Firing expected of Google employee who penned controversial memo on women

> To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work

Didn't the paper suggest biological reasons for not entering the field and nothing to do with capability?

While I can understand Google deciding to fire the author, he's embarrassed the shit out of his company in a very public way, I think it would be sad if they do.

The dude has some serious misconceptions about the world and people, but I think his heart is in the right place. He's working from some bad assumptions and has come to bad conclusions as a result. It's classic Garbage-In-Garbage-Out.

I'd really like to see the Goog take this as an opportunity to really reach out to this guy (and hopefully all the other software bros who give enough of a fuck to pay attention) and help him understand better. If they can get through to him, they will have a very persuasive proponent of reform on their hands.

Also, treating this guy with respect and not firing him outright will demonstrate that open conversation about important issues is allowed at Google.

And, in case it sounds like I agree with Mr. Bro Grammer, "wimmins is soo emotional", I think the gentleman needs a solid walloping with a clue-stick.

Yes! Men and women are of course equal. They're just different, and different people choose to do different things. Why is that so fucking controversial?

> So now the CEO of one of the richest companies on earth

Even more frightening--one of the companies that has the most power in determining the information that people see.

> Our co-workers shouldn't have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states, being "agreeable" rather than "assertive," showing a "lower stress tolerance," or being "neurotic."

Ugh, this is not okay. It is almost certain the author meant "agreeable" and "neurotic" as two of Big Five personality traits (others being open, conscientious, extraverted), this is standard terminology in psychology. And it is indeed established that women score higher on agreeableness and neuroticism, across cultures.

I'd think the right conclusion to draw is that Google should be a great place to work even if you are agreeable and neurotic (alternative wording would be sensitive). Instead, Pichai implies Google is not a great place to work if you are agreeable or sensitive, and denies science that women are more agreeable and sensitive. Denying reality is useless.