4 ms·

Exactly. You either think women can be in tech or you don't. If you don't, there isn't really room for compromise, so the notion of an "open" discussion is a re

by issa 9y ago

Exactly. You either think women can be in tech or you don't. If you don't, there isn't really room for compromise, so the notion of an "open" discussion is a red herring in addition to being incredibly insulting.

lurker69 9y ago
This memo doesnt claim at any point that women should not be in tech. It just presents some reasons why there are less women in tech than men. Reasons that are not only sexism and patriarchy. But it does claim that Google created environment, where people who dont perfectly align with left leaning echo chamber talking points, cant safely express their opinions anymore. And Googles decision to pander to left leaning echo chamber and fire the guy proved his point. If you actually read the memo, and not only misinterpretation of it on pro feminist blogs, you would see that he was very careful with words and there isnt single sentence showing his misogyny. All his controversial claims are sourced and he pointed out that this are not his personal opinions. He even used graphs to show that he doesnt approve generalizations based on average. https://video-images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1502146696203-Screen-Shot-2017-08-07-at-65310-PM.png?resize=1050:* https://video-images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1502146696203-S... What you are looking at is a clever guy (former chess champion), who pushed left PC SJW Google to shoot themselves in the foot. He knew what result will be. Google echo chamber activists bullied HR so they needed to fire him. Accusing him of things like misogyny, that cant be proved on court, is enough for character assassination in SJW echo chambers. But in court room where biased interpretation of his memo and words like "anti-women manifesto" or "anti-diversity screed" wont be allowed, he has the upper hand. He has all he needs to prove he was fired unfairly. > Damore plans to sue Google; he had previously complained to NLRB and wants to argue that his dismissal was a revenge which would be illegal. See a Damore's defiant answer to Reuters.
- eeks 9y ago
  Not quite sure why this comment is being downvoted. +1'ed to compensate :)
- issa 9y ago
  I have read it. And you can't slap some paragraphs about not being sexist in there, then say a bunch of sexist things, and have it be OK. Just to take one example: "Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average" A non-sexist comparison between men on women would be "women on average are not as tall as men". Do you see the difference? There are so many baked-in sexist assumptions to this statement I barely know where to begin, but to name one, I'll point out that women weren't allowed (by law and by culture) to even hold high-status jobs until very recently.
  - lurker69 9y ago
    Not sure whats so sexist about that statement. Women traditionally raise children and take care of nest, while men provide resources for family. On average. It can be different, but this is how most families function. This is the same as women on average are not as tall as man. Its true in most cases, but not always. Feminist alike always assume that statements like this somehow assume that women are inferior, and to counter this many feminists try to convince women to start acting more masculine. Which is quite ironic actually. This statement doesnt mean women are inferior. Men actually like women for this traits like patience, compassion, attention to details; because they lack this traits. There is no need to be upset. Men like femininity at women. On average.
    - issa 9y ago
      It's so easy for these conversations to go horribly wrong in this format, so please keep that in mind and try to hear what I'm saying. Just because something is done "traditionally" doesn't mean it isn't sexist. Your statement begs the question: WHY do women traditionally work in the home?
sunir 9y ago
In my entire life I have only met 3 people who didn't believe women should be in tech. Two (one man, one woman) due to religion and one due to misogyny who was fired. It is better to see what the opposing argument really is which is a liberalist position but in a future ideal United States free of discrimination that most everyone wants to live in. That is evaluating individuals individually based on their merit. The question is really whether or not affirmative action is morally good, socially necessary, or practically effective. Two thirds of that argument is possible to evaluate empirically. The other third is not which is why the topic generates so many arguments that are more heat than light like so many political views in the United States. If you accept that is what is happening and you want to make society better and more positive, having some charity for the opposition I think would help a long way to having productive conversations.
- issa 9y ago
  You've only met 3 people who didn't believe women should be in tech? Do you mean that you've only met 3 people who openly admit it? Because I've met COUNTLESS people who make comments like "We shouldn't hire her because she'll get pregnant" or "it would be too distracting to have her work here" or some crude variation of "I'll put in some extra hours on her".
  - occultist_throw 9y ago
    > ....Because I've met COUNTLESS people who make comments like "We shouldn't hire her because she'll get pregnant" or "it would be too distracting to have her work here" or some crude variation of "I'll put in some extra hours on her". Well, the pregnancy avenue is a significant area of unfairness between the sexes. Women of childbearing age DO have that hanging over their head precisely due to federal law. There's 2 ways to fix it. Get rid of the federal law (and deny that pregnancy carries complications!) or offer the same benefit to the male. I'm for offering the same benefit to the male. And now, that both have that law, the differentiation becomes moot.
  - sunir 9y ago
    Yes. I am Canadian though. I have become more open to the idea that the US is a wildly different place. However it doesn't matter. For the individual person arguing a different point of view you can only succeed in persuading them if you respond to what they are saying fairly and charitably rather than argue with straw men and shadows from your own mind and fears. That is what I am saying. Your ontology of the argument is too austere. People have other beliefs than women should be able to work or not.

by issa 9y ago

lurker69 9y ago

This memo doesnt claim at any point that women should not be in tech. It just presents some reasons why there are less women in tech than men. Reasons that are not only sexism and patriarchy. But it does claim that Google created environment, where people who dont perfectly align with left leaning echo chamber talking points, cant safely express their opinions anymore. And Googles decision to pander to left leaning echo chamber and fire the guy proved his point. If you actually read the memo, and not only misinterpretation of it on pro feminist blogs, you would see that he was very careful with words and there isnt single sentence showing his misogyny. All his controversial claims are sourced and he pointed out that this are not his personal opinions. He even used graphs to show that he doesnt approve generalizations based on average. https://video-images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1502146696203-Screen-Shot-2017-08-07-at-65310-PM.png?resize=1050:* https://video-images.vice.com/_uncategorized/1502146696203-S... What you are looking at is a clever guy (former chess champion), who pushed left PC SJW Google to shoot themselves in the foot. He knew what result will be. Google echo chamber activists bullied HR so they needed to fire him. Accusing him of things like misogyny, that cant be proved on court, is enough for character assassination in SJW echo chambers. But in court room where biased interpretation of his memo and words like "anti-women manifesto" or "anti-diversity screed" wont be allowed, he has the upper hand. He has all he needs to prove he was fired unfairly. > Damore plans to sue Google; he had previously complained to NLRB and wants to argue that his dismissal was a revenge which would be illegal. See a Damore's defiant answer to Reuters.

eeks 9y ago
Not quite sure why this comment is being downvoted. +1'ed to compensate :)
issa 9y ago
I have read it. And you can't slap some paragraphs about not being sexist in there, then say a bunch of sexist things, and have it be OK. Just to take one example: "Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average" A non-sexist comparison between men on women would be "women on average are not as tall as men". Do you see the difference? There are so many baked-in sexist assumptions to this statement I barely know where to begin, but to name one, I'll point out that women weren't allowed (by law and by culture) to even hold high-status jobs until very recently.
- lurker69 9y ago
  Not sure whats so sexist about that statement. Women traditionally raise children and take care of nest, while men provide resources for family. On average. It can be different, but this is how most families function. This is the same as women on average are not as tall as man. Its true in most cases, but not always. Feminist alike always assume that statements like this somehow assume that women are inferior, and to counter this many feminists try to convince women to start acting more masculine. Which is quite ironic actually. This statement doesnt mean women are inferior. Men actually like women for this traits like patience, compassion, attention to details; because they lack this traits. There is no need to be upset. Men like femininity at women. On average.
  - issa 9y ago
    It's so easy for these conversations to go horribly wrong in this format, so please keep that in mind and try to hear what I'm saying. Just because something is done "traditionally" doesn't mean it isn't sexist. Your statement begs the question: WHY do women traditionally work in the home?

sunir 9y ago

In my entire life I have only met 3 people who didn't believe women should be in tech. Two (one man, one woman) due to religion and one due to misogyny who was fired. It is better to see what the opposing argument really is which is a liberalist position but in a future ideal United States free of discrimination that most everyone wants to live in. That is evaluating individuals individually based on their merit. The question is really whether or not affirmative action is morally good, socially necessary, or practically effective. Two thirds of that argument is possible to evaluate empirically. The other third is not which is why the topic generates so many arguments that are more heat than light like so many political views in the United States. If you accept that is what is happening and you want to make society better and more positive, having some charity for the opposition I think would help a long way to having productive conversations.

issa 9y ago
You've only met 3 people who didn't believe women should be in tech? Do you mean that you've only met 3 people who openly admit it? Because I've met COUNTLESS people who make comments like "We shouldn't hire her because she'll get pregnant" or "it would be too distracting to have her work here" or some crude variation of "I'll put in some extra hours on her".
- occultist_throw 9y ago
  > ....Because I've met COUNTLESS people who make comments like "We shouldn't hire her because she'll get pregnant" or "it would be too distracting to have her work here" or some crude variation of "I'll put in some extra hours on her". Well, the pregnancy avenue is a significant area of unfairness between the sexes. Women of childbearing age DO have that hanging over their head precisely due to federal law. There's 2 ways to fix it. Get rid of the federal law (and deny that pregnancy carries complications!) or offer the same benefit to the male. I'm for offering the same benefit to the male. And now, that both have that law, the differentiation becomes moot.
- sunir 9y ago
  Yes. I am Canadian though. I have become more open to the idea that the US is a wildly different place. However it doesn't matter. For the individual person arguing a different point of view you can only succeed in persuading them if you respond to what they are saying fairly and charitably rather than argue with straw men and shadows from your own mind and fears. That is what I am saying. Your ontology of the argument is too austere. People have other beliefs than women should be able to work or not.