The memo made four contentions about women....it wasn't just about women but as we are talking about those wonderful creatures lets look at what he said:

'Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things'

'Women on average are more cooperative'.

'Women on average are more prone to anxiety'.

'Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average'.

More comment on this from Dr. Debra W. Soh, a Toronto-based writer who received her PhD in sexual neuroscience from the University of York.

'Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong,” Soh wrote. “This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at.'

Yet....Apparently Mills from 1869 supersedes that.

All I see are 'feelings' and 'values' over reason and science.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Its Google - I'd hazard a bet that gender limitations, or sex, race, religion or shoe size, play absolutely no real role in how someone can do the job. Its an IT company.

Last I checked, what was important was IT skills (and in some cases non-IT skills).

Its absurd that people are even arguing over gender and diversity, except in terms of prejudice in terms of IT work.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

'Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong,” Soh wrote. “This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at.'

Most certainly true. Oddly though it tends to be that we then use arguments like this that show difference, to show why women shouldn't be doing x or y, and rarely if ever why men shouldn't be doing x or y etc.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I don't know who is saying that though.

This memo certainly wasn't.

If someone is qualified to do a job then who cares what their gender is.

I spent quite a lot of my time encouraging girls to take up IT at after school options meetings....lots of good girl students but the gender break down patterns always seemed to be generally the same.

Women shouldn't be shoe-hored into things or feel bad about their choices because of other people's ideology.

Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Aug 2017 11.25am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I don't have a problem with diversity training in the work place - Simply because I think its wise for a company to establish what is and what is not proper conduct in the workplace and creating a non-hostile environment for employees. Working in IT for 16 years I've seen a lot of sexism, and sexist banter that really doesn't help.

That said, it shouldn't be about what is and isn't the right way to think, but establishing what is and isn't acceptable in the work place. I think a lot of people don't really think how 'banter' can affect other people indirectly.

I don't think people should have to like that, but they do have to consider they're in a shared space with other individuals. It also should include the idea of accepting that other people might have the most 'enlightened' view of identity politics and that they also need to be tolerated - its often better to address an issue between employees so that they can all understand why each party has an issue, than to just fire someone because they don't fit with your ideological view. And that works both ways - Militancy of Political Correctness ideologies is no more acceptable than racism.

Things like a disciplinary hearing should only really be the end result of people who aren't willing to adjust their professional personality in the work place, and are creating hostility - either way (you don't need people who see sexism behind every issue any more than you need sexists).

You can't have tolerance without being reasonable, and you can't expect people to change overnight or want to change - all you can do is set a reasonable policy of how you deal with issues in the work place - and transgressions against those policies that directly affect the work place.

Some people, yeah they go to far - but often they don't really know why their actions are creating a problem. They don't need to be sacked - but they do need to know what the company finds as acceptable behaviour.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

You know what, I just give up. I'm not going to be a party to this Orwellian madness. There are better things to do.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)