8 ms·
I'm a woman in computer science. Let me ladysplain the Google memo to you
- sergiotapia 9y agoRiddle me this: Why was Github's conference cancelled when all the blind-selected talks were written by men? That's just discrimination; your power+prejudice BS holds no water to normal people. It sounds ridiculous. You want diversity of skin and sexual orientation. We want diversity of ideas. Who's crazy here?
- sergiotapia 9y agoPlease don't just downvote, write why you think it's OK to discriminate.
- dang 9y agoWould you please not post this kind of flamebait and/or blatantly violate the HN guidelines as you've done here? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- nirvanatikku 9y agoPretty sure you are. Do you have no understanding of what discrimination is? Discrimination is perpetuated by those who hold power - it is completely and directly proportional to dominance - those who do not hold power cannot discriminate. You know why? Because if you don't have power, your ideas do not come into implementation (you don't have resources!). Therefore, a dominant group i.e. men or white people, cannot be discriminated against because they are the centre of power - they are the arbiters. This BS of reverse sexism that you are perpetuating is complete nonsense with absolutely zero sociological backing. Therefore, the men you reference were not "discriminated" against. In fact, your reference to "normal people" shows how un-nuanced you are in your understanding of discrimination and society in general. Also, the fact that you expect a diversity of ideas from a homogenous group of people is absurd - unique ideas come through because people have unique backgrounds and experiences - as these in turn act as frameworks for their intellectual products. Has it ever occurred to you that having people with "diverse" "skin" and "sexual orientation" could actually contribute to your goal of having diverse ideas? Don't cite one conference as proof for why men are discriminated against. Do you know who was part of the blind review process? and more importantly, does that selection reflect on the quality of scholarship put forth by female candidates or is it the product of the experiences of the people sitting on the panel?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- justinjlynn 9y ago> Do you have no understanding of what discrimination is? Discrimination is perpetuated by those who hold power - it is completely and directly proportional to dominance - those who do not hold power cannot discriminate. If you take that as axiomatic then there is no debate here if we insist on using the term discrimination to discuss this problem. However, if one can arbitrarily redefine words to mean whatever one so chooses them to mean and, in so doing, believe they're redefining what their interlocutor is espousing, then that individual is being truly intellectually dishonest. Academically, of what discrimination consists and how discrimination is defined, as a word and concept, is still of great debate. Google around for morally relevant differences and discrimination for some sources and further reading. The Stanford Encyclopedia entry on discrimination is a good starting place. However, in general common usage, the word discrimination is defined as: > treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, sex, sexuality, etc. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/discrimination http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/discrimin... > a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment racial discrimination https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination >The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discrimination https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discrimination Note that in common usage the word is not qualified on the power or status of the agent of discrimination. Unless both one and one's interlocutor have agreed on another definition it is vital to assume good faith and and stick to commonly accepted words and their meanings. If one does not one is at the risk of violating Grice's maxims and, in so doing, losing one's privilege of having others take one's words seriously. Put simply, if it's a new concept, use a new (or qualified) word. A seat at the table is predicated on clear, honest, equivocation-free communication. I'm sure you're not doing these things purposefully. After all what is the point of advancing a cause if one, through one's actions, prejudices the very people one is trying persuade? It's rather self-defeating.
- jcriddle4 9y agoWill HN censor this article?
- frik 9y agoThey have. All Google related news of the last two days got censored. "The user flagged it", "the algorithm flagged it" - blabla. Disgusting. Over at NYT, an many other media, one can read the stories from both sides.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- undersuit 9y agoMaybe HN is fatigued with discussions of the Google memo, I don't think there has been enough. I'm vouching for the new contributor to Vox, hoping she can continue talking about issues she's seen.
- Rapzid 9y agoI've vouched as well. We have tools to handle inappropriate comments threads without needing to avoid the topic wholesale.
- kps 9y agoVouching still exists? I suppose I got it taken away for using it ‘wrong’.
- throwaway12124 9y agoRe the "fatigue", that sucks. But unfortunately, it's a rational reaction to AA, etc. I recall running into women in CS in the 80s, far before the days of diversity hires. It was instant respect, as you knew that that person was not only legit, but had probably overcome extra obstacles to get where they were. These days, anyone who could have been a diversity hire is guilty until proven innocent.
- anonymouskimmer 9y agoMy response to another commenter the first time this was posted (and flagged - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14990433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14990433): It's like a person brand new to the job - you don't know their skills yet. After a few months one's co-workers should see those skills in action enough that the suspicion disappears. And after a few years the worker will hopefully develop enough that they can demonstrate their competency to pretty much anyone. And ultimately the person will be enjoying their career, which makes most other considerations irrelevant. It's not as if outsiders to a job have the ability to accurately evaluate the person doing the job. A company can't be held responsible for someone else's Dunning-Kruger effect.
- throwaway12124 9y agoWell, or the suspicion is confirmed. But in any case, "a few years" is a long time to labor under a cloud, esp in an industry where switching jobs every couple of years is common. For myself, I'd prefer to face exactly the same standard as everyone else.
- throwaway2812 9y agoFWIW -- google does not have diversity hires in the interview pipeline. Everyone gets the same interview bar. But 'diversity recruiting' is more aggressive to try and increase the available interview pool.
- lawnchair_larry 9y agoThe author claimed he attended a workshop and discovered that this is not entirely true. Do diversity hires get any special treatment after a no-hire vote?
- goalieca 9y agoThe memo came across as both arrogant and poorly constructed. To cherry-pick some pieces of data without context of the greater body of work is the domain of politicians and talk radio hosts. I can find you a paper with data showing whatever fact you want. Second, I find this whole thing American centric. When it comes to politics, there are never examples cited from other countries.
- throw4871820192 9y agovery arrogant. Major case of inferiority and superior complex balled into one. We get it, she's smart.
- kagol 9y agoGender differences in personality is cross-cultural [1]. Something to consider is that the Scandinavian countries have arguably done the most for gender equality, but instead saw gender proclivities in occupation choice and personality maximize [2][3][4][5]. Probably because by creating an equality of opportunity, people were free to pursue their interests. [1]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14018323_Gender_Differences_in_Extraversion_Neuroticism_and_Psychoticism_in_37_Nations https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14018323_Gender_Dif... [2]: Watch "The Gender Equality Paradox": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70 [3]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223529887_Culture_consumption_in_Sweden_The_stability_of_gender_differences https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223529887_Culture_c... [4]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24001221_Why_Can%27t_a_Man_Be_More_Like_a_Woman_Sex_Differences_in_Big_Five_Personality_Traits_Across_55_Cultures_vol_94_pg_168_2008 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24001221_Why_Can%27... [5]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11825676_Gender_Differences_in_Personality_Traits_Across_Cultures_Robust_and_Surprising_Findings https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11825676_Gender_Dif...
- unityByFreedom 9y ago> Gender differences in personality is cross-cultural [1]. Meanwhile, gender differences in career choice is not cross-cultural.
- panic 9y agoThanks for posting this. Since gender-based employment policies affect women much more than they do men, it seems like women should be the ones leading the discussion about whether these policies are a good idea or not.
- LyndsySimon 9y ago> Since gender-based employment policies affect women much more than they do men How so? If men are advantaged, women are disadvantaged. Likewise, if women are advantaged, men are disadvantaged. Therefore, gender-based employment policies affect both genders, in equal but opposite ways.
- j1o1h1n 9y agoThis is not a zero sum game (like war) but a greater-than-the-parts game (like trade). Having access to a larger pool of potential employees because the workplace environment is not unpleasant or toxic makes the averages go up. Who doesn't want to work with great people?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- pragmar 9y agoProbably the most persuasive rebuttal I've read in trying to follow memo story. It has an honesty about it. So the issues with the memo are lie largely in the subtext and motivations, it seems. When framed this way, it's easier to understand. One issue I have is that the author implies the memo is alluding to a lack of aptitude, where in my reading of the original memo, the issue was of a lack of interest (wrt affinity towards people vs. objects and so forth). Perhaps that's six of one vs half a dozen of the other from a certain perspective, but it comes off as a misrepresentation.
- abandonliberty 9y ago> So the issues with the memo are lie largely in the subtext and motivations, it seems. It is very interesting that so much of the response focuses on outrage, mischaracterizations of the memo, and (seemingly accurate) ad hominem attacks on the author. This appears to support the central point of the manifesto: that we are not able to have a mature discussion about this. While we may disagree with what James said the response makes this point undeniable. It seems that Google isn't the only place stuck in an ideological echo chamber.
- whitemale 9y ago> 1) Fatigue > 2) Women’s resistance to the “divide and conquer” strategy https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion > 3) The author cites science about “averages.” But Google isn’t average. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooter > 4) Race https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman > 5) The author says he’s open to diversity, yet no real-world diversity-enhancing program meets his standards https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
- jaredklewis 9y ago> If, as the manifesto’s defenders claim, the population averages do not have anything to say about individual Googlers, who are all exceptional, then why is Google the subject of the manifesto’s arguments at all? What do averages have to do with hiring practices at a company that famously hires fewer than one percent of applicants? In the name of the rational empiricism and quantitative rigor that the manifesto holds so dear, shouldn’t we insist that it only cite studies that specifically speak to the tails of the distribution — to the actual pool of women Google draws from? This is a great point.
- throwaway39559 9y agoThis is a strained, nitpicky point: if you want to get ultra-specific, and look only at the pool of Google applicants, you’re out of luck: only Google HR has tail accept/reject percentages, and they are not sharing. Further, the data is meaninglessly skewed, as Google tries much harder to find women applicants than men. Usually, the mean, when combined with standard deviation, is an excellent predictor of relative abundance at the tails. Google is like a co-ed NBA team who is struggling to find enough seven foot tall female players, and then firing the person who attempted to explain why.
- unityByFreedom 9y ago> shouldn’t we insist that it only cite studies that specifically speak to the tails of the distribution — to the actual pool of women Google draws from? Yes. If women fall on a bell curve, and Google pulls only from the far right (x-axis is skill, y-axis is number of women), then the research used to change Google's hiring practices should be based on that selected portion of the curve, not the whole population. If Damore was really just questioning Google's hiring practices, he should have sought out research that looks only at the pool of candidates from which Google draws. And, if he was questioning all affirmative action policies for women, then he was being disingenuous by targeting Google.
- codecrusade 9y agoMy problem is not with diversity programs. But with the fact that diversity programs are usually benefiting those of the creamy layer who are already in a position to utilize these and not the genuine women who need the same. Arguments on both sides completely miss this. No data no specifics, just rhetoric.
- tilt_error 9y agoCynthia produces a compelling argumentation that brings important views to the table.
- zEVE16Ug50tV 9y ago> Why do women report higher levels of anxiety at Google, according to the manifesto? Because of their gender’s higher levels of “neuroticism.” Neuroticism is one of the Big Five personality traits and, as such, is a very mainstream topic in the psychology of personality. Scare quotes are used to suggest that a word is being used inaccurately, or in an unusual way. As such, a reader of this article who is not familiar with the Big Five model (aka OCEAN/CANOE) is likely to erroneously believe that the memo author is using 'neuroticism' to mean to having a neurosis or some kind of mental illness, which would indeed be inaccurate here.
- kapauldo 9y agoTech isn't suited for conservatives. They refuse empirical proof.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- nicolashahn 9y agoAnother rebuttal guilty of misrepresenting and being dismissive of the original memo, and just being wrong on certain details. Her reasons for outrage: > 1) Fatigue She claims women 'feel as the legitimacy of [their] presence is constantly questioned.' Of course I'm not going to argue this, I'm sure it's true, but it's also not a reason to ignore his arguments. > 2) Women's resistance to the "divide and conquer" strategy. Trying to paint Damore as attempting to undermine females as a group and turn them against each other. I certainly got none of that from reading the original memo. Because some women might actually agree with some of Damore's points, he's trying to divide the gender against each other? Not buying it. She again is misinterpreting Damore's claim that there may be a reason why women might prefer not to work in IT aside from male sexism as 'skepticism and condescension' of women's ability in general. > 3) The author cites science about "averages." But Google isn't average. First off, her claim that Stanford at 30% and Harvey Mudd at 50% female CS graduates is irrelevant when the average across the US as of 2014 is 18%[1], a percent less than Google's 19% female workforce. Those figures are just cherry picked data and useless unless we have statistics on where Google hires from. Second, she's trying to undermine his claim that the diversity initiatives may actually be doing harm to the company by making it a foregone conclusion that they are "Google's attempts at creating a fair and broadly welcoming working environment." Lots of saying "Artificial diversity good, Damore bad" without attempting to consider what he's suggesting or even addressing it or rebutting his individual points at all. Just glossing over his claims using citations of scientific studies as 'dispassionate facts [with] no rigorous connection to [average women].' It seems if she could have constructed an argument against these she would have. She again misses the point by claiming that "it wouldn't be some abstract concept of 'average' that doesn't get a scholarship, it would be an actual individual woman." Of course making changes to diversity programs would affect individuals. But right now, Damore is claiming that they're already affecting individuals negatively by stifling speech outside the list of culturally whitelisted opinions and giving individuals with (possibly) less merit more opportunities over others. Considering the alternative seems to never have entered the author's mind. > 4) Race Though Damore's essay is primarily about gender, he also mentioned race because Google's diversity initiatives (and usually whenever diversity is discussed in general) also are aimed at achieving a more equal gender and race representation. I actually ctrl-f'd 'race' in the memo and every time it was used it was also accompanied by 'and gender'. I see no reason to accuse him of being a racist because of this. > 5) The author says he’s open to diversity, yet no real-world diversity-enhancing program meets his standards It's like she didn't even read the memo. Diversity-enhancing programs are bad according to Damore when they give opportunities to one group of people over another based on their gender (or race). He's suggesting we step back one level of causation and consider that there may be another reason besides sexism that causes there to be a gender imbalance. Based on this article, I don't think the author ever did that. I will agree with her that his suggestions for alternatives are lacking and vague. However, the memo still has merit for drawing attention to the problem. A suggestion I might make (and has been made many times and more articulately by much smarter people than me) is while cutting back on the forced diversity initiatives, we increase cultural acceptance of girls in STEM starting in preschool. This won't yield results in the short term but I believe it is at least a part of the long term answer. [1] https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2016-10-20/study-computer-science-gender-gap-widens-despite-increase-in-jobs https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2016-10-20/st...