What's To Be Done About James Damore??????????????????

                                This question has been bothering me ever since his explosive so-called "manifesto" went viral.  Within my memory, the last time there was a furor like this was April 23, 1972, when The New York Times Magazine published, by a young Joyce Maynard, an article that set many of my peer group's (myself included) teeth on edge, "An Eighteen-Year-Old Looks Back On Life."  Even Maynard herself, admitted, once she was older, and wiser, that her piece had been misguided.

                                And that, I find, is the problem with James Damore.  He is on to something, but is directing it, misguidedly, in the wrong direction.

                                 Let me dismiss his pathetic generalizations about race and gender.  I am a White male, who is  more interested in people than things.  Much as I wanted to excel in Math and Science, I had the interest, but not the aptitude.  I had both, from kindergarten through college, when it came to literature, language, and writing.  So, what does that make me?

                                  Furthermore, some of the most brilliant math students I encountered during my school years, were female, not male.

                                   Getting back to me, let me add, I am also gay.  So, what does that mean to you, James?  Guess I don't fit your criteria for normality, since I am not some techno dude, man!  I could tell from the visual background in your interviews that you were straight; not so much because you had a bicycle casually leaning up against a wall, which was present, but because the abundance of space seen in the background, with nothing on the walls, indicates not only a lack of taste, but also the attitude that you are some cool dude, because you don't know how to decorate.

                                     But, then, that is for women and fags, isn't it?  And what about the minorities and other social affiliates you fail to address?

                                       I am not out to bash James; I just want him to realize the error of his ways.
He is on to the fact that something is wrong, not only with Google, but with the American work place scene in general, and while he may not be able to see it, the reason is not so much sexist, as generational.

                                        Speaking from my own personal experience now, I can honestly say that, when I started out in the workplace, things were better run, in a structural and organizational sense. And there was a greater emphasis on accountability.  This was due to a strong ability in leadership, possessed by both women and men--and I worked under both.  Now, as that generation has passed on, and Baby Boomers are the next ones on the way out, those succeeding us are deficient in ways not apparent before.  This generational group, of which I am a member, grew up with TV being the newest technology, and while it fascinated me, in early childhood, it did not stop me from reading, playing with my friends, coloring, writing stories, playing board games, or doing whatever else interested me.  What is more, all these activities were tactile.

                                        The generations after mine, while more technological, I find to be less personable.  With so much time spent on so-called Social Media, one might think the level of skilled socialization would be raised, but it isn't; rather, it has dropped.  And that is because interacting on a computer cannot take the place totally of personal interaction, and those who believe that, and I think Damore is in this group, are making a tremendous mistake.  What has resulted is a work culture unable to be challenged by others who, like me, think "outside the box."  Corporatization has become worse than in the so-called conformist Fifties, where now one is not even allowed to voice a dissenting opinion, because upper execs, because of social deficiency,(or, along with it, leadership insecurity) not sexuality, do not want to have to deal with those who are outside their limited (by technology) social parameters.

                                          Which is, essentially, why I retired from my job.

                                          Getting back to James Damore, and his outcry about stereotypes, I wonder if he realizes how much of one he is?  Or, like many so-called techno-geeks, how far does he, or they, fall on the Asperger spectrum?  That is something which should be looked into, more than mere sexuality.  Why, James, should a person be only defined by their sexuality?  You hide behind the cloak of so-called "centerism," but just what the hell is that?  It's a covert way of being rightist, by pretending to be liberal, which too many of the higher ups at  work places are doing.  James, you yourself are as guilty as they, here.  But, because you are young, and your perspective inevitably limited, you cannot see it.  At least you are not alone.  There are far too many out there, like you.

                                            As for those who are not, well, if working, they are regulated to support, rather than leadership, positions.  How many gay men out there hold leadership positions--without having to remain in the closet?  More than I would care to admit.  Those who are out and proud, like yours truly, are marginalized and dismissed, especially by this now so-called core group of leaders.

                                            James, you are on to something, you are just not seeing the larger picture. The blatant arrogance and sense of entitlement in your document indicates not only self-righteousness, but that something way beyond Google is bothering you, and you need to get in touch with that.  But you and your peer group's lack of empathy--Asperger or otherwise--prevents you from getting at the real issues.

                                            Technology has became a shield behind which these non-empathic types hide.  In their world, they would see nothing wrong with human identity progressing to the level, or lack of it, depicted in the movie, "Her."  If so, they should not be in leadership positions, because they are unsuited for those jobs.  Allow them to do what they are actually skilled at, and allow the "people persons," if not to rule, then at least more value in how they are regarded.  Again, I am speaking from experience.

                                             The answer to the title question posed is that more of an emphasis needs to exist in workplaces on acceptance of differing personalities.  That is,  going beyond the attitude held by many (and I count myself guilty here) of the mentality that "This is my world.  The rest of you just live in it."

                                               A workplace should be a united community, yet that notion is slowly falling apart.  The prevention of this should be the primary focus.

                                               James' "manifesto" alerted us, like nothing before, that something is inherently wrong in the American workplace.  His approach made him guilty of nothing but youthful misguidedness.  If Google, or other workplaces really valued differing opinions, be it James or someone else, they would work with these individuals, rather than dismiss them.  To those who see James as a victim, I quote from my favorite movie, "The Wizard Oz."  The only thing he is a victim of is "disorganized thinking."

                                               I feel sorry for present-day workers.  If things continue as I describe, workers will lose their most valuable asset.

                                                Their sense of self.  Which must be kept, at all costs.