3 ms·

Would you agree that it is possible that given elimination of all negative discrimination the gender representation in a particular industry/field might not be

Would you agree that it is possible that given elimination of all negative discrimination the gender representation in a particular industry/field might not be 50/50? Since we don't know what the non-discriminating ratio naturally would be, I have a hard time feeling like we would be serving justice well by shooting for an arbitrarily (if somewhat informed) selected ratio. Does the end justify the means?

nodamage 9y ago
Yes I would agree that we shouldn't expect all industries to have 50/50 gender representation, and in fact aiming for such a goal is misguided. However, I am not convinced that the status quo in the tech industry reflects a "natural ratio" so much as other factors (that are worth correcting). Would you agree that, if the gender disparity in an industry is caused by factors outside of the "natural ratio", then correcting those factors does not necessarily imply perpetuating discrimination? Or put another way, if you are holding a race where person A starts at the 0-yard line and person B starts at the 25-yard line, and you make them start from the same place, you are not actually favoring person A and discriminating against person B, but merely equalizing the playing field?
- rwcarlsen 9y ago
  I agree with most all of that. But I think that the policies I see the memo criticizing are not addressing the problem, they are addressing the symptom. Also, I think there are a lot of subtleties about "which yard line people start on" that makes knowing what the best/right thing to do is hard. People born to wealth didn't steal anything from people born with less. I would hope that people born with more would care to help and lift people with less, but I am less comfortable (not necessarily against) with using authoritarian means to take away by force things from the more fortunate and give to the less fortunate. It is a hard problem, and I think most people want the same/similar outcome. We just need to acknowledge that we don't all know the best way to get there and be able to talk about it. I think that is what the memo writer was really saying is that these are important issues with lots of things to consider - we can't afford to silence voices - especially relatively rational ones.
  - nodamage 9y ago
    Yes there is definitely room for discussion on what the best approach should be. Unfortunately the author of the memo comes across as trying to push a specific agenda (multiple paragraphs condescendingly railing against "leftist ideology", for example) and misses the opportunity to actually discuss the merits of Google's hiring programs.
    - rwcarlsen 9y ago
      Maybe. I personally didn't feel like it had a condescending tone. There is toxic culture on all sides which is probably what he was referring to (only on the left in his document since his audience was left-leaning) - rather the more reasonable ideas (which are often drowned out). It probably would have been better if he was a bit more careful, but given the amount of content in the document, it is difficult to walk the line of not offending anyone. I think he did a pretty decent job and hopefully lots of productive discussions will have their genesis with his memo and the stir it caused. There sure are a lot of people that think very differently about things :-)

nodamage 9y ago

Yes I would agree that we shouldn't expect all industries to have 50/50 gender representation, and in fact aiming for such a goal is misguided. However, I am not convinced that the status quo in the tech industry reflects a "natural ratio" so much as other factors (that are worth correcting). Would you agree that, if the gender disparity in an industry is caused by factors outside of the "natural ratio", then correcting those factors does not necessarily imply perpetuating discrimination? Or put another way, if you are holding a race where person A starts at the 0-yard line and person B starts at the 25-yard line, and you make them start from the same place, you are not actually favoring person A and discriminating against person B, but merely equalizing the playing field?

rwcarlsen 9y ago
I agree with most all of that. But I think that the policies I see the memo criticizing are not addressing the problem, they are addressing the symptom. Also, I think there are a lot of subtleties about "which yard line people start on" that makes knowing what the best/right thing to do is hard. People born to wealth didn't steal anything from people born with less. I would hope that people born with more would care to help and lift people with less, but I am less comfortable (not necessarily against) with using authoritarian means to take away by force things from the more fortunate and give to the less fortunate. It is a hard problem, and I think most people want the same/similar outcome. We just need to acknowledge that we don't all know the best way to get there and be able to talk about it. I think that is what the memo writer was really saying is that these are important issues with lots of things to consider - we can't afford to silence voices - especially relatively rational ones.
- nodamage 9y ago
  Yes there is definitely room for discussion on what the best approach should be. Unfortunately the author of the memo comes across as trying to push a specific agenda (multiple paragraphs condescendingly railing against "leftist ideology", for example) and misses the opportunity to actually discuss the merits of Google's hiring programs.
  - rwcarlsen 9y ago
    Maybe. I personally didn't feel like it had a condescending tone. There is toxic culture on all sides which is probably what he was referring to (only on the left in his document since his audience was left-leaning) - rather the more reasonable ideas (which are often drowned out). It probably would have been better if he was a bit more careful, but given the amount of content in the document, it is difficult to walk the line of not offending anyone. I think he did a pretty decent job and hopefully lots of productive discussions will have their genesis with his memo and the stir it caused. There sure are a lot of people that think very differently about things :-)