From the metro newspaper yesterday:
“Google is a man’s world – of its overall worldwide workforce, 70 per cent are male, while in the company’s tech department it’s even more pronounced: only 17 per cent of staff are women. In the US, six out of ten ‘Googlers’ are white and three out of ten are Asian. Just three per cent are Hispanic and two per cent are black.”
“Diversity is good business,’ she [Belinda Parmar, chief executive of female tech agency Lady Geek ] said. ‘This is a commercial agenda, not a feminist or political agenda. There are commercial benefits for having a diverse workforce. Many companies in my experience are in denial, particularly about gender issues where they think “women’s initiatives” or superficial ad campaigns can solve the issues.”
Claiming that diversity is ‘good for business’ is the same as claiming that a lack of diversity is bad for business. The problem with this theory is that it doesn’t fit the facts of reality. Google has had incredible commercial success with, as has been revealed today by Google themselves, a workforce that isn’t ethnically diverse – and is male dominated. It’s not just Google that proves her theory wrong, it’s also Apple, Twitter and Amazon because they too have workforces that lack diversity and are white male dominated.
“…Apple, Twitter and Amazon have all been criticised lately for a lack of women or people from ethnic minorities in high positions.”
If consumers strongly objected to the lack of diversity in these companies’ workforces, then these giants of tech and the web would never have amassed the fortunes they have.
Belinda Parma is right that it’s not a feminist or political agenda. It’s both. It’s an agenda to gain unjust privileges for ethnic minorities and females by accusing innocent people of deliberately discriminating against women and ethnic minorities based on their on sex and skin colour – without any evidence whatsoever of such doing. The reality is that everyone has the right to choose who they employ and who they don’t, and indeed to base that choice on any criteria they choose. Even if Google’s workforce was entirely made up of white males that wouldn’t make Google criminals, and it wouldn’t justify using force against them to prevent them from employing only men (or women) or only people of a certain race. Because race and sexual discrimination doesn’t violate anyone’s person or property it cannot be considered illegal, but there’s nothing to stop people considering it immoral and using peaceful means to protest it – such as boycotting or picketing.
“Admitting a problem is the first step to fixing it” says Belinda in reference to Laszlo Block (senior vice president of people operations at Google) saying “‘We’re not where we want to be when it comes to diversity”.
Because the ideology of diversity lacks reason and evidence to support it, its followers must first engineer the problem which they later go on to masquerade as the solution to. This is achieved by intellectuals and people like Belinda propagandizing the masses into believing that they should value diversity because, they believe or assume, a diverse society is a better society. Anyone who disagrees or questions the premises of the diversity doctrine is labelled a bigot or anti-social. Google’s apparent admission of ‘guilt’ doesn’t prove that a lack of diversity in their workforce is a “problem” for society, it just proves that Google is worried that it’s customers are starting to think it’s a problem. It’s only natural for Google to want to try to minimise the potential damage being done to its reputation (and profit margins) as a result of this witch hunt by diversity, equality and feminist campaign groups, and everyone else who hurls themself onto the socialist slash anti-capitalist bandwagon mistakenly believing it to be a ticket to moral superiority.
These campaign groups would settle for pressuring companies like Google into employing more ethnic minorities and making more women managers simply for the sake of diversity, but what would bring them deep joy is to have laws made that would force companies to employ a certain amount of people of each race and a certain amount of women. In other words what they desire is to have the government force companies to discriminate against people purely because they have white skin and are male. But this is precisely the behavior diversity and equality campaigners decry as immoral and unjust, and claim to wish to rid the world of!
Here we arrive at the perverse truth that although advocates of diversity and equality claim to be anti-discrimination, they are actually very much for it. In fact, they must believe discrimination is the solution to (what they perceive to be the ‘problem’ of discrimination) because the only way to achieve workforces with the ‘just’ and ‘correct’ proportions of ethnic minorities and females is to engage in racial and sexual discrimination. Not only are diversity and equality campaigners trying to solve a ‘problem’ that didn’t exist until they vociferously moralised enough people into believing it does, but their ‘solution’ to it can only result in more discrimination.
The world has enough real problems to deal with. For goodness sake just stop the nonsense.