Daily Archives: August 9, 2017

Last week, a then-Google employees manifesto against diversity and inclusion in STEM drew sharp criticism and eager applause from the outlets youd expect. But Googles decision to terminate the employee, reported by Bloombergon Monday,is drawing controversy from both sides.

James Damore, the Google engineer who wrote the manifesto, confirmed his dismissal in an email to Bloomberg stating that he had been fired for perpetuating gender stereotypes. Damore additionally told Bloomberg that he is currently exploring all possible legal remedies.

Of course, firing someone on the basis of their beliefs is inherently controversial.But when all things are considered and put into context, Google made the right decision, and anyone who continues to stand by Damore and his backwards views clearly has a lot to learn about the issue of gender and STEM, and gender and the workplace in general.

In his memo, Damore suggested that the gender gap in STEM is due to the biological inferiority of women, who are just inherently born less smart and less capable than their male counterparts.

We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism, he wrote.

He added: Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we dont have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

This gender gap has nothing at all to do with generations upon generations of gendered barriers to access education and join the workforce, of course. And these gender gaps in lucrative fields, and the wage gaps that stem from them, are all fair because women are just inferior, period. Thats Damores hot take, at least.

Across all fields, today, the gender wage gap continues to exist despite modern laws meant to prevent it, and this is largely due to cultural biases that cant be legislated away. Maternal leave policies enforce gendered expectations and severely limit working womens opportunities for advancement, and subliminal and overt discrimination in perceptions of who is more experienced and authoritative do the same. Meanwhile, cultural forces and limited female role models in STEM jobs subliminally pressure women to enter lower-paying fields.

In the 21st century, as the STEM field has become one of the highest paying lines of work, its also become hotbed for sexism notably in the form of workplace sexual harassment and even assault. Roughly two-thirds of women in STEM reporting harassment or assault in the workplace; many of these women have little choice but to quit their work, unable to find help and support to deal with sexual abuse in male-dominated workplaces, where its predominantly men who are in positions of power to decide who stays and who goes, whats acceptable and what isnt.

In writing the manifesto, Damore may have been practicing his right to free speech, but in the STEM field, where women are sidelined, belittled, excluded and harassed as is, the sexist tirade was a direct attack on the already fragile world women in STEM are forced to exist in.

By keeping Damore on board, Google would have been validating, even legitimizing his views, and telling its female employees, telling female computer science students, telling young girls across the country that the idea they are inferior is a perfectly OK view to have.

Additionally and more to the point, every day, employees are fired from jobs for harassing women or uttering racist, exclusionary commentary that sharply contradict a companys values and mission statement.

Thats not excessive political correctness thats called running a company. Because in todays world, running a successful company requires more so much more than hiring entitled white men and looking away as they say and do whatever they want at the expense of everyone else. In todays world, running a successful company means establishing an environment where everyone, no matter their identity and background, feels welcome to share, create, and produce.

Inclusivity is a cornerstone of the STEM field not because of political correctness or ideological purity or any other reason the right would like to name its a cornerstone of STEM because inclusivity is what yields the best collaborations and the greatest innovations. To suggest that women and people of color are only being included because of political correctness and not merit isnt just offensive, its factually inaccurate.

And, on that note, Damores assertion that women arent in STEM because theyre incapable is wrong, but frankly, the idea that women arent in STEM because of active choices theyre making is wrong, too.There are far fewer female role models working in STEM jobs due to sexism of generations past; women comprise just 24 percent of the STEM workforce as of 2009, and so it may be difficult for young women to picture themselves in this line of work. On the other hand, adolescent boys have no shortage of men working in STEM jobs to identify with and aspire to be.Encouraging manifestos against women in STEM by doing nothing to fight them establishes hostile work environments which push women away, and discourage young women from getting on board and contributing.

Of course, at the end of the day, it would be a mistake to regard this issue of STEM and gender as one exclusive to Google. Bloombergs report also featured this haunting note

The imbroglio at Google is the latest in a long string of incidents concerning gender bias and diversity in the tech enclave.Uber Technologies Inc. Chief Executive Officer Travis Kalanick lost his job in June amid scandals over sexual harassment, discrimination and an aggressive culture. Ellen Paos gender-discrimination lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers in 2015 also brought the issue to light, and more women are speaking up to say theyve been sidelined in the male-dominated industry, especially in engineering roles.

But ultimately, Damore may have been right about one thing: STEMis a difficult place for women to be right now. However, thats not due to shortcomings on their end, so much as it is to shortcomings in the characters of the men theyre forced to work with.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

See original here:

Stop Making Google's Decision to Fire Sexist Employee About 'Political Correctness' - Mediaite

As a Christian, pastor and devout creationist Ive always watched modern science beat on its chest in claiming to be king of the universe while appointing individuals such as Charles Darwin to be elevated to a god in public schools.

However, recently were seeing the actual hypocrisy of modern science as it is faced with a rather awkward confrontation with political correctness which now claims that DNA no longer determines the gender of mankind. This evil claims that gender is simply a choice or merely parental manipulation despite DNA fact.

As a parent of a son and a daughter, I find these claims completely hilarious. Shame on modern science for heralding out such accusations of scriptural contradiction and hypocrisy at Christianity over the years just to denounce the one most solid scientific fact they have going for them, our DNA. All I can say to science is, Seriously, is that all the fight you have in you to let political correctness embarrass you like that?

Christians all over the world are dying for their fundamental truths, but modern scientists cant even stand up to political correctness. What a weak Constitution after all! Our children know right well that true science is The Study of Gods Creation.

God Jehovah reigns and Christ is King!

ScottLester

Crab Orchard

Read the original here:

Hypocrisy of modern science confronts political correctness - Beckley Register-Herald

The governments attempt to restore the compulsory plebiscite bill has been blocked by the Senate, paving the way for a voluntary postal vote.

The plebiscite was to be held on November 25 with the government offering to remove the $15m of public funds for the yes and no cases.

On Wednesday morning the government attempted to restore the plebiscite bill to the Senate notice paper. Labor, the Greens and Nick Xenophon Team used their numbers in the Senate to block the attempt to revisit it, with Derryn Hinch voting to allow debate but committing to block the plebiscite.

With the compulsory plebiscite rejected again, the government will now attempt to fall back on its Plan B of a voluntary postal ballot to be conducted between 12 September and 15 November.

Earlier, Tony Abbott urged Australians to vote against marriage equality, arguing that a no vote would protect religious freedom and stop political correctness in its tracks.

The former prime minister hit the ground running in the campaign against same-sex marriage at a doorstop on Wednesday, in contrast to Malcolm Turnbull who said on Tuesday he would certainly support a yes vote but I have many other calls [on] my time.

Marriage equality advocates are still investigating a legal challenge, with several legal experts questioning the constitutionality of appropriating $122m to pay for a postal plebiscite and using the Australian Bureau of Statistics to run it.

Asked before the result if he was disappointed that a voluntary postal vote would be held instead, Abbott said no, saying it was important that we make the most of the opportunity we now have.

Obviously I will be voting no but in the end this is not about the politicians, this is about the people its about your view.

And I say to you if you dont like same-sex marriage, vote no. If youre worried about religious freedom and freedom of speech, vote no, and if you dont like political correctness, vote no because voting no will help to stop political correctness in its tracks.

The Australian Marriage Equality co-chair Alex Greenwich said Abbotts intervention was totally dishonest but nothing new because opponents have always tried to make this issue about something else.

They know the settled will of the Australian people is in favour of marriage equality and in support of all couples being treated equally under the law.

On Tuesday the government argued it was on strong legal ground with a voluntary postal vote, despite lacking parliamentary approval.

The acting special minister of state, Mathias Cormann, said the plebiscite would be conducted as a survey by the ABS, paid for by an appropriation made through a finance ministers advance to the agency.

The constitutional law expert George Williams told Guardian Australia the decision to have the ABS run a postal plebiscite remains vulnerable to legal attack.

It can be challenged on the ground that the expenditure of money on a postal vote lacks parliamentary approval, the dean of University of New South Wales law faculty said.

In addition, the use of the ABS will open up a new line of attack based upon arguments that the functions of the ABS do not permit it to conduct a poll of this kind.

Williams warned that running the poll so quickly would have the effect of disenfranchising large numbers of young people and that a postal vote would mean that the votes of many young people and people from overseas will not be counted.

The constitutional expert Anne Twomey told Guardian Australia the ABS had the power to collect statistics, or numerical data concerning facts describing it as most unusual for it to collect opinions rather than facts.

It is arguable that this goes outside its functions, although it could also be argued that it was collecting statistics about the number of people who hold particular opinions, she said.

On ABCs AM Twomey also questioned the method of appropriating funds, noting that a finance ministers advance has to be for some kind of emergency thats unforeseen [and] here we have an issue that has been foreseen and previously there had been allocations for it in the budget.

Greenwich said it was encouraging that constitutional experts were speaking out about the fact that parliament, not a plebiscite, needed to resolve marriage equality, adding that no minister should be able to spend $120m without parliamentary oversight.

Labors deputy leader, Tanya Plibersek, told ABC AM a plebiscite would put Australian families through the trauma of having their relationships discussed as inadequate, described as having something wrong with them.

Plibersek said Labor would remind people [the plebiscite] is a flawed process, but you can count on us to continue to make the case for marriage equality.

She labelled Turnbulls claim he was too busy to campaign as a weak cop-out. On Tuesday Greenwich described it as an an absolute disgrace that would reduce confidence in the postal plebiscite.

Plibersek said Abbotts comments were exactly the sort of thing Id expect Tony Abbott to say, responding that religious ministers would not be forced to solemnise same-sex marriage and it was not political correctness for gay couples to politely ask to have the same rights as others.

Read more:

Senate blocks government attempt to restore compulsory plebiscite for marriage equality - The Guardian

Actor, writer and director Lena Dunham. In Dunhams world opinions and thoughts that dont align with hers need to be shut down. Photograph: Stuart C Wilson/Getty Images

Last week, the actor, writer and director Lena Dunham sent out a provocative tweet to her 5.5 million followers, while frustrated at a flight delay in JFK.

The creator, writer and star of the HBO series Girls, believed she had earwigged on a conversation that deserved to be called out on social media the supreme court of public opinion.

Her tweet read: Just overheard 2 @AmericanAir attendants having a transphobic talk. We should be teaching our employees about love and inclusivity.

This was an arbitrary, unfounded accusation, against two humans who have nothing to do with her, and who are trigger warning! fully entitled to think what they like; totally free to have a personal conversation about whatever they please.

But in Dunhams world opinions and thoughts that dont align with hers need to be shut down, in an approach that wouldnt be out of place in the censorship culture of East Germany.

There was no proof provided. American Airlines later said that the times and places didnt match up. They dont fly from the terminal she was flying from. They were unable to substantiate her allegation.

Clearly, she couldnt miss the opportunity to jump on board the most current, right-on cause. It showed her up to be, at best, incoherent, and at worst wrong.

Her actions represents a hijacking of true liberalism that has its basis in stifling free speech. Those who really are liberal definition: willing to respect and accept behaviour and opinions different to our own must fight this pervasive belief system that is threatening the most cherished of all liberties. Otherwise we are rolling back decades of progress that has created a western world where free speech is one of the fundamental tenets of society.

Why is is now acceptable for certain political groups to shout down and shut down anyone who isnt in agreement with their orthodoxy?

Why is it coming from the left, not the right. The branch of politics we should be able to trust seems to have largely forgotten that tolerance and equality cannot be parsed.

In the process it has alienated good people with diverse opinions and important minds. Rather than debate, many people now say nothing. Instead, they keep their thoughts to themselves. The space for intellectual debate is reduced. But a society without an open and honest debate is one that is more likely to turn to violence.

Political correctness, a stultifying, boring, self-righteous and prissy movement that patronisingly assumes everyone is a victim, began as a good idea to protect the vulnerable in society. Now it is silencing dissenting voices of any kind. What started as awareness and education has morphed into finger-pointing and thought-policing.

But if people dont feel free to tell you what they are thinking, how can you confront them? How can you change the other persons mind if their voice is not allowed to be heard?

We cannot confront racism, discrimination and prejudice without first knowing they are there. We cannot develop certainty in our own convictions, unless we have had them challenged.

The smothering of free speech is being carried out in a very modern way and appears to be the preserve of naive activists.

In the media, its about wilfully conflating opinion with news. Its about reading the headline and deciding youre offended, without any context, and instantly labelling the target sexist/misogynistic/homophobic/racist, delete as applicable. Its lazy and its anti-intellectual.

On campus, its about protesting against talks at universities until they are called off for security reasons, and bleating about no-platforming censorship by another name.

Its about setting a lynch mob on social media, calling for the sacking and destruction of people with whom you do not agree. Making them social pariahs, or turning an individual with the brain to question a contentious issue into a bad guy.

Its creating a climate of fear so that those few brave enough to do the important job of putting a voice to what many people are thinking but are afraid to say are intimidated and cowed.

And ultimately there is a reaction. Irish-American satirist Bill Maher believes that the backlash against this forced thinking and free-speech stifling has resulted in a madman in the White House.

Talking about the importance of freedom of expression, he said: The Democrats have gone from the party that protects people to the party that protects feelings. Liberals do this all the time. They get offended for people who themselves wouldnt be offended.

Nearer home, Rory ONeill, whose alter ego Panti Bliss was the figurehead of the marriage equality referendum campaign, is similarly minded and argues an inclusive society is one in which we all have to accept a difference of opinion. If everyone feels browbeaten into acting the same, we lose the creativity of difference. I think its absolutely fine if an evangelical Christian dislikes homosexuality. I just dont want them to try and make everybody else be the same as them.

The lesson is simple: let those with dissenting views speak you might learn something.

Read the original:

Larissa Nolan: Political correctness will hurt us all in the end - Irish Times

3.41am EDT 03:41

Thats it for tonight. Thanks to Mikey Bowers and Paul Karp, Gareth Hutchens and Katharine Murphy. Thanks for your company. It was a blast.

Tomorrow is Thursday, the last sitting day.

Go well.

The Murray-Darling faction.

Ive been misrepresented.

Naughty Nick McKim.

Night night.

Updated at 4.12am EDT

Share

Share this post

Facebook

Google plus

3.08am EDT 03:08

Christopher Knaus

The Greens have introduced a bill to the Senate to raise the Newstart allowance by $110 a fortnight. Newstart has not risen in real terms since 1994 and the maximum Newstart allowance is now $38.39 a day, less than half the minimum wage, and below the poverty level. The Greens senator Rachel Siewert said:

We are a wealthy country and have the resources available to us to significantly reduce the existing rate of poverty, if only there was the political will to do so. No one in a country as rich as Australia should be living in poverty.

The Greens are hopeful for Labor support for the bill, given their recent rhetoric on addressing inequality.

The bill also comes three weeks after the human services minister, Alan Tudge, used a speech to argue increasing welfare payments was not the way to solve poverty.

Updated at 3.11am EDT

Share

Share this post

Facebook

Google plus

3.01am EDT 03:01

South Australian response:

Share

Share this post

Facebook

Google plus

3.00am EDT 03:00

Tony Abbott has spoken to Ben Fordham on 2GB in his regular spot. Inevitably, same-sex marriage comes up and Fordham asks about Abbotts sister Christine Forsters remarks on Twitter that we covered earlier this morn.

Forster was taking issue with Abbotts remarks calling on people to vote no if they value marriage, freedom of speech and if they wanted to vote against political correctness.

Abbott says his sister is a great person but they have agreed to disagree on marriage.

He tells Fordham she wasnt always a supporter of same-sex marriage.

I mean she joked years ago that she just got herself out of one marriage, why would she be rushing into another one. The gay activists at university, the last thing they wanted was same-sex marriage because they thought marriage was a bourgeois patriarchal institution so a lot of people are quite late converts to this thing which they are now absolutely passionate about.

Updated at 3.11am EDT

Share

Share this post

Facebook

Google plus

2.46am EDT 02:46

The call for a judicial inquiry into allegations of water theft in the Barwon Darling section of the Murray Darling has passed. As I said before, there is no way the Senate can compel minister Joyce to hold this inquiry.

It is an expression of the Senates will but they have no big stick to wave.

Updated at 3.12am EDT

Share

Share this post

Facebook

Google plus

2.29am EDT 02:29

The Senate is now debating the need for a national judicial inquiry into the Murray-Darling Basin. It was supported by Labor, NXT, Cory Bernardi and the Greens. It is not supported by the Coalition.

The Senate is voting now.

Even if the Senate supports this bill, which it looks like it will, it has now power to force the water minister, Barnaby Joyce, to hold a judicial inquiry.

Updated at 3.12am EDT

Share

Share this post

Facebook

Google plus

2.24am EDT 02:24

Updated at 3.12am EDT

Share

Share this post

Facebook

Google plus

Read more:

Di Natale: Roberts's story has changed more times than I've changed underpants as it happened - The Guardian