August 8, 2017
James Damore the author of the “Google manifesto” has been fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.”
The engineer who drafted the 10-page manifesto criticizing Google’s diversity policies has been fired.
Alphabet Inc.’s Google has fired an employee who wrote an internal memo blasting the web company’s diversity policies, creating a firestorm across Silicon Valley.
James Damore, the Google engineer who wrote the note, confirmed his dismissal in an email, saying that he had been fired for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.” A Google representative didn’t immediately return a request for comment.
The imbroglio at Google is the latest in a long string of incidents concerning gender bias and diversity in the tech enclave. Uber Technologies Inc. Chief Executive Officer Travis Kalanick lost his job in June amid scandals over sexual harassment, discrimination and an aggressive culture. Ellen Pao’s gender-discrimination lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers in 2015 also brought the issue to light, and more women are speaking up to say they’ve been sidelined in the male-dominated industry, especially in engineering roles.
Earlier on Monday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai sent a note to employees that said portions of the memo “violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.” But he didn’t say if the company was taking action against the employee.
Damore’s 10-page memorandum accused Google of silencing conservative political opinions and argued that biological differences play a role in the shortage of women in tech and leadership positions. It circulated widely inside the company and became public over the weekend, causing a furor that amplified the pressure on Google executives to take a more definitive stand.
This is not a surprise. In my previous article, I predicted that he would either be fired or treated like a pariah.
What’s hilarious is the reason Google gave for his firing. Since he was “perpetuating gender stereotypes” they felt compelled to terminate his employment.
Google CEO Sunda Pichai thinks toilets are racist.
I also speculated that they would likely use their “Code of Conduct” against him. Google’s street shitting CEO Sunda Pichai made reference to it in a communication to their employees about the situation.
But let’s just stop for a minute to appreciate how insane this is. He was fired for believing that men and women gravitate towards different roles because they are biologically different from one another. In other words, they fired him for making a logical observation about the natural world. How exactly is this harmful to anybody? Google does not seem to have an answer to this question.
This is an important moment for these tech companies. Anybody who has ever worked at a tech company or attended a tech oriented trade show understands that this field is dominated by White males. You would think that they would not want to alienate the main demographic of people responsible for most of the sector’s innovation.
The very fact that this manifesto was even written, is a sign that White men are getting increasingly agitated with the corporate cultures they’re working in. As a White male you feel like you’re constantly walking on eggshells. Women have the power to accuse you of sexual harassment and get you fired. If you say something politically incorrect you can get fired. You can get passed over for jobs and promotions because of diversity quotas. It’s a ridiculous situation and one that reveals a number of problems with the culture inside these companies.
Google’s claims that they offer a diverse, inclusive and tolerant work environment has now been proven to be complete bullshit. They fired this dude because he offered an opinion they didn’t like. This is the very definition of intolerance.
Hopefully this is the start of a White male exodus from these large tech firms that promote all of this Cultural Marxist gibberish. It’d be great to see groups of smart White men leave companies like Google, Facebook and others to form their own separate enterprises. This will either force these existing organizations to change their ways or they’ll risk their operations sliding into disarray.
It will be interesting to see what happens from here. This manifesto could be a game changer for the corporate culture inside these tech companies. One can only imagine how many White males working at Google are upset that this guy got fired simply for expressing his opinion. Who in their right mind could think that this is fair?
Senior Google Engineer Publishes Anti-Feminist Manifesto The Collapse Has Begun
Google Engineer Denounced for Writing Essay That Says Men and Women are Biologically Different
August 6, 2017
Big Jewish run tech companies like Google have Marxist workplace cultures that operate like a religious cult.
Most if not all major tech companies fully embrace Cultural Marxism as the founding ideological principal of their workplace culture. This has caused companies like Google, Facebook and other tech firms to operate like deranged religious cults. Disagreeing with any aspect of politically correct doctrines represents an act of heresy and is usually punished with expulsion.
As a former longtime employee at a software company, I can say that this is absolutely the case. It is good to see that there are other people who have noticed the same thing and are exposing it as a problem.
An unnamed Google engineer recently wrote a lengthy essay criticizing an intolerant Marxist culture at the company. It caused such a firestorm that the essay got leaked to the press. It has since become a fairly significant news story.
Outrage is growing in Silicon Valley and beyond after a 10-page document written by a senior Google engineer blasted the company’s “left leaning” culture and attributed differences in pay between men and women in tech jobs partly to biological differences between genders.
The document made the rounds within the company on Friday, CNBC reports, and was published in full by Gizmodo.
The essay was titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.” The engineer’s identity has not been revealed.
“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,” it reads.
It argues that differences in pay between men and women in the technology sector are not entirely related to bias against women, but are partly attributable to biological differences between the genders, CNBC reports. It also called on Google to “stop alienating conservatives” and calls into question practices like “unconscious bias” training for committees that promote employees.
“Women, on average, have more openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men.”
He states that women tend to be more interested in people rather than things, “empathizing vs. systemizing,” whereas men have a higher drive for status and so tend to end up in leadership positions.
He also says that on average, women have more “neuroticism,” as defined as “higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance.”
The engineer basically said that men and women are biologically different and that this is why men and women tend to have different interests. This in turn explains why you have more male than female engineers. Can you believe that such an obvious statement of fact is considered controversial?
To make the situation even more ridiculous, Google had just hired a new Vice President of Diversity named Danielle Brown. Her sole job is to ensure that Google has enough non-Whites and female engineers on their staff so they can’t be accused of racism or sexism. It’s safe to assume that she is getting paid a very high six figure salary for this obviously ridiculous and nonsensical job.
As expected, she was none too pleased about the essay. After all, stating facts about gender differences is heretical thinking inside any Silicon Valley tech firm.
She wrote a response claiming that the engineer was wrong about men and women being biologically different while emphasizing how diversity and inclusion are fundamental to their values.
I’m Danielle, Google’s brand new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance. I started just a couple of weeks ago, and I had hoped to take another week or so to get the lay of the land before introducing myself to you all. But given the heated debate we’ve seen over the past few days, I feel compelled to say a few words.
Many of you have read an internal document shared by someone in our engineering organization, expressing views on the natural abilities and characteristics of different genders, as well as whether one can speak freely of these things at Google. And like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. I’m not going to link to it here as it’s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.
Diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture we continue to cultivate. We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company, and we’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul. As Ari Balogh said in his internal G+ post, “Building an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. ‘Nuff said. “
Google has taken a strong stand on this issue, by releasing its demographic data and creating a company wide OKR on diversity and inclusion. Strong stands elicit strong reactions. Changing a culture is hard, and it’s often uncomfortable. But I firmly believe Google is doing the right thing, and that’s why I took this job.
Part of building an open, inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which those with alternative views, including different political views, feel safe sharing their opinions. But that discourse needs to work alongside the principles of equal employment found in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination laws.
I’ve been in the industry for a long time, and I can tell you that I’ve never worked at a company that has so many platforms for employees to express themselves—TGIF, Memegen, internal G+, thousands of discussion groups. I know this conversation doesn’t end with my email today. I look forward to continuing to hear your thoughts as I settle in and meet with Googlers across the company.
That was your standard run of the mill corporate response to an internal controversy. Love all those stupid buzzwords!
The fact of the matter is that the only type of diversity and inclusiveness they want is related to race and gender. In other words, fewer White males irregardless of qualifications. They are definitely not interested in having a workforce filled with people who have different political opinions. That’s why she referenced their “Code of Conduct” which I imagine gives them the freedom to fire people who question the idea that their workplace culture needs to be driven by political correctness, quotas etc.
The Jewish founders of Google Larry Page and Sergey Brin foster a diverse and inclusive workplace culture at Google. The exception is if you are a Nazi who thinks there are differences between males and females. These are bad thoughts. Such thinking leads to Holocausts.
And by the way, Google is a company that was started by Jews and is run by Jews. It is no surprise that this is the type of culture that operates there. You’ll find this in any Jewish run organization.
Here’s my prediction. If this engineer isn’t fired for penning this essay, they’ll be treated like a pariah and discriminated against by the open, diverse and inclusive culture of Google.
The Google Manifesto is Unabomber Tier (FULL TEXT)
August 7, 2017
I’m a big manifesto guy. Way big.
I love me a good manifesto like nobody’s business. And have I got a whopper for you today.
As we reported earlier, a Google mid-level software engineer released an anti-progressive document via memo at Google. And this memo, running for ten pages, is a genuine manifesto. And it is historic.
This will alter history.
This is a white man in an industry that has been buried in diversity propaganda and yet continues to exist exclusively on white male ingenuity standing up and saying: “This is ours. You are not going to take it from us.”
It has all of the niceties of modern politically correct speech, but it is a declaration of war.
I believe that this is going to mark a turning point. I don’t know which way things will turn, but now, someone has said the obvious, and as has been widely reported in the tech (and mainstream) press, a whole bunch of people came out and said they agreed with him. None of the detractors are making an argument, and are relying on simply “BUT U CAN’T SAY THAT!!!!!1111”
Only this time, it isn’t working.
People are asking for a response to the points made.
And of course, there aren’t any being given, because none exist.
This entire Jewish politically correct system is a naked emperor, jumping up and down with his dick flopping around, telling you he’s a woman and that if you don’t like his new dress he’s wearing, you are the epitome of evil.
Well, the bluff has been called.
We are standing up and we are fighting back.
White men, unite.
And take over.
Full Google manifesto text follows (begins with a note added after circulation began – it was released via Google Docs and he went in and added that note).
Reply to public response and misrepresentation
I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.
- Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
- This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
- The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
- Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
- Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
- Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document. Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.
At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.
- Compassion for the weak
- Disparities are due to injustices
- Humans are inherently cooperative
- Change is good (unstable)
- Respect for the strong/authority
- Disparities are natural and just
- Humans are inherently competitive
- Change is dangerous (stable)
Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.
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. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.
Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech 
At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.
On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
- They’re universal across human cultures
- They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
- Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
- The underlying traits are highly heritable
- They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
Women, on average, have more:
- Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
- These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
- Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
- This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
- Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.
Men’s higher drive for status
We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
Status is the primary metric that men are judged on, pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.
Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap
Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:
- Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
- 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 and 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).
- Women on average are more cooperative
- Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
- Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
- Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
- The male gender role is currently inflexible
- Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.
Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.
The Harm of Google’s biases
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:
- Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race 
- A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
- Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
- Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
- Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination 
These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology that can irreparably harm Google.
Why we’re blind
We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.
In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.
The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness, which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.
I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).
My concrete suggestions are to:
- As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”
Stop alienating conservatives.
- Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
- In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
- Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
Confront Google’s biases.
- I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
- I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
- These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.
- Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
- There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
- These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
- I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.
Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.
- We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
- We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
- Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.
- I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.
- Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
- Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.
Be open about the science of human nature.
- Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.
Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.
- We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
- Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
- Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).
 This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.
 Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.
 Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.
 For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.
 Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.
 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.
 Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”
 Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.
 Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.
 “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”
 Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.