Remember that one time when that (now ex-) Googler released a 10-page internal memo entitled, “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” and got fired? You may have heard of it.
You tell me. Is former Google engineer James Damore a misguided misogynist? Or are there reasons, other than bias – conscious or otherwise – that have led to an underrepresentation of women in tech, especially in executive roles and on boards. Is bias always the reason women are (often) paid less than men? Or is it, as Damore argues, a “distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women [that] differ in part due to biological causes…”
Do the supposed “differences in distribution of traits” explain the lopsided representation of men to women in tech and leadership, as Damore claims in his memo?
Interestingly, in his manifesto, Damore seems to rally against systemic, group-think approaches to solving this “issue,” claiming that science is actually to blame. But in attempting to make the case that “this is just how it is” (because he believes science says so) and in arguing that this should not be a moral issue, he only exposes his own biases.
Remember, also, that some people didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton solely because she is female. I can personally quote acquaintances who feared that women are too irrational, high strung and hormonal to be entrusted with the “nuclear codes.” So, no, Damore. It’s not just a scientific issue, if it’s scientific at all. It’s a global social, cultural and economic issue.
To be completely transparent, however, even I have made the argument before – much to many of my feminist friends’ chagrin – that societal and other factors often lead to the shortage of women in leadership and tech. For example, it’s important to acknowledge that if a woman takes a decade off to raise children, she will inevitably be behind her peers, both male and female, in pay and career advancement. In that light, some of Damore’s arguments about women being less assertive or less status-oriented may have some merit.
But Damore’s ideas would carry more weight if they were based on fact and not just his own presumptions. If women truly were biologically wired to demand less money and seek fewer accolades, then it would stand to reason that they would be paid less and promoted more infrequently than assertive, braggadocious males.
To say, as Damore does, that women are more hysterical – and to incorrectly define “neuroticism” in support of his conclusion – is simply weak. Neuroticism is not, as Damore asserts, defined only by higher anxiety and a lessened ability to tolerate stress. Nor is it limited only to females (or males, for that matter). Neuroticism is an equal-opportunity mood disorder; an emotional and sometimes medical problem. Perhaps Damore needs a new physician.
