The abrasive and alarmist language the Left is using to describe the recently published ten-page manifesto of a disgruntled Google employee might leave you to believe he is a bonafide sexist and therefore deserving of any corporate consequences. There’s only one problem with that assumption: it’s false.
The anonymous Google engineer’s memo expressed his ideological opposition to Google’s hiring practices in regards to gender diversity, suggesting that because of Google’s left of center political bias, the company and its policies are overlooking basic biological and statistical truths. Namely, men and women are different. That statement should not come as a shocker to those who have made them selves aware of the vast amount of social science supporting that claim. However, those living in what the memo’s author described as an “ideological echo chamber,” might feel differently; despite the science.
No, the memo released anonymously did not contain any sexist remarks. It did not suggest that women should not be hired for the fact that their brains as a collective are wired differently than men, nor did it perpetuate any other gender stereotype. For if it did, the substantiation for calling the memo’s author a sexist would be present. Instead, the memo suggested that the dissimilarity between the number of women hired at Google and the American population as a whole was eminent not solely because of discrimination and other unjust hiring practices, which has yet been a proven problem at Google, one of California’s most liberal tech institutions, but a generalization of the difference between men and women as a whole. The author mentions the fact that women aren’t going into high-paying tech jobs as men because on average they’re less inclined to do so. The presumably male creator of the memo cites the fact that female’s brains are, on average, more apt towards empathizing rather than systematizing. He also lists various other biological truths that would explain why women on average are biologically disadvantaged when it comes to being pursuant of a tech career in a top corporation like Google. The facts he cited are verifiable and are only disputed by those that believe feelings trump science; a silly contention in it of itself. The memo in no way suggests that any and every living female on planet earth is subject to these disadvantages. Because they’re not. There is quite a large faction of women working in careers currently dominated by men and are outperforming them consistently. However, just as the average biological differences between men and women is simply a generalization used to describe a lack of gender proportionality in tech hirings, the same applies to those that out-compete men.
Women that out-compete men in these fields are present in such small numbers not because of discrimination, but because of statistical averages rooted in biology. Women tend to gravitate towards social careers such as psychology, nursing, and teaching rather than careers revolving around math and science. The reason that 92% of registered nurses are women is not due to an overtly sexist system designed to prevent men from getting hired, but because men choose not to go down those career pathologies. They can if they want to, but on average they don’t; largely due to biology. Biology is also the reason that men make up approximately 90% of America’s prison population. As a general rule, men are more aggressive than women because of their biology. But of course, there are exceptions, evident by the fact that women are also imprisoned, just at a much lower rate. So, that does not mean you should tell your daughter to never seek out a job in a STEM career because of gender brain differences; she should be free to do what she wants, and there is a possibility she will outperform men in the same field. Biology isn’t the be-all-end-all regarding seeking employment. Your ability to get a job in a particular area is almost entirely dependent on personal choices such as work ethic, educational decisions, and family options. In fact, the wrongly accused sexist memo author offers non-discriminatory ways to employ more women. That is, methods that do not involve sexist measures that penalize male applicants for being male. He writes, “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.” This is true. If you wish to read the full list of suggestions as well as the memo in its entirety, it’s been published over at Gizmodo.
Danielle Brown, VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance at Google released a laughable statement failing to address a single scientifically-backed argument presented by the now slandered ex-Google engineer. Yes, ex.
Google’s leftist fascistic tendencies are currently on full display. Reportedly, the memo’s drafter has been fired for not conforming to the unscientific, politically correct leftist worldview pushed by Google through its hiring policies, and likely through other facets of the company. Anyone who thinks the author of the nonextreme piece of writing deserved to have his livelihood destroyed is not a free speech fundamentalist, nor a liberal. He or she is simply a fascist.
This is ancillary to a large issue facing the Democratic party and the Left as a whole: what happens if you are not leftist enough? Apparently, you get thrown out completely and socially reprimanded. This kind of ideological cannibalism has shown itself numerous times inside the Democratic party itself, such as their current division on whether to allow pro-life candidates. We also see this with someone like Richard Dawkins, someone that is certainly no friend of the right-wing, getting de-platformed for not being far enough to the left in his thinking. That being said, Google is a private entity that can do what it wants regarding its employees. However, if the company wishes to be heralded as a valuer of free speech and diverse ideas rather than a silencer of dissenting opinions and only interested in forced diversity of race, gender, and sexuality, they should not have fired the author of the manifesto.