Feminism, Science / Tech, Top Stories

Smearing Free Thought In Silicon Valley

In the aftermath of the so-called Google memo affair, there has been no shortage of misleading and in some cases downright inaccurate media coverage painting the author, James Damore, and his supporters in a very unfavorable light. The most recent example of this arose this past weekend, when The New York Times printed a hit piece on its front page with the inflammatory headline, “As Inequality Roils Tech World, A Group Wants More Say: Men.”1 In a clear display of narrative-driven journalism, the article attempts to smear those in the technology industry who hold dissenting views on gender issues by associating them with a political movement with which the public has little familiarity while providing little explanation of what that movement is or what it stands for.

Like much of the media coverage on this issue, the article misrepresents what Damore said in his memo, claiming that he argued that women “were biologically less capable of engineering.” In reality, Damore’s memo focused on differences between the sexes in interests and personality traits, not abilities, that scientific evidence suggests are at least in part due to biological differences.2 Damore stresses that these are differences at a statistical level between large populations and that we should not assume that they are descriptive of any particular individual. He offers a set of alternative proposals to increase the number of women in technology without treating people differently because of their gender. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Damore’s conclusions, it is difficult to see how one could read his memo in its entirety and walk away with the conclusion that it was written by someone who seeks to keep women out of technology.

Furthermore, the article makes it out as if only men have supported Damore’s conclusion, providing a smattering of short quotations from male executives and venture capitalists who have expressed reservations about the current thinking on diversity in the industry. In fact, the article tweeted by one of the venture capitalists mentioned, Eric Weinstein, was co-authored by a woman, Debra W. Soh.3 No mention is made of the fact that prominent women such as the equity feminists Christina Hoff Sommers and Cathy Young have concurred that Damore was right on the science and expressed grave concern with the way that Google handled the incident.45 

The article claims that “studies and surveys show there is no denying the travails women face” in technology, although not a single example of a study providing such conclusive proof is given. In fact, many of the studies commonly cited to back up this claim suffer from major methodological flaws that call into serious question their accuracy. Consider, for example, a 2014 study published in the journal PLOS ONE that was used by opinion pieces in The New York Times to claim that an epidemic of sexual harassment and even sexual assault caused the gender gap in science and technology.6,78

A careful examination of the original paper reveals a number of problems with its use to support that conclusion. First of all, the fields of science considered in this study were not the ones in which men outnumber women. They were field-based sciences such as anthropology where there are more women than men. If it were true that the harassment documented by this study was driving women away, then why did the fields in question have more women than men?

Furthermore, the study found that a whopping 41% of male respondents reported that they had experienced sexual harassment. If true, this would indicate that there was an only somewhat smaller pandemic of harassment against men that was receiving no attention in the media. The study also failed to distinguish between what happened yesterday and what happened half a century ago when sexual harassment was not taken anywhere near as seriously as it is today. It used an overly broad definition of harassment that included “comments about physical beauty [or] cognitive sex differences.” Under this definition, professors who study the differences between male and female brains could be considered to be engaging in harassment by simply discussing their area of expertise. With this type of research being used to substantiate the claim that Silicon Valley is hostile to women, is it any wonder that so many in the industry are beginning to doubt and question what they are told?

Perhaps the most dishonest aspect of this weekend’s Times article, however, is that it conflates dissenting voices in Silicon Valley with the men’s rights movement, a political movement seeking to raise awareness of how gender inequality issues affect men and boys that has long been smeared in the media as misogynistic. The link is made primarily on the basis of anecdotes provided by one software engineer, James Altizer, who is also a men’s rights activist. Quotes from Altizer and several other men’s rights activists who do not work in technology are interspersed with quotes from James Damore and the aforementioned dissenting executives and venture capitalists, giving the impression that they are all part of a single movement.

In reality, there is no evidence to indicate that any of these executives or investors have supported the men’s rights movement or that they are even aware of its existence. As a college student, I came to question the narrative that women are systematically disadvantaged in science as a result of reading some of the research used to support its claims and seeing how weak it was. I also observed how many of my colleagues, both male and female, would stifle dissent on this issue by casting anyone who disagreed with the accepted dogma as being a misogynist. I had no awareness of the existence of the men’s rights movement at the time and would not until a number of years later.

Yet even if it were the case that many of Damore’s supporters within the technology industry were men’s rights activists, that would still not be reason to dismiss their concerns automatically. Contrary to what many people have been lead to believe by much of the media coverage of the men’s rights movement, it is not a hate movement rooted in misogyny. While there is no denying that certain extreme segments of the men’s rights movement are hostile, this is not what the movement is about as a whole. To present it in this way is just as dishonest as writing a piece on the Black Lives Matter movement that focuses entirely on anti-police sentiment without giving any context regarding the concerns about racial injustice that fuel the movement.

If we wish to move forward as a society to a place where there is greater respect between the sexes, we need to ensure that all voices expressing legitimate concerns can be heard and taken seriously. One of the executives quoted in the Times article, Dick Costolo said, “We should worry about whether the women-in-tech movement has gone too far sometime after a couple of these [instances of harassment] aren’t regularly happening anymore.” In doing so, he draws a false dichotomy, as a movement can go too far in certain respects while not yet achieving its worthy goals in others.

Even if it is true that harassment of women is as prevalent as Costolo makes it out to be, there is no doubt that efforts to remedy it have been approached in a way that creates unnecessary hostility toward men. I have seen a female executive disparage “men who don’t support women” as being “sub-human.” Her use of the word “sub-human” echoes the ways in which Jews and other minorities have been dehumanized in the past, in order to justify violence against them. When diversity efforts have been contorted to the point that their supporters actually start to sound like Nazis, it is clear that something is severely wrong. I have witnessed this same executive publicly berate the CEO of our company over perceived sexism with impunity, only to stand silently a few minutes later through a lecture on “mansplaining” out of fear that I would be fired if I called attention to the sexism behind that word. If we are serious about creating inclusive workplaces, then we must work to ensure that people of all races, religions, genders, and yes, political persuasions can feel welcome.

Yet for all needless animosity directed toward men and people of dissenting political persuasions in Silicon Valley by the article, I fear that the greatest casualty may be the public’s confidence in The New York Times itself and the media in general. A functioning democracy depends on an educated populace, and this requires that the public have access to accurate facts on which to base their decisions. When an institution that has historically been revered as the gold standard in journalism can manage to mischaracterize James Damore, dissenting voices in Silicon Valley, and the men’s rights movement all in a single front-page article, it does not encourage the public’s confidence in the mainstream media. As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” If we are unable to agree on the truth but instead each pick our own preferred media narrative based on our political persuasions and biases, then it does not bode well for our ability to address the complex issues that our society faces.



[1] Bowles, Nellie. Push for Gender Equality in Tech? Some Men Say It’s Gone Too Far [Internet]. New York: The New York Times; 2017 Sep 23 [cited 2017 Sep 24]. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/23/technology/silicon-valley-men-backlash-gender-scandals.html

[2] Davis, Sean. Read The Google Diversity Memo That Everyone Is Freaking Out About [Internet]. Alexandria (VA): The Federalist; 2017 Aug 08 [cited 2017 Sep 24]. Available from: http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/08/read-the-google-diversity-memo-that-that-everyone-is-freaking-out-about/

[3] Jussim, Lee; Schmitt, David P.; Miller, Geoffrey; Soh, Debra W. The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond [Internet]. [place unknown]: Quillette; 2017 Aug 07 [cited 2017 Sep 24]. Available from: https://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/

[4] Sommers, Christina Hoff. Reflections on the Google controversy and James Damore’s infamous memo [Internet]. Washington (DC): Washington Examiner; 2017 Sep 07 [cited 2017 Sep 24]. Available from: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/christina-hoff-sommers-reflections-on-the-google-controversy-and-james-damores-infamous-memo/article/2633662

[5] Young, Cathy. Googler fired for diversity memo had legit points on gender [Internet]. McLean (VA): USA Today; 2017 [cited 2017 Sep 24]. Available from: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/08/08/googler-fired-diversity-memo-had-point-researchers-agree/548518001/

[6] Clancy, Kathryn B.H.; Nelson, Robin G.; Rutherford, Julienne N.; Hinde, Katie. Survey of Academic Field Experiences (SAFE): Trainees Report Harassment and Assault [Internet]. San Francisco: PLOS ONE; 2014 Jul 16 [cited 2017 Sep 24]. Available from: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0102172&type=printable

[7] Aschwanden, Christie. Harassment in Science, Replicated [Internet]. New York: The New York Times; 2014 Aug 11 [cited 2017 Sep 24]. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/science/harassment-in-science-replicated.html

[8] Jahren, A. Hope. Science’s Sexual Assault Problem [Internet]. New York: The New York Times; 2014 Sep 18 [cited 2017 Sep 24]. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/science-has-a-sexual-assault-problem.html

Filed under: Feminism, Science / Tech, Top Stories


The author is a software engineer. Gideon Scopes is a pseudonym. Given the current climate surrounding political expression in the technology industry, his real name has been withheld.


  1. DiscoveredJoys says

    Whenever I hear of people complaining about a gender gap or sexual discrimination (against women or men) I ask the question: “If there was no unwarranted discrimination what would the numbers be?”. Unless you know what the numbers *should* be you have no way of knowing how big a problem, if any, exists.

  2. Michiel says

    Well, the social justice people would claim to know that the numbers should always be 50/50 because men and women are exactly the same. Of course they only claim this for fields where women are now below 50%, and tend to ignore those fields or professions where women are overrepresented (as well as the less desirable professions where women are the minority).
    And then comes the problem with how many of these women (and men) should be black, disabled or trans, randomly ignoring a host of other possible “identities” (based on, for example, class, intelligence, height, attractiveness or any other skin color than white or black).

    I continue to be amazed by the fact that virtually every single person, from Twitter trolls to high profile journalists, who respond negatively to Damore’s memo seems to be deliberately and rather obviously misrepresenting and misquoting what was actually in the memo. They also always seem to omit mentioning (among other things) the fact the he literally advocated for more diversity in tech.

    • Jeffrey Goines says

      Your 50/50 comment is exactly right. Under authoritarian feminists women must be cajoled, persuaded, brow-beaten or otherwise forced into STEM and tech careers whether they like it or not.

  3. Django says

    “I continue to be amazed by the fact that virtually every single person, from Twitter trolls to high profile journalists, who respond negatively to Damore’s memo seems to be deliberately and rather obviously misrepresenting and misquoting what was actually in the memo”

    Well Michiel, that’s because of how these identity politics followers work. Despite their talk about equality and fairness, these people are very hierarchical. Whenever their dogma of identity politics is attacked, the most influential among them declare what stance should be taken on the issue immediately and everyone else in the cult must follow suit. In the case of Damore’s memo, it was decided that the whole ordeal is an attack against women. Anyone who dares to deviate from the narrative or attempt to give it a fair coverage will be attacked. Once the hive has decided that a certain narrative will serve “The Cause”, you DO NOT contradict it, oppose it nor attempt to present another point of view. Remember, those are the same people who were absolutely FURIOUS that Jimmy Fallon patted Trump’s hair during the 2016 election because in their own words “it made Trump look human”. The narrative was “Drumpf is Hitler REEEEEEE!” and poor Fallon forgot the first rule of the current radical leftists: DO NOT THINK FOR YOURSELF

  4. Sarah Glazebrook says

    As a woman and physicist, I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with James Damore’s memo. It is not a question of who has the ability to do this kind of work, but rather who would enjoy doing this work day in and day out for years. Interestingly, my daughter is a senior in high school and in the midst of applying to college. She was considering engineering (and certainly has the ability) but when we reviewed the classes, she says they sounded boring, so she has decided to go into medicine instead. Among her female friends, nit one is considering engineering or computer science or physics. Talking to them, it seems it is more about how boring and tedious they consider the subjects and not about how hard they are.

    • Quite right. If you’re interested in people, then medicine is appealing while engineering and computer science are as boring as dust. Add in aggression versus cooperation, and you can explain most career choices.

      I saw those difference first hand in a most interesting environment. For almost a year I worked with teens, both boys and girls, on the nursing staff of a top children’s hospital, where the male to female ratio was about 99 to 1. Our boys and girls response to hospitalization and stress could hardly have been more different. I’ve compared it to the distinction between two very different countries.

      With only rare exceptions, after puberty our teen boys were unhappy and uncooperative. I eventually came to the conclusion that they were angry at being treated as little boys, with no control of their care. That came out most obviously with embarrassment issues. The boys without exception wore undies, kept their gowns tucked in, and pulled their sheets up even in hot rooms. Not having their undies seen by our nurses was one of the few ways they could run contrary to hospital culture. And to my surprise, having me as their male caregiver made no difference, other than that they usually held back so they could ask me for a urinal.

      The girls were the opposite. They were so helpful and cooperative, I loved having them as patients. And to my surprise, even embarrassment didn’t prove an issue despite my maleness and the fact that most of their care, particularly when helpless after spinal fusions, fell on me. In contrast with the guys, their dress was relaxed and my presence did not alter that. I soon discovered that they did not want to be in control. What they wanted was to feel that I was controlling our relationship in ways that ensured their safety and minimized their embarrassment. That I did.

      The guys fit well with a response under stress of fight or flight. Unable to punch their nurse, they fled into silence and non-cooperation. In such a world, everyone is a friend or an enemy, and our unfortunate nurses were treated as the latter. I felt sorry for them.

      The girls under stress turned to tend and befriend and seemed particularly interested in applying that with me, the teen unit’s only male. The tenders were those who could get about. They often went out of their way to cheer me up. The befrienders were those whose surgeries made them dependent on me and they cooperated, making my work easy. As a guy, I came to realize that I could fall into one of three roles: 1. Dangerous creep. 2. Worthless Wuss, and 3. Hero and protector. To my delight, I fell into the third role.

      There’s more in my book: Embarrass Less: A Practical Guide for Doctors, Nurses, Hospitals and Students. Some of the incidents I describe are incredible. If you want to study people under real stress, you can’t beat a hospital. And if you want to study differences between the two sexes, teens are best since they highlight those differences. Hormones drive them. They’ve not yet learned to play adult games.

      Hope your daughter finds medicine as delightful as I did. I loved working at that children’s hospital. I am now working on my fifth book about the experience. And by the way, my college degree was in engineering.

      –Michael W. Perry, medical writer

      • Quote: “where the male to female ratio was about 99 to 1.”

        As you might suspect, I got that reversed. The nursing staff was about 99 females to every male. Indeed, during my 26 months at that hospital, I worked with another male on my unit for a total of about ten minutes—a float who quickly left. So work-wise, I was in a virtually all female environment. Pediatrics is that appealing to young women in nursing.

        I had no problem with that and nothing I’d call harassment. The tensions did grow considerable during my last months working there. But they were between the nurses and the nursing administration. Shortly after I left and in the space of just a few weeks, some 20% of the hospital’s floor nurses resigned. I’ve written about the dynamics of that and suggested a practical solution in Senior Nurse Mentor.

    • Jeffrey Goines says

      Virtually identical experience with my daughter and her group of HS friends, several of whom are quite high-achieving and hold advanced degrees from Ivy League schools.

  5. ” While there is no denying that certain extreme segments of the men’s rights movement are hostile, this is not what the movement is about as a whole. To present it in this way is just as dishonest as writing a piece on the Black Lives Matter movement that focuses entirely on anti-police sentiment ” this is an embarrassing analogy even for reactionaries

    • RE: “To present it in this way is just as dishonest as writing a piece on the Black Lives Matter movement that focuses entirely on anti-police sentiment ”

      Cops getting in the way of some young black men living their preferred, predatory lifestyle are the enemy and should die or go to prison so some young black men can continue to live their preferred, predatory lifestyle unimpeded. What else is there to BLM? Name one thing.

    • Oh good, you’ve discovered the label you need to apply to dismiss any point made here.

      There is indeed a much better analogy to be made though, namely with feminism itself. There’s writers like Robin Morgan claiming that “man-hating is an honorable and viable political act” or Andrea Dworkin wanting “to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” There’s Susan Brownmiller’s oft-cited tract on rape where she claims it is “a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear”. Contemporary figures like Guardian writer Jessica Valenti echo this vindictive misandry when they show off their “male tears” apparel, and sites like Jezebel have turned this style of man-bashing into their primary brand.

      These are not anonymous trolls. They are oft-cited figures in the feminist canon whose material continues to have a wide audience. Somehow, their existence has not and will not discredit feminism, and they do not merit discussion. But nobody is allowed to mention the Men’s Rights Movement without including the required admissions that sometimes, some men can be bitter towards women too, and some of them express this online. In fact, even just getting an accurate description is tricky, as the MRM is often directly or indirectly equated with pick up artistry and so-called red pill views on gender roles. These men are all “angry, pathetic losers” who are supposedly upset at seeing their privilege go away.

      It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so transparent. The people who come together to spontaneously set up a smear campaign from their platforms of wide reach are supposedly oppressed, but the lone engineer whose writings are leaked and misrepresented and who loses his job for expressing them is the privileged one. Contemporary feminism is a game of projection, where men are guilt tripped and women are told to see themselves as automatic victims, despite what actually happens.

  6. But that’s where we’ve ended up thanks to politically expedient branding and demagoguery. During Obama’s rein, the Left and Media insisted that he not label entire groups based upon the actions of one in some cases but not others. Shooting at the military base? Workplace violence. Shooting at the SC church? The NaziKlan! It’s the same thing now. Just this past weekend in fact. Trump not calling out a group fast enough for them or as harshly (Charlottesville) — he’s blasted and by transitive property everyone who voted for him as a NaziKlanner. Conversely, he does speak out against a group (the NFL kneelers) and suddenly he’s an anti-first amendment fascist.

    If you spoke out against the policies put forth by Obama? Racist. You didn’t vote for Hillary? It’s because you’re anti-woman. Point out the similarity between personal perception between anorexics and transgender? Branded as something or other.

    Damore points out scientific basis for his argument? Hysteria. But when you do the same to the climate model inaccuracy and constant “regression adjustments” of the historical temperature record? Denier/Skeptic/Anti-science!

    I don’t know the solution. We’ve evolved an environment where discussion of dissenting opinions gets you outcast and branded with a scarlet letter.

    • “But when you do the same to the climate model inaccuracy and constant “regression adjustments” of the historical temperature record? Denier/Skeptic/Anti-science!”

      Let me answer with quotes from the article:

      “[…] we need to ensure that all voices expressing _legitimate_ concerns can be heard and taken seriously.” (Emphasis added.)

      “As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, ‘Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.’”

      (It should be mentioned that I don’t know enough about climate change but then nearly all experts believe in it it seems true.)

      • And there you go, calling a counter view questioning your conclusions as illegitimate. When you go view historical charts put out by NOAA showing the temperature measurements you see them adjusted year after year. They have stated that they are adjusting satellite measures (accurate) to better fit the ship-sampled readings (inaccurate) for ocean temperatures. Actual scientist question how you can take readings from devices that have accuracy ratings of +- 2 degrees and claim 0.1 degree delta accurate validation of a phenomena. Simply asking the question gets you labeled, as you just have, as “illegitimate.” That right there is the exact point. Can you explain why the science says not to adjust the inaccurate readings to match the accurate but instead take the higher fidelity readings and make them match the less accurate? Can you explain why if you pull an NOAA historical temp chart from 2000 and compare, say….1920 then to 1920 now, the now chart shows 1920 colder (not the forecasted temps where there are missing readings but the ACTUAL measured values)? To those of us who study in empirical areas where actual readings matter regardless of whether they prove or disprove our null hypothesis, those are LEGITIMATE (emphasis added) questions.

        Now, the above is slightly tangential but serves as an exemplar case of the smearing the author wrote about. Instead of being willing to discuss the challenges to your position, and my original post outlined some of the challenges put forth by scientists in other fields like Physics, and rebutting you’ve simply dismissed them as illegitimate. Last I checked, that runs counter to the scientific method. Good thing consensus “science” wasn’t the guiding practice a few hundred years ago, we’d still be thinking the Earth was the center of the solar universe and flat!

  7. “I fear that the greatest casualty may be the public’s confidence in The New York Times itself and the media in general.”

    This is pretty much where I’m at. Shortly after Damore’s memo there was that Charlottesville noise and all I could think was “OK, but is it actually a group of white nationalists, or is it a group of right wingers the liberal media is trying to smear based on a few bad apples among them? I mean, I have evidence still in my hands that they would blatantly lie to support their agenda.”

    But the thing is, I would still define myself as a liberal, and have considered ‘conservative’ news sources too callous/inaccurate for a while now.

    So I’ve dropped all news from my diet, and am not particularly inclined to undo it. I think I’m just going to read some science books to feed my want for knowledge and to escape this postmodern mess.

    • Be careful, Jon–you may not be interested in the culture wars, but sooner or later they will be interested in you!

  8. Does anyone have the either the text or an image of the editorial the NYT ran on 13 Jan, 1920 saying that rocket travel in space was impossible, and that Robert H. Goddard was a crackpot for insisting it was so? (The retraction came nearly 50 years later just after Apollo 11 was launched 😉

  9. Hypercrite says

    I look forward to the next reeducation gender-centered course, because I plan to ask the politburo at my workplace if promoting women is not considered islamophobia.

    The top muslim official in my european country already stated that teaching boys and girls at school they have equal rights and deserve equal consideration is specifically targeting muslim and muslim values, and there are famous verses to support that (number of witnesses required, inheritance shares, to say nothing about the private life and advice for domestic violence against reluctant women).

    So, caught off guard, the politburo might be interesting to listen to for a change.

    • I’m curious when there will be protests against the LGBT by the feminists over Wonder Woman. There is pressure from the LGBT side that Wonder Woman come out as bisexual or lesbian. Isn’t it anti-feminist and offensive to claim that the only way a female could assume a traditionally male cultural/societal roles is by being a lesbian? I know I won’t be telling my daughters, “Sorry girls, you can’t fill that traditionally male role in society because you’re heterosexual.”

  10. Casper Maree says

    Well written, and a balanced reflection of events and issues – thanks for great article

  11. “Furthermore, the study found that a whopping 41% of male respondents reported that they had experienced sexual harassment.”

    Coincidentally, I took an online sexual harassment training course (well, workplace harassment in general) just about an hour ago for work. All the examples used involved male-on-female sexual harassment, divided into the types Quid Pro Quo and Hostile Work Environment. It’s no wonder the above seems hard to believe. There are so few examples of it in both pop culture and dry corporate legal material.

  12. Great article. I hope that men’s rights activists and Migtows will increase until they have parity with the feminazis. It’s certain that the feminazis now run the political system, the legal system, the media, the educational system, and therefore have most of the men in our society under their control except for a few hold-outs like James Damore. It is definitely politically incorrect for men to be men in this country, and the sooner we can push back, the better.

  13. Christina Hoff Sommers is an “equity feminist”? What does that even mean now? I thought she was more like a classical feminist.

    • Carl Sageman says

      Sommers talks about her views of feminism and says that she represents all people (which is the antithesis of feminism). However, she feels that by maintaining the title feminist, she is working from within the system to improve a movement she feels has been hijacked.

      Sommers calls herself an equity feminist. You can read about it on Wikipedia. In short, it tried to quantify her goals (ie. with a specific measure that applied to everyone). This is a rare goal in feminism.

      I’m a supporter of Sommers because she’s one of the few people who recognise gender differences and supports differences as a positive aspect of humanity. She often talks about accepting differences (eg. Women dominating human oriented careers, men dominating technology oriented careers, and both being acceptable) and she rarely (if ever) asks for this to be fixed (why should it?).

      I’ll also mention that the New York Times has a history of sexist bias. When seeking to fulfil the position of gender editor, the NYT prefixed the position description with some highly prejudiced commentary to influence that type of prejudice they were seeking in a gender editor. Other than specific inflammatory comments about the Olympics, what purpose did this serve?

      “An analysis that shows how pay decreases when women take over jobs that men used to dominate. A look at how women ruled the Olympics. A searing documentary showing how a mob in Afghanistan killed an innocent woman. Chronicling the quest of women in rural India to work and be independent, even at the cost of their lives…”

      I didn’t imagine the NYT’s reputation could sink much lower. When you are so heavily invested in sexism, it’s hard to return from such an extreme position to actually care about people collectively.

      However, the whole media industry (except for Quillette) ignored expert opinion on the James Damore memo (Time magazine, NYT, BBC, CNN, Sydney Morning Herald, India Times, etc). They used propagandist language (eg. screed, anti-diversity, sexist, making up false quotes, deleting evidence to undermine the memo, etc). This was almost universal to all mainstream media outlets (except modifying the memo, which was limited to Gizmodo, but not reported by the media).

      Quillette gained significant respect from me. Not because it agreed with what I said. It was because Quillette provided honest, open, scientifically backed reporting when nobody else would! The entire mainstream media is one big joke with little credibility left.

      • Carl Grover says

        Well put, Carl. We share much more than name. The Damore fiasco, it seems, is what brought many here. Prior, I didn’t even know there was an actual Men’s Rights Movement. Cheers.

  14. Jeffrey Goines says

    Great article! Most of the vitriol and criticism of Damore I’ve seen, in articles and comments, starts with the assumption that his memo is sexist and misogynist, never bothering to accurately represent his position and actually make an argument. Such responses actually promote a stereotype of women as irrational and relying solely on emotion to guide decisions and opinions. (Huge numbers of counter-examples exist to contradict such a stereotype, I’ve just seen very few on this particular subject.) Additionally this unthinking groupthink is indistinguishable from what grew so tiresome (and remains so) from ultra-conservatives and the reactionary Twitter feed of DJT. Tremendously disappointing. And further support for Damore’s concerns about the authoritarian left.
    And yes the NYT piece was a hatchet job about “fringe” groups packaged to look like it was presenting oppositional views fairly.

Comments are closed.