Consider the case of Ellen Pao, the interim CEO of Reddit. She used to work for the venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Kleiner Perkins fired her because she was impossible to work with/for. Kept a "resentments list" of perceived transgressions by employees. Several documented instances of bullying.
She filed suit, complaining that it was a case of gender discrimination. She lost.
That meant the narrative architects had to go into overdrive:
. . . the tech and mainstream media has . . . spent the last week spinning the tale of a righteous crusader fighting against the sexist status quo.
The most common argument has been that regardless of Pao’s loss, she nonetheless managed to raise awareness of the issue. Despite the fact that she (very publicly) failed to demonstrate that she suffered any discrimination at Kleiner Perkins, and that a number of unsavoury details about her own conduct and background came to light, a swathe of journalists have argued that the case sparked a national conversation on the wider issues.
But to anyone following the media narrative over the past few years, the idea that Pao vs Kleiner “started the conversation” on diversity in tech, as the Washington Post put it, is laughable. The reason Pao’s case received by-the-minute live blogs was a reflection of the fact that tech media can’t stop talking about Silicon Valley’s supposed diversity problem. For them, a case like this was irresistible.
The truth is, Pao vs Kleiner did not generate the debate. The press had been carrying on the conversation ad nauseum for years before her case hit the headlines. Indeed, the topic is so charged that when Google CEO Eric Schmidt interrupted a female co-panellist during a discussion, it made headlines across dozens of outlets as an example of rampant Silicon Valley sexism.
Why does diversity in tech remain such a hot-button issue for the progressive media? The core problem is ratios. According to figures from Google, women make up just 17 percent of the U.S. tech workforce. Latinos make up two percent, while African-Americans make up one percent. In the U.S., where most of the western tech world is based, diversity in tech is significantly below diversity in the wider economy. Following the sector’s rapid growth in wealth and influence over the past decade, diversity in tech suddenly became one of progressive activists’ chief concerns.
Of course it goes without saying that there is no overt, malevolent conspiracy to keep women out of tech. As Heather MacDonald explains in this eloquent Wall Street Journal article, technology and venture capital companies are in constant competition to attract the best talent. Any company that deliberately excluded gifted candidates because of their gender would quickly be outdone by their competitors.
Indeed. The free market sees that people wind up in positions for which they're best suited. It doesn't really take a lot of brainpower to figure that one out.
So the cultural jackboots had to invent a concept, "unconscious bias," and sell it to the cattle-masses without relent.
It’s easy to see why this argument caught on. If companies are convinced that unconscious bias and subtle, unseen intolerance is preventing them from acquiring talented female and minority employees, of course they would want to take steps to address it. Even if claims about the impact of bias are somewhat exaggerated, what harm could it do?
A great deal, in fact.
In their quest to shine a spotlight on unconscious biases, diversity activists in Silicon Valley now seek to uncover it in everyday behaviour. Jokes, comments, and even body language, even if they are completely innocent on the face of it, are now examined for any signs of a racist or sexist “microaggression.” Jane Porter, a writer for FastCompany, explains how the concept works:
All throughout the day, we send subtle messages to the people around us through our body language, word choice and behavior. Derald Wing Sue, professor of counseling psychology at Columbia University calls these signals “microagressions,” which can have a profound and detrimental effect on the people around us.
“Microaggressions are the brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial, gender, sexual-orientation, and religious slights and insults,” Sue writes in his book, Microaggressions in Everyday Life.
Becoming hyperconscious of the language you use, who you choose to interact with and how during the day can cue you into how your language and behavior affects the people around you. Small details can make a difference. At Google, for instance, a number of conference rooms, which have traditionally been named after scientists, were renamed after women scientists to balance out the gender representation.
In other words, the lack of diversity in tech isn’t just caused by bias in the hiring process. Peoples’ unconscious racism and sexism also causes them to send hidden signals to one another to communicate said racism and sexism. To put it another way, everyone is being accidentally racist and sexist, all the time.
"Microaggression" is Leftist gobbledygook for the Leviathan state reserving the right to climb inside your noggin.
And then those of us who have resisted buying into all this madness are in real danger:
At some point, the social-justice warrior crowd is going to incite their people into something more than Ferguson or Occupy or Internet harassment. At some point, their fanatic desire to erase God from the hearts and minds and actions of red America will cross a threshold. Someday, in some town, a Christian shopkeeper who becomes the focus of the 4chan or Reddit Rage Machine will be killed by some militant atheist or black bloc kid or some other flavor of crazy. That day, their rage won’t come from the click of a mouse, but from the barrel of a gun.
On that day, instead of reacting with horror and disgust, someone important enough in their social-justice-warrior universe–be it a political figure, a celebrity, or just a popular activist–will say something like, “I abhor violence, but…”
On the day that “but” becomes acceptable on the Left, it’s a ratchet that turns only one way. When political violence becomes mainstreamed, it infects a society quickly. It’s a short, quick slide into hell. The tolerance crowd will read that scenario and explode with denials. They’re never going to call for violence. Leftism is a peacefulreligion. (Sound familiar?)
From post-America to Garissa University: Is it such a big leap?
No comments:
Post a Comment