7 ms·

The effects of positive discrimination already do disempower women. His argument is that you should improve the environment for groups of people as an incentive

by lhnz 9y ago

The effects of positive discrimination already do disempower women. His argument is that you should improve the environment for groups of people as an incentive rather than doing anything which can be seen as 'lowering the bar'. The point is to treat people with respect by building an environment where they can be their best (whatever individual skillset they have), instead of insulting them with offers of extra help or illegally discriminating against other groups.

jasonwatkinspdx 9y ago
> illegally discriminating against other groups. Affirmative action is legal in the United States.
- lhnz 9y ago
  I'm referring to his comment "discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done)".
  - jasonwatkinspdx 9y ago
    Again, affirmative action towards historically marginalized group is legal and is not a violation of protected status laws. It strains credibility to imagine the author is talking about discrimination against historically marginalized groups given the rest of their manifesto.
- aliston 9y ago
  Some forms of affirmative action are legal in the US. Others have been struck down by the courts or have been made illegal by referendum. I work at a large SV tech company and was recently privy to an affirmative action policy that was almost certainly illegal. The wording of the policy was quickly changed after a couple folks spoke up so as to make it conform with the law. If the policy had made it to a news outlet, I guarantee you it would have been on the front page of the NYT the next day. In short, quotas are illegal. With some exceptions, hiring based on race is illegal. However, taking race into account among many factors is legal. The on-the-ground reality of these policies is exceedingly grey.
budde 9y ago
What business does this guy have deciding what does or doesn't empower women in tech? Where is his evidence or personal experience here? I'm certainly no expert in this area, but couldn't it be better listen to the opinions of women in tech, disturbingly many of whom who have publicly shared stories of sexism or harassment directly limiting their career potential in tech, about whether they feel underrepresented because of interpersonal culture or because of their biology?
- lhnz 9y ago
  You don't need personal experience to have an opinion, if you are capable of reading what other people have written and bringing to bear your own experiences. It does not mean you get to decide anything for others, but it is a basic sign of respect to listen to what people say, and it is an even more basic sign of respect to not attempt to defame them. This guy clearly isn't perfect. He was naive about what the effect of releasing his memo would be. However he was respectful and seemed to be trying to temper his perspective. He doesn't deserve the raw hatred and condemnation he is receiving. I think we should be compassionate and try our best to tolerate our differences.
  - delphinius81 9y ago
    He deserves the condemnation. He attempted to hide his disrespect towards diverse candidates by qualifying his statements with talk about "overlaps," "ranges in ability" and other similar statements. If he wanted to show respect towards the issue, and those affected by the issue, he could have focused on ways to address gender / diversity issues in tech. Instead, he focused on why he doesn't like gender diversity programs, wrapped up in some pseudo-scholarly talk.
    - manfredo 9y ago
      This is an extremely different takeaway from mine. From what I read, the author repeatedly made it clear that he is not stating that women or racially underrepresented workers at Google are individually worse at their job. In fact, most of his discussion on different tendencies in gender are focused on selection of job field type of job within the field rather than ability. Furthermore, the author repeatedly reiterates that these tendencies are just that: tendencies, not rules. Some women pull 70+ hour work weeks. Some men work part time. To say that a larger portion of one group, even in the absence of cultural and societal pressure, is going to choose either the former or the latter is not disparagement. To put this in a different context, take the gender discrepancy in murderers. Across nearly all countries, men commit roughly 75-85% of murders. This nearly uniform across agrarian, industrial, and post-industrial countries, rich and poor countries, liberal and conservative countries. I would consider it totally fine to say that men innately have a greater tendency to commit murder than women (and for what it's worth I'm a man myself). Is it okay to say that because I have a Y chromosome I should be treated as a murderer? Or that I should face a different standard of evidence if I'm on trial for murder? Of course not. But stating that I, as a man, am statistically more likely to commit murder than the average woman is not the same as saying I should be presumed to be a murderer and it is not the same as saying that I should face a different standard of evidence. But the point remains, it is okay to conclude that the discrepancy in murder rates is because of innate tendencies rather than discrimination by police, juries, etc.
postnihilism 9y ago
Diversity programs are not about lowering the bar, they are about outreach. Nobody is being insulted by this. Nobody is being illegally discriminated against. His argument is that the under-representation of women in tech can be explained by biological differences that make them inferior candidates for technical and leadership positions rather than hundreds of years of disenfranchisement and misogyny that still echoes in work culture today. But you are right, "The point is to treat people with respect by building an environment where they can be their best (whatever individual skillset they have), instead of insulting them", which is antithetical to what the author did by writing the pseudo scientific trash and then widely distributing it to his colleagues. [disclaimer: I work at Google, my views are my own and not those of my employer]
- lhnz 9y ago
  > Diversity programs are not about lowering the bar, they are about outreach. > Nobody is being insulted by this. Some people are insulted by this [0]. When I said these programs already do disempower women, I wasn't speaking for all women: I was referring to what I had read. We can't just ignore people's lived experiences when they don't suit our positions. [0] https://communequation.wordpress.com/2017/07/05/im-not-a-woman-in-tech/ https://communequation.wordpress.com/2017/07/05/im-not-a-wom...
  - joshuamorton 9y ago
    I think you should reread that article. It is stating that this woman, someone who is already successfully integrated into the "Tech Scene" is not the problem to be solved by outreach. Which is true. That doesn't mean that she would be insulted by outreach to women. It means you shouldn't ask her how to do it.
    - lhnz 9y ago
      > I don’t want your ‘exclusively for women’ support groups > I want inclusivity, not exclusivity. > You’re victimising me when you do that. You’re indicating that it’s most > likely I need special, extra support. Just because I’m female. And then later on: > By creating special awards for women I think you’re belittling the impact > and effort a group of humans are having in their field – just because of > their gender. She is certainly insulted by these so called 'outreach' programs. She is using the word 'victimising' and 'belittling' to describe them. It can't get any clearer than this. We can't just ignore people's lived experiences when they don't suit our positions. The ensuing comments thread on HN also had many similar stories.

by lhnz 9y ago

jasonwatkinspdx 9y ago

> illegally discriminating against other groups. Affirmative action is legal in the United States.

lhnz 9y ago
I'm referring to his comment "discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done)".
- jasonwatkinspdx 9y ago
  Again, affirmative action towards historically marginalized group is legal and is not a violation of protected status laws. It strains credibility to imagine the author is talking about discrimination against historically marginalized groups given the rest of their manifesto.
aliston 9y ago
Some forms of affirmative action are legal in the US. Others have been struck down by the courts or have been made illegal by referendum. I work at a large SV tech company and was recently privy to an affirmative action policy that was almost certainly illegal. The wording of the policy was quickly changed after a couple folks spoke up so as to make it conform with the law. If the policy had made it to a news outlet, I guarantee you it would have been on the front page of the NYT the next day. In short, quotas are illegal. With some exceptions, hiring based on race is illegal. However, taking race into account among many factors is legal. The on-the-ground reality of these policies is exceedingly grey.

budde 9y ago

What business does this guy have deciding what does or doesn't empower women in tech? Where is his evidence or personal experience here? I'm certainly no expert in this area, but couldn't it be better listen to the opinions of women in tech, disturbingly many of whom who have publicly shared stories of sexism or harassment directly limiting their career potential in tech, about whether they feel underrepresented because of interpersonal culture or because of their biology?

lhnz 9y ago
You don't need personal experience to have an opinion, if you are capable of reading what other people have written and bringing to bear your own experiences. It does not mean you get to decide anything for others, but it is a basic sign of respect to listen to what people say, and it is an even more basic sign of respect to not attempt to defame them. This guy clearly isn't perfect. He was naive about what the effect of releasing his memo would be. However he was respectful and seemed to be trying to temper his perspective. He doesn't deserve the raw hatred and condemnation he is receiving. I think we should be compassionate and try our best to tolerate our differences.
- delphinius81 9y ago
  He deserves the condemnation. He attempted to hide his disrespect towards diverse candidates by qualifying his statements with talk about "overlaps," "ranges in ability" and other similar statements. If he wanted to show respect towards the issue, and those affected by the issue, he could have focused on ways to address gender / diversity issues in tech. Instead, he focused on why he doesn't like gender diversity programs, wrapped up in some pseudo-scholarly talk.
  - manfredo 9y ago
    This is an extremely different takeaway from mine. From what I read, the author repeatedly made it clear that he is not stating that women or racially underrepresented workers at Google are individually worse at their job. In fact, most of his discussion on different tendencies in gender are focused on selection of job field type of job within the field rather than ability. Furthermore, the author repeatedly reiterates that these tendencies are just that: tendencies, not rules. Some women pull 70+ hour work weeks. Some men work part time. To say that a larger portion of one group, even in the absence of cultural and societal pressure, is going to choose either the former or the latter is not disparagement. To put this in a different context, take the gender discrepancy in murderers. Across nearly all countries, men commit roughly 75-85% of murders. This nearly uniform across agrarian, industrial, and post-industrial countries, rich and poor countries, liberal and conservative countries. I would consider it totally fine to say that men innately have a greater tendency to commit murder than women (and for what it's worth I'm a man myself). Is it okay to say that because I have a Y chromosome I should be treated as a murderer? Or that I should face a different standard of evidence if I'm on trial for murder? Of course not. But stating that I, as a man, am statistically more likely to commit murder than the average woman is not the same as saying I should be presumed to be a murderer and it is not the same as saying that I should face a different standard of evidence. But the point remains, it is okay to conclude that the discrepancy in murder rates is because of innate tendencies rather than discrimination by police, juries, etc.

postnihilism 9y ago

Diversity programs are not about lowering the bar, they are about outreach. Nobody is being insulted by this. Nobody is being illegally discriminated against. His argument is that the under-representation of women in tech can be explained by biological differences that make them inferior candidates for technical and leadership positions rather than hundreds of years of disenfranchisement and misogyny that still echoes in work culture today. But you are right, "The point is to treat people with respect by building an environment where they can be their best (whatever individual skillset they have), instead of insulting them", which is antithetical to what the author did by writing the pseudo scientific trash and then widely distributing it to his colleagues. [disclaimer: I work at Google, my views are my own and not those of my employer]

lhnz 9y ago
> Diversity programs are not about lowering the bar, they are about outreach. > Nobody is being insulted by this. Some people are insulted by this [0]. When I said these programs already do disempower women, I wasn't speaking for all women: I was referring to what I had read. We can't just ignore people's lived experiences when they don't suit our positions. [0] https://communequation.wordpress.com/2017/07/05/im-not-a-woman-in-tech/ https://communequation.wordpress.com/2017/07/05/im-not-a-wom...
- joshuamorton 9y ago
  I think you should reread that article. It is stating that this woman, someone who is already successfully integrated into the "Tech Scene" is not the problem to be solved by outreach. Which is true. That doesn't mean that she would be insulted by outreach to women. It means you shouldn't ask her how to do it.
  - lhnz 9y ago
    > I don’t want your ‘exclusively for women’ support groups > I want inclusivity, not exclusivity. > You’re victimising me when you do that. You’re indicating that it’s most > likely I need special, extra support. Just because I’m female. And then later on: > By creating special awards for women I think you’re belittling the impact > and effort a group of humans are having in their field – just because of > their gender. She is certainly insulted by these so called 'outreach' programs. She is using the word 'victimising' and 'belittling' to describe them. It can't get any clearer than this. We can't just ignore people's lived experiences when they don't suit our positions. The ensuing comments thread on HN also had many similar stories.