If you’ve visited Google, you’ll know that Wednesday’s Doodle honors International Women’s Day! 
 
 The Google Doodle, which can be viewed around the world, is an interactive feature on the website’s homepage that features stories from “everyday women,” including 12 female artists of varying backgrounds to celebrate women’s social, economic, and political achievements as well as to address gender equality. 
 
 International Women’s Day was founded more than a century ago after more than 15,000 women marched in New York City to demand better working conditions and voting rights. 
 
 This year, the company collaborated with Tunalaya Dunn, Kaveri Gopalakrishnan, Anna Haifisch, Isuri, Saffa Khan, Laerte, Estelí Meza, Karabo Poppy Moletsane, Philippa Rice, Francesca Sanna, Chihiro Takeuchi and Tillie Walden to mark International Women’s Day 2018, which is officially celebrated on March 8. 
 
 In addition, their inspiring messages have been translated into more than 80 languages. 
 
 It's officially #IWD2018 in the 🌎🌍🌏! Explore stories from women all over the globe in today's #GoogleDoodle & share yours using #HerStoryOurStory! → https://t.co/ydJboV47yJ pic.twitter.com/FBNpCPtMK8 — Google Doodles (@GoogleDoodles) March 7, 2018 
 
 And you too can contribute to International Women’s Day as Google is encouraging ladies from all over to share their own stories using the hashtag #HerStoryOurStory. 
 
 “We invite storytellers of all kinds to join us by posting their own personal stories about a moment, person, or event that has impacted their lives as women,” the company shared. 
 
 Google isn’t the only brand to announce initiatives in celebration of International Women’s Day. 
 
 This #InternationalWomensDay, we are honoring more female role models than ever before. Introducing the largest addition to our Sheroes line to date – meet our new Global Sheroes. Share your role models with us to help inspire more girls using #MoreRoleModels. #IWD2018 pic.twitter.com/NBwxxgDAXg — Barbie (@Barbie) March 7, 2018 
 
 Mattel and Barbie released a new collection of history-making dolls by debuting the immortalized versions of Olympic snowboarder Chloe Kim, Bindi Irwin and Wonder Woman director Patty Jenkins. 
 
 In addition, fast food conglomerate McDonald’s flipped its iconic golden arches upside down from an “M” to a “W” in “celebration of women everywhere,” according to Business Insider. A Lynwood, California, location turned the sign specifically for International Women’s Day. McDonald’s also stated it will turn its logo upside down on all its digital channels, such as Twitter and Instagram, on Thursday. ||||| International Women’s Day on Thursday is intended to celebrate women’s cultural and economic achievements and call for more gender parity. But as the calendar turns to March 8, it’s also time for the corporate pile-on of feel-good ads and product rollouts as brands rush to chime in on the pro-woman conversation. 
 
 Mattel on Tuesday unveiled 17 new “role model” Barbies for the occasion, honoring female icons such as Amelia Earhart and NASA mathematician Katherine Johnson. Modern-day figures like Wonder Woman director Patty Jenkins and Olympic snowboarder Chloe Kim also got their own lookalike dolls. 
 
 During the Oscars on Sunday, Nike aired a new ad starring Serena Williams that commemorated International Women’s Day. In the commercial, the tennis star says she’s been criticized as not “the right kind of woman,” but has learned that “there’s no wrong way to be a woman.” 
 
 Read More: Why You Should Wear Purple on International Women’s Day 
 
 Uber released a video in Asian markets that seeks to disprove myths about female drivers there, and Facebook has designed IWD-themed cards, photo frames, and backgrounds to adorn text posts by users on mobile devices. 
 
 In a wackier stunt, a California McDonald’s location is turning its trademark golden arches upside-down so what is normally an M becomes a W for women. 
 
 The history of International Women’s Day stretches back more than a century, but supporting it in 2018 may feel especially urgent for brands, as it’s the first IWD since the #MeToo movement went viral, prompting a much-needed reevaluation of how corporate America, Hollywood, and the media treat female employees. But even in the current climate, where the public seems especially receptive to messages of female empowerment, brands must tread carefully. There was criticism, for instance, that Mattel’s ‘role model’ Barbies appear to fit the doll’s trademark silhouette and the McDonald’s W was panned by some on social media as an empty, odd symbol. 
 
 Great job, feminism — we did it!!! pic.twitter.com/6ICfQbYuop — Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) March 7, 2018 
 
 The ongoing #MeToo and Time’s Up movements may make it seem like celebrating IWD is a no-brainer for brands, but in fact, the campaigns against sexual harassment and sexism have raised the bar, says Erin Keeley, CMO at Mono, an ad agency. 
 
 Messaging like the Nike ad is “motivational,” Keeley says. Such ads “make you feel good; they are a positive message,” she says. “You hate to say that you don’t want brands to do that.” But the dialogue around women’s equality seems to be “turning a corner,” she says, where awareness and inspiration aren’t enough. The conversation has moved on to action; into “what happens next,” she says. 
 
 Subscribe to The Broadsheet, Fortune’s newsletter for and about the world’s most powerful women. 
 
 That’s a harder mission for brands, but Keeley says Getty Images seemed to pull it off during International Women’s Day 2017, when it announced that it was launching a female-focused sports photography internship with the goal of adding more diversity to the field and contributing “to a more positive portrayal of sportswomen in the media.” 
 
 In that same vein, commentators commended Frances McDormand for including in her Oscars acceptance speech an actionable step—demanding an inclusion rider—that actors could take to change the industry; she went beyond just girl-power cheerleading. 
 
 Read More: See Photos of the Women’s Rights Movement Dating Back 100 Years 
 
 The IWD conversation is also one that not every brand has to join. Tapping into IWD makes sense “if your brand is about progress; if it’s aligned with what’s happening that day,” Keeley says. 
 
 But even for those companies, IWD can be a prickly occasion to celebrate. 
 
 Liquor company Diageo tried to promote the progressive history of its Johnnie Walker brand in late February when it introduced its limited edition “Jane Walker” scotch whisky, its traditional Johnny Walker bottle with a female iteration of the brand’s Striding Man logo. Sale of Jane Walker is tied to Women’s History Month and International Women’s Day. In introducing the new bottle, the company touted the near equal gender make-up of its expert blenders and the women in its leadership ranks. “Women have played a significant role in the brand’s history dating back to 1893,” the company said in a release. But a quote by the brand’s vice president—“Scotch as a category is seen as particularly intimidating by women”—riled critics, including late-night host Stephen Colbert, who gave it the monologue treatment: “They changed the name to Jane Walker with a lady version of the mascot. Female drinkers everywhere will say, ‘Finally, a brand that’s condescending to me.'” ||||| Obituary writing is more about life than death: the last word, a testament to a human contribution. 
 
 Yet who gets remembered — and how — inherently involves judgment. To look back at the obituary archives can, therefore, be a stark lesson in how society valued various achievements and achievers. 
 
 Since 1851, The New York Times has published thousands of obituaries: of heads of state, opera singers, the inventor of Stove Top stuffing and the namer of the Slinky. The vast majority chronicled the lives of men, mostly white ones. 
 
 Charlotte Brontë wrote “Jane Eyre”; Emily Warren Roebling oversaw construction of the Brooklyn Bridge when her husband fell ill; Madhubala transfixed Bollywood; Ida B. Wells campaigned against lynching. Yet all of their deaths went unremarked in our pages, until now. 
 
 Below you’ll find obituaries for these and others who left indelible marks but were nonetheless overlooked. We’ll be adding to this collection each week, as Overlooked becomes a regular feature in the obituaries section, and expanding our lens beyond women. 
 
 You can use this form to nominate candidates for future “Overlooked” obits. Read an essay from our obituaries editor about how he approaches subjects and learn more about how the project came to be. ||||| McDonald's is celebrating International Women's Day with a big, gleaming W. 
 
 "For the first time in our brand history, we flipped our iconic arches," said McDonald's Chief Diversity Officer Wendy Lewis. 
 
 The giant arches were physically flipped at one California restaurant. On Thursday, International Women's Day, upside-down arches replaced right-side-up arches across McDonald's digital channels. 
 
 Lewis said McDonald's is flipping its logo "in honor of the extraordinary accomplishments of women everywhere." 
 
 Related: Why companies are embracing International Women's Day 
 
 The upside down signage was put up outside a restaurant outside Los Angeles, in Lynwood, California. Mayor José Luis Solache took note in an Instagram post. 
 
 The restaurant chain will also mark the occasion at another 100 US locations, where McDonald's (MCD) employees will wear special hats and shirts. 
 
 In recent years, companies have started using International Women's Day to broadcast their views on gender equality. 
 
 "International Women's day is a perfect opportunity for brands to talk about their commitment to empowerment," said Tim Calkins, a marketing professor at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management. 
 
 Related: McDonald's is taking cheeseburgers out of the Happy Meal 
 
 "It's a perfect venue to get out there and enhance your brand perception," he said. 
 
 In a statement, McDonald's said that 6 out of 10 managers of US restaurants are women. 
 
 "We have a long history of supporting women in the workplace," the company added. 
 
 Brands may also be eager to replicate the success of others, Calkins said. 
 
 "When companies see high-profile campaigns that get some traction and get some discussion, they are very quick to jump on the bandwagon." 
 
 Related: McDonald's is going green 
 
 One example of a particularly successful campaign is the "Fearless Girl," sculpture, which was installed across the "Charging Bull," in New York City by State Street ahead of International Women's Day last year. 
 
 The statue was designed by the financial services company and the advertising firm McCann to call attention to State Street's efforts to improve gender diversity on corporate boards. But it soon took on a life of its own. ||||| Update 8/5/17 7:25pm ET: Google’s new Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance Danielle Brown has issued her own memo to Google employees in response to the now-viral memo, “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.” Brown’s statement, obtained by Motherboard, can be found in full at the end of this article. 
 
 A software engineer’s 10-page screed against Google’s diversity initiatives is going viral inside the company, being shared on an internal meme network and Google+. The document’s existence was first reported by Motherboard, and Gizmodo has obtained it in full. 
 
 
 
 Advertisement 
 
 In the memo, which is the personal opinion of a male Google employee and is titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” the author argues that women are underrepresented in tech not because they face bias and discrimination in the workplace, but because of inherent psychological differences between men and women. “We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism,” he writes, going on to argue that Google’s educational programs for young women may be misguided. 
 
 The post comes as Google battles a wage discrimination investigation by the US Department of Labor, which has found that Google routinely pays women less than men in comparable roles. 
 
 Gizmodo has reached out to Google for comment on the memo and how the company is addressing employee concerns regarding its content. We will update this article if we hear back. 
 
 Advertisement 
 
 The text of the post is reproduced in full below, with some minor formatting modifications. Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted. 
 
 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. TL:DR 
 
 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. 
 
 Background [1] 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.[2] 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. Google’s biases 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. Left Biases 
 
 Compassion for the weak 
 
 Disparities are due to injustices 
 
 Humans are inherently cooperative 
 
 Change is good (unstable) 
 
 Open 
 
 Idealist 
 
 Right Biases 
 
 Respect for the strong/authority 
 
 Disparities are natural and just 
 
 Humans are inherently competitive 
 
 Change is dangerous (stable) 
 
 Closed 
 
 Pragmatic 
 
 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 [3] 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. Personality differences 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[4], 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 [5] 
 
 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 [6] 
 
 Advertisement 
 
 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[7] 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[8] 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[9]. 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 [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. The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], 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. Suggestions 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: 
 
 De-moralize diversity. 
 
 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. 
 
 De-emphasize empathy. 
 
 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. 
 
 Prioritize intention. 
 
 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 [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training). 
 
 Advertisement 
 
 [1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries. 
 
 [2] 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. 
 
 [3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering. 
 
 [4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal. 
 
 Advertisement 
 
 [5] 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. 
 
 [6] 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. 
 
 [7] 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.” 
 
 Advertisement 
 
 [8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy. 
 
 [9] 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. 
 
 [10] “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.” 
 
 Advertisement 
 
 [11] 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. 
 
 Update 8/5/17 7:25pm ET: Google’s new Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance, Danielle Brown, issued the following statement in response to the internal employee memo: 
 
 Googlers, 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. 
 
 Thanks, 
 
 Danielle ||||| Google recently announced a new head of diversity, just as it has had to deal with a controversial 3,000-word internal memo sent across the company by an employee. 
 
 It contains a series of what I can only describe as sexist twaddle, wrapped in the undeserved protection of free speech. (Hey bros who don’t agree, that’s just my opinion, so you’ll have to take it because ... First Amendment and all!) 
 
 Danielle Brown, who was previously at Intel, was named the search giant’s new VP of diversity, integrity and governance several months ago and arrived a month ago. But she now has her first big test and it has to do with Silicon Valley’s latest problem. 
 
 Which is: Some male techies don’t seem to like women around computers. 
 
 She did note that in her memo she just sent to the company, saying she would not link to the employee’s memo because “it's not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.” 
 
 The employee memo — which has been up for days without action by the company — went viral within Google this weekend, with some decrying it and others not. Sources said execs have been struggling with how to deal with it and the fallout, trying to decide if its troubling content crosses a line or should be allowed to be aired. 
 
 It’s not an easy line to walk. The employee — whom I am not naming since he seems to be the subject of threats online — penned a piece he sent across the company that said, among other things, that women just can’t do tech. 
 
 Titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” it begins promisingly enough: 
 
 “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.” 
 
 But then, in what is pretty much the main premise, he went on in detail: “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.” 
 
 Also men like status and, apparently, ladies like me are too nice to code. 
 
 More to come, but here is a memo Brown just sent out about the other memo: 
 
 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 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.﻿” 
 
 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 And here is the memo Brown refers to from Google VP Ari Balogh, whom that employee reports to, which was posted yesterday. 
 
 Building an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. ‘Nuff said.﻿ 
 
 I’d like to respond to the "pc-considered-harmful" post. Questioning our assumptions and sharing different perspectives is an important part of our culture, and we want to continue fostering an environment where it’s safe to engage in challenging conversations in a thoughtful way. But, in the process of doing that, we cannot allow stereotyping and harmful assumptions to play any part. One of the aspects of the post that troubled me deeply was the bias inherent in suggesting that most women, or men, feel or act a certain way. That is stereotyping, and it is harmful. 
 
 And here is the entire employee memo, which is a doozy: 
 
 Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber 
 
 How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion 
 
 go/pc-considered-harmful 
 
 [AUTHOR NAME REDACTED] 
 
 July 2017 
 
 Feel free to comment (they aren’t disabled, the doc may just be overloaded). 
 
 For longer form discussions see g/pc-harmful-discuss 
 
 Reply to public response and misrepresentation 1 
 
 TL;DR 2 
 
 Background 2 
 
 Google’s biases 2 
 
 Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech 3 
 
 Personality differences 4 
 
 Men’s higher drive for status 5 
 
 Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap 5 
 
 The harm of Google’s biases 6 
 
 Why we’re blind 7 
 
 Suggestions 8 
 
 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. 
 
 TL;DR 
 
 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. 
 
 Background 
 
 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. 
 
 Google’s biases 
 
 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: 
 
 Left Biases 
 
 Right Biases 
 
 Compassion for the weak 
 
 Respect for the strong/authority 
 
 Disparities are due to injustices 
 
 Disparities are natural and just 
 
 Humans are inherently cooperative 
 
 Humans are inherently competitive 
 
 Change is good (unstable) 
 
 Change is dangerous (stable) 
 
 Open 
 
 Closed 
 
 Idealist 
 
 Pragmatic 
 
 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 psychologyperspective 
 
 Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all 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. 
 
 Personality differences 
 
 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 traits 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 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 a limit to how people-oriented certain roles at 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 principled 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 willing 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 sciences lean 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 agreeable 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 a 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 being spent to water only one side of the lawn. 
 
 This 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 leftist protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silent, psychologically unsafe environment. 
 
 Suggestions 
 
 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: 
 
 De-moralize diversity. 
 
 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 required 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 extent 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. 
 
 De-emphasize empathy. 
 
 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. 
 
 Prioritize intention. 
 
 Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offence 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’m just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).
– Thursday is International Women's Day, an annual event getting more attention than usual in 2018 because it's the first in the wake of the #MeToo movement. As expected, brands (including McDonald's) are looking to capitalize, though critics are calling out examples of perceived misfires. Here's a look at what's going on in the US and around the world: Obituaries: One of the more interesting efforts comes from the New York Times, which acknowledges that it has focused too much on men in its obituaries over the years. A new project, "Overlooked," seeks to correct that by catching up on obits that should have been done but weren't. Subjects now getting their due include poet Sylvia Plath, anti-lynching crusader Ida B. Wells, and Jane Eyre author Charlotte Bronte. Branding: At the Financial Times, Kate Allen thinks the move by McDonald's to flip its arches into a W is "possibly the most superficial approach to gender politics in the universe." Nor is she a fan of the stunt by French newspaper Liberation to charge male readers more on Thursday. "There are various ways to highlight the gender pay gap, but this is a vastly oversimplified one to pick." Branding, II: Fortune looks at other corporate efforts, including Mattel's "role model" Barbies, also being panned. The problem for companies is that sloganeering is no longer enough, writes Claire Zillman. Google is also in on the day with its interactive Google Doodle, which invites women to share their own stories, notes People.