[–] Cantilever 1 points 94 points (+95|-1) ago 

James Damore, argued against diversity initiatives at Google and said that female engineers were less capable of leading others.

I read the memo. This statement is false.

[–] Gravspeed 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

Gotta love how they paraphrase. He never said they were less capable. Just less likely to try as hard.

[–] Greenzero86 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

Their emotions get the best of them and make them irrational. Perhaps they're inadvertently and subconsciously admitting they're less capable...no I'm not sexist or misogynistic, Ms. CEO, just paraphrasing.

[–] Men13 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

He didn't even say that, he just said that they are just as capable, but have different interests. Then he suggested how to change the jobs to encourage more women to enjoy working there, by having more variety of jobs that could hold a larger variety of people's interests.

[–] Tallest_Skil 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The statement is 100% true. What’s false is the claim that he said it.

[–] valk2 4 points 56 points (+60|-4) ago 

GET WOMEN OUT OF POSITIONS OF POWER! They have done nothing but bring their industries/countries/companies down.

[–] white-male 2 points 32 points (+34|-2) ago 

Military as well

[–] valk2 0 points 23 points (+23|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I got a fucking crazy cousin in the Navy. She is a fucking Dyke. I refuse to even talk to her. I ran into her at my great grandmothers funeral and mistakenly spoke with her, she looked like a fucking dude. No joke, would totally have passed as a dude.

She shouldn't be in the military at all, she is fucking crazy.

[–] Schreiber 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Kinder, Küche, Kirche.

Traditional family is the only correct form of societal structure. Life was better back then.

[–] Tallest_Skil 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

For all your copy/pasting needs:

One of the most important hormones used by our bodies in muscle development is called testosterone, and is often called the male sex hormone. Though this hormone is present in women, it is in much smaller amounts. This is why a woman and man that do the same workout over the same period of time will have different results. Scientific studies have shown women on average to be only 52% as strong as men in their upper body and 66% as strong as men in their lower bodies (Miller et al). Males were also shown to be stronger relative to their lean body mass. One significant factor was that women have much smaller muscle cross-sectional area. When measured during physical testing, the bottom 5% of males scored higher than 60% of females. Data suggests that this is an innate biological gender difference, and not just the result of different physical conditioning (Miller, et. al.).

The 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces concluded that the average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55% of the upper-body strength and 72% of the lower-body strength (Reed). Certainly, strength is a very important factor in combat efficiency. While civilians imagine that every job in the modem military is now just pushing the buttons of some advanced piece of technology, this is not the case. Combatants need to carry heavy loads, run lengthy distances and still be able to outperform the enemy.

Strength is not the only physical difference that should be considered. Injuries are also a very important issue. Studies have consistently shown that females are more likely to become injured during strenuous physical training. Females have approximately 33-39% more stress transferred to their skeletal systems because of their smaller muscle mass. Another reason for this stress is that skeletal alignment is different, and creates a biomechanical disadvantage while marching, running or carrying weight at the extremes of endurance. All of this extra stress results in increased rate of injury. In one sample, 37% of male United States Army recruits experienced a lower limb injury during a twelve week basic training course, whereas female injury rates were much higher at 60% (Gemmell). The term “gender norming” refers to adjusted training requirements in respect to gender. For instance, the gender normed physical training regimen in the United States Army means that females have lower physical training requirements. The British military recently eliminated gender norming in an effort to improve their performance. In a study conducted by the British military, when gender norming was eliminated in basic training the proportion of female recruits medically discharged because of an overuse injury rose from 4.6% to 11.1%, whereas the proportion of such males remained at under 1.5% (Gemmell).

This was a large study with thousands of both males and females. Specifically studied were 11,925 men and 1,324 females over a common time period. When a military member is injured, they are often unable to continue training until they are healed. The member may be separated from the service if the injury is deemed serious enough. If the injury is one that will require a lengthy rehabilitation the injured service member will not be deployable. All of these possibilities result in lower unit readiness. Members injured during training programs may have to be dropped from training. This results in time and money wasted. In the year 1998 the average initial training cost to the United States per new service member was thirty-five thousand dollars (Basic Training Attrition Rates).

In terms of general endurance events such as long distance running, men are also generally superior performers than women. In one study it was concluded that the greater sex-specific and essential body fat of women is one determinant of the difference in metabolic responses to running and distance running performance. An average woman, having greater body fat percentage, will utilize more oxygen to run at any given average speed, and will have a lower maximum volume of oxygen expressed relative to body weight. As a result the average woman will maintain a speed on the twelve minute run or other similar distance running event which is slower than her male counterpart. The sex-specific, essential fat of women cannot be eliminated by diet or training (Cureton). In general terms females possess 25-30% less aerobic capacity, which is essential for endurance over short and long term time periods (Center for Military Readiness).

Many people, especially civilians, believe that a modern military with its high tech gear and weapons is no longer an institution that requires a member to be physically fit. These people believe that pushing buttons is all it takes to do the job. While it is true that modern technology has made the modern military more deadly, the assumption that this has somehow made combat less physically intense could not be more wrong. A soldier carrying all the necessary equipment, ammunition, weapons, food and water must still carry 50-100 pounds of gear with them at times. They must be able to maneuver and fight effectively enough to destroy the enemy. They must be able to pick up and carry a heavy fallen comrade. Strength and endurance are necessary for many critical aspects of combat. The losers of this ultimate contest die.

Gender norming would also be harmful for units that need to perform to this standard. Combat units need cohesion. Cohesion is defined in the Report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces dated November 15, 1992, “Cohesion is the relationship that develops in a unit or group where (1) members share common values and experiences; (2) individuals in the group conform to group norms and behavior in order to ensure group survival and goals; (3) members lose their personal identity in favor of a group identity; (4) members focus on group activities and goals; (5) unit members become totally dependent on each other for the completion of their mission or survival; and (6) group members must meet all standards of performance and behavior in order not to threaten group survival.” A cohesive unit must have every member trust each other. Trust is one of the most crucial elements, not just the trust in one another’s integrity, but also the trust in your comrade to perform their job effectively. If a soldier is worried about who is covering his back, he will not be fully concentrating on his own responsibilities. A gender normed standard would result in unit separated on gender lines, which seriously undermines the trust that is so important. This concept of having different standards for each gender is the result of the ends justifying the means. The end goal of some is to have women freely serve in whatever capacity they wish, and the means of accomplishing this goal are changing standards for women to allow them to succeed. Equal effort has been wrongly equated with equal results.

What should our priorities be as a nation? In a report to Congress entitled Summary of Presidential Commission Findings and Record in Support of Alternative Views, it was pointed out that the need for a superior military, which is the priority of the nation, must outweigh any civil rights claim no matter how noble or seemingly justified. “Civil society protects individual rights, but the military, which protects civil society, must be governed by different rules. Civilian society forbids employment discrimination, but lives and combat missions might be put at risk by service members who cannot meet the demands of the battlefield. The military must be able to choose those most able to survive, fight, and win.”

There is no such thing as the “right” to serve. That is a civilian idea stemming from the incorrect equivalent of having the right to have a certain job out in the civilian workforce. Service in the American military is a privilege in peacetime volunteer force, and a duty in a drafted wartime force. No one has a right to serve. Should this be changed as a result of feminist lobbying or public pressure? In the movie “Crimson Tide,” a submarine’s commanding officer played by Gene Hackman answered the question well by saying, “The armed forces defend democracy. They do not practice it.”

[–] Samsquamch 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

You mean focusing on feelings and whatever is popular doesn't keep a company growing? My college professors told me all corporations are evil and only exist to make money, which is why I started working for one - To fight the system and patriarchy, of course! (But I still need that paycheck)

I mean, who would want to work and earn a fair wage? I want to work so that I can be told how valuable I am. Surely this company will grow exponentially (shows graph of line zig-zagging almost straight up) if you just listen to me!

/s

[–] Usereman 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

How do you do that?

HOW ?

Seriously, women are (their) useful idiots but HOW do we take them out? The system is fucking rigged against us.

It seems that it's impossible to take power back within this rigged system.

[–] no-hurry-no-pause 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

HOW do we take them out?

the same way they got in: make money, get power, organize with and help like minded people, harm ideological enemies wherever you can.

instead of working for their company, found your own company, and completely ideologically cleanse it. be better than their companies and drive them bankrupt.

it is not really that hard, it just requires a level of organisation and team work that we are less capable of than them, so they win. if we simply did what they do, we'd get similar results, but we for some reason do not want to do it their way, so instead of winning, we complain about them winning.

[–] auto_turret 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

By force. Simple.

[–] Thrus2 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Hire based on qualifications. Then do their reviews based on measurable metrics that actually relate to their performance in the roll. Now you can justify the hire as well as keeping or firing them. This applies to every role, and i include the person doing the hiring one good metric for them would be employee retention if they are hiring people that are all gone in 6 months fire their ass as they are not helping the company.

[–] ItIsTimeToChange 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

It is impossible without God. It is broken.

[–] MichaelClayton 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Susan looks like a man.

[–] valk2 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Most women in power these days do look very manly.

[–] obvious_throwaway1 0 points 29 points (+29|-0) ago 

The fact that this diversity hire cunt was part of the team that fired the white conservative Engineer surprises me absolutely not at all.

[–] Pwning4Ever 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

She's destroying Youtube, this is the first time in a decade where enough content creators have had enough of Youtube's shit and could possibly jump platforms.

[–] Hayashimo 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

It was already happening until Vidme shut down.

[–] weezkitty 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Good. Any time Google loses ground, it's a good thing

[–] ginx2666 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

She's destroying Youtube

Good.

[–] aGameCalledCountries 0 points 26 points (+26|-0) ago 

Relevant quote from the JewTube CEO:

I’ve spent so much time, so much of my career, to try to overcome stereotypes, and then here was this letter that was somehow convincing my kids and many other women in the industry, and men in the industry, convincing them that they were less capable. That really upset me.

[–] Pwning4Ever 0 points 37 points (+37|-0) ago 

that's literally what he didn't say. He just said men and woman are different and used peer researched articles as sources.

[–] Mr_Wolf 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

Up next: people getting banned for posting facts and sources.

[–] maltespier 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

she will have to back up the company position though - this will be Google's defence they have to stick to now, if they deviate they're surely admitting that "yeah, we fucked up getting rid of this guy"

[–] Schreiber 0 points 18 points (+18|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Lying on broad daylight.

Let's be real, she climbed to corporate ladder through affirmative action, diversity hiring, and/or sucking the right dick at the right time.

The people who benefit from "progressive" institutionalized discrimination (like affirmative action and diversity hiring) are fucking dangerous, because they will protect and defend the unfair system that benefited them in the past.

[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Try to overcome stereotypes... That really upset me.

Try harder. Women are easily upset.

[–] TheTrigger 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That's the main thing that got me, from that quote. If you're trying so hard, to overcome stereotypes, and having such a (presumably) tough go at it— aren't you literally reinforcing them, in the process?

I may just be being pedantic, but don't think so.

[–] cdglow 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

HOLY SHIT, THIS CUNT IS SUCH AN UTTER PIECE OF GARBAGE.

“The first question they had about it [was], ‘Is that true?’” Wojcicki said on the latest Recode Decode, hosted by Kara Swisher. “That really, really surprised me, because here I am — I’ve spent so much time, so much of my career, to try to overcome stereotypes, and then here was this letter that was somehow convincing my kids and many other women in the industry, and men in the industry, convincing them that they were less capable. That really upset me.”

HE DID NOT SAY THAT WOMEN WERE LESS CAPABLE

HE DID NOT SAY THAT WOMEN WERE LESS CAPABLE

HE DID NOT SAY THAT WOMEN WERE LESS CAPABLE

HE DID NOT SAY THAT WOMEN WERE LESS CAPABLE

HE DID NOT SAY THAT WOMEN WERE LESS CAPABLE

HE DID NOT SAY THAT WOMEN WERE LESS CAPABLE

HE DID NOT SAY THAT WOMEN WERE LESS CAPABLE

HE DID NOT SAY THAT WOMEN WERE LESS CAPABLE

How many times do people have to point this basic fact out?

  • Did she actually read the note and she's just relying on media reports about its contents to make up her mind?
  • Was she not capable of understand the contents of the note?
  • Or did she read it, understand it, and just decided to lie about what it said?

Any of the above should disqualify her from such a leadership position.

Her vagina isn't what makes me think she's less capable, her lack of basic reading comprehension is. That and the fact that she's ruining YouTube by trying to make the content as bland and corporate as humanly possible.

[–] tame 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Well, what Damore actually said was much harder to argue with, and so was much more of a threat to the affirmative action bullshit that she loves so dearly.

And so she along with 90% of the media just happily went along and beat the hell out of that strawman "hurr durr misogyny says women worser" instead of addressing what was actually said, which is simply that men and women are interested in different things, and so end up following different career paths, and this is OK and doesn't warrant discriminatory hiring practices to "fix".

[–] no-hurry-no-pause 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

How many times do people have to point this basic fact out?

How many times people like you have to get angry until they realize that it isnt about the facts?

Facts DONT MATTER. It is about winning an ideological war. The enemy doesnt care about the facts, why should you?

[–] belphegorsprime 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

Because to many people, the ideological war is about this very concept. Facts DO MATTER. That saying: "if you can't beat'em, join'em" is a vacuous imperative, because we can beat them.

We don't win by becoming them. We win by persisting against all the increasingly pathetic attempts to obscure the truth.

[–] Cheesebooger 2 points 11 points (+13|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Girl fight! Is she jewish too?

[–] Ex-Redditor [S] 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

[–] cdglow 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME

[–] GR1FF0 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Gas the bikes, race war nao.

[–] EatingSteak 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

argued against diversity initiatives at Google and said that female engineers were less capable of leading others.

Except it IT LITERALLY DOES NOT say that or argue that, or suggest that. If I read it correctly, he even states "I'm not saying that" - where do these conclusions even come from?

[–] DinoRider 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

They come from people and large news sites that misinterpreted his memo and published their misinterpretations as fact. In the day or so it took for Damore to receive the token firing it was impossible to find a full copy of the memo online. The news sites only choice excerpts from it.

[–] jacksonduke12 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Corporations gonna corporation folks. The dumb beliefs of semi-competent CEO fucking up the lives of the workers who allow the corporation to function is far too common.

load more comments ▼ (14 remaining)