A Google Employee On Differences Between Men And Women

[Afro_Vacancy]

A google employee wrote an essay on a private google board for internal circulation (so I guess this essay is leaked) discussing the relative strengths of men and women, and whether or not they contribute to there being more men than women in science-related jobs. He says that they do, and that the emphasis on diversity programs is misguided and harmful. The essay begins right after this paragraph (so none of that is my writing), and I'm leaving it here in case some of you are curious about where the discussion is coming from, it's in response to this development. I also include a response from Danielle Brown, Google's Vice President of diversity, integrity, and governance.
The formatting is either from the employees themselves, or from Gizmodo:
http://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320
[I'm splitting this up into multiple posts due to the character limit of this forum's software].


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.

TLR

• 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.

Background [1]
People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to 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.[2] 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.

Google’s biases
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.

Left Biases

• Compassion for the weak
• Disparities are due to injustices
• Humans are inherently cooperative
• Change is good (unstable)
• Open
• Idealist

Right Biases

• Respect for the strong/authority
• Disparities are natural and just
• Humans are inherently competitive
• Change is dangerous (stable)
• Closed
• Pragmatic

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.

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. 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.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]
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.

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.

Personality differences
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.

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[4], 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-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.

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 [5]
• 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 [6]

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[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

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[8] 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[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

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[10]. 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.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], 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.

Suggestions
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).

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

• 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.”

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.

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.

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.

De-emphasize empathy.

• 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.

Prioritize intention.

• 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).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] 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.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] 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.

[6] 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.

[7] 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.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] 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.

[10] “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.”

[11] 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.

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:

Googlers,

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.

Thanks,

Danielle

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

https://www.recode.net/platform/amp...emo-on-women-has-violated-its-code-of-conduct

Google has fired the employee who penned a controversial memo on women and tech

 

[hanginginthewire]

"Googlers." :::eyeroll:::


I was watching a Jordan Petersen video the other day (I find him to be kind of a dumbass, but occasionally interesting), and he said in any organization only like 30% of the members actually do anything. And that's what I thought of as I read these posts. Why are "googlers" sitting around writing pontificating memos about such topics, anyway? Google isn't the Algonquin roundtable! "Danielle's" chirping tone (as she justifies a unjust termination) gets on my nerves too. They shouldn't have fired the guy but I hate all the corporatespeak navelgazing so much that I don't care. I blame Steve Jobs for the pseudo intellectual philosophical posture that corporate America takes.

 

[hairblues]

"Googlers." :::eyeroll:::


I was watching a Jordan Petersen video the other day (I find him to be kind of a dumbass, but occasionally interesting), and he said in any organization only like 30% of the members actually do anything. And that's what I thought of as I read these posts. Why are "googlers" sitting around writing pontificating memos about such topics, anyway? Google isn't the Algonquin roundtable! "Danielle's" chirping tone (as she justifies a unjust termination) gets on my nerves too. They shouldn't have fired the guy but I hate all the corporatespeak navelgazing so much that I don't care. I blame Steve Jobs for the pseudo intellectual philosophical posture that corporate America takes.

-this is what I thought when I saw it on news yesterday total eye roll, much ado about nothing.
You hit it on head. In one short paragraph which is all this topic is worth IMO.

 

[mecheng]

It's so much easier to work with other men in an office than it is with women...

I work in an engineering office, used to be 100% men, started adding women over the last few years, it's a lot less fluid, and a lot less fun to be honest.

 

[hairblues]

Jordan Bernt Peterson (born June 12, 1962) is a Canadian clinical psychologist, cultural critic, and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. His main areas of study are the psychology of religious and ideological belief, and the assessment and improvement of personality and performance. He authored Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief in 1999.

Peterson grew up in Fairview, Alberta. He earned a B.A. in political science in 1982 and a B.A. in psychology in 1984, both from the University of Alberta, and his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from McGill University in 1991. He remained at McGill University as a post-doctoral fellow for two years before moving to Massachusetts, where he worked as an assistant and an associate professor in the psychology department at Harvard University. In 1997, he moved to the University of Toronto as a full professor.

A dumbass who taught at Harvard.

Sure, keep telling yourself that.



My mom watched a few interviews of James Damore and it resonated with her current situation at her work place.

Now she's trying to fight the diversity ideology at her company. And she doesn't work at some insignificant startup.

She was forced to undertake diversity training, just like the employees at Google and she literally became sick of it.

The toxic radical leftist environment at my mother's workplace has become unbearable and it's having negative effects on her health.

But I guess you wouldn't know anything about that since you're not part of the corporate world.

Much ado about nothing? This is no f*****g joke.

They're telling my mom that she's racist, bigoted and she doesn't even know it, that she needs to be trained to become a decent human being.

That sh*t won't fly for long, people are starting to fight back, and I'm proud that my mom is standing up for herself against the diversity tyrants.

Yeah rolling my eyes

If your mom is having health issues has nothing to do with the work situation

Your bias in this because it's your mom

If it was some other older woman you would say she either needed to toughen up or it was time to retire

Give me a break

 

[hairblues]

I told her that maybe it was time to retire, the identity politics at her workplace is only a part of the problem of course.

She's also exploited and works overtime, and her leftists colleagues who are not married and childless tell her to toughen up (sounds familiar?).

She's in a highly toxic environment, and it is toxic especially because of this ideological echo chamber, just like at Google.

My mother is forced to lie, to put on a mask every single day. She's right-winged (the apple doesn't fall far from the tree), conservatism, she likes Trump, she has a traditional family, she lives in the most dangerous neighborhood of Brussels, etc.

And every single day she has to shut up and pretend to be someone else, what do you think that would do to any human being? Of course not, you're a leftist in a leftist environment, so you can afford to be yourself.

I'm not surprised by your lack of empathy.

Yeah it sounds familiar from you the 'toughen up' attitude

Coming from you because it's YOUR mom makes me roll my eyes

If someone else posted it I would give it more consideration.

From you? Who feels no compassion or empathy for people outside of your own family?

Uh. No

And the sink or swim mentality is the conservatives in USA

If your Mom was in a leftist union like let's say IATSE she would not be having these issues they would rotate her at work to accommodate her and make sure we took her breaks and if she left to take time off they would welcome her back

Give it some thought

 

[hairblues]

You know my cousin is nazi communist Muslim vegetable who smokes weed and lives like a recluse, right?

You think I have one shred of empathy or compassion for him? He deserves everything bad that happens to him.

Bad argument. Again, like many other people who try to debate me recently, you only say things that you'd like to be true.

No I am discussing your views on women
and specific women on the workplace

Nice try yet again moving the topic.

If I write about myself what you wrote about your Mother you would laugh and mock
Me

You can't pick and choose your conservatism and capitalism where it suits you and expect me to take you serious in this topic.

Google can set any standard they wish your mom does not have to work their.

That's what a conservative would say regarding industry they have the football they make the rules follow along or leave

It's not the Government

It's unchecked business

NOW you dislike that freedom because they lean socially left instead of right?

Lol okay

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Bear I'm sorry about your mom.

The way I see it, within any environment there can be an ideology which operates similarly to a religion. It's a set of beliefs that gives people identity, with some of those beliefs being more reasonable than others. When someone disagrees with said beliefs, they are likely to be dismissed as an "evil", similarly to what would happen to you if you started discussing Richard Dawkins while visiting Mecca or East Jerusalem.

There is no possibility of your mom standing against this. She cannot stop a tidal wave by blowing on it. Her options are to fight and lose, to leave, to pretend to be a member of the tribe, or to STFU.

By exposing herself, she risks suffering the severe health consequences of workplace bullying:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4382139/
Emotional/psychological consequences of workplace bullying may include increased mental distress, sleep disturbances, fatigue in women and lack of vigor in men, depression and anxiety, adjustment disorders, and even work-related suicide. Medical consequences of workplace bullying may include an increase in health complaints such as neck pain, musculoskeletal complaints, acute pain, fibromyalgia, and cardiovascular symptoms.

On the bright side, this is a situation where you have the power to help. Your mom loves you. You can make her feel better just by seeing her after her work sometimes and giving her a smile and a hug and then spending time with her.

 

[hanginginthewire]

Jordan Bernt Peterson (born June 12, 1962) is a Canadian clinical psychologist, cultural critic, and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. His main areas of study are the psychology of religious and ideological belief, and the assessment and improvement of personality and performance. He authored Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief in 1999.

Peterson grew up in Fairview, Alberta. He earned a B.A. in political science in 1982 and a B.A. in psychology in 1984, both from the University of Alberta, and his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from McGill University in 1991. He remained at McGill University as a post-doctoral fellow for two years before moving to Massachusetts, where he worked as an assistant and an associate professor in the psychology department at Harvard University. In 1997, he moved to the University of Toronto as a full professor.

A dumbass who taught at Harvard.

Sure, keep telling yourself that.



My mom watched a few interviews of James Damore and it resonated with her current situation at her work place.

Now she's trying to fight the diversity ideology at her company. And she doesn't work at some insignificant startup.

She was forced to undertake diversity training, just like the employees at Google and she literally became sick of it.

The toxic radical leftist environment at my mother's workplace has become unbearable and it's having negative effects on her health.

But I guess you wouldn't know anything about that since you're not part of the corporate world.

Much ado about nothing? This is no f*****g joke.

They're telling my mom that she's racist, bigoted and she doesn't even know it, that she needs to be trained to become a decent human being.

That sh*t won't fly for long, people are starting to fight back, and I'm proud that my mom is standing up for herself against the diversity tyrants who are trying to tell her how to think.

Lol at your appeal to authority. Like I give a sh*t about Hah-vad. Where do you think all the postmodern, "cultural Marxist" rot that you rail against 24/7 comes from? Jordan Petersen can't even figure out if he's a Christian or not. Hard pass.

 

[hanginginthewire]

I told her that maybe it was time to retire, the identity politics at her workplace is only a part of the problem of course.

She's also exploited and works overtime, and her leftists colleagues who are not married and childless tell her to toughen up (sounds familiar?).

She's in a highly toxic environment, and it is toxic especially because of this ideological echo chamber, just like at Google.

My mother is forced to lie, to put on a mask every single day. She's right-winged (the apple doesn't fall far from the tree), a conservative, she likes Trump, she has a traditional family, she lives in the most dangerous neighborhood of Brussels, etc.

And every single day she has to shut up and pretend to be someone else, what do you think that would do to any human being? Of course not, you're a leftist in a leftist environment, so you can afford to be yourself.

I'm not surprised by your lack of empathy.

*Rolling my eyes*

"Much ado about nothing": yeah who cares if people are forced to permanently sell their soul just so they can keep their job.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

The naïveté that is in this post is so overwhelming that there's like steam from it coming through my phone. Wtf do you think happens in workplaces? How many people do you suppose are expressing their ~authentic selves~ at their workplaces?? Jesus H. Are you an Ayn Rand devotee? It sounds like Objectivism mixed with an Oprah "remember your spirit" segment.

That said, I believe your mom may be encountering a leftist cabal of SJW-ism and that's a shame. My reaction to your post is just about the way you framed what someone should expect in the workplace. "Sell your soul to keep your job" and you say it like its some kind of anomaly. That's what 99% of people do every day? Hello, McFly! Do you think the labor market is interested in your mom's soul? Just lol forever.

 

[hanginginthewire]

Lol at this, ah, I am being authentic at work?

Why am I not required to sell my soul to keep my job?

And why are you? Why are you working there then?

Because you have no choice? Then how is it that you have no choice?

Every word that comes out of my mouth is the truth, or at least I try to be very careful about not lying.

Now if you start telling your colleagues that you believe in conspiracy theories, that's another story.

Telling the truth shouldn't make you lose your job I'm sorry.

And you shouldn't be forced to do things that you don't want to do and are completely unrelated to your job.

Like undergoing forced diversity training during which people tell you that you're probably a racist bigot.

If you think that's OK then you have some serious thinking to do.

I don't know how it is in Belgium, but in many states in the US, you can be fired at any time, for any reason. It's called, (in typical Orwellian fashion) "right-to-work." The employer and employee may sever the relationship at each's discretion, at anytime. I think hairblues hit the nail on the head with re: to your conservative views chaffing against a real life situation, a situation where those views don't feel so good. I don't know, I guess it's just that you are so young. Your employers aren't interested in you or "the Truth." Your mom is is free to sever the relationship with her employer if she doesn't like their diversity training. Her employer doesn't give a sh*t that she doesn't like it.

 

[hanginginthewire]

If your mom has authority (sounds like she doesn't at work??? "my mother is FORCED to lie, put on a mask everyday") credentials, and competence then she should have no problem finding suitable work elsewhere and I'm not sure why we're discussing this? Your mom doesn't like something at her work. Ok? Cool. What did she have for breakfast? If she's so competent, credentialed, and authoritative, why is her son bleating on about the agony her soul is in on a hair loss forum? I mean...

And I'm sorry if this is getting harsh. Like I said, I'm sure you and your mom are encountering some weird SJW cult and that sucks. I'm just reacting to the way you aren't acknowledging the contradictions in your avowed beliefs about the labor market and how it works.

 

[hairblues]

Some people are better than you.

Why is that so hard to accept for you?

What are your credentials?

And lol at @hairblues wanting to believe this.

This is what me and my friends (all holders of a master's degree) often have to face.

Envious people who were incapable of finishing high school and who'd like to believe that having a university degree doesn't mean sh*t.

Jealousy.

uhh what are you talking about specifically?

What do I believe or don't believe now?

 

[hairblues]

You like a post that says that arguments from authority are worthless.

You've dismissed science that triggers you before.

You seem to only want to believe what serves your ego.

First off the reasons I 'like' a post vary

This case I thought the way he knocked Harvard was funny--especially I am sure you would knock a lot of people who went to Harvard if they disagreed with you.

do I think top 3 school automatically make someoen impressive

Uhm no

Plus I have heard this guy talk a few times on here (you all love him) and not impressed.
That he went to Harvard means squat to me.
George Bush went to Yale I did not find him very intellectual
Newt Gingrich twists history all the time to fit his warped perspective. I am sure he is very well educated.

We have posters here with HS degrees to masters even doctorates
I don't find the people with Masters or Doctorates any more impressive or insightful then some of the posters with less educattion

science does not trigger me at all I like science. I'm often in research section.

The studies you are talking about are not scientific studies I believe they are mostly polls and a lot of conjecture about data in social relationships. Their is emotional opinion about 'happiness'
Not scientific at all.

 

[sunchyme1]

I did not even read past this much

Why are you bringing @Afro_Vacancy into it? He has literally written he does not wish to argue or be involved in negative sh*t.

That's kind of petty of you.

You are annoyed with my postings for whatever reasons lately so you need outside validation from someoen I don't get along with because we happen to disagree on a lot?
Then stop quoting me.

Gee I can do that too with people who you disagree with often lately

It's not just me.

@Rudiger @macaroni @hanginginthewire @Pasbrillantebrunette @sunchyme1
@Dante92


I think I can go on and on as my lists is much longer than your list

No one needs to comment from my list just proving a point.

 

[hairblues]

View attachment 61333

Have you ever trolled Fred?

 

[Dench57]

whew lads

spicy thread

@WhitePolarBear you tend to attack people's character and get unnecessarily personal in arguments though

give it some thought

 

[sunchyme1]

Have you ever trolled Fred?

fred cannot be trolled

he runs this place