4 ms·

a persons humanity should not be in question. you can discuss the merits of a specific persons qualifications but to argue "women, as an aggregate, are poor cod

by pyvpx 9y ago

a persons humanity should not be in question. you can discuss the merits of a specific persons qualifications but to argue "women, as an aggregate, are poor coders because they care about people and not things like dudes do" isn't a discussion. it's just grade-school level sexism. for someone with a PhD in biological systems, you'd expect a person to be a little more developed in their thinking...

BearGoesChirp 9y ago
Woman and men are, on average, different. Is this wrong? These differences can be in factors that impact ones desire or ability to perform certain roles. Is this wrong? This individual person, because they are a man/woman, is unfit for the role. This IS wrong. Is it wrong to say there are differences that make women, on average, worse football players? Is that inherently bad, perhaps even blasphemous, thing to say? I don't think so. So why can't one discuss this about other jobs? Perhaps they are wrong, Perhaps which ever group isn't worse on average. But even if they are wrong, then the way to respond is to say that their information is wrong, not that they are wrong for saying it. We are treating the conversation itself like it is a blasphemy that shall not be uttered aloud. Instead, we should be asking 'is this information factual or not'. And we should be taking safe guards that averages aren't assigned to individuals.
- troupe 9y ago
  > the way to respond is to say that their information is wrong, not that they are wrong for saying it. This is what bothered me the most about Google's response. They have the data to prove that the stereotypes about women were wrong. Instead of doing that, they focused on the idea that articulating the stereotypes was wrong. Some stereotypes actually have a basis in facts. The best way to deal with ones that aren't is to use the facts. Google failed at doing this.
  - lerpa 9y ago
    > Google failed at doing this. Implying they cared about false stereotypes. They only failed if they actually wanted to do that. My bet is this gives them negative PR to their target market, end of story.
dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
> to argue "women, as an aggregate, are poor coders because they care about people and not things like dudes do" isn't a discussion. Did you actually read the paper or just one of the many summaries? Because he didn't say that, and your use of quotes is inappropriate here. Also, he didn't question anyone's humanity. While I don't agree with some of the points he made and I'm for Diversity programs in general, I find these misrepresentations and personal attacks on him quite disturbing. What we need is more civilized discussion, not name-calling.
- pyvpx 9y ago
  yes, I did read it. and yes, that's precisely the argument that was presented. with a nice "we should talk about it!" cherry on top. there's nothing to discuss. women have just as much right as men to be programmers or any other "computer science" or "tech" job and they reason there AREN'T that many of them is preicsely because of the pseudo-science bona fide bullshit written in his "Manifesto". it only takes one asshole to drive away everyone else.
  - dijit 9y ago
    You didn't read it.
    - pyvpx 9y ago
      I did. care to tell me what parts I missed?
      - dijit 9y ago
        Well. You invented everything you're claiming it said. At no point did it even insinuate that women were less capable than men, what it seemed to be trying to do is note marginal statistical differences in choices by men and women and what we could do as an industry to be more accommodating to women without resorting to hiring quotas- which, he claims, may actually cause greater levels of imposter syndrome and tension amongst genders. There was no part of the document that came close to refuting that women have a right to be in the industry. In fact. The document was the opposite, "how do we get women in tech in a non-discriminatory way?"
jorgemf 9y ago
Strongly different of what you think there are a lot of PhD in the area that agree with him. That people have different biological systems and so the expressed skills are different. The same way genes express the gender they also express different skills. What I don't understand is why this is so bad? we have different skills, let's try not to think everybody is exactly the same and focus in the skills every individual have.
- lerpa 9y ago
  > What I don't understand is why this is so bad? It's the idea that it would be unfair that on average women cannot do as well in things men do, ignoring basic biology that genders are different and that there are things that absolutely no man can do, that women can. Even sometimes those areas which privilege females are seen as they were basically cornered into doing, and have no bearing into the fact that while there is some chauvinism, that possibly on average the desires, needs and skills may be not better or worse but different. And the women that embrace those things are positive are seen as being dominated against their will, or brainwashed into hating themselves. In short, if a women does something that historically men used to do, then it's good. Else, and even more if it is something that historically women used to do, they are being subject to sexism. The PhD guy should know better, perhaps too much specialization in his field made his brain go fritz.

by pyvpx 9y ago

BearGoesChirp 9y ago

Woman and men are, on average, different. Is this wrong? These differences can be in factors that impact ones desire or ability to perform certain roles. Is this wrong? This individual person, because they are a man/woman, is unfit for the role. This IS wrong. Is it wrong to say there are differences that make women, on average, worse football players? Is that inherently bad, perhaps even blasphemous, thing to say? I don't think so. So why can't one discuss this about other jobs? Perhaps they are wrong, Perhaps which ever group isn't worse on average. But even if they are wrong, then the way to respond is to say that their information is wrong, not that they are wrong for saying it. We are treating the conversation itself like it is a blasphemy that shall not be uttered aloud. Instead, we should be asking 'is this information factual or not'. And we should be taking safe guards that averages aren't assigned to individuals.

troupe 9y ago
> the way to respond is to say that their information is wrong, not that they are wrong for saying it. This is what bothered me the most about Google's response. They have the data to prove that the stereotypes about women were wrong. Instead of doing that, they focused on the idea that articulating the stereotypes was wrong. Some stereotypes actually have a basis in facts. The best way to deal with ones that aren't is to use the facts. Google failed at doing this.
- lerpa 9y ago
  > Google failed at doing this. Implying they cared about false stereotypes. They only failed if they actually wanted to do that. My bet is this gives them negative PR to their target market, end of story.

dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago

> to argue "women, as an aggregate, are poor coders because they care about people and not things like dudes do" isn't a discussion. Did you actually read the paper or just one of the many summaries? Because he didn't say that, and your use of quotes is inappropriate here. Also, he didn't question anyone's humanity. While I don't agree with some of the points he made and I'm for Diversity programs in general, I find these misrepresentations and personal attacks on him quite disturbing. What we need is more civilized discussion, not name-calling.

pyvpx 9y ago
yes, I did read it. and yes, that's precisely the argument that was presented. with a nice "we should talk about it!" cherry on top. there's nothing to discuss. women have just as much right as men to be programmers or any other "computer science" or "tech" job and they reason there AREN'T that many of them is preicsely because of the pseudo-science bona fide bullshit written in his "Manifesto". it only takes one asshole to drive away everyone else.
- dijit 9y ago
  You didn't read it.
  - pyvpx 9y ago
    I did. care to tell me what parts I missed?
    - dijit 9y ago
      Well. You invented everything you're claiming it said. At no point did it even insinuate that women were less capable than men, what it seemed to be trying to do is note marginal statistical differences in choices by men and women and what we could do as an industry to be more accommodating to women without resorting to hiring quotas- which, he claims, may actually cause greater levels of imposter syndrome and tension amongst genders. There was no part of the document that came close to refuting that women have a right to be in the industry. In fact. The document was the opposite, "how do we get women in tech in a non-discriminatory way?"

jorgemf 9y ago

Strongly different of what you think there are a lot of PhD in the area that agree with him. That people have different biological systems and so the expressed skills are different. The same way genes express the gender they also express different skills. What I don't understand is why this is so bad? we have different skills, let's try not to think everybody is exactly the same and focus in the skills every individual have.

lerpa 9y ago
> What I don't understand is why this is so bad? It's the idea that it would be unfair that on average women cannot do as well in things men do, ignoring basic biology that genders are different and that there are things that absolutely no man can do, that women can. Even sometimes those areas which privilege females are seen as they were basically cornered into doing, and have no bearing into the fact that while there is some chauvinism, that possibly on average the desires, needs and skills may be not better or worse but different. And the women that embrace those things are positive are seen as being dominated against their will, or brainwashed into hating themselves. In short, if a women does something that historically men used to do, then it's good. Else, and even more if it is something that historically women used to do, they are being subject to sexism. The PhD guy should know better, perhaps too much specialization in his field made his brain go fritz.