Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Click here if you have trouble viewing the map (Reporters Without Borders)
REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS have released this map today to show where countries rank in terms of press freedom across the world.
Ireland fares well, in the rankings, coming 16th in the world with countries like Finland, the Netherlands and Norway at the very top.
The countries on the map marked in black – indicating a “very serious situation” – include China, Somalia, the Syrian Arab Republic and Eritrea.
Today, Reporters Without Borders said the index “spotlights the negative impact of conflicts on freedom of information and its protagonists”.
They also said the ranking of some countries has also been affected by a “tendency to interpret national security needs in an overly broad and abusive manner to the detriment of the right to inform and be informed”.
This trend constitutes a growing threat worldwide and is even endangering freedom of information in countries regarded as democracies.
The three countries at the bottom of the index – Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eritrea – were described as “news and information black holes and living hells for the journalists who inhabit them”.
The organisation also said countries that pride themselves on being democracies and respecting the rule of law “have not set an example”, claiming that the freedom of information is too often sacrificed “to an overly broad and abusive interpretation of national security needs”.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Looks like the author of the memo was right, you completely left out the main point of it. They wrote about how Google has become too PC and people are afraid to express different political views for fear of being fired. He is also right in what he wrote you need only look a the latest in neuroscience, it is showing the male and female brains differs all the way down to the cellular level. The January issue of the Journal for neurological research blows this social constructionist stuff out of the water.
@John Mc Grath: “political views” is that what we’re make chauvinism now ?
@Boganity: nothing chauvinistic about it, read the memo not someones opinion about it. They never said what men and women should do merely pointed out there may be natural differences between the sexes which could go towards explaining the choices they make, but also stresses a persons sex tells you nothing about their abilities. If indeed as science is pointing out there are differences in the male a female brain all they way down to the cellular level, how totalitarian do you think a government would need to become to force equal outcomes?
@John Mc Grath: There are no differences between female and male brains. The brain is not a sexed organ. Sure, it’s extremely plastic, but that does not mean that there are differences between female and male brains.
@Veronica: “Study finds some significant differences in brains of men and women”
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/study-finds-some-significant-differences-brains-men-and-women
Don’t be anti-science Veronica.
@Covfefe MAGA: I’m not http://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468.short
@Veronica: hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa
@Alan O’Rourke: Can you not read? Is that paper not accessible to you?
Sorry, Veronica but you are wrong and that research is obsolete. It is fundamentally why they have found differences in gender dysmorphia brains. So you cannot have it both ways.
Individual brain differences and variations in capacities between different individuals are vastly greater than the crude generalisations of supposed differences between male and female brains.
@Tony Daly:
Sure, if you think;
Processing
Chemistry
Structural
Blood flow
Brain Activity
Is ‘crude generalisation’
@Pádraig Ó Raghaill: did you read the paper I posted?
@Veronica:
“Sex matters not only at the macroscopic level,where male and female brains have been found to differ in size and connectivity, but at the microscopic level too.This themed issue of the Journal of Neuroscience Research highlights sex differences of the brain at all scales, from the genetic and epigenetic, to the synaptic, cellular, and systems differences—differences known to be present throughout the life span. The work published in this issue powerfully illustrates that sex matters and that researchers can no longer rely on extrapolation from research on male animals and cells, which obscures key differences that might influence clinical studies.
@Veronica: Neuroscience today is at a crossroads. Do we continue the status quo and ignore sex as a biological variable,or do we acknowledge that sex influences the brain at all levels and address the major gaps in knowledge? The National Institutes of Health now mandates the inclusion of sex as a biological variable. Without this mandate, scientific discoveries that could benefit the health of both men and women would be hampered.”
From the Jan/Feb 2017 issue of the Journal for neurological research
@John Mc Grath:
>The National Institutes of Health now mandates the inclusion of sex as a biological variable.
Don’t disagree with this at all. I disagree with what people here are peddling in that male and female brains are so innately different that men cannot be empathetic and women cannot be good at science, which is total BS. Acknowledging sex differences in science is a great step forward, considering for a v long time only male biology was considered.
@Veronica:
Not sure anyone is saying that Veronica. However, men and women have key competencies where each is better at certain tasks.
@Veronica: No one on this thread is peddling that, nor was the author of the memo. The point is that while average differences tell you nothing about the characteristics or ability of one individual, they do explain differences at a population level. And therefore, that inequality of outcome (fewer women in tech) isn’t necessarily an indicator of some sort of discrimination.
This should be approximately as controversial as the idea that the preponderance of black sprinters isn’t evidence of discrimination against white sprinters.
@Veronica: so if the male and female brains differ all the way down to the cellular do you not think we act out that biological reality? Are we not our brains? Or are we going to insert a soul here again? Can you not see how this could lead to different choices or even skill sets?
@Ben McArthur: Nailed it. Please let the penny drop now.
@John Mc Grath: these comments love to tell us women are not as good as men at STEM because nature. What are women better at then men then? Hmmmm let me guess….
@Deborah Behan:
That is not what it says at all
@John Mc Grath: I would not go so far as to say that general differences between male and female brains are so significant that gender should determine competence or suitability for occupational tasks.
Individual variability and suitability or lack of suitability fir the tasks should be the deciding consideration.
Is the candidate good enough for the job.
We have seen many areas of extreme occupations, once thought to be the exclusive preserve of men, which can equally well be done by suitable women.
Astronauts, deep sea diving, surgery and many other advanced spatial and motor type occupations in adverse circumstances can be performed equally well by women as by men.
The issue is not that male and female brains may be different but that the human brain is a highly complex, adaptive, plastic and flexible control system so that men and women can adapt equally well to highly demanding occupational tasks.
The other factor is that it is not necessarily the case that tentative and subtle differences between male and female brains confer some kind of inherent superiority of all male brains over all female brains. Individual variation between individual human beings regardless of gender is much more profound and vastly more relevant in task allocation.
Select the right person for the particular role, regardless of gender.
The problem with all human beings is an excessive level of defective perceptual pattern recognition. Over generalisation is certainly a human frailty and most human beings are predisposed to perceptual errors regardless of gender. Even empirical scientists can be prone to this frailty.
@Deborah Behan: I’m not saying what men and women can or can not do, just that there may be fundamental biological reason why we choose what to do. Do you not see the same thing is true of implying every difference in outcome is because of sexism?
@John Mc Grath: choice can be and is often constrained by gender stereotypicalassumptions, by social conditions, by social expectations and by the creation of working environments which are intentionally made unwelcoming for those of a different gender.
Gender alone offers little or no guidance as to the suitability of a candidate. Individual qualities do.
I rembember many years ago the weird old debates of different races having different capacities, different religions suiting people for different employment and even the old boy school test that only those who attended certain schools could and should have certain occupations.
The issue of gender, although irrelevant except in a very few cultural cases, say RC Priests, continues to persist.
@Tony Daly: that is a social constructionist view point. In order for it to be true you would have to discount the entire fields of evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology, you would need to explain how biological differences do not affect choice or behaviour, even though by affecting the brain we affect behaviour. In the study of every other sexually dimorphic species on the planet the difference between the the sexes are not controversial. Gender roles, sexual selection or mating habits can be studied but in humans it appears certain scientific view points will get you fired.
@Veronica: First paragraph: “Here we show that, although there are sex/gender differences in brain and behavior…”
BTFO by own source. Well I never.
It was to create debate but the ‘outraged’ fraternity rather knee-jerk reactions. Here is the original document with references. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
Everyone depending on where you come from have specific strengths weaknesses and cultural traits that transpire into capabilities. If anyone thinks female and male energies are the same they are wrong.
@Pádraig Ó Raghaill: Having read through that, there is very little that is any way controversial within. Appalling that he was fired for it.
@Hughie Geaney:
Yes, I have, apart from a somewhat bad explanation of engineering and a couple of debatable points it was rather on point. However, in this “transparent” culture we can only highlight a debate that aligns with the current far-left echo chamber. If you wish to delve into subjects and dissect any problems in current company cultures you will be met with the ‘outraged’ fraternity and as Google displayed, duly sacked.
@Hughie Geaney: Oh it’s so outrageous, that anybody could suggest that people should be employed on basis of their qualifications and skills, not on race, colour and gender…
@Pádraig Ó Raghaill: it wasn’t offensive and didn’t discriminate against me or my potential future employment or promotion so it’s a disgrace he was fired. Just fixed that for you.
Individual variations are significant and often quite profound.
Gender differences are often the result of flawed assumptions.
People differ between each other to quite a substantial and marked degree but the subtle and minimal variability due to gender is generally irrelevant to recruitment for occupations. Gender does nirptvrank on the bell curve of suitability for occupational roles.
Assess the suitability of the person and avoid the cul de sac of flawed gender assumptions.
@Pádraig Ó Raghaill: You can see what google are doing to certain youtubers by shutting down or denying them access to their accounts. Google are quickly becoming Orwell’s ministry of truth.
Does Google’s search algorithm recognise differences in preferences between the sexes? If so, isn’t that contrary to Google’s values?
@Ben McArthur: i bet it does. Women and men are different. They ultimate behave differently and its not always because of social constructed ideals of what a man or woman is meant to be. Just look at consumer shopping behaviors and expenditure.
The war on women (by some men) continues afoot. Bogus science now been levelled to justify prejudice, and cover the likes of Google’s shortcomings in this area.
@Austin Rock: why can’t the topic be discussed? It is a sign of intelligence to be able to listen to an opposing view point, without having to agree or disagree.
@Austin Rock: Which parts of the science were bogus, specifically?
@Alan Moore: firing someone for expressing an opinion is fascistic, if there are flaws in his argument, why not just point out the flaws?
@Alan Moore: discuss the science ? It is what it is your opinion doesn’t change that.
@Austin Rock: it’s part of an alt-right backlash which seeks to restore an old fashioned patriarchy in which men are restored to privilege.
The frustrating thing is the abuse of science in a highly selective way in a feeble attempt to justify false generalisations.
It seems that individual variations in abilities and altitudes are vastly greater than any generalised variations between genders. Indeed such generalised differences, to the extent that they exist at all, may be attributable to difference socialisation and different education.
Companies recruit based on individual talents and abilities. An individual based approach seems the sounder approach.
I’m still sceptical that dismissal offers an appropriate response to wrong headedness. It generates a sense of grievance and a feeding frenzy for the alt-right “earth is flat” types.
@Boganity: nor does the opinion piece of this guy who was deservedly sacked
@Tony Daly: In a previous comment you stated how you haven’t read the memo, but yet you’re now accusing the author of being alt-right and abusing science.
@Tony Daly: you absolute brainwashed maniac.
@Alan Moore: What if I put a memo out saying that we won’t/don’t hire men for certain roles because of their statistic tendency towards violence? Would that be acceptable to you?
You lot can’t even handle my discussion male violence on a news forum, you would all be baying for my blood if I said that at work.
@Veronica: Did he say women shouldn’t be hired at all?
Your analogy is in fact the complete opposite to his argument; that people should be treated as individuals
@Veronica: Great strawman argument. Try reading the memo. That way you can actually appose arguments that the employee made and not one’s you’ve invented in your head
@Beachmaster: Beach, best just ignore him as to do otherwise is to feed the Trollsite that is Tony Daly. The Tony Daly who wrote that post you referencesd might not be the same Tony Daly writing today.
@Covfefe MAGA: OMG you’re right, so you’re saying that there are innate differences between women and men (beyond reproductive capacities)? Then we (especially you guys seeing as you’re so staunchly in the camp of “male/female brain”) should remove all males from medical and teaching positions, given their tendency to sexually assault and murder at much higher rates than women. Men should be removed from any job that involves contact with another human being.
I mean, you can’t possibly argue with that, given that statistically men are FAR more likely to murder and rape than women are?
@Austin Rock: I’d have to wonder why women don’t pursue tech jobs. Blaming men is a bit simplistic – the issue won’t be resolved until we look at all reasons. If it’s childcare – that can be remedied. If it’s that women are bombarded with messages telling them that appearance is the be-all and end-all then that can be fixed.
But this ‘blame men’ rubbish isn’t helping anyone.
@Alan Moore: Anyone who uses false science to further a prejudice deserves jail time not to be debated with. An absolute sham of an argument there is no argument at all. Like Myers – the jewish thing masked the real offence that you know women are less than men – sick of the Male condescending attitudes that debase all women.
@Veronica: please point out in the memo in question where the author said females should be removed from their jobs.
@Martin Byrne: There are lots of reasons why women (and men) are conditioned in their formative years. Engineering is another area that is virtually devoid of women. I work in the software industry, my boss is a woman, my collegues are roughly 50/50 but in software engineering, coding etc it is devoid of women. Something else is happening here that we do not understand – it has feck all to do with science and biology and anyone entertaining that idea needs to be reprogrammed themselves.
@Beachmaster: The PC mob and their labels …..
@Tony Daly:
Where as the regressive left types such as yourself can’t handle any differing ideas than you own and can’t handle that there are different ideas to begin with, welcome to the real world.
@Austin Rock: So you don’t understand it, but somehow you know it’s not biology? Great.
You still haven’t told us which parts of the science were bogus
@Veronica: Are you deliberately being disingenuous, did you not read the memo, or are you stuck in a collapsing echo chamber? I know we’re not supposed to engage with trolls like you, but anyway…
The crux of the point made in the memo is that there *are* observable differences, at a macro level, between men and women. However, these are not polarising – there are spectra where men tend towards one end and women tend towards another. There is significant overlap. Men may be more violent at a macro level, but your point only has any credence if the least violent male is more violent than the most violent female. No one claims this to be true, much like they don’t claim that this kind of dichotomy is true of any other personality trait.
The SJW insistence that there is literally no difference between men and women (among other observable facts we are supposed to ignore to suit their warped world view) is dangerous.
@Richard: Richard I am indeed being disingenuous, deliberately too.
I don’t believe that women as a group and men as a group are either more predispositioned to certain jobs or not. My research group has more women in scientific positions than men, according to what you’re saying, that’s because women are just more predispositioned to science and are innately better at it.
>The crux of the point made in the memo is that there *are* observable differences, at a macro level, between men and women.
Have you thought about why this is? Genuinely, I’m not being facetious here. Have you looked at how society and culture influence people? You know that 200 years ago women were not allowed by men to vote because it was thought that women were feeble-brained and could not understand politics. You are using the same argument now to suggest that women as a class aren’t as good/smart as men. It’s purely cultural that you think the way you do.
I would loooooooove to see the reactions from the usual crowd on here if a memo were released saying that men should not be allowed to work in a certain field because they weren’t good at it.
Could you imagine if an email was leaked from within an education facility saying that they thought men should not be allowed to teach classes/interact with students because they are statistically more likely to sexually assault them because of their “biological impetus” (paraphrased from another commenter here, who said that it’s natural that males are more violent and commit sexual violence)??
The responses would be hilarious.
@Veronica: Did you read the piece? Any comment on it? He pretty much said the opposite to everything you seem to be attributing to him.
For eg, the opening paragraph:
‘I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this,then we can never truly solve the problem.’
@Veronica: We don’t need to imagine it. You’ve already made that argument, and no-one was sacked.
Andrea Leadsome made that argument and was rewarded with a cabinet position.
Also, the author of this memo didn’t even nearly say that women shouldn’t be allowed to work in certain fields.
Your arguments are so weak I wonder if they’re sincere
@Veronica: STRAWMAN!
@Lorem Ipsum: There is no way she is being sincere. Cant be.
Addendum: the comment replies to my OP are already hilarious.
>Your arguments are so weak I wonder if they’re sincere
Oh you mean am I sincere in saying that I think that men shouldn’t be allowed to work as medics or teachers or in any capacity that involves working with people? You bet I am!
I mean, if you’re all agreeing that women aren’t suited to certain jobs because of their innate biology, why would my agreement with you bother you?
@Veronica: Once again, that’s not the argument of the memo. You’re terrible at this.
@Hughie Geaney: The leaked internal document that triggered the controversy claimed “biological causes” explained the lack of women in tech industry leadership roles.
@Lorem Ipsum: But I’m agreeing with you. You’re saying that there are innate differences between women and men, and that affects their ability to do certain jobs. Am I wrong in that?
I’m agreeing with you here and taking it to the logical conclusion that seeing as women are just better carers and are more empathetic and are more creative and “open”, then we should, if not outright ban then create an atmosphere of extreme hostility towards, men working in the medical field or as teachers or scientists/lecturers.
@Austin Rock: That’s an overly simplistic and incomplete summary of what was said. Did you read it in it’s entirety? I will gladly discuss any of the points raised in it. I don’t agree with everything in it, but there is a lot of good talking points and it should not have ended up with the guy being sacked.
@Veronica: Yes, you’re wrong in that. That’s an inversion of what I’m saying, and of what the memo says.
@Lorem Ipsum: So you’re saying that there are NO differences between women and men, and that the memo got it wrong? You can’t just pick and choose to your liking. You either think women just are not suited to tech/science/top positions, because of their biology, or you don’t. You can’t say “oh, well yeah women are naturally rubbish at that, it’s their brains see?” but also disagree with “men should not be allowed to work as doctors/nurses/teachers because as males they are more likely to rape/kill, because of their biology”. You’re either all in or you’re all out. …or else you need to just admit you’re a misogynist who thinks women are deficient.
@Veronica: I’m not sexist but…. responses on the way!!! Disgusting how men think they can think for us, label us, tell us what we can and cannot do. Luckily we don’t have to listen to them anymore and can excite girls and young women to go into these fields and prove themselves. These dinosaurs will be long gone and still hoping a woman touches them in a meaningful way!
There is a tendency for people to believe what they desperately want to believe.
In an age of increasing gender equality, it is sad but inevitable that some men will feel resentful, threatened, anxious and demoralisation that the traditional male bastions of supposed superiority are being undermined and continue to be undermined. It is the ending of privilege and the rule of patriarchy. Such men will clutch on to an selective piece of research which can be interpreted or misinterpreted to supposedly demonstrate than men have superior capacities to women in certain areas.
The reality is that variations between individuals are vastly greater than supposed generalised differences between men and women.
Look at the individual.
@Deborah Behan:
What I find hilarious/disturbing/depressing is that these guys are making the same arguments made about 100 years ago when women wanted the vote. Literally the exact same.
@Deborah Behan: “Disgusting how they think they can think for us…”
A man has just been sacked for critiquing feminist ideological homogeneity. Who’s thinking for for?
“…label us…”
You and your fellow travellers are labelling anyone who wants to treat people as individuals as woman-haters
“tell us what we can and cannot do”
You’re defending the practice of limiting people’s’ careers because of what they are rather than who they are
“still waiting for a woman to touch them in any meaningful way”
And now we’re down to baseless speculation on the sex lives of those who dare to disagree. As if a person’s level of sexual activity had anything to do with the straight of their arguments
When you resort to such poor efforts, it’s obvious that even you know your arguments are weak
@Veronica: You should learn what “literally” means before using it in a sentence
@Lorem Ipsum: So you think that “women’s brains are different to the male brain, and that is why men are inherently better at certain things, such as technology and management” isn’t the same as “women’s brains are different to the male brain, and that is why men are inherently better at certain things, such as politics and democracy”?
@Lorem Ipsum:
>And now we’re down to baseless speculation on the sex lives of those who dare to disagree. As if a person’s level of sexual activity had anything to do with the straight of their arguments
Am I gonna see you defending me when all your mates say that I must be “fat” or “ugly” or “in desperate need of a good ride” and yet “will never get a man”?
>When you resort to such poor efforts, it’s obvious that even you know your arguments are weak
And yet your comrades are so fond of a good put down when talking to me.
@Veronica: Neither my mates nor my comrades ever said such thing.
If you think it’s a bad thing to say, why not say that to Deborah instead of agreeing with her?
You seem to want special rules for yourself.
@Lorem Ipsum: Oh no? Keep your eyes peeled in the future. Just yesterday I got the following comments, neither of which any of your mates called out.
>My god you are an argumentative brat.
>Here’s Millie Tant off on a rant again. Millie will never meet a nice man with that attitude.
If I see you on a comments section where somebody (invariably a buutthurt man) tells me I’m “the way I am” because I must be ugly, fat etc and am in need of sex from a man, I hope to see you there calling them out.
@Lorem Ipsum: It is exactly the argument of the memo, except turned around so that men are now the stereotypes. If you can’t understand this should you be contributing to this discussion?
@Veronica: TheJournal’s love of “the right kind generalisation” strikes again, I see. You’ve got them…
@Deborah Behan: Disgusting how you attribute that to all men.
@Veronica: How am I in any way connected to anyone who said that? Did I chime in to agree with them as you did with here? No I didn’t.
Wow this guy had a strong point. Why to sack him? He’s dead right that ideological diversity is more important than gender and race diversity. It seems by google logic that being logical, using facts and common sense is NOT socially fair…thus not practised.
@Tomasz Kuchnik: The leaked internal document that triggered the controversy claimed “biological causes” explained the lack of women in tech industry leadership roles.
@Austin Rock: Yes it does go to explaining. I’m sorry but that’s a fact. It doesn’t tell you how to judge an individual but when you look at people in groups like the left does to point out all the ‘inequalities’ you need all the facts at the table.
Without sight of the entire 3000 word memo, it is impossible to evaluate the Memo but if the Memo draws broad generalisations about gender differences and seeks to draw an argument that gender differences justify women being treated less equally in the workplace compared to men, then that is not an objectively correct position. Prejudice is still prejudice. Prejudice is not appropriate in the workplace.
That said, dismissal seems to be an excessive and disproportionate measure.
It is difficult to understand why there was simply not an answering response which drew attention to the faults and errors in the Memo and a request to the employee to cease disseminating unsustainable propositions about gender differences in the workplace.
@Tony Daly: you do realise it wasn’t a private email between friends, he sent it unsolicited to other employees.
@Boganity: it was foolish, inappropriate, offensive and wrong to disseminate a provocative internal memo to fellow employees which was uninvited and unnecessary but I would stop short of the sanction of dismissal for a first offence.
@Tony Daly: but he wasn’t sacked for sending it and we don’t know how many he sent it to or if it was part of a society of some sort. Imho he was sacked because the CEO whilst defending his question the company didn’t follow through on it.
@lavbeer: he authored and disseminated a memo which ran counter to the culture, ethos and gender equality tone of the organisation he worked for. He demonstrated bad science, poor judgment, abysmally bad adaptation all skills and a deficiency in social intelligence but I don’t think that he should have been dismissed unless he was established to have intentionally engaged in malicious behaviour.
I think that the poor lad was more of a fool than a knave.
Of course, Google could hardly leave the issue ignored.
@Tony Daly: he questioned the organisation and their programs on equality and diversity and the CEO acknowledged his right to do so. He offered some suggestions and reasons when there are fewer women in STEM and leadership. This was his reasoned opinion whether you agree of disagree. If he used bad science his colleagues could have refuted in writing. The place he was definitely right was indicating the employees are afraid to voice an opinion against company policy. And he a liberal by his own admission.
Men and women are not the same.boys and girls are different and so treat them different. Different jobs suit either sex better.
@p kilgannon: I totally agree. Men are not suited to being scientists because they lack the creativity required for scientific thinking. Men are not suited to working with children or old people because they are statistically more likely to sexually assault them, meaning that men should not be allowed to work as teachers or in the medical field in any capacity. Men are physically stronger than women, so men should only be allowed to do jobs where this can be applied, for instance collecting rubbish and mining coal.
You’re totally right.
@Veronica: Agree with some of your principles but you are being too general. Of course women would make better creche workers and pre school carers because they are more caring, compassionate and patient but it doesn’t mean that some men couldn’t do a good job. I agree that women in general make better teachers but men are needs in schools as men are far better at discipline. We don’t need science to tell us these things, its common sense.
@p kilgannon: For someone who hates what I say and implies I “hate men”, you sure do have a lot of anti-male sentiment.
Women are more “caring compassionate and patient” than men, now I’m not sure about you, but that’s pretty offensive to both men and women.
According to what you’re saying, we should not let men have any job where they must interact with people, especially people who require any form of special assistance (in the form of empathy, etc). So that would mean banning men from working as nurses and doctors, from being teachers, from working in management, etc.
And you say I’M anti-male.
@p kilgannon: Cant agree with you saying men lack creativity. This is a ridiculous claim. Just open a history or poetey book or look at the majority of todays great inventors and thinkers. Mostly men.
@Veronica: Well argued, Veronica. But don’t forget that children are most likely to be killed by their mothers so we really shouldn’t leave children in their custody. It’s just common sense
@Veronica: My god you are a strange one. I never said you were anti male. My point is that in the vast majority men and women are different, they are drawn to certain jobs and are better suited to different jobs. This I would think is common sense and doesn’t need a debate on because its obvious. You prob dont have kids but if you do and when the time comes to help them decide they’re future career you will get an insight into what most people already know.
@Lorem Ipsum: Oh absolutely. Children under 5 are more likely to be killed by their mothers, so we should remove all children from their mothers at birth and place them in the sole care of their fathers. However, from 5 upwards they should be removed from the father permanently as then they are more likely to be killed by their fathers. It is indeed common sense.
I mean, instead of actively trying to change society so that NO children are being killed by their parents, we should just accept that this is the way things are and that we can’t change it because it’s natural.
@Veronica: …….or we could treat people as individuals
(Good thing I’m self employed or you’d be trying to get me sacked for saying that)
@Lorem Ipsum: But you’re agreeing with the notion that women are somehow different than men and that would explain why there are so few women in top positions?
You either agree with the idea that there are differences in the capabilities between women and men, in which case my saying men should be removed from medicine/science/teaching because they’re much more likely to kill/rape, or else you don’t agree with the idea that there are innate differences between the sexes, and that anyone is capable of anything regardless of their sex, and that differences in sex by profession are down to societal/cultural influence.
@p kilgannon: Only because they get all the attention. There have been many great female artists, writers etc. who never got the patronage that their male counterparts got.
I await a concise rebuttal explaining why this guy’s ten page effort at a conscientious analysis of is wrong/sexist, oppressive etc.
Ive actually read the thing and its not any type of wild rant, its more a laboured attempt to de-escalate what he fears is an extreme ideological tendency.
This comment section and journal headline fake outrage backlash however,is predictable talkshow morality, sloganeering and tabloid behaviour. Manipulative demagoguery that shunts dialogue in favour of bolstering social divisions in the name of specific insidious virtues, the theoretical underpinnings of which I am quite certain most of the proponents are entirely unfamiliar with.
@Lorcán Ó Broin: I read it too and thought it was grand.
@Lorcán Ó Broin: I have now read it. It was poorly constructed and based on flawed assumptions although not overtly misogynistic. I get the impression that the lad has a chip on his shoulder and saw no sign of even handedness or objectivity in his assessment.
@Tony Daly: I never said objective, i said conscientious. As for poorly contructed i acknowledged it was a “laboured effort”.
But as for “no sign of even handedness”, i cant reconstruct that for you. The whole thing was an attempt to advocate for equality of opportunity for people as individuals, not according to a pre-conceived template or hierarchy of gender or ethnic stereotypes based on a rigid presumption of biases in which guilt and victimhood is apportioned according to immutable physical characteristics. That’s so orwellian it makes me shudder.
He was bound to get sacked but i think he couldnt live with those psychological strictures
Physically different…..yes..
emotionally different….yes.
Biologically different….yes.
Does it make sense that we are suited to different tasks…of course
Yes there are of course exceptions and that is why we don’t ban either sex from any job
@p kilgannon: lol at everyone agreeing with this.
>Yes there are of course exceptions and that is why we don’t ban either sex from any job
Until very recently I’d like to add.
@p kilgannon: individual differences are the significant differences in a work environment.
@Tony Daly: In most work environments. I’m not wrong.
@p kilgannon: yes I’m excellent at maths and crap at learning languages. But my brother is good at learning languages and crap at maths. You cannot generalise one sex against another. To do so makes you….?
@p kilgannon: what specific occupational tasks, if any, are all women incapable of due to supposed inherent incapacity, and which all men are inherently capable of?
@p kilgannon: So I work in research, and most of my group is female. Does that imply that men simply aren’t as good as females at science? That because of the differences between women and men, that the men simply cannot grasp the difficult concepts in our lab which is why there are so few of them?
@p kilgannon:
To make further sense from this story, wouldn’t it be helpful for Google HR department to disclose data based on say a decade’s worth of new in-house programming jobs, % applications by gender, and % job fulfilment by gender.
Resulting evidence could be useful in concluding the debate.
@Tony Daly: Thanks to their stronger physique, men are more suitable for physically demanding jobs than women. For example, jobs in mining and mechanics are laborious and involve handling heavy machinery. A few women have proved that they are capable of handling such jobs, but the majority of workers employed in these sectors are men. The armed forces also recruit more men than women.
Though women lack physical prowess, they score better than men in some other areas. For example, women are more caring and patient. These qualities make them excellent teachers and nurses. Women also possess better people skills and are considered more suitable for careers in hospitality and public relations.
@Veronica: No veronica, science is not a profession that I believe men can do any better than women or vice versa. No your place of work is not a true reflection on the amount of men working in science comparing to women as science is an industry dominated by males.
@p kilgannon: If you think women and men can equally be good scientists, why do you not extend that to technology?
@Deborah Behan: Insurance companies and pension actuaries do.
I’ve actually read the document he produced.
It’s pretty much fancily dressed nonsense. The man who wrote it makes very few scientific claims, and the ones he bothers to back up are very tame. Yes, biological differences exist between men and women. That’s about as in depth as the science goes. His other links are blog posts, magazine articles and some Wikipedia pages.
But his drawing of links between sex differences and software engineering is total conjecture. He doesn’t back it up at all and the whole thing devolves into a pretty typical far-right anti-left rant towards the end.
By the end of it, I got the impression that the guy was trying to ask for Google to provide more mental health support for their male staff but has spent so much time in internet comment sections that he doesn’t know how to put that in words.
@Pat Ryan: that’s a fair and balanced assessment. It is a poor piece of work, necessarily superficial, because it is quite short and full of flawed reasoning. The “article” was tendentious and reasoned backwards from a desired conclusion.
It was so poorly constructed that it had no absolutely chance of persuading fellow workers or management, ohhh yes, he has proven his hypothesis, “men are actually superior in most areas of work than women and from now on we need to reflect a pro male policy in recruitment and promotion”.
Perhaps, the “article” might be good enoughTheJournal.ie.
This is a bigger issue than at first appears as it has implications for the claim that heterosexual marriage is distinctive.
@Tom Newnewman: good on you Tom to contrive that supposed angle. You are totally led by the nose of your own warped ideology.
@Tom Newnewman: Or others claiming that it is NOT distinctive.
Sick and tired of the continuous outrage at everything these days. People have opinions, they differ, so what. Males and females differ. End of.
He said biological “differences” not “issues”, but who cares? Certainly not your journalists.
He’s had a job offer from alternative social network Gab.ai
In Scandinavian countries where they take every measure possible to make sure there are equal amounts of women working in STEM fields they still end up with women making very similiar career choices on average as in other countries. This is because on average men and women have different drives due to biology & chemistry. I say this as someone who doesn’t subscribe to all of the gender norms attributed to me as a despicable straight white male. This documentary gives clear scientific evidence that on average men & women are very different. Equality doesnt mean sameness.
https://youtu.be/p5LRdW8xw70
I hope he takes Google to the cleaners.
@Deborah Behan: Didn’t mention maths or languages. Ridiculous analogy. Of course generalisations can be made between sexes. Men in general are faster than women at sprinting.does that statement make me sexist or realistic?. Women in general are less violent than men. Sexist or realistic?
@p kilgannon: how many jobs, apart from bank robbery, require the job holder to be extremely fast at sprinting?
Can all men always sprint faster than all women?
Are all men always more violent than all women?
Is gender difference the be all and the end all of all human variation and variability?
@Tony Daly: I didn’t make any reference between sprinting and any job. You did that. It was an example to Deborah about how generalisations can be made between sexes.
Can all men always sprint faster than all women?
No but in general men are faster which is what I said.
@p kilgannon: some men can spring faster than some women if a wide enough sample group is taken. Indeed some men may have an aptitude to sprint faster than most women but I doubt that it is possible to extrapolate much farther than that. I am pleased to see you narrowing the widness of your initial generalisations.
Assess the strengths and aptitudes of the candidate for the job and ignore gender as an irrelevance is the better approach.
@Tony Daly: I have no idea why you are still arguing with the fact that men are in general faster than women at sprinting. Educate yourself on male and female physiology and while your at it on sprint times at all levels between men and women.
This is disgraceful, im going back to altavista
Looks like the idiot didn’t read the terms of his employment before going off on his little rant…
@Lucy: Best comment on the page.
have your say