3 ms·

Saying "women have a harder time leading" is a pretty bold, striking statement, and one that needs some damn solid evidence if you're going to say it. To back i

by SamBam 9y ago

Saying "women have a harder time leading" is a pretty bold, striking statement, and one that needs some damn solid evidence if you're going to say it. To back it up just by saying "women are less assertive" is not remotely evidence of that statement. And it is a statement, whether or not it's introduced as a single word. To claim that this is "nitpicking a single word" is like saying that an article that includes the line "Scandinavians are taller, stupider, and blonder than other Europeans" is problematic only if we "nitpick a single word."

josteink 9y ago
> Saying "women have a harder time leading" is a pretty bold, striking statement, and one that needs some damn solid evidence if you're going to say it. To back it up just by saying "women are less assertive" is not remotely evidence of that statement. I'll admit that this may not follow directly from the linked research. So he doesn't have 100% scientific coverage. But who does? I see though that you really find this statement deeply problematic. Would you find it equally problematic if someone said "Men have a harder time showing empathy"? How about "white men"? Would you claim people needed "some damn solid evidence" to back those statements up? If not, may I ask why? Because this is by far the most common double standard I see when gender inequality is discussed, and seemingly everybody thinks that's just fine. Anyway: You seem to be nitpicking on a single aspect of a otherwise well structured, well sourced, 10 page long carefully laid out critique of existing systems in a internal memo. Your conclusion: that because of this tiny snafu in this otherwise good piece, he surely should be fired. Really? Honest question: Have you ever written a internal memo with this much effort put into it to back up your statements and arguments with scientific sources? I surely haven't. And I'm opinionated enough to write these kind of emails. I for one, am happy to work somewhere where we don't require people to get a PhD in their email-subject before being allowed to start a discussion. We call low barrier to entry. It supposedly increases diversity of thought.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago
  > Would you find it equally problematic if someone said "Men have a harder time showing empathy"? Showing "Men have a harder time showing empathy," or "women are less assertive" is a heck of a lot easier to study than "women have a harder time leading". The first two are personalities, and the third is a judgement of effectiveness of a job. Judging job effectiveness is highly subjective, and it is likely difficult to disentangle biological influences from societal influences for all three of these statements. The latter statement also takes direct issue with the Civil Rights Act, which says you can't discriminate on the basis of sex, among other protected classes. It was a big deal to pass that law, and has withstood 50 years of society and litigation. So, we know (1) the author thinks some women have a harder time leading and has put this in writing, (2) this is not supported by any data, and (3) it's against the law to discriminate by gender when hiring. Given these three things, if he were to interview a woman in the future at Google, then she could point to the unproven claims in his memo, say he's sexist, and maybe win a lawsuit against the company. That's a liability for Google. Keeping him on would expose them to more risk.

by SamBam 9y ago

josteink 9y ago

> Saying "women have a harder time leading" is a pretty bold, striking statement, and one that needs some damn solid evidence if you're going to say it. To back it up just by saying "women are less assertive" is not remotely evidence of that statement. I'll admit that this may not follow directly from the linked research. So he doesn't have 100% scientific coverage. But who does? I see though that you really find this statement deeply problematic. Would you find it equally problematic if someone said "Men have a harder time showing empathy"? How about "white men"? Would you claim people needed "some damn solid evidence" to back those statements up? If not, may I ask why? Because this is by far the most common double standard I see when gender inequality is discussed, and seemingly everybody thinks that's just fine. Anyway: You seem to be nitpicking on a single aspect of a otherwise well structured, well sourced, 10 page long carefully laid out critique of existing systems in a internal memo. Your conclusion: that because of this tiny snafu in this otherwise good piece, he surely should be fired. Really? Honest question: Have you ever written a internal memo with this much effort put into it to back up your statements and arguments with scientific sources? I surely haven't. And I'm opinionated enough to write these kind of emails. I for one, am happy to work somewhere where we don't require people to get a PhD in their email-subject before being allowed to start a discussion. We call low barrier to entry. It supposedly increases diversity of thought.

unityByFreedom 9y ago
> Would you find it equally problematic if someone said "Men have a harder time showing empathy"? Showing "Men have a harder time showing empathy," or "women are less assertive" is a heck of a lot easier to study than "women have a harder time leading". The first two are personalities, and the third is a judgement of effectiveness of a job. Judging job effectiveness is highly subjective, and it is likely difficult to disentangle biological influences from societal influences for all three of these statements. The latter statement also takes direct issue with the Civil Rights Act, which says you can't discriminate on the basis of sex, among other protected classes. It was a big deal to pass that law, and has withstood 50 years of society and litigation. So, we know (1) the author thinks some women have a harder time leading and has put this in writing, (2) this is not supported by any data, and (3) it's against the law to discriminate by gender when hiring. Given these three things, if he were to interview a woman in the future at Google, then she could point to the unproven claims in his memo, say he's sexist, and maybe win a lawsuit against the company. That's a liability for Google. Keeping him on would expose them to more risk.