Sagebrush Altered | Ramblings in the rural American West

Sexual Harassment: America You're Not What I Thought

Wed, 08 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0000

If you live in America, everyday, it seems, brings another allegation of sexual assault to the publics attention. For instance, after finding out last week that NPR’s Senior Vice President for News resigned over sexual harassment claims dating back 20 years, I open Google News to find that Dustin Hoffman is now being accused of sexually harassing by a TV producer. (the interview of NPR CEO Jarl Mohn by Mary Louise Kelly is amazing, do listen to the segment). These allegations are in addition to recent stories about sexual harassment by Bill Cosby, Bill O’Reilly, Donald Trump, Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey and, sadly, many more.

As a man, I’m deeply saddened and appalled that my sex includes such vile creatures. But I’m also surprised. I’m disappointed to report, that I thought sexual harassment, while still around, was far less prevalent than it appears to be. Particularly in the workplace. I have had several conversation over the last year pushing the idea that we have reached the end of workplace explicit discrimination based on sex. Instead, I truly believed that we had entered an era where the gender wage gap was no longer a result of outright discrimination, but instead was a systemic issue. I believed that women were paid less because they opted for more flexible work schedules instead of career advancement to take care of and have children. There is evidence for this sort of perspective, and I still think it’s true. This was the conversation that I thought we should be having. How can we allow for more flexibility in the workplace so women and men can both provide for their children and still advance their careers. But after all of the sexual harassment claims and the #MeToo movement, my perspective has changed. While I still think that in some way we need to address workplace flexibility, I now am much more concerned with how women are treated in our society and I am appalled that I have given so much attention to the systemic wage-gap theory and avoided how poorly some women are directly treated by men.

And unfortunately, as much as I want this story to be about the women, the victims who have been wronged, for me my transition in perspective has come from the Men who I know in my life. Since the election of Donald Trump, men that I know have routinely been apologetic of Trump’s statements that brag about sexual harassment. When Donald Trump’s “they let you grab them by the pussy” comments came to light, I had friends say that it was common place, that “we all do it”. When I replied: “yeah we can say bad stuff, but we never locker room talk about sexual harassment”, they all awkwardly laughed and shrugged as if to say, “come on, we all do it”. Unfortunately that ended the conversation. Let’s be clear, I think women are beautiful. I have said so much to my friends in private. And I have been a horny young man who has talked about wanting women. All of those things are OK. But there is a big difference between being attracted to women and being OK with, or even talking about, grabbing a women, or using a women. Comments and actions from men who condone sexual harassment across the country should be whole heartedly condemned, not awkwardly shrugged off and excepted.

And that isn’t the only story, just two weeks ago I had a guy at a wedding try to tell me that he slapped a girls ass (a coworker of his, and a friend of mine), and she was pissed. He thought she was over reacting. At the time, I was complicit. I should of said something, but I didn’t. I just awkwardly shrugged my shoulders and laughed in discomfort. Men have to get to the point where we no longer tolerate our friends oppressive behavior. Women have been crying out for decades. Only to have men, who in public are supportive of women, in private shrug off even the ugliest comments.

These events and the mounting allegations in the news, have left me wanting to issue an apology to all of the women who I have mansplained the real issue with the gender wage gap to. I stand by what I think of the wage gap and I still want to make the work place more flexible and accommodating to both men and women who have children. But I completely revoke any time that I said that workplace discrimination was a thing of the past. I hope you can forgive me for being such an insensitive ass. I suspect I have talked with some women, who have been sexually harassed in the workplace, about this topic. And I didn’t understand why they were so pissed. Now I understand. Now I see the problem. And I am sorry to you, those who I have ignored because some stupid study says there is an average that means absolutely nothing compared to you, who have had to be treated like shit by a man. I now know sexual predatory men are out there and a prevalent component of our society. And I will try not to be silent for you.

My Friends Want to Write Too

Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0000

Twice a year my friends and I gather in the desert for a celebration. We named this gathering “The Perversion”. This past weekend was the 10th bi-annual (I think). Really, the gathering has nothing to do with being perverted, but instead is more about bringing friends together who have moved away or we don’t have time to see because our lives have gotten so busy. People dress up in costumes (hence the name), we make tacos, we have a huge campfire, and we usually accomplish at least one major adventure (climbing, hiking, canyoneering). Great fun is had by all.

This year, I took the opportunity to pitch my idea of creating my own magazine to the group. There were about 30 people there that I could pitch it to. We also were all drinking beer, so it took away some of the edge of putting my idea out on the open market. I didn’t pitch it to all, but a select few who I thought would be interested.

Over the last year, I have hesitated to pitch my idea to too many people. Sometimes people who first hear of it are really excited about it. Other times, they are not. Actually most the time they are not. So many people don’t have the urge to write and don’t necessarily understand why anyone would want to write for fun. And that is before you get to the publishing part. Some people like to write, but putting their ideas on the internet is “dumb”. Writing, for most, is a skill they use at work, don’t particularly like and do not care to do on their free time. I think they are insane. This blog is literally an outlet for me when I feel the urge to write. My urge comes and goes throughout the year, as you can probably tell by my post history, but it always comes back, and I am always excited about writing.

At the perversion, I found out that not all people hate writing. I spoke with three people who were particularly excited about the magazine: Steve, Bonnie and Aaron. Steve shares the same passion I do for writing. He spends free time daily writing ideas down. He also shares my want to get his ideas out in the world. Steve had several article ideas that were ready for creation. Bonnie is a journalism major and wants to write. And Aaron, although maybe the least enthusiastic, is probably the most valuable person I talked to. He is a longtime editor for pretty big newspapers. He currently works for the Sacramento Bee. His lack of enthusiasm was no doubt a result of the fact that he edits for a living.

By no means do these additions to my writing team guarantee the success of the Magazine. But at least now I am on my way to getting a group that can provide some content and get the publication off the ground. Aaron will help make sure that the content is good. I have two more writers too, that makes seven total now. Now we just need to make this passion tangible.

Good Luck to Us!

Einstein's Letters

Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0000

There are not many notable people in history that are remembered as fondly as Albert Einstein. For good reason too. Einstein published over 300 papers in his life and developed the theory of relativity, one of two pillars of modern physics. Though, Einstein is remembered so fondly for more than his scientific achievements. I grew up with a picture of Einstein on my wall with a quote:

“Imagination is more important than knowledge.”

I’m writing all this because this morning I read an article about how a notes the Einstein wrote are up for auction. Some of these notes he gave to friends, others he gave randomly as tips to a courier in Tokyo:

“A calm and modest life brings more happiness than the pursuit of success combined with constant restlessness,”

This was from a letter Einstein wrote in 1950:

“If God has created the world, his primary worry was certainly not to make its understanding easy for us,”

The man could say a lot in so very few words.

-M

Charlie Sykes is a good American

Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0000

I’ve been critical about Charlie Sykes in the past (see here). Mr. Sykes is a former conservative radio host who has come out, in a big way, against the Trump wing of the Republican party. My original criticism mainly stemmed from the fact that Mr. Sykes had fed the Trump wing of the party during his 23 years. And only after Trump’s election did he stop adding to the horribly putrid talk radio environment unique to the American right. It is good that he is now realizing his follies, but his follies have become catastrophic.

Despite my criticism, I continued to follow him on twitter and I occasionally read an article he wrote or an interview of him.

In following him, and since writing my original article, I must say, I have come to admire Mr. Sykes. I still don’t agree with his politics, but in contrast to his radio show self he has found humility, often questioning his original beliefs openly. I think questioning ones self and your political ideologies, regardless of your party affiliation, is a characteristic of any good American. We should all follow in Mr. Sykes’ lead.

Here’s an excerpt of a recent interview of him in Slate:

[Interviewer: Isaac Chotiner] Let me ask you then, because every psychological or political social science experiment you see shows how much partisanship drives how we think about things: Has your kind of awakening about Trump and the Republican Party changed the way you react either rationally or emotionally to other things? Like if you’re following a debate on ending Obamacare, which I’m sure you were never a big fan of, do you find yourself emotionally reacting to it in a different way than you would have five years ago, even though maybe your ideology about health care and the free market hasn’t actually changed?

[Mr. Sykes] Yes. Very much so. The shock of Trumpism has made me rethink what the conservative movement was about and who our allies were, and what our assumptions were. So yes, I do. And once you step out of the echo chamber, once you step out of the bubble, it’s kind of liberating. I actually find it’s incredibly liberating to break out of the chrysalis of having to defend the tribe.

I was a strong critic of Obamacare, but I’m able to step back and go, OK: Are we seriously going to blow this thing up when they were voting on it, without having any hearings, without having any discussions? Do you understand how this will affect people’s lives? I do find that if you step back, and if you’re no longer invested in tribal loyalty, you’ll have a very different perspective, both intellectually and emotionally.

[Interviewer: Isaac Chotiner] When you look at the title of your book, do you think that was a brain fart? How much of the stuff that you did, do you in hindsight see a signal?

[Mr. Sykes] Look, I definitely did not intend that to be a racial connotation, but I can understand how people might misinterpret it. That book, for example, at least half of it is about corporate welfare and Goldman Sachs, and that sort of thing. In retrospect, I can understand how if people were looking for that type of a signal, they might have interpreted it that way. That is part of the rethinking I am doing here.

The whole interview is very worth your time. The interviewer, Isaac Chotiner, asks some great questions.

-M

The political geographic divide

Sun, 15 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0000

Right now there is a divide in America. Politically, America is more partisan than at any other time in recent history. This division is represented as much by geography as it is by the countries wedge issues: abortion, immigration, healthcare, etc. Today I want to talk about the geography part of our divisions. I”m a rural resident and a progressive. If you pay attention to the national media, you may not know that people like me exist. But we do, and we are here in larger numbers than you might think. This hole conversation about partisanship and geography are so confusing to me. To me, rural america isn’t as republican as what the rest of the world sees.

So what does the divide look like on a general level? Republican leaning individuals overwhelmingly live in counties with low population densities (rural), while Democrats overwhelming live in areas that are more densely populated (urban).

I find this a bit puzzling because I am a progressive independent living in a rural county in Colorado that overwhelmingly voted for Donald Trump. Needless to say, I don’t understand this geographic division. I don’t understand why Democrats overwhelmingly flock to cities. And I have no idea why rural Americans are so afraid of progressive ideas that are often adopted in cities. I saw somewhere recently that Democrats generally favor walkable communities, while rural residents favor space. This also makes no sense to me.

So yes, I am a rural Democrat. A combination of words that you would never expect to hear if you pay any attention to the national press. I am not your typical rural resident, who when interviewed are almost always republican, have a drawl, and angry about something involving immigrants, gun control, the confederate flag, their rights or Obama. To the contrary, I think Obama was one of the best presidents in recent history, I am for immigration reform, I believe in a well regulated free market, I don’t own a gun, I am a scientists by profession, I want to increase taxes to fund universal healthcare and free college tuition, and I am not religious. I also happen to think Donald Trump is a scar that this country (or insert world, maybe?) will likely not get over for at least a generation. You could say, at the very least, I am not what gets portrayed in the media as your typical rural resident.

At the same time, and in spite of how much I may disagree with my neighbors on a host of issues, the geographic political divide is so confusing to me. Even though I don’t politically align with my geographic location, I genuinely love living in a rural community. People who live in rural America are friendly to everyone. It is amazing how many people who have visited me are amazed at how friendly everyone is. It’s a sense of community that I’ve never experienced when I’ve lived in the city. People who live in rural America share a lot of the same interests that I have. They love the outdoors, they enjoy fishing and riding bikes. One of our very conservative county commissioners is even a certified yoga instructor. Most people, although not all, believe in local organic farming and ranching practices as well. I always find it weird, when I talk with conservative people at how much wants are similar to progressives. The interesting thing is that even though they want the same things as progressives, they come to a very different conclusion on why things are wrong or how to change things so they will work well. It is like there is no truth anymore. Everyone, me included, also appreciate how wide open it is. My wife and I have an amazing 35 acre parcel with our own canyon and pond. The land is affordable, too. Our 35 acres cost a fraction of what most people pay for a single family home on a small lot in the city. We never have to put our dog on a leash and we rarely have anyone bother us. I can walk naked in my front yard if I want and no neighbor would see.

And we are not the only ones in Rural America voting for Democrats. There are more than one would expect. Looking at county level voting data from the last election, almost all rural counties have at least a 20-30% who voted for Hillary Clinton. You would never know this if you listened to even the most nuanced new sources. Indeed we are the minority, but we are here.

I guess what I’m trying to say is: if you are a Democrat and you want a few less conveniences and a bit more space, come to rural America. There’s a bit more diversity than you might think. I’m also trying to say, if you are a reporter and you want to report on something a bit different, find a hippie farmer in rural America that voted for Hillary Clinton. There’s more of us out here than you than you lead the rest of the world to believe. And, last but not least, I’m saying rural America is a wonderful place full of Trump, Hillary, Stein, and Johnson supporters. Don’t put us in a corner, we don’t deserve it.

How are Political Pundits So Certain?

Sat, 14 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0000

Let’s imagine that in America today there exists a person who is neither a democrat or a republican. Let’s also imagine that this person is extremely well read, but is not a political scientist, so they don’t have a good understanding of how policy changes lead to on the ground change. And let’s say this person has a pretty healthy media diet. With how partisan our country has become, and as a result, how partisan our media has become, this person would have a hard time figuring out what is fact and what is not.

If you consume information on the right and left, like I try to, you begin to realize that almost everyday with every political issue the right and left media core almost completely disagree on everything. It’s true, there are media outlets who play it right down the middle and don’t take a side. And these outlets seem to be the most trustworthy in my opinion. But at the same time if you only read the centrist news outlets, you may get the impression that some issues have good arguments on both sides. Take climate change for example. It’s real, it’s happening, and it is most likely going to be catastrophic. But, people have doubts because the media for so many years reported it as if those who didn’t “believe” (using believe for a reason) in it, had as much of a case as the scientist who had been studying it for years. When they didn’t.

Because “balanced news” has its flaws, in my opinion, it is good to consume “sided” news. But here is the problem, they are way too predictable. They don’t seem to start with: “let’s look at the evidence, see where it takes us and report on our findings”. Their editorial meeting most likely goes like this: “The left (substitute right as needed) is wrong, lets find a way to prove it with this issue”.

To prove my point I think it is helpful to look at some examples from two online journals that I read regularly. On the right we have the National Review, which I occasionally am very impressed with, but often not, and on the left we have Vox, people I listen to obsessively, but sometimes feel like they are turning into the Fox News for the left.

The National Review on the Right

Title: Trump Was Right to End Unconstitutional Obamacare Subsidies

Tag Line:

They were never lawful because Congress never appropriated the money.

First Paragraph:

It’s a sad sign of our times that the constitutionality of any given government action is now seen as a wholly secondary consideration, subordinate to politics and arguments about politics. And so it is with Donald Trump’s necessary decision to halt federal payments of cost-sharing subsidies to insurance companies.

The jist of the article is that cost sharing payments to insurance companies that are part of the Affordable Healthcare Act were never appropriated by congress. In other words, payments made to health insurance companies from the president are illegal because congress never voted on them and only congress has the ability to appropriate funds. A district court judge agreed with this opinion, siding with the house of representatives when they sued to stop the payments.

I think this is a pretty strong argument. I don’t think the payments are legal. But there are a few blind omissions in this article and the editor eludes to them towards the end of the article.

Every two years we elect the entire House and one-third of the Senate. There is thus a constant potential check on government expenditures. The fact that Congress rarely checks that spending makes its power no less legally real nor any less constitutionally necessary. And, by the way, judges do not exist to correct subjectively determined deficiencies in the elected branches’ policy-making.

David French, the author of the piece, is basically obscurely saying that congress has done a terrible job appropriating spending. I’d even argue that congress has been intentionally blocking spending that would anyway make Democrats look good. This isn’t governing, its spiteful bullshit. Despite this, the funds are still illegal. He also says, if the democrats want this fixed they either need to make a deal or elect more officials.

You can read the whole article here.

Vox on the Left

Title: Who’s going to be hurt by Trump’s new attack on Obamacare

Tag Line:

The real-world consequences of ending cost-sharing reduction payments.

First Paragraph:

President Trump has decided to stop key Obamacare payments to health insurers, adding yet another element of uncertainty to the health care law’s future.

The 10 million people who buy insurance through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces will now be subject to another rash of headlines about how the Trump administration is undermining and changing the law — with open enrollment less than three weeks away.

In contrast, this article doesn’t even mention the constitutionality of the payments. Instead if focuses on outcomes, which it describes in four parts which sum up the article nicely:

Eligibility for Obamacare’s financial assistance hasn’t changed
People who qualify for the ACA’s subsidies and discounts are protected
People who don’t receive assistance bear the brunt of price hikes
Known unknowns: any new premium increases or insurers leaving markets

The biggest issues are the last two. A big gripe with the ACA already is that it didn’t give enough support to people who are relatively well off, but don’t make that much; those making more than 65k or a family of four making 125k. This group may see it’s premiums rise due to the payments being stopped because they don’t qualify for a subsidy.

Another problem with this move by the Trump administration, according to the article, is that it will likely hurt insurance companies. This negative effect may result in companies leaving the ACA marketplace or increases in premiums. These in themselves are not that bad, but changes in general bring uncertainty to the health insurance market, which the market doesn’t need at the moment given how unstable the markets have been over the last 3 years. (As I’m writing this, health stocks are plummeting an ominous sign for health care markets).

You can read the whole article here.

Certainty

So we have two pieces talking about the exact same policy event, that literally have nothing to do with each other. I guess this is good in the universe of ideas. If you are a reader of both you can look at each argument and decide which is more important.

Payments are unconstitutional and should be stopped.
Payments stabilize the market and ending them has a lot of uncertainty.

Do you think market stability is more important, or do you think that adhering the the constitution is more important?

Regardless of your answer, it bothers me that neither of these articles mentions, even briefly, the others point of view. Both arguments seem to be important. And there are trade offs to having one opinion over the other. But each outlet seems to be so certain that their view is more valuable than the other that they refuse to acknowledge the true complexity of the issue. Maybe this is the case because readers have a hard time understanding nuance. Maybe it is because both sides are too partisan to see a trade off.

I can’t help but think it is articles like these that make for a confused, tribal public and a public that largely has different values and opinions. No answers here though, just more questions.

The Divide

Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0000

I just had one of my best friends from Park City, Utah, visit. Accompanying him were three others from Park City. They came to ride bikes and check out Dolores, where I live, and Durango, where my good friend and I attended Fort Lewis College together. It amazes me that even though, my friend and I have spent most of the last decade apart, we don’t miss a beat when we are together. I am also reminded that my life is so very different from most people in the United States. I live on thirty five undeveloped acres, in a house that most people wouldn’t eve classify as livable. My friends, could care less about nice cars or clothes. We are broken off from most of Americas culture. But yet, we can still drink beer, laugh and enjoy those that are so different from us.

Park City

Park City was an extremely wealthy town when I grew up in Salt Lake City in the 90s. With the tech boom that they have experienced over the last 10 years, it has become even wealthier. Needless to say, culturally, even though my visitors are very similar to me, politically, demographically, and, some of them at least, financially, there is definitely a divide between me and them.

It’s a bit hard to explain. We are all the same age, yet all of them are married and have children. Their wives are all stay-at-home moms. When my wife was talking about the patriarchy one of them winced and another admitted that “they didn’t know what that was” until my wife told them. They all live in large expensive houses, have nice cars, and are mid to high level managers at tech or outdoor companies (one sold real estate).

Dolores

I couldn’t live in a world more different then theirs. Most of my friends, despite being in the same age bracket, are just getting married. Only one of my friends has a child – who is only four months old. A couple of my friends own houses, but most of them are fixer-uppers and the rest rent. I live in a barn. No one drives a nice car.

And yet, all of these gentleman I would consider friends. They are stand up people, we enjoy the same outdoor activities, we are interested in the same things. Politically, we align. We all work 9 to 5 and enjoy playing outside when we have time off. We live such different lives, but manage to be the same, somehow.

The Cultural Divide

I don’t bring these differences up to stand on a high horse. Instead, I bring them up as a personal, relatable look into the many cultural divides that our country and world endures and, I’d argue, thrives on. It has always been amazing to me that so many people with so many different values and lives manage to live in the same country, cohesively.

And yet, the divide above describes one of the smallest separations that our country endures. Many divides are far greater. The separation between rich and poor, for example. One, the rich, live a lives so cartoonish, you would have to live it to believe it. They can do pretty much whatever they want. They can get away with sexual assault regularly for decades(examples: 1, 2, 3, 4) for example. The other, the poor, knows nothing but limitation. Each day is a bit harder than the last. Everyday they are more likely to experience something that will do irreparable harm to their lives and their future.

But the system moves on. I, for one, would like to see the divide between rich a poor shrink, so that bad days don’t turn into bad lives for the poor. Even if that means that a smart businessman looses some of their luxuries that they may have arguably earned. That is not the point of this story though, the point is that, in a world with so many different people, cultures, dreams I write this rambling note optimistically. There are many differences in the world. And yet, the world keeps turning, and more and more people move out of poverty, have access to health care and attend school. We somehow do all of this, with so much diversity. It is a wonder to behold that we manage to, somewhat peacefully, move the world forward, inch by inch, child by child, while living our very diverse lives.

Today Perfection Dies in my Writing

Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0000

Today, perfection dies for my writing. I’ve written a lot over the last year. Probably more than anyone that I know. I have published two blogs, including this one, written in a journal and written online. Amazingly, and in spite of my negative view of my writing, I’ve gotten much better. But, I still don’t like my writing, I don’t think I have clear thoughts, I don’t think my work is worth reading and I sure as shit don’t publish most of what I write. I’m afraid that if someone reads my work they won’t think it is good, and they will never read my work again. I’ve been hoping that somewhere along this journey of writing for the last 3 years I would have perfected the art. But I haven’t. Some days these keys evade my want to make something.

Today, all of those thoughts need to die. I will never improve if I don’t show my work to others. If I don’t give myself the room to make mistakes or suck or make something great. When I started taking pictures 10 years ago, my photographs were pretty bad. I’d make the occasional lucky shot every 1,000 photos or so, but really my photographs sucked. Today, I can get back from shooting 100 photos or so and have 5 to 10 that are worth editing and sharing. And sure, sometimes I take dud rolls, but I can definitely see how I have improved.

It’s time I give my writing the same chance I gave my photographs.

13 Ways to Strengthen the US Economy

Sun, 13 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0000

There’s been a lot going on lately in America. In particular lot of bad things have been happening, and the news is filled with these bad things. So I was delighted to read a short article by Noah Smith (@Noahpinion) on “13 Ways to Strengthen America’s Economy”. It wasn’t bashing anybody or raging about how f#*ked we are here in America. Instead, it was an article that put forth 13 ideas that could (or could not depending on your view) move this country in a positive economic direction to discuss and debate. Thanks Noah. You can find it here.

Stand Outs from The List

No. 1: Universal Healthcare No. 8: Stronger antitrust enforcement No. 9: More research funding No. 11: Child Care Support No. 13: Federal housing for the homeless

I think the whole list is pretty good and he gives a rational for each in his article, I highly recommend reading it.

One Thing to Add

I would have added at least one item to his list: Campaign Finance Reform. It seems that in order to have a functioning economy in a democracy, the people have to trust that their politicians are representing their best interests. Right now, in a America you are seeing the result of our political distrust with the election of Donald Trump. Right or wrong, Trump would never have gotten elected if people had not lost faith in their political system in America. Ezra Klein had a good discussion with Zephyr Treachot on the subject and they discuss in detail the problem and some very interesting solutions.

Comments Debate

In a closeout statement, Noah states:

This list of policies is eclectic. It draws on ideas from multiple ideologies, from social democracy to free-market neoliberalism to industrialism.

One of the comments argued about Noah’s definition of liberalism and how it was wrong. Given, I’m not an economist, I thought it would be good to define it here for myself and you. It is not very intuitive and I think many will find it means the opposite of what they think it means.

Neoliberalism: refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. These include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. (from Wikipedia)

Damore's Sexist Google Doc

Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0000

Over the last several days a Google doc has gone viral titled “Google’s Ideologic Echo Chamber”. In it the author, James Damore, makes the case that Google’s left leaning bias and handling of diversity is counter productive. In a TL;DR section in the document he statesting: ” Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business”.

Mainly, his argument centers on how conservative ideas are not allowed at Google saying: “Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence.”

I could see how this would be a problem at Google. I would imagine that working in very liberal San Francisco might be a bit one sided. And I would agree that Google should fight the binary political tribalism that we’ve allowed to grip this entire country over the last decade.
But where Damore looses me is in the example of conservative ideas that he uses: sexism.

Damore argues that sexism is justified because women and men differ biologically: “On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways.” What Damore doesn’t understand in some ways gender is poorly understood and in other our understanding is much more flexible than he portrays. And it is very difficult to tease out what traits are culturally caused and what traits are biological. Nonetheless, in his doc, Damore connects so called scientifically supported differences in traits to women being worse at certain things in the workplace: “This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.” He does this by making an inferential leap from biological differences straight to sexism with no evidence to support the connection. Sure this is wrong because it is wrong. Even if women are worse at certain things (which I do not think they are) wouldn’t a just society strive to bring them up and not relegate them to “jobs that fit their traits” as Damore suggests?

We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles at Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).

Are we so hell bent that we would demean our fellow citizens telling them” sorry you’re too people oriented for this job”? And even if biology did support Damore’s claims, is it still not sexist to treat genders differently?

But to move beyond all of that, there are two really good reasons why Damores argument is absolute horseshit:

Damore makes a mental leap inferring that biological trait differences lead to women having a harder time “negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading”, a connection not supported by the literature; and
the evidence Damore uses to support his claims is inconclusive.

Mental Leap

So let’s say for a moment that Damore is correct, that we know that women have certain traits that differ from men and these traits are not a result of culture but of biology. How do we know if those traits are better or worse for leadership? Damore claims that women, on average, have more “openness”, “extroversion”, and “neuroticism”. He then makes the leap that these characteristics make women more anxious, worse at handling high stress jobs, and worse at gaining status and leadership within their workplaces.

At least for leadership, this connection, is not supported by research. In one meta-analysis, reserchers found:

*Overall, our results linking personality with ratings of transformational and transactional leadership behaviors were weak. Judge, Bono, et al. (2002) noted that the Big Five explain 28% of the variability among ratings of leadership emergence and 15% of the variability among ratings of leadership effectiveness. In our study, the Big Five explained 12% of the variability in charisma and only 5% and 6% of the variability in ratings of intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration, respectively. In another meta-analysis on the dispositional basis of leadership perceptions, Lord et al. (1986) found that masculinity was the strongest personality predictor of leadership perceptions, explaining 11% of the variability among leaders (the other traits they examined had R2 s ranging from .02 to .05).

This doesn’t make a good argument that personality traits are well connected with leadership. So Damore’s assumption that women are worse at leadership due to their traits is shaky at best. But he claims it nonetheless, so that “conservative” ideas that need to be talked about are herd? But it doesn’t even matter that there is no connection between traits and success in the workplace because the science that suggests that traits are biological is also extremely week.

Evidence Linking Gender to Traits

To make an argument that traits lead to certain outcomes, it would be best if you first were rock solid in your determination that the group you were assigning traits to, actually had the traits. Damore, in his doc, doesn’t do so. One study he cited states:

Research on gender differences in personality and interests typically relies on data from standardized tests. Because such tests use self-report scales, their scores may be influenced by social stereotypes, social desirability response sets, and self-construal processes (See Feingold, 1994; Guimond, 2008).

Another source concedes:

There are many forms of bias in personality measurement and some of these biases are very difficult to quantify (Cheung & Rensvold, 2000; Grimm & Church, 1999). For example, it can be difficult to determine whether self-reports reflect role requirements, intrinsic differences in personality traits, or some interactive combination of both.

and that:

In more traditional and less developed cultures a man is, indeed, more like a woman, at least in terms of self-reported personality traits.

Combine these cited caveats with the fact that psychological sciences are in the midst of a replication crisis and you begin to paint of picture of psychological science that is less than conclusive.

So, we have a large step of from biological traits to outcomes and a lack of science behind the actual traits.

The Real Point

Despite Damore making a crap scientific argument, this is still all bullshit. Damore is saying that by telling women that they have traits that make them worse in some areas, particularly areas highly respected in our society (salary, being heard and leadership) will somehow actually help them. But in reality a company who condones this sort of sexist rhetoric, will not attract more women. If I were a woman and someone I worked for told me that because of my biology I’m going to be less successful at this company than a man, I would tell them to “GO F@%K themselves”.

The fact that Damore is requesting that google re-think its “left” echochamber of empowering women in the workplace and instead strive to put women in their biological place, is absurd. And I think Google did the right thing by firing him and rejecting his ideas in their workplace.