13 ms·

It's mysterious to me how literally every action a feminist takes is somehow directly responsibile for all problems that befall them, with every action that mig

It's mysterious to me how literally every action a feminist takes is somehow directly responsibile for all problems that befall them, with every action that might possibly hurt a man being somehow a catastrophe in the making. Not 3 weeks ago we had a thread here where a woman spoke up about harassment and people said it was exactly the wrong thing. Mad someone for touching your bum? Speak up. You spoke up? Now you're ruining the work environment and being unfair. In this memo's case, perhaps you're mad at someone for saying you're genetically predisposed to be less capable of individual action (e.g., don't worry I am sure if we set up pair programming that will make it fair for you social women types)? Well it's your fault for not arguing against it. Oh you spoke up and that person got fired for violating some pretty basic corproate policy? Well congrats now it's your fault they're radicalized. Now Trump is inevitable, thanks for putting him in power, I hope North Korea nukes your house! The only solution that ever seems to be okay is stand there and smile as people say, do, and justify unfair things. Or maybe sit there and "debate" with them as they spout tired 1970s-debunked rhetoric about communication skills and and meticulisly avoid the idea that benefits might take any shape or form beyond what they themselves want this year. As for that "memo", I still don't get why the underlying premise that Google's level of technical competitiveness was hurt by these policies is taken without a critical eye. That's a pretty big assertion for a company who's essentially leading numerous areas in the world's tech markets and research fields.

kentrado 9y ago
>Mad at someone for saying you're genetically predisposed to be less capable of individual action? He never said that. Could you cite the portion where he literally says women are less capable?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- KirinDave 9y ago
  He says women will benefit from making coding more social. Pair programming. Remember?
  - nailer 9y ago
    That's not the same thing as telling an individual they're less capable.
    - KirinDave 9y ago
      Why? What positive connotation could be drawn from it?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - yorwba 9y ago
        Women are better at pair programming?
        KirinDave 9y ago
        Evidence, please.
        yorwba 9y ago
        > He says women will benefit from making coding more social. Pair programming. > What positive connotation could be drawn from it? I'm not claiming that women are better at pair programming, but that is a positive connotation that can be drawn.
      - therebedragons 9y ago
        > What positive connotation could be drawn from it? IMHO that is the wrong question. Connotations aren't something anyone can argue for or against - one can have bad connotations for all sorts of words. Actual example: my ex hated the word "negotiate" in any personal discussion as she saw negotiations as something where you tried to screw the other person over (she was a lawyer). This was to the point where she refused to negotiate anything - including where we would have dinner. How can anyone live without negotiating? Hence, ex :) I think a better question than one about connotations would be: If we accept that women have a preference for people over things, what would encourage women to want to do a "things" job? The memo's answer: more peer programming i.e. adding a people element to a things/systems job. That is internally consistent, I think, with the evidence presented on average female preference. Honestly, I find all this inferior/superior talk really troubling. Different != inferior, or superior, it is just DIFFERENT. Is a hammer a better tool than a saw? Depends what I want to do... I find it even more troubling that people against labelling others superior/inferior see everything that way. Personally, I think vive la difference!
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  Do the last two bullet points of his tl;dr count?: * Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. * Discrimination to reach equal representation is [...] bad for business. Which I read as, "woman aren't as good, that's why they don't already work here, if we hire more of them, they'll not be able to do the job as well as men so the business will suffer" Is that an unreasonable reading?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - adrusi 9y ago
    It's an unreasonable reading. If you read past the tl;dr you see that none of the differences in traits he talks about are about ability, just interest, so interpreting it as "women aren't as good" is wrong.
    - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
      Can you explain why hiring women who are just as good as, if not better than, men at the job, but who would prefer (on average) to work elsewhere, perhaps somewhere with more women employees, would make the business do worse? And can we note that I replied to someone saying "he didn't say that", suggested a place where he did and got replies from different people saying "yes he did say that, and he's correct" and replies saying "no, you're misreading what he said as it's explained in more detail later". So it appears at the very least (and I feel I'm being generous here), that his words can be misread by people on both sides of the issue, which might be worth bearing in mind for those trying to paint his detractors as a hysterical mob who haven't even read the memo.
      - adrusi 9y ago
        Can you explain why hiring women who are just as good as, if not better than, men at the job, but who would prefer (on average) to work elsewhere, perhaps somewhere with more women employees, would make the business do worse? In the section you quoted, he doesn't say that hiring more women is bad for business, he said that doing so via discriminatory hiring practices, and if you hadn't ellipsized that line, there would have been an explanation for why right there. The full bullet point reads "Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business." So he says that unequal representation is partially explained by gender differences in interests, and then that trying to eliminate the differences, specifically via the method of discriminatory hiring, is bad for business because it's unfair and divisive. To be clear, the reason I'm interpreting the "differences" he refers to as differences in interest as opposed to competence is because of the content in the "Personality differences" section of the memo, which is the only place he addresses specific gender differences. In that section he says that women are less interested on average in tasks which focus mainly on systemizing, and are less interested in high-stress jobs, as well as that they are less likely to advocate for their own promotions. I replied to someone saying "he didn't say that", suggested a place where he did No, you replied to someone saying "he didn't say that" and suggested a place where he said something ambiguous — the tl;dr, which is necessarily ambiguous. So it appears at the very least (and I feel I'm being generous here), that his words can be misread by people on both sides of the issue Who do you think is misinterpreting what? I've pointed out what I think you're misinterpreting and offered an alternative interpretation. You don't get to simply assert that other people are misinterpreting the memo, you've got to offer some evidence of that.
- bengillies 9y ago
  > This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. That is, he's saying explicitly that women find leadership roles more difficult. Generally if somebody finds something more difficult they're not as good at it as people who find it easier. As a result I'm not sure how this could be taken any other way than stating that men are better managers simply because they're men.
devwastaken 9y ago
>Mad at someone for touching your bum? Speak up. Where is this being said? People will not take your position seriously if you're not using context, because you're misrepresenting what is happening. This is something thats done in other places, but as far as I know, has nothing to do with the memo, and nothing to do with the parent post you're responding to. Therefore, you're using a strawman.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  I'm referring to a Hacker News thread not even 3 weeks old. In that specific paragraph I'm commenting on Hacker News, not the memo.
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    A random HN thread from possibly several weeks ago to which you don't provide a link. Are you surprised that some (most?) people couldn't make a connection?
    - jernfrost 9y ago
      I did without even having read that particular thread. But I know all too well the types of arguments getting thrown around. I think it is a question of awareness and beliefs. If you firmly don't think there is an issue then you simply don't notice. I've been at the other side of the fence so I know what it is like ;-)
      - dijit 9y ago
        So it's a myth. "I saw the topic a week ago, I will not link to it, I didn't even read it, but I'm sure of what was in it" insert snarky wink face
        KirinDave 9y ago
        If you ask nicely, I'll provide a link.
ramblerman 9y ago
He didn't say it the fault of feminists, only that this was probably going to be the result. And It's exactly why public debate should be had. To come to a better solution in the middle, rather than create fringes on the sides. Your reaction here is just more of the 'Shock and Awe' and hurt feelings that doesn't really help push the agenda.
- Brockenstein 9y ago
  Problem is most of this subject has been in public debate for decades, centuries even. The people trying to maintain the status quo are never going to give it up willingly. They're always going to cry when change comes and they aren't ready for it (IE when they're dead). At some point the debate has to be reasonably over and action expected. And some subjects don't have middle ground. Women being treated less than equal isn't a middle ground sort of issue. There are already sides, there have been sides forever. People being pushed or pulled one way or another isn't a new phenomena. And there's no amount of public debate and middle ground treading you can do to prevent people who are going to be polarized as of the result of any backlash of their already fringe beliefs. That's inevitable. And the gymnastics required to keep them in the middle just aren't worth it. The actual goal is the thing of value for the people pushing for it. Not appeasing ignorance and bigotry just enough to keep them pacified.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    > And some subjects don't have middle ground. Women being treated less than equal isn't a middle ground sort of issue. Which is why you need to have ongoing discussion, to determine if people are or are not being treated less equally. People who believe they are "right" but are unable or unwilling to defend that position with words ("the debate is over") should not be trusted, ever.
    - KirinDave 9y ago
      > People who believe they are "right" but are unable or unwilling to defend that position with words ("the debate is over") should not be trusted, ever. So what you're saying is the debate is over about the intentions of people saying the debate is over?
ckastner 9y ago
> It's mysterious to me how literally every action a feminist takes is somehow directly responsibile for all problems that befall them, with every action that might possibly hurt a man being somehow a catastrophe in the making. As I read it, the grandparent's sole argument was one of unintended consequences, specifically that censorship only intensifies certain problems instead of alleviating them. I don't see how this can be interpreted as to hold feminists responsible for something -- I don't even see the relationship to feminists at all. Could you please expand on that?
Chris2048 9y ago
> You spoke up? There's more than one way to "speak up", so there's isn't just two options. In any case, who's opinion are you talking about? A specific subset of HN that sticks in your mind? > pretty basic corporate policy by basic, do you mean "vague and unevenly applied"? > is taken without a critical eye It isn't, but the conversation was cut short, suggesting that the opposite happened; it was assumed to be false/incorrect.
_Codemonkeyism 9y ago
"Not 3 weeks ago we had a thread here where a woman spoke up about harassment and people said it was exactly the wrong thing." Not sure I can follow, so the guy is wrong that he spoke up but the feminist is right? Or is the guy right and the feminist wrong? Or are both wrong? Or people who speak up against the guy are right and the guy speaking up is wrong? Or HN is wrong because we discuss this? Can't follow your argument in the slightest.
ksk 9y ago
Is the brain exempt from being affected by genetics? All humans are genetically pre-disposed to be less capable of being racecar drivers or olympic athletes or physicists. Inherrantly what is it about being a programmer, that necessitates we assume that biology plays no part whatsoever? Note the use of the word biology as opposed to gender, because limiting the context to gender needlessly pits people against each other.

kentrado 9y ago

>Mad at someone for saying you're genetically predisposed to be less capable of individual action? He never said that. Could you cite the portion where he literally says women are less capable?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
KirinDave 9y ago
He says women will benefit from making coding more social. Pair programming. Remember?
- nailer 9y ago
  That's not the same thing as telling an individual they're less capable.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    Why? What positive connotation could be drawn from it?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - yorwba 9y ago
      Women are better at pair programming?
      - KirinDave 9y ago
        Evidence, please.
        yorwba 9y ago
        > He says women will benefit from making coding more social. Pair programming. > What positive connotation could be drawn from it? I'm not claiming that women are better at pair programming, but that is a positive connotation that can be drawn.
    - therebedragons 9y ago
      > What positive connotation could be drawn from it? IMHO that is the wrong question. Connotations aren't something anyone can argue for or against - one can have bad connotations for all sorts of words. Actual example: my ex hated the word "negotiate" in any personal discussion as she saw negotiations as something where you tried to screw the other person over (she was a lawyer). This was to the point where she refused to negotiate anything - including where we would have dinner. How can anyone live without negotiating? Hence, ex :) I think a better question than one about connotations would be: If we accept that women have a preference for people over things, what would encourage women to want to do a "things" job? The memo's answer: more peer programming i.e. adding a people element to a things/systems job. That is internally consistent, I think, with the evidence presented on average female preference. Honestly, I find all this inferior/superior talk really troubling. Different != inferior, or superior, it is just DIFFERENT. Is a hammer a better tool than a saw? Depends what I want to do... I find it even more troubling that people against labelling others superior/inferior see everything that way. Personally, I think vive la difference!
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
Do the last two bullet points of his tl;dr count?: * Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. * Discrimination to reach equal representation is [...] bad for business. Which I read as, "woman aren't as good, that's why they don't already work here, if we hire more of them, they'll not be able to do the job as well as men so the business will suffer" Is that an unreasonable reading?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- adrusi 9y ago
  It's an unreasonable reading. If you read past the tl;dr you see that none of the differences in traits he talks about are about ability, just interest, so interpreting it as "women aren't as good" is wrong.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    Can you explain why hiring women who are just as good as, if not better than, men at the job, but who would prefer (on average) to work elsewhere, perhaps somewhere with more women employees, would make the business do worse? And can we note that I replied to someone saying "he didn't say that", suggested a place where he did and got replies from different people saying "yes he did say that, and he's correct" and replies saying "no, you're misreading what he said as it's explained in more detail later". So it appears at the very least (and I feel I'm being generous here), that his words can be misread by people on both sides of the issue, which might be worth bearing in mind for those trying to paint his detractors as a hysterical mob who haven't even read the memo.
    - adrusi 9y ago
      Can you explain why hiring women who are just as good as, if not better than, men at the job, but who would prefer (on average) to work elsewhere, perhaps somewhere with more women employees, would make the business do worse? In the section you quoted, he doesn't say that hiring more women is bad for business, he said that doing so via discriminatory hiring practices, and if you hadn't ellipsized that line, there would have been an explanation for why right there. The full bullet point reads "Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business." So he says that unequal representation is partially explained by gender differences in interests, and then that trying to eliminate the differences, specifically via the method of discriminatory hiring, is bad for business because it's unfair and divisive. To be clear, the reason I'm interpreting the "differences" he refers to as differences in interest as opposed to competence is because of the content in the "Personality differences" section of the memo, which is the only place he addresses specific gender differences. In that section he says that women are less interested on average in tasks which focus mainly on systemizing, and are less interested in high-stress jobs, as well as that they are less likely to advocate for their own promotions. I replied to someone saying "he didn't say that", suggested a place where he did No, you replied to someone saying "he didn't say that" and suggested a place where he said something ambiguous — the tl;dr, which is necessarily ambiguous. So it appears at the very least (and I feel I'm being generous here), that his words can be misread by people on both sides of the issue Who do you think is misinterpreting what? I've pointed out what I think you're misinterpreting and offered an alternative interpretation. You don't get to simply assert that other people are misinterpreting the memo, you've got to offer some evidence of that.
bengillies 9y ago
> This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. That is, he's saying explicitly that women find leadership roles more difficult. Generally if somebody finds something more difficult they're not as good at it as people who find it easier. As a result I'm not sure how this could be taken any other way than stating that men are better managers simply because they're men.

devwastaken 9y ago

>Mad at someone for touching your bum? Speak up. Where is this being said? People will not take your position seriously if you're not using context, because you're misrepresenting what is happening. This is something thats done in other places, but as far as I know, has nothing to do with the memo, and nothing to do with the parent post you're responding to. Therefore, you're using a strawman.

KirinDave 9y ago
I'm referring to a Hacker News thread not even 3 weeks old. In that specific paragraph I'm commenting on Hacker News, not the memo.
- sokoloff 9y ago
  A random HN thread from possibly several weeks ago to which you don't provide a link. Are you surprised that some (most?) people couldn't make a connection?
  - jernfrost 9y ago
    I did without even having read that particular thread. But I know all too well the types of arguments getting thrown around. I think it is a question of awareness and beliefs. If you firmly don't think there is an issue then you simply don't notice. I've been at the other side of the fence so I know what it is like ;-)
    - dijit 9y ago
      So it's a myth. "I saw the topic a week ago, I will not link to it, I didn't even read it, but I'm sure of what was in it" insert snarky wink face
      - KirinDave 9y ago
        If you ask nicely, I'll provide a link.

ramblerman 9y ago

He didn't say it the fault of feminists, only that this was probably going to be the result. And It's exactly why public debate should be had. To come to a better solution in the middle, rather than create fringes on the sides. Your reaction here is just more of the 'Shock and Awe' and hurt feelings that doesn't really help push the agenda.

Brockenstein 9y ago
Problem is most of this subject has been in public debate for decades, centuries even. The people trying to maintain the status quo are never going to give it up willingly. They're always going to cry when change comes and they aren't ready for it (IE when they're dead). At some point the debate has to be reasonably over and action expected. And some subjects don't have middle ground. Women being treated less than equal isn't a middle ground sort of issue. There are already sides, there have been sides forever. People being pushed or pulled one way or another isn't a new phenomena. And there's no amount of public debate and middle ground treading you can do to prevent people who are going to be polarized as of the result of any backlash of their already fringe beliefs. That's inevitable. And the gymnastics required to keep them in the middle just aren't worth it. The actual goal is the thing of value for the people pushing for it. Not appeasing ignorance and bigotry just enough to keep them pacified.
- mistermann 9y ago
  > And some subjects don't have middle ground. Women being treated less than equal isn't a middle ground sort of issue. Which is why you need to have ongoing discussion, to determine if people are or are not being treated less equally. People who believe they are "right" but are unable or unwilling to defend that position with words ("the debate is over") should not be trusted, ever.
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    > People who believe they are "right" but are unable or unwilling to defend that position with words ("the debate is over") should not be trusted, ever. So what you're saying is the debate is over about the intentions of people saying the debate is over?

ckastner 9y ago

> It's mysterious to me how literally every action a feminist takes is somehow directly responsibile for all problems that befall them, with every action that might possibly hurt a man being somehow a catastrophe in the making. As I read it, the grandparent's sole argument was one of unintended consequences, specifically that censorship only intensifies certain problems instead of alleviating them. I don't see how this can be interpreted as to hold feminists responsible for something -- I don't even see the relationship to feminists at all. Could you please expand on that?

Chris2048 9y ago

> You spoke up? There's more than one way to "speak up", so there's isn't just two options. In any case, who's opinion are you talking about? A specific subset of HN that sticks in your mind? > pretty basic corporate policy by basic, do you mean "vague and unevenly applied"? > is taken without a critical eye It isn't, but the conversation was cut short, suggesting that the opposite happened; it was assumed to be false/incorrect.

_Codemonkeyism 9y ago

"Not 3 weeks ago we had a thread here where a woman spoke up about harassment and people said it was exactly the wrong thing." Not sure I can follow, so the guy is wrong that he spoke up but the feminist is right? Or is the guy right and the feminist wrong? Or are both wrong? Or people who speak up against the guy are right and the guy speaking up is wrong? Or HN is wrong because we discuss this? Can't follow your argument in the slightest.

ksk 9y ago

Is the brain exempt from being affected by genetics? All humans are genetically pre-disposed to be less capable of being racecar drivers or olympic athletes or physicists. Inherrantly what is it about being a programmer, that necessitates we assume that biology plays no part whatsoever? Note the use of the word biology as opposed to gender, because limiting the context to gender needlessly pits people against each other.