4 ms·

>These 2 lines essentially state that as women are more interested in people, there are some roles they might not be able to perform. That's absurd. You're not

>These 2 lines essentially state that as women are more interested in people, there are some roles they might not be able to perform. That's absurd. You're not even interpreting his comments at face value. You're attributing a subtext to them that only exists in your imagination. >Strip away his science and his words, he's a misogynistic techbro What an absolutely hateful and sexist comment. It amounts to: "strip away his message and judge him by what identity group he belongs to"

Delmania 9y ago
You're correct, it is a hateful, sexist comment, and I won't take it back or apologize for it. The "angry white male stereotype" has been at the heart of programming for a long time; misogyny has been at the heart of programming for a long time. As eloquent and research based as this paper is, it's just another in that long line of thinking.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  >You're correct, it is a hateful, sexist comment, and I won't take it back or apologize for it. Then you're choosing to not be constructive. Sexism and racism are not constructive, and they are hurtful to innocent people.
Delmania 9y ago
> That's absurd. You're not even interpreting his comments at face value. You're attributing a subtext to them that only exists in your imagination. Really? The first bullet point is "women are more people oriented". The second bullet point is that there are limits to how people oriented specific roles or even Google as a whole can be. If you want to take his words at face value, go ahead, but the belief that there are some roles than women cannot do due to their differences is consistent with the rest of his essay.
- mistermann 9y ago
  > but the belief that there are some roles than women cannot do due to their differences is consistent with the rest of his essay The only way I can think of how one could come to this conclusion is a lack of either: - knowledge of what a statistical average is - capacity for basic logical thought You are mixing up your imagination with reality.
  - Delmania 9y ago
    Logical thoughts? "Women are X" "There are limits to how well certain positions and Google can support X". So, what exactly am I supposed to draw from this? You're insistent I am wrong, but you're offering no explanation as to why I am wrong. I don't disagree that women are more sociable than men. I disagree this means certain roles within the company cannot support that trait. Further down: "Women value work life balance" "Men are status achievers" "Because of that, men will appropriately be in leadership and technology roles, also women suffer anxiety more." Side note, convenient he leaves out that women are statistically able to deal with stress better than men. His conclusion is that rather than creating programs that encourage women to enter leadership positions, leave that to the men and give women access to part time roles. If you want to say I am wrong, so be it, disagreement is fine, but you have yet to counter anything I have said with an opposing understanding, just ad hominen attacks and criticism.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      > You're insistent I am wrong, but you're offering no explanation as to why I am wrong. The explanation was in my previous comment. I will give you another hint: you are misinterpreting the meaning of "women" in your excerpted quotes. > If you want to say I am wrong, so be it, disagreement is fine, but you have yet to counter anything I have said with an opposing understanding, just ad hominen attacks and criticism. I don't think there's a way to reply that will satisfy you, there is a crucial part of objective perception that you are lacking.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  >The first bullet point is "women are more people oriented". No, the first bullet point is: >Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things Which is true, and does not ascribe a particular set of traits to all women. It makes a statistical observation that refutes the notion that sexism is the cause of gender disparity in the STEM fields. > If you want to take his words at face value, go ahead, but the belief that there are some roles than women cannot do due to their differences is consistent with the rest of his essay. That is your own very ungenerous, cynical and totally unsupported conjecture, that you're attributing to the author's intent and message. Promoting the lie that men and women do not differ on the average in their biological tendencies toward various interests and competencies leads to the lie that it is systemic sexism that has resulted in the gender differences seen in various occupations, which leads to destructive discriminatory (affirmative action) policies to correct discrimination that doesn't exist.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > It makes a statistical observation that refutes the notion that sexism is the cause of gender disparity in the STEM fields. It does no such thing, because: (1) STEM fields, especially applied rather than theoretical ones, involve people as much as things (2) While in some STEM fields gender disparities are apparent from fairly early in career progression, that's not true of all STEM fields; in some (many of them around biosciences) women are overrepresented in education and entry-level work, but still lag men in pay and advancement (problematically for the “it's about men wanting to deal with things and women wanting to deal with people” explanation of STEM gender disparities, this leaves women dealing more with things while the men move to higher levels where they deal with people.)
    - Jabanga 9y ago
      >STEM fields, especially applied rather than theoretical ones, involve people as much as things This doesn't negate my point. You're correct that I oversimplified: some STEM fields are indeed less 'biologically geared' to men. But the principle remains: biologically established differences in interest can very plausibly explain the differences seen in gender representation in some STEM fields. It is the assertion of this fact that has invited unfounded accusations of sexism. >women are overrepresented in education and entry-level work, but still lag men in pay and advancement That alone says nothing about the presence or absence of systemic discrimination.

Delmania 9y ago

You're correct, it is a hateful, sexist comment, and I won't take it back or apologize for it. The "angry white male stereotype" has been at the heart of programming for a long time; misogyny has been at the heart of programming for a long time. As eloquent and research based as this paper is, it's just another in that long line of thinking.

Jabanga 9y ago
>You're correct, it is a hateful, sexist comment, and I won't take it back or apologize for it. Then you're choosing to not be constructive. Sexism and racism are not constructive, and they are hurtful to innocent people.

Delmania 9y ago

> That's absurd. You're not even interpreting his comments at face value. You're attributing a subtext to them that only exists in your imagination. Really? The first bullet point is "women are more people oriented". The second bullet point is that there are limits to how people oriented specific roles or even Google as a whole can be. If you want to take his words at face value, go ahead, but the belief that there are some roles than women cannot do due to their differences is consistent with the rest of his essay.

mistermann 9y ago
> but the belief that there are some roles than women cannot do due to their differences is consistent with the rest of his essay The only way I can think of how one could come to this conclusion is a lack of either: - knowledge of what a statistical average is - capacity for basic logical thought You are mixing up your imagination with reality.
- Delmania 9y ago
  Logical thoughts? "Women are X" "There are limits to how well certain positions and Google can support X". So, what exactly am I supposed to draw from this? You're insistent I am wrong, but you're offering no explanation as to why I am wrong. I don't disagree that women are more sociable than men. I disagree this means certain roles within the company cannot support that trait. Further down: "Women value work life balance" "Men are status achievers" "Because of that, men will appropriately be in leadership and technology roles, also women suffer anxiety more." Side note, convenient he leaves out that women are statistically able to deal with stress better than men. His conclusion is that rather than creating programs that encourage women to enter leadership positions, leave that to the men and give women access to part time roles. If you want to say I am wrong, so be it, disagreement is fine, but you have yet to counter anything I have said with an opposing understanding, just ad hominen attacks and criticism.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    > You're insistent I am wrong, but you're offering no explanation as to why I am wrong. The explanation was in my previous comment. I will give you another hint: you are misinterpreting the meaning of "women" in your excerpted quotes. > If you want to say I am wrong, so be it, disagreement is fine, but you have yet to counter anything I have said with an opposing understanding, just ad hominen attacks and criticism. I don't think there's a way to reply that will satisfy you, there is a crucial part of objective perception that you are lacking.
Jabanga 9y ago
>The first bullet point is "women are more people oriented". No, the first bullet point is: >Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things Which is true, and does not ascribe a particular set of traits to all women. It makes a statistical observation that refutes the notion that sexism is the cause of gender disparity in the STEM fields. > If you want to take his words at face value, go ahead, but the belief that there are some roles than women cannot do due to their differences is consistent with the rest of his essay. That is your own very ungenerous, cynical and totally unsupported conjecture, that you're attributing to the author's intent and message. Promoting the lie that men and women do not differ on the average in their biological tendencies toward various interests and competencies leads to the lie that it is systemic sexism that has resulted in the gender differences seen in various occupations, which leads to destructive discriminatory (affirmative action) policies to correct discrimination that doesn't exist.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > It makes a statistical observation that refutes the notion that sexism is the cause of gender disparity in the STEM fields. It does no such thing, because: (1) STEM fields, especially applied rather than theoretical ones, involve people as much as things (2) While in some STEM fields gender disparities are apparent from fairly early in career progression, that's not true of all STEM fields; in some (many of them around biosciences) women are overrepresented in education and entry-level work, but still lag men in pay and advancement (problematically for the “it's about men wanting to deal with things and women wanting to deal with people” explanation of STEM gender disparities, this leaves women dealing more with things while the men move to higher levels where they deal with people.)
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    >STEM fields, especially applied rather than theoretical ones, involve people as much as things This doesn't negate my point. You're correct that I oversimplified: some STEM fields are indeed less 'biologically geared' to men. But the principle remains: biologically established differences in interest can very plausibly explain the differences seen in gender representation in some STEM fields. It is the assertion of this fact that has invited unfounded accusations of sexism. >women are overrepresented in education and entry-level work, but still lag men in pay and advancement That alone says nothing about the presence or absence of systemic discrimination.