t that a bad thing? And if people are being harassed, isn’t making light of their situation a pretty bad way to behave?

    So, how much direct knowledge do you have about the work environment of the women that are the target of your post? How do you know that they are not facing harassment or a bad atmosphere at Google?

  21. 21
    Bob O'H says:

    But for progressive fascists like Bob O’h and the goons at Google, it means something like “let’s sit down and I will tell you you all the ways you are a racist and sexist bigot if you don’t agree with me.”

    I would certainly not do that. I try to have some empathy, even with people I disagree with.

    I rather like the “love thy neighbour idea”. If that means that I’m a ‘progressive fascist’ then so be it.

  22. 22
    Barry Arrington says:

    Bob Oh:

    “I rather like the “love thy neighbour idea”

    Bob, how does your baseless insinuation that Google fired the engineer for sexual harassment fit in with loving your neighbor. How did your empathy cause you to lie about him?

    Please. You got caught smearing the man. Now you play the innocent. Disgusting.

  23. 23
    Bob O'H says:

    What, Barry? I have made no comment about why Google fired the engineer. Please read what I wrote in comment 20 & don’t ascribe to me things I haven’t said.

  24. 24
    john_a_designer says:

    Here are some excerpts from an article by Glenn T. Stanton who “writes and speaks about family, gender, and art.” He writes that most “of us know exactly why gender parity doesn’t exist in Silicon Valley.”

    It’s not because they are consciously (or unconsciously) denying employment to women who are seeking jobs there. Actually, quite the opposite. It’s the fact that while women outpace men in college attendance today, those interested in STEM programs lag significantly behind. Other professions tend to interest them more. In fact, the annual U.S. News/Raytheon STEM Index reported last year that enrollment among women in such programs declined from 2015 to 2016.

    U.S. News reports that “Women may lag behind men in areas like engineering, for example, but they far outstrip men in earning biology degrees.” For instance, women make up 80 percent of the students enrolled in the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine. Wendy Williams, a professor in Cornell’s Department of Human Development, explains that “Women are choosing to do different things. Everyone doesn’t want to be an electrical engineer or to do computer science, and that’s not a failure or flaw.” Allowing women to choose what they want to do, without external and ideological pressure, is empowerment.

    He then goes on to cite several studies carried out by scholars from Cornell University (cited above) Northwestern University, the University of California San Francisco, Yale University and Cambridge University in the U.K. that men and women think differently because biologically “men and women are hard-wired differently.”

    For example, “there are strong and consistent findings pertaining to vocational interests, as Cambridge’s Baron-Cohen noted: men are more likely engaged in investigative, explorative, and building interests, while women rank higher in a variety of artistic, care-giving, and relational interests. Men tend to like to build things. Women tend to like to make things. The seemingly subtle differences between these are easily understood by most men and women. While the customer populations at Home Depot and Hobby Lobby are certainly not gender-segregated, no one is surprised by or troubled that they certainly are heavily gender-weighted by the mere interests of the shoppers.”

    http://thefederalist.com/2017/.....fferences/

    The bottom line is more women don’t work for Google because not enough of them are interested. Again, “Allowing women to choose what they want to do,” says Stanton, “without external and ideological pressure, is empowerment.” I don’t understand why any of this would even be controversial.

  25. 25
    Mung says:

    I guess if I’m not willing to jump on the Bob O’H is a lowlife piece of scum bandwagon I should just keep my mouth shut. Oh well, live and learn, right boys?

    You’re a lowlife piece of scum Bob O’H!

  26. 26
    john_a_designer says:

    Bob @ 20 wrote:

    Barry @ 14 – You’ve completely mis-construed what I was arguing, I’m afraid. At no point was I saying that this engineer had harassed anyone. I was, at worst, suggesting it was possible that there was/is some harassment at Google, and that the release of the memo may have exacerbated this (or the fear of harassment) – regardless of whether that was anyone’s intent.

    If there is harassment, by anyone at Google, that has been made worse by the release of the memo (whether that was intended or not), isn’t that a bad thing? And if people are being harassed, isn’t making light of their situation a pretty bad way to behave?

    So, how much direct knowledge do you have about the work environment of the women that are the target of your post? How do you know that they are not facing harassment or a bad atmosphere at Google?

    Let me focus on one of Bob’s statements:

    “At no point was I saying that this engineer had harassed anyone.”

    Then what justification did Google have in firing him? Because other people misunderstood and misconstrued his memo? Is that ethical and just?

    Bob’s so-called argument makes absolutely no sense.

    This is why I try not to engage with our regular interlocutors. Their “reasoning” and “logic” is totally incoherent.

  27. 27
    rvb8 says:

    I’m a free speech advocate, and however objectionable the memo was, the reaction was kind of like a witch hunt.

    Was the memo in poor taste? Yes. Was it factual? Possibly, I’m no expert on IT hiring or firing practices. Is it true to say women are less techy than men? Numbers would say yes, but there are many factors involved, and these issues have a tendency to emote responses that don’t look at rational reasons.

    The women who stayed away from work because of fear of an unsafe environment need to seriously look at some really ‘unsafe’ work environments; Iraq, Gaza, and the West Bank spring to mind.

  28. 28
    Mung says:

    rvb8:

    Iraq, Gaza, and the West Bank spring to mind.

    Google has plans for them too. They clearly want to end discrimination of every kind, everywhere.

  29. 29
    Bob O'H says:

    Mung @ 25 – Ptttttttttttttttttttttttt

  30. 30
    Bob O'H says:

    JAD @ 27 – I wish you’d respond to what I write, and not add in things that I didn’t write. I didn’t make any comment on the choice to fire the engineer, because I don’t know enough about the internal deliberations. I’m uneasy with the firing, but I don’t know the full story (in particular from Google’s end).

  31. 31
    john_a_designer says:

    Dean @ 26,

    Here is another quote directly relevant for what going on inside Google:

    According Noam Chomsky, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

    As one former Google employee explains the culture at Google is an ideological echo chamber which doesn’t allow any room for dissenting voices:

    We all have moral preferences and beliefs about how the world is and should be. Having these views challenged can be painful, so we tend to avoid people with differing values and to associate with those who share our values. This self-segregation has become much more potent in recent decades. We are more mobile and can sort ourselves into different communities; we wait longer to find and choose just the right mate; and we spend much of our time in a digital world personalized to fit our views.

    Google is a particularly intense echo chamber because it is in the middle of Silicon Valley and is so life-encompassing as a place to work. With free food, internal meme boards and weekly companywide meetings, Google becomes a huge part of its employees’ lives. Some even live on campus. For many, including myself, working at Google is a major part of their identity, almost like a cult with its own leaders and saints, all believed to righteously uphold the sacred motto of “Don’t be evil.”

    Echo chambers maintain themselves by creating a shared spirit and keeping discussion confined within certain limits. As Noam Chomsky once observed, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

    But echo chambers also have to guard against dissent and opposition. Whether it’s in our homes, online or in our workplaces, a consensus is maintained by shaming people into conformity or excommunicating them if they persist in violating taboos. Public shaming serves not only to display the virtue of those doing the shaming but also warns others that the same punishment awaits them if they don’t conform.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-1502481290

  32. 32
    Mung says:

    Bob O’H:

    Mung @ 25 – Ptttttttttttttttttttttttt

    I was going for “Delicious Irony.” I may not have pulled it off, lol.

Leave a Reply