DescentBB

I don't know how many of you guys have been following the "Google manifesto" thing. It's fascinating me.

For those who aren't following it:

A Google employee submits a document internally within Google which addresses the subject of diversity, bias, and monoculture. (specifically within Google.)
Document gets leaked to the public by someone else
Document goes viral, get labeled "anti diversity"
Google reacts by labeling the message "toxic" and fires the guys
Much debate ensues

It fascinates me for the following reasons:

1. It strikes me as an appropriate rebuttal to the sentiment (which I've hear here at the DBB) that "reality leans left." In this case, the guy has put together a well documented, well sourced disagreement to the (left leaning) idea that disparities are due to injustices.
2. I see an example of people with no religious affiliation rejecting a scientifically backed, cogent argument simply because it doesn't fit their ideology, an accusation often levied against religious people as a product of their religion. (Thus, presented as something to which the non-religious are immune.)
3. It also reminds me of the global warming political battle.

Have you guys been following? What are your reactions?

My thoughts are that there was nothing "scientifically-backed" about the screed's claims in the least, and that was just one in a long line of examples of old-boys-club misogyny. It's the sort of bull★■◆● I'd expect from an MRA subreddit. A former Google employee wrote a fantastic rebuttal describing how the traits the original piece's author claims are "feminine" only make someone a better engineer and project manager.

Some of this guy's opinions are based in a little bit of fact. Sure, there are differences between the way men think and the way women think. There's no argument here. Our brains are biologically different for the most part, with more than a few exceptions. But where he went horribly off the rails was when he essentially labeled all women as neurotic. I mean, as a female, I could label all men as loutish oversexed cavemen, but would this description fit ALL men?

He also never realized how difficult it is for a women to enter into a career where it's already dominated by an "old boys culture", or "bro culture" to begin with. I've run into it myself, when I worked as an automobile mechanic for a few years, back when women were expected to be "in the home and pregnant". Most women today will either be eventually expelled or revolted by the whole idea of a "bro-culture" and that bro culture will do it's damnedest to repel any female invaders to their club. It takes a certain hardy stock of female to put up with it, but usually they have to mold themselves to become "one of the guys" in order to be accepted. Me, I took the time to change a few minds and make new friends and STILL keep my job and sense of humor. But I'll tell you, it was like pushing against a mountain of preconceived male sexist nonsense to make it work at all.

Related to this whole incident, I was reading a few articles talking about the software and gaming industries that noted how, from earlier times which had seen percentages almost starting to approach parity between male and female programmers, there was a precipitous decline in females in that field during the late 70s to early 80s. The strongest correlation suggested was how home personal computers (and, slightly later, video game consoles) were very much marketed as "boys' toys" based on data suggesting that somewhat higher percentages of boys used them. This created a self-reinforcing pattern of girls not getting into programming because that same targeted marketing was completely ignoring them. Even today, when there have been at least small gains made, the disparity in the software industry is still pretty enormous. And unlike this chauvinistic idiot suggests, it has absolutely nothing to do with women being "less suited" for programming or engineering. Hell, last year's biopic "Hidden Figures" should dispel that notion instantly.

Thanks for making some of my points.

The rebuttal linked opens by claiming that the statements are incorrect, but that the [rebuttal's] author is not an authority in the field, so he'll leave it to others to prove their incorrectness. Turns out, the author [of the Google manifesto] is a biologist, and does have a degree of authority in the field which which to back his claims, along with citing outside sources. This is pretty clearly a case of "the science doesn't fit my agenda, so I'm going to reject it."

Attributing conclusions that women are somehow not fit for leadership or programming to the "Google manifesto" is simply projecting. The author doesn't make those claims - he claims that there are biological reasons which could explain why you see the disparity - but doesn't take that to any superiority/inferiority conclusions.

I agree that the "good old boys club" exists - but this guy's point is that fighting fire with fire (fighting the "good old boys club" discrimination with "diversity" discrimination) isn't the answer. The response he received was essentially doubling down on the position - by alienating him for daring to voice an opinion that disagreed with the group think.

"Projection" nothing, this is the very definition of dog-whistle politics. Or to use a popular meme, "I'm not saying it's aliens...but aliens." Stated or not, you don't write something like that without having one specific purpose in mind. As far as authority goes, I'd challenge you to find a single respectable scientific publication out there that attributes gender disparity in STEM fields to differences in neurochemistry instead of opportunity. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Actually, I went ahead and dug up the original document text myself. He's cherry-picking random study results and attempting to apply them to observations without doing any sort of actual legwork to explore causation. There's nothing remotely scientific about this text.

Top Gun wrote:"Projection" nothing, this is the very definition of dog-whistle politics. Or to use a popular meme, "I'm not saying it's aliens...but aliens." Stated or not, you don't write something like that without having one specific purpose in mind. As far as authority goes, I'd challenge you to find a single respectable scientific publication out there that attributes gender disparity in STEM fields to differences in neurochemistry instead of opportunity. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Actually, I went ahead and dug up the original document text myself. He's cherry-picking random study results and attempting to apply them to observations without doing any sort of actual legwork to explore causation. There's nothing remotely scientific about this text.

Projection, indeed. You're projecting, too. Why do you refuse to take the author's stated intentions at face value? You project, too, when you challenge me to find studies which drive at different points than the author - the author's point is that Google is artificially creating discrimination to explicitly create more opportunity for females than for males and it isn't helping. We both know that the valley is a hotbed of sexism and chauvinism - but you're projecting if you read "women don't belong here" from the document. Finally, you're guilty of projection when you treat the text as if it purports to be the product of scientific research - it's an opinion piece, not a research paper. That being said, it puts forward some hypotheses (which seem to make sense based on the citations provided) which may be worth researching, but they aren't being treated as such - they're being treated as heresy which must rejected on the basis of their [projected political] message, not their merits.

snoopy wrote:...I agree that the "good old boys club" exists - but this guy's point is that fighting fire with fire (fighting the "good old boys club" discrimination with "diversity" discrimination) isn't the answer. The response he received was essentially doubling down on the position - by alienating him for daring to voice an opinion that disagreed with the group think.

I'll have to agree with you on that point. I think Google went too far in firing him. They missed an opportunity to create a company-wide teachable moment for everyone involved. Now all we have is a bitter fired employee and everyone choosing sides either defending him or excoriating him. The way to change minds and heal wounds is take a deep breath and use our supposed smart brains to learn from the experience so that people can see things from the perspectives of others and perhaps cause lasting change for the better.

But I think that by creating an internal memo that contained a few misconceptions based on sex, he pretty much built a "bro" wall around himself that he now has to defend. He based some of his arguments on a few emotional gut feelings. It's no surprise that women reacted negatively. He could have started a better discourse by encouraging discussion and not making preconceived assumptions based on a person's sex. In my personal experience living with an engineer, most competent engineers usually like to iterate towards a solution in a logical manner. He came off as a sexist bitter little nerd commenting from inside of his "bro" sanctum. That may not have been his intention, but that's how women took it. He also missed the fact that women in general are better at language skills, something that I'd think would be a big help in computer programming. It's a language after all. So there are definitely other factors going on with the lack of females entering STEM fields.

See what you think of this article about sex bias in STEM fields snoopy.

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~srugheimer ... urces.html

First, let's start with this.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/

Then,

After reading his paper (You know I try to see if the claims are substantiated or BS), I find that it's well researched and with good cited sources, and it really does look like Google didn't want a discussion of diversity (and I mean true diversity based on merits instead of 'feels') to exist inside their company.

How can you have reasoned discussions when one side simply refuses to talk with the other when the other side is demonstrating sound reasoning?

...again, correlation does not imply causation. No one's debating the fact that there are observable variances in the average values of certain traits between the biological sexes (but even then, contrary to what he's saying, the jury is very much out on how far the "nature vs. nurture" scale swings either way, and that's before you even get into gender identity). However, he's taking these differences and making a massive logical leap straight to "women aren't in leadership roles as much because they tend to do X instead of Y" while ignoring the massive flashing neon elephant in the room. Where is his examination of whether or not women experienced an equally-feasible path towards those career options in the first place? Where was his acknowledgement of the fact that simply changing the gender of the name on an equal resume substantially affects the person's perceived qualification for the position? Like, I'm sorry, but if that screed was your idea of "well-researched," you need to seriously re-evaluate your standards. The man had a clear political agenda from the get-go and attempted to massage data in order to support it.

Ferno wrote:How can you have reasoned discussions when one side simply refuses to talk with the other when the other side is demonstrating sound reasoning?

Like I said above Ferno, Google should NOT have fired him. They made the typical knee-jerk PC reaction. Google "mishandled the situation" was an understatement. What Google did was thee most counterproductive thing that they could have done. That action won't do anything positive towards making changes in a culture which is perceived to be out of touch or sexist. What they DID do was create an embittered ex-employee who is now using the public bully pulpit to vent his grievances and claim victim hood. So guess who's putting this guy on a pedestal as some sort of poster boy to further for their cause of going after the PC culture? The Alt-Right for God's sake.

http://www.salon.com/2017/08/09/fired-g ... nterviews/

https://www.recode.net/2017/8/14/161456 ... -ties-cnbc

Oh hey, The Economist saved me some typing.

Top Gun wrote:...again, correlation does not imply causation. No one's debating the fact that there are observable variances in the average values of certain traits between the biological sexes (but even then, contrary to what he's saying, the jury is very much out on how far the "nature vs. nurture" scale swings either way, and that's before you even get into gender identity). However, he's taking these differences and making a massive logical leap straight to "women aren't in leadership roles as much because they tend to do X instead of Y" while ignoring the massive flashing neon elephant in the room. Where is his examination of whether or not women experienced an equally-feasible path towards those career options in the first place? Where was his acknowledgement of the fact that simply changing the gender of the name on an equal resume substantially affects the person's perceived qualification for the position? Like, I'm sorry, but if that screed was your idea of "well-researched," you need to seriously re-evaluate your standards. The man had a clear political agenda from the get-go and attempted to massage data in order to support it.

Seeing as this is a two-part response, I'll try to separate them as best I can.

Now, about the names-on-resume part, that's well documented. But I'd like to see a similar study where names are changed for a different type of work, such as child care, nursing or any other line of work we normally associate with women. It could be useful data.

And I went through the whole thing. I don't see any sort of political agenda, but a person pointing out the fact that there are internal problems that are in need of addressing. Did you see the part where Google has programs only available for one gender and certain races? He showed that there are inherent left and right biases that need to be acknowledged and talked about. As for women not being in as many leadership roles as men, that is correct because stats and studies show that women tend to drift towards more towards the work/life path while men tend to drift towards the status path.

Tunnelcat wrote:See what you think of this article about sex bias in STEM fields snoopy.

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~srugheimer ... urces.html

Yeah - I see it all the time at work (I work in STEM) - in subtle ways. My bottom line when I'm hiring (again, for STEM positions) - I want to find people who I think will be good, quality contributors - regardless of their age/race/gender/etc. I have hard enough time finding qualified candidates that I can't afford to be racist/sexist, even if I wanted to be (which I don't).

It's too bad there aren't more employers with your attitude snoopy. Hiring people who have the best qualifications despite their immutable traits is good business practice. The tech industry is still having their issues however.

https://mic.com/articles/175136/women-i ... onferences

HA HA HA...tell that to the affirmative action crowd.

If not with affirmative action, how would you right past wrongs Spidey?

As I have stated before...it's not possible to correct past wrongs.

OK, you can't correct past wrongs, what's done is done. But how do you make things right in the future or do we all just sit back and stomach an unfair status quo?

You had it right when you agreed that companies should hire based on qualifications and not on race, gender etc.

But in the real world, bias, bigotry and sexism still drive a lot of human decisions. How do you work around that and still be fair to those applicants who are qualified, but who are having difficulty being hired because of either a minority status or for just a being woman? This stuff still goes on even today.

Got me...I only know the right thing to do...not how to force people to do it.

That's what the courts are for and that was the original intent of Affirmative Action, to use the courts to remedy wrongs caused by institutional bias and bigotry. But what's now apparent is that Affirmative Action has morphed into a quota system, essentially it's a sledgehammer performing a scalpel's job. It's creating more and more resentment.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... s_a_q.html

What…resentment caused by ill-conceived policy…say it isn’t so!

Just like how Google is using diversity to fill a quota instead of using it as an inherent virtue.

Spidey wrote:What…resentment caused by ill-conceived policy…say it isn’t so!

It's not an ill conceived idea and the problem of discrimination obviously still exists, but a fair remedy for everyone may be more difficult to attain. The politicians, the courts and SCOTUS have been at it for years.

An interesting dissertation on this very complex issue:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/

Top Gun wrote:My thoughts are that there was nothing "scientifically-backed" about the screed's claims in the least, and that was just one in a long line of examples of old-boys-club misogyny. It's the sort of bull★■◆● I'd expect from an MRA subreddit. A former Google employee wrote a fantastic rebuttal describing how the traits the original piece's author claims are "feminine" only make someone a better engineer and project manager.

I think that's true, but the argument ultimately doesn't deliver what the former Google employee seems to think it does. There is fierce debate as to whether there are "feminine" traits and "masculine" traits or, if there are such traits, whether they are as the original piece's author described, but the former Google employee doesn't engage in any of this debate. Instead, he asserts that "feminine" traits make an engineer a better engineer. Sure. But what he needs to show is that "feminine" traits make an engineer a better engineer more than "masculine" traits do if he wants to actually counter the argument in the original piece. (I'm using the terms "masculine" and "feminine" as in the original piece and the way the former Google employee assumed them to be for the sake of his argument.) The former Google employee's argument is just another one of the many weak arguments I've read both for and against the original piece.

I really don't see how he does need to, honestly. The original author was asserting that there are certain inherently "feminine" characteristics that make women less likely to pursue software engineering as a profession, and less likely to thrive in that career if they do. The rebuttal's author counters that, in his direct experience, those same qualities are invaluable in higher-level engineering projects. He's not saying that the "feminine" traits are inherently superior to the "masculine" traits, just that they're valuable in and of themselves and should be embraced as such. The onus of proof still lies on the original complainant to show that these traits exist in the first place, and that they are the root cause of what he suggests.

The traits that the original author identified as feminine are beneficial for being an engineer. However, they would have to be as beneficial as the traits that the author identified as masculine to expect a 50/50 split between engineers with "feminine" versus engineers with "masculine" traits. Even if, or especially if, the author is sexist, you have to admit that he assigned men the ones more important for engineering.

Top Gun wrote:The onus of proof still lies on the original complainant to show that these traits exist in the first place, and that they are the root cause of what he suggests.

Maybe. On the other hand, couldn't someone just as easily say that since the status quo is that an unequal split occurs between female and male engineers, then the onus of proof is on those who believe that it should be an equal split? The onus of proof can be an important concept, particularly when one side claims something, to protect the other side from the unfair burden of proving a negative (e.g., the onus of proof is on the guy claiming unicorns exist, not on the other guy to prove that they don't exist anywhere in the entire universe). In this case, I don't see that the onus of proof clearly belongs to either side though.

I see topgun hasn't read the memo, even though he's had plenty of time to do it.

Ferno wrote:I see topgun hasn't read the memo, even though he's had plenty of time to do it.

Or he read the entire thing weeks ago and sees it as having no productive value whatsoever. Try again.

Top Gun wrote:Or he read the entire thing weeks ago and sees it as having no productive value whatsoever. Try again.

Okay. I'm going to ★■◆●ing bury you now.

The original author was asserting that there are certain inherently "feminine" characteristics that make women less likely to pursue software engineering as a profession, and less likely to thrive in that career if they do.

Strawman. Nowhere does it state that in any place of the memo. The only way you could have come to that conclusion is you came in with a confirmation bias and only saw what you wanted to see.

The onus of proof still lies on the original complainant to show that these traits exist in the first place, and that they are the root cause of what he suggests.

Onus of proof was shown via citations to peer-reviewed studies. If you had actually looked, you would have found this in the memo... https://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf

And this one too.
https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2011/SPP ... m_2006.pdf

Go ahead, disagree with the findings of David P. Schmitt, who holds a PhD in Psychology, U. Mi; Anu Realo, PhD, University of Tartu, Martin Voracek, DSc, DMSc, PhD, MSc, MPhil; Jüri Allik, PhD U. Moscow, PhD U. Tampre, Finland.

The guy outlined some real problems in google but you seem to think it has... what was the term you used? Oh yes... 'no productive value whatsoever'. Sure. Sweeping problems under the carpet and blaming the guy for being 'anti-diversity' is a great way to have a productive value, isn't it?

I stand by the assertion that you did not read it, given your atrocious understanding of it, and I further state that you only read a few sentences into it before your backfire effect kicked in and dismissed it because 'patriarchy', your misguided beliefs in feminism, and your outright DENIAL of the facts presented in each and every paper that's been cited in the memo

Now about this time, you'll flip out, write this paragraph how I'm an idiot, or I'm sexist, or I'm a misogynist, or whatever label that just doesn't apply to me because I've never shown any behaviour towards any of it... or whatever label you want to slap on me. I can't stop you. But it will be fun to read if you do.

Or I could just respond by saying that I don't give a flying ★■◆● about your terribly incorrect assessments, and that the phrase "misguided beliefs in feminism" is easily the biggest crock of bull★■◆● I've ever seen you post here. But hell, if you want to remain willfully deaf to blasting dog whistles, be my goddamn guest. At this point I'm just incredibly thankful you'll never be in a management position over me.

I mean holy ★■◆●:

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.

This ★■◆● is straight out of Hannity's blow-hole.

Top Gun wrote:Or I could just respond by saying that I don't give a flying ★■◆● about your terribly incorrect assessments, and that the phrase "misguided beliefs in feminism" is easily the biggest crock of bull★■◆● I've ever seen you post here. But hell, if you want to remain willfully deaf to blasting dog whistles, be my goddamn guest. At this point I'm just incredibly thankful you'll never be in a management position over me.

Because I believe in true equality? Because I believe that Google should not have programs limited to certain genders and races, disguised as 'equality'? Because I don't believe in the 'wage gap' and other loads of ★■◆● that's being foisted on us like a good unthinking individual? Because I believe that diversity really should be a virtue in itself, and it shouldn't be used as a quota system? Because I faced down my own biases and accepted the science cited in the memo?

I love how you're now "I don't give a ★■◆●" after I've shut you down completely. And if I was in a management position above you, I'd be sure you did your job instead of letting you engage in any kind of social engineering.

which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause

You want to see an example of this in action? Look up what college students are doing to each other in the name of 'defending cultural appropriation', and the oh-so lovely safe spaces.

If you're saying that's horseshit, then you have not been paying attention.

Ah yes, I'm sure Google is in dire need of a Young Straight White Males Support Group. God forbid we attempt to "social engineer" our way out of disparity though. And you didn't shut down ★■◆●, because nowhere did I deny those studies' results, but instead how the author was woefully misapplying them and/or cherry-picking those that suited his preconceptions. (I can link my share of studies pointing out how this area is far from settled research.) You can think whatever the hell you want if it makes you feel better.

And yes, making mountains out of molehills is my very definition of horseshit. "College students occasionally do absurd things." In other news, the sky gets dark during an eclipse.

Top Gun wrote:God forbid we attempt to "social engineer" our way out of disparity though.

I like the sarcasm. I feel that some degree of social engineering is necessary. Bias is hard to overcome and we need to tackle it together as a society, trying every method available.

I wanted to post this article. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with all of the author's points, it's just one of the many articles I've read on this subject. It's a super complicated problem with no easy answers, but continued awareness and discussion will help us move forward toward solutions.

I've been in tech a while and I was once passed over for a less qualified woman, a friend of mine who applied for the same job as me. We were both surprised! It bothered me a little because I really needed the job, but I also knew I had a solid skill set and another job would be around the corner, and it was.

Well Topgun, it all comes down to this -- you can't accept what the memo says because it goes against all the bull★■◆● you were taught to believe, and so you'll make up any justification to cover it up.

Not the first time I've seen it. People are actually getting stabbed because they're not toeing the line.

I've been in tech a while and I was once passed over for a less qualified woman, a friend of mine who applied for the same job as me. We were both surprised!

You've just experienced the diversity quota, pushed by SJW's.

Ferno wrote:Well Topgun, it all comes down to this -- you can't accept what the memo says because it goes against all the bull★■◆● you were taught to believe, and so you'll make up any justification to cover it up.

Not the first time I've seen it. People are actually getting stabbed because they're not toeing the line.

Let's flip things around: you went into this memo predisposed to agree with it no matter how shaky its claims, because the mere thought of feminism appears to send you into irrational paroxysms, and thus you ignored blatantly-obvious dog whistles scattered all over it. (The fact that you're unironically using "SJW" as a pejorative is proof positive.) See, look, I can throw around accusations as well. You don't have the high ground on this any more than I do, so don't insult both of us by claiming as much.

vision wrote: I wanted to post this article. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with all of the author's points, it's just one of the many articles I've read on this subject. It's a super complicated problem with no easy answers, but continued awareness and discussion will help us move forward toward solutions.

The point raised in this that I strongly agree with is that diversity initiatives at the time of employment are in many ways too late. You can't fabricate qualified candidates from whole cloth; the real solution is making sure there are candidates in the first place by investing at the high school and college levels. I'm reminded of that viral video from a few years back where a 4- or 5-year-old girl had already figured out the supreme bull★■◆● of the toy aisle gender divide: both conscious and unconscious bias start very early in life, and they need to be combated early as well.

Did I?

That's quite the claim seeing as I actually came into it with a neutral mindset. I read it, read the cited sources and determined it was on solid ground.

You used terms like 'dog whistle' in a way that makes no sense and you're latched onto your preconception that he's inherently sexist and using the memo as justification. You're claiming shaky ground when those sections are essentially coles notes of publications from people who hold doctorates, and you ignored the fact that he pointed out a problem with google only allowing their programs to be taught to certain people. You also missed the solutions he proposed in favour of screaming that it's terrible.

I'll say it again, seeing as you missed it -- I am for true equality. If you were actually paying attention, you would see that feminism is being used as a hammer to bludgeon to shame people instead of the scalpel it should be. The fact that I have to actually SAY I'm for equality just baffling, seeing as you're the only one here who actually believes I'm not.

This right here?

at the time of employment are in many ways too late

Was one of the points the memo raised. If you weren't so angry and dismissive, you would have caught that.

Hell, your entire passage is one giant strawman.

you're unironically using "SJW" as a pejorative

Do you understand where I used it, and why?

And without using anything but your memory, where can these passages be found?

Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive

As with many things in life, gender differences are
often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”

--------------------------------

Tunnelcat wrote:Like I said above Ferno, Google should NOT have fired him. They made the typical knee-jerk PC reaction. Google "mishandled the situation" was an understatement. What Google did was thee most counterproductive thing that they could have done. That action won't do anything positive towards making changes in a culture which is perceived to be out of touch or sexist. What they DID do was create an embittered ex-employee who is now using the public bully pulpit to vent his grievances and claim victim hood. So guess who's putting this guy on a pedestal as some sort of poster boy to further for their cause of going after the PC culture? The Alt-Right for God's sake.

Meant to respond to this earlier.

Indeed, they should not have. Instead it could have been used as a golden opportunity to explore the issues and improve them but instead we have a 'you don't think like us, therefore you're gone' mentality. And when the alt-right tried to co-opt it as part of their cause? Insane, but predictable. People aren't boxes. They can't be filed into neat little areas that fit on a spreadsheet. You can't just go 'You are X, therefore you get to do Y, even if you're underqualified or are not qualified for the task' (Vision's experience is indicative of that) Everyone has their strengths and drawbacks and so should be teamed up with others that support and maximize each others strengths while attenuating drawbacks. Someone can create awesome hardware? Great! Pair them up with someone who can write stellar machine code, and someone who can design an amazing UI. Being able to build a good team to accomplish the needed goals requires good people. Which... is also another point of the memo.

Ferno wrote:

I've been in tech a while and I was once passed over for a less qualified woman, a friend of mine who applied for the same job as me. We were both surprised!

You've just experienced the diversity quota, pushed by SJW's.

And I was Ok with it because I think those quotas are important. There is a lot of good reasoning behind the idea that the overall benefits to society are offset by these "unjust" hiring practice. Think "Stanford prison experiment". People often fall into behavioural stereotypes whether they are biologically disposed or not. In tech, the problem with women is less about technical proficiency than you might think. I've got some male co-workers that are really goddamn bad at their jobs and it's totally glossed over. If they were women people would chalk it up to "women aren't good at this stuff." Luckily, where I work the women with the tech jobs are great at them.

This could easily devolve into a discussion about the pros and cons of meritocracy (and how we don't have one and never had), but unfortunately I don't have time to participate in this thread any longer.