A Female Tech Industry Veteran’s Response to the Googler’s Manifesto
Not Only is the Proposition Sexist and Offensive, It’s Bad For Businesses and Their Customers

As a futurist and design/user experience/market researcher who has spent nearly 25 years in the tech industry, I have now run across too many revelations regarding sexism in Silicon Valley (and Silicon Valley North, where I live) to remain silent about my story any longer.
Especially not now that Silicon Valley sexism is being immortalized and shared widely, having an effect on a culture that is already intolerant, uninclusive, and without remorse for the human toll their short-sighted policies create. Google’s recent PR nightmare — a manifesto created by one of their male engineers, called ‘Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber’ is littered with stereotypical stances (females are neurotic, anxiety-prone, etc.) and supposedly biological rationale for why women should be excluded and why a gender pay gap is reasonable. It’s basically ten pages of the same sort of rhetoric the alt-right has been spinning — men are being oppressed by female demands for equality, which is not deserved because only men are good at software engineering:
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.
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.
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.
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 (sic) 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 [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. 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.
My Perspective as a Contributor to Dozens of Tech Industry Projects
I can assure anyone that I am very good at software engineering myself, but I have struggled for recognition and inclusion throughout my career. This despite decades of effort constructing a design savvy and sensibility, as well as familiarity with all aspects of software engineering, including strategy, UX/UI (user interface) and information/interaction design, prototyping, content development, coding, scripting, databases, etc.
As you can imagine, this movement to marginalize people like me, while utilizing us for work we will not be recognized for, is not only unfair, it’s illegal. But it happens anyway. We female and minority employees try to adapt, but through that adaptation we have had to relinquish certain fundamental rights. Rights that I thought were sacrosanct in our culture and the new industries we have been inventing.
The biggest problems in the tech industry have to do with waste, inefficiency, limiting cultural beliefs including elitism and exclusion, and systems-centric approaches to software and human factors. Some of the policies are flagrantly abusive of women and minorities, the disabled, and other undesirable groups, despite all we have to offer.
I, personally, am a socio-cultural anthropologist and design/UX (user experience) researcher with a B.A. in anthro from UC Berkeley, a master’s in Education, and a Ph.D. in Screen and Media studies. I study users and other audiences starting with their role as human beings, work I have been doing since first inspired by Jakob Nielsen’s Alert Box (a usability site) in the 1990s. I started my career in very technical roles (systems integration, networks, technical support, web development), but moved into more creative/front end roles as my career progressed. I found that there was a gap in backend development due to a lack of understanding of the users they were trying to serve — I began trying to apply my academic skills for human observation to these problems. I also did a lot of academic work related to technology, learning, and gaming/virtual worlds. (Google Scholar)
I found out early in my career that I was as nerdy and knowledgeable as my male counterparts. I was raised on Star Trek and got my first computer at 15. Attended user group meetings and programmed in BASIC. I’ve also been on BBSes (bulletin board systems) and the Internet since the pre-graphical days myself, and have always had some site or community I have run, in addition to work in IT (networks and systems), web design and development, learning and game design and development, marketing, business strategy and management, business development, as well as coding, scripting, databases, etc. I am both technical and design-oriented, but I tend to lead with people and strategy. (LinkedIn)
I spent 25 years in the tech industry, which is dominated by what I referred to as ‘masculine’ approaches to business. Very few women are able to crack the silicon ceiling, because of a lack of respect for how we choose to work and a lack of awareness that there is another way. I also see this happening in other corporate and governmental milieus. I think ‘male’ culture is privileged, because men vastly outnumber women in STEM-related settings. Women therefore try to conform to the established culture, but it means many missed opportunities to mentor them into leadership roles they can excel at. (Source: Why I Wrote How to Lead Like a Woman)
As a culture, I understand our Western Internet well. I am both consumer and participant and creator of Internet things, one of which was nominated for a Webby way back at the turn of the century. I have always encouraged understanding people and their natural proclivities first, then I have conducted user research and led teams to design tech that responds naturally to our inherent proclivities. My role is not a common one, even at companies like Microsoft and Amazon, where I have worked only as a contract employee (despite half a dozen contract roles and applying for dozens of permanent roles over the years), embedded with design and development teams, usually only brought in late in the software development lifecycle, when my input cannot substantially benefit projects already in crunch and wanting to push a less-than-ideal product out the door. In fact, it became well-established in UX research circles at Microsoft that researchers had been relegated to bug testing roles (products were not thoroughly bug tested before user research studies), which I also experienced myself.
What we really have is a problem of culture in the tech industry and engineering circles, and the predominantly male populations that guide the formation of that culture. Seeking diversity and equality is an absolute necessity in the tech sector, not just because it is the moral or empathetic thing to do, but because it is what fuels innovation. It also means that not all software is being designed for young, white guys rather than the actual realities of the marketplaces companies like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft seek to serve.
What does the tech industry really need to work on? Some innovation and creativity-limiting habits and practices that I have observed this last quarter century:
1. Cognitive Intelligence Is Privileged Over Emotional and Social Intelligence
Diversity should not only apply to our physical dimensions, but our psycho-social ones, as well. But the Googler’s Manifesto refers to a sort of ideological control and domination meant to demean and marginalize female engineers.
What I am is an engineer, and I was rather surprised that anyone has managed to make it this far without understanding some very basic points about what the job is. The manifesto talks about making “software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration” but that this is fundamentally limited by “how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be;” and even more surprisingly, it has an entire section titled “de-emphasize empathy,” as one of the proposed solutions. — Yonatan Zunger, formerly Google
Also, forgetting that diversity is the leading cause of innovation:
2. Not Aspiring to Optimal, Cohesive User Experiences
I have had clients and co-workers tell me that user or market research is unnecessary because they are the experts and they know what’s best. I have worked on projects where I was brought in as a contractor on the 45th design iteration in a project in decision grid-lock (at a major tech company), where it turned out that nobody on the 40-person team knew what the business model for the new service was. They also didn’t know who their target audiences were. So I spent 4 months working 60-hour weeks (paid for 45 hours only) with senior management, designers, and developers to get their million dollar project back on track. The process? A complex blend of market and user research that had to start at the beginning. What problem are we solving? And for whom?
My fate for being the bearer of bad news from their actual audience around the time the unnecessary service was to be launched? Terminated with no reason given when I was working at home caring for my sick child. I also reported some egregious human resources violations (too terrible for me to write about yet) at one of their subsidiaries. I still don’t know what caused them to terminate me days after my manager said my contract would be extended and I might even be promoted to a blue-badge carrying permanent employee of Amazon. I had just gotten on health insurance that month, and my agency didn’t even offer me COBRA, which I know is illegal, but I was unable to hold them accountable despite my best efforts at the time.
My role as an advocate for the consumer in the software development process is a necessary one, but it is also dangerous because of several inherent biases and because no one wants to hear that their baby is ugly. Engineering culture needs to remind itself constantly what it is actually in the business of:
Engineering is not the art of building devices; it’s the art of fixing problems. Devices are a means, not an end. Fixing problems means first of all understanding them — and since the whole purpose of the things we do is to fix problems in the outside world, problems involving people, that means that understanding people, and the ways in which they will interact with your system, is fundamental to every step of building a system. (This is so key that we have a bunch of entire job ladders — PM’s and UX’ers and so on — who have done nothing but specialize in those problems. But the presence of specialists doesn’t mean engineers are off the hook; far from it. Engineering leaders absolutely need to understand product deeply; it’s a core job requirement.) — — Yonatan Zunger, formerly Google
3. Cults of Personality That Laud the Young, Rich, and Cut-throat
Who is the most famous of all celebrity tech founders? Steve Jobs, of course. And while I appreciate some of the impacts of his genius, well, Steve Jobs was a known asshole. That is the sort of culture that is worshipped in engineering circles with no questions asked.
This is also about Trump and the culture he is bringing with him, based on hatred, intolerance, exploitation, and bullying. He is lauded for being an extraordinary businessman, but all I see is ignorance, dishonesty, exploitation, and abuse. Steve Jobs is also worshipped, even though he was himself a horrible leader who hurt people working for him day in and day out. (Source: Why I Wrote How to Lead Like a Woman)
4. Not Demanding That All Employees Understand Design and Design Thinking
Design thinking requires that we first understand our target audiences — also known as human-centered design:







