That is just some bogus survey. How many people remember crime rates from 20 years ago? People in that survey were younger 20 years ago, and logically care less about personal safety back then. When you are older, have a family and kids you worry more about crimes. It’s logical they are more in tune with the threats of gun violence now.
What the survey says is that the level of gun violence is too high. And that is 100% correct.
Are you expecting immediate jump once the decision is made?
Say, today is 17% women, decision made, tomorrow jumps to 50%?
Do you hire based on just numbers? GPA, which schools they go to, experience etc? Or do you talk to them and see if they are “good fit”?
I don’t think Google is hiring women regardless of their abilities. If someone can show me data instead of their hunches I would love to see that.
But if the Google guy is right, and many of you seem to think that way, women have better personal skills. Good personal skill is a must for being a good manager, no? I would like to hire more women because they have superior personal skills.
Where did you get your data?
Women = 31% of all Googlers.
1 in 5 of tech hired is women.
What would be the legal basis?
https://www.axios.com/googles-diversity-efforts-are-making-little-progress-2470784457.html
They tracked the ratio using Google’s own diversity reports.
Everybody claim that their data is correct 
You don’t think people’s perception of gun violence increasing or decreasing impacts their views towards gun control laws and voting? Did the survey ask if gun violence is too high? Now you’re throwing away actual data and making an opinion more important.
So these charts go to show that there’s really very limited progress can be made with diversity efforts. The goal of these efforts, then, might not be necessarily to increase the ratio of minorities (data proved that it cannot be achieved), but to further establish goodwill and maintain the current level of diversity. They are also important in continuing to empower minorities and make them feel included rather than threatened.
Therefore, the inclusion I can draw from this is that Mr. Damore is absolutely wrong to accuse Google of spending resources with diversity efforts. They are needed and actually extremely resourceful.
I am not doubting your data. I am doubting its significance and your conclusion.
How we shape our gun control laws should be based on the level of gun violence. Do we feel it’s too high? If so we need to do something about it.
There absolutely no need for guns. In China, ordinary people don’t own guns. When they attack, they attack with knifes. Much safer and less deadly than guns.
It’s difficult. The ratio is hardly moving at all. That makes the ego hurt of male engineers all the more puzzling. Like @marcus335 said many are not looking at the data. Men think they are victims but data says otherwise.
Women pioneered computer programming. Then men took over industry over. For those who have time, can verify whether what the author’s observation of the transition is true or not.
When I was entering college in late 1970s, even though I like CS I went for electronics engineering because CS then is viewed as a woman’s career. Everybody view “Women are ‘naturals’ at computer programming.” With the introduction of personal computer, everything change, reasons given varied from because of computer games, rise of SJ and BG, employers dislike women, etc. What is the truth? I have no idea since I was out of the industry during the drastic transition.
Btw, the article claims that only 6.7% got a degree in STEM so Google’s 24% of women in tech is not bad.
I’ll check with my lawyer and get back 
Women stopped getting into CS because of PC games in the late 70s and 80s.
But here’s a good starting place: The share of women in computer science started falling at roughly the same moment when personal computers started showing up in U.S. homes in significant numbers.
These early personal computers weren’t much more than toys. You could play pong or simple shooting games, maybe do some word processing. And these toys were marketed almost entirely to men and boys.
Here’s that chart I posted earlier.
I’m an ex-google woman tech leader and I’m sick of our approach to diversity
It’s not like I wasn’t trying to hire women. But I was working with a candidate pool composed of 90% men. Try software engineers with experience in sensors, wireless and hardware stacks before angrily correcting my stats there. There was no way I was going to come out of that with a larger percentage of women hires than I did.
Is consistent with my observation that men like hardware, women doesn’t.
Case in point: Sometimes, girls do gravitate more towards creative rather than logic problems, either naturally or due to the environment around them. I’m doing my part to start encouraging my own kids early. We need more of it.
Odd comment because design of algorithm does need creativity. Her definition of creativity could be aesthetic.
In 2006, only about 10 percent of computer science majors at Harvey Mudd College were women. That’s pretty low since Harvey Mudd is a school for students who are interested in science, math and technology. Then, Maria Klawe began her tenure as president of the college.
In fact, as soon as she arrived Klawe joined in an effort to change the curriculum. First the school changed the name of the intro course, which had been called Intro to Java — a programming language.
Faculty came up with a new name: Creative Problem Solving in Science and Engineering Using Computational Approaches.
And then, Klawe says, the college also had to address the fact that a lot of women were intimidated by male students who showed off in class. Many had done some programming in high school and they would dominate discussion.
So, they created a second intro course for students who had no previous experience. Klawe says that it took away the “intimidation that comes of being a class where you’ve had no prior experience and somebody else has been programming since they were eight.”
Carnegie Mellon instituted a series of reforms. The school created a women’s computer club. The school made it harder to become a computer science major — as always applicants had to be good at math and science but now they also had to show they had leadership qualities.
Today, instead of 7 percent, over 40 percent of the computer science majors at Carnegie Mellon are women.
Maria’s approach is better than hiring and promoting based on diversity attributes.
It’s wrong for the government to mandate diversity in the private company.
If you have very few women applicants for a job, how can you mandate a larger ratio of women workers? If you compare CS grads gender ratio and Google/Facebook gender ratio, companies have already hired more women than school stats shows
