So this Google memo debacle has been brewing for little over a week now, and while I no deep insights to add to the discussion, I feel that I need to say something about the memo and the fallout. First off, the memo give off the distinct smell of the usual paranoid ramblings of a "white cis male" that feel marginalized in a world that they believe no longer cater to them first and foremost. It's the tired story about how some things can not be said and how this champion will rise to the occasion and slay the dragon of ideological opression. All while coating the whole thing in a veneer of scientific validity by citing papers and studies, leading feeble-minded individuals to believe that the whole thing is science. No, it's most definitely not science. Just citing stuff that happen to support your claim does not magically make it science. And another thing that makes my piss boil is the constant inability to understand that implication does not mean equality, that observed attributes in a group cannot be directly applied to individuals. I've seen this being done countless times, and it's especially prevalent when the discussion is about race or gender. Because apparently those groups are somehow considered more valid than the group of "canasta players" or "those who enjoy the feeling of grass between their toes." (You know what -- it just hit me that the people that write this kind of garbage might actually believe that the groups within race and gender are the attributes themselves, and not the complex of attributes that we happen to stick a label on. And now it hit me that I'm doing a banal digression, so never mind.) Furthermore, the guy has a very poor grasp at what makes an engineer. Even if all of those claims were true -- that, for instance, female engineers always tend to be more focused on social aspects -- that would not be a liabilty. That's an asset. The first and most important lesson I learned when I started my work life as an engineer is that technology is a means, not an end. And that it hurts when you realize that the technology itself doesn't matter, that there are tons of other factors that are in play when a technology is deemed a success or a failure. People that master the social aspects of engineering work will undoubtly have output that is more often successful than of those who only focus the tech itself. Why? Because they vocalize their ideas, they receive feedback, they are on other peoples' radar, they form consensus, etc., etc. Engineers are people, and people like to socialize. Well, some prefer to write paranoid rants about how ones status as a white, straight guy is threatened. But they aren't very much fun to be around anyway.