35 ms·

> Then the correct way to handle it is to drop another refutational evidence bomb attacking his primary points instead of picking the low hanging fruit of claim

> Then the correct way to handle it is to drop another refutational evidence bomb attacking his primary points instead of picking the low hanging fruit of claiming it's "too confrontational," "poorly written," "naive," or whatever other secondary problems exist (this is aside from wilfully misrepresenting his claims, which is definitely a bigger problem). This was addressed in the article. This burden has fallen on women since they were teenagers. To expect them to do it yet again, to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous.

totalZero 9y ago
The burden of responding to something that is (at the very least presented as) evidence? I don't think it's possible to have a discussion if you don't expect and allow pro-affirmative-action stakeholders to respond with their own evidence and reasoning, in turn.
- Blackthorn 9y ago
  He could have brought up his concerns to hiring authorities in the company, whose job it is to refute diversity myths. Not expect people who have had this burden placed on them for their entire adult life to do it yet again.
  - lliamander 9y ago
    He did, a month or more before the fiasco.
    - Blackthorn 9y ago
      And that's exactly where he should have stopped. If he did not like the result, he should have resigned in a much less public manner.
      - lliamander 9y ago
        The result from HR was silence. He never intended for the memo to go public, but he did want feedback from his colleagues. If HR didn't want the issue going further, they should have actually responded to him.
      - cityhall 9y ago
        "Everyone who doesn't agree with me should shut up and go away."
        dang 9y ago
        Please don't post snarky one-liners to HN, especially not in divisive discussions, where they make things significantly worse. Also, please don't use quotation marks to make it look like you're quoting someone when you're not.
      - rakoo 9y ago
        But he saw a problem and wanted to fix it. You're basically saying he should have left the problem where it is and pretend itsr not there, which is not what engineers typically do. Can you blame him for that?
        fma 9y ago
        Not just engineers...That kind of mentality does not advance society. Imagine..."She thought black people should not have to sit at the back of the bus. She told authorities who just remained silent. She should have sucked it up and moved to the north!"
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- mejari 9y ago
  It's not just "pro-affirmative-action stakeholders" that are expected to respond. _As referenced in the article_, it's extending to expecting women to come up with responses just because they are women. You're talking about a situation where one side (the side of the manifesto) has dropped an "evidence bomb", some of which may be valid, some not, and is now complaining "why won't you have a discussion?" They weren't invited to a discussion, they weren't talked _to_, they were talked _at_, and are now being looked to as the defenders of their gender when they just want to do their damn job.
  - nyolfen 9y ago
    this is textbook tone policing. it's an essay, not a spoken dialogue. you could say this about, say, a published study about climate change projections.
    - mejari 9y ago
      You can throw buzzwords designed to shut down discussion at me all you want, that's irrelevant. He claims his goal was to have a dialogue, the fact is that he chose a very poor way of doing that. Either his goals aren't what he claims or he misunderstood how to accomplish them.
      - smallnamespace 9y ago
        In all fairness, we it did at least provoke an internal debate, e.g. this discussion.
      - matt_wulfeck 9y ago
        Considering this is one of the most explosively discussed topics on HN and in the industry I would say he's been wildly successful at starting a discussion.
        mejari 9y ago
        I can start a discussion about racism in the US by going on TV and yelling the n-word, that doesn't mean that I did a good job of opening a constructive dialogue.
generic_user 9y ago
So basically its ok to discrimate against Men because Women are 'opressed'. Thats not an acceptable argument imo.
- Blackthorn 9y ago
  You're begging the question. Also, don't put something in quotes that was not a quote.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - someguydave 9y ago
    Which of his premises were assumed in his conclusion?
nicolashahn 9y ago
I'm not talking about a woman having to prove her technical ability to her male coworkers at work because of their prejudices. I know that that's bullshit and I'm sorry they have to do so. I'm talking about handling what Damore claimed in an intellectually honest way. You can't dismiss his points just because you're tired of talking about them (or what you think are the same points you've always been talking about, but I think Damore's comments on each gender's preference and pressures for picking careers had something worth discussing). What he said had at least some spark of originality and insight, otherwise it wouldn't have gotten nearly the attention it did. Consider, would we be talking about the memo if it were about how he thought Sundar Pichai was a lizard man? Those who disagreed with Damore already won the battle. They kicked him out of Google and doubled down on their diversity initiatives/echo chamber. We should be able to talk about his arguments honestly and rationally without falling back on gendered reasons at this point at least.
- camgunz 9y ago
  > We should be able to talk about his arguments honestly and rationally without falling back on gendered reasons at this point at least. We are and lots of people are doing so, but another point made in this post is that the workplace isn't the venue for this.
  - threeseed 9y ago
    Exactly. If Damore had focused his comments purely on hiring practices, quotas, discriminatory policies etc he would still be there and almost all would've found his comments constructive. But he didn't do that. He brought up scientifically baseless, insulting and emotionally immature rationales for an important and sensitive topic. Working around people in a professional environment requires nuance and tact. He showed none of this. The fact that so many in IT seem to miss this point and defend him explains so much about why many men and women stay away from this field.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      I assume you're being sarcastic, given that your description of the memo is so perfectly opposite any reasonable interpretation, but I can't tell.
Sir_Substance 9y ago
>This burden has fallen on women since they were teenagers. To expect them to do it yet again, to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous. You know what's ridiculous? Expecting people to magically agree with you because you're tired of arguing your position. Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in that world, but we don't[1]. In a society where all people are equal (which is what we are aiming for, even if the debate rages on whether that's what we have), all opinions are also equal. The tipping force on the scale of debate is tangible evidence, and it's the lifelong struggle of anyone with political opinions to continually remind others of the evidence behind their standpoint. Feel free to not bother and stuff if you're a bit tired or bored or whatever, but be aware that from a third party perspective, there's no visible difference between someone who won't provide evidence and someone who can't. [1] edit: I thought about this for a few seconds and have decided this would be a horrible world
manigandham 9y ago
What burden are you talking about exactly? You (along with many others) seem to be conflating the major point of the memo between interests and abilities. Not liking something does not mean you're not capable of doing it.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  Would you rather hire someone that likes what they do or someone who doesn't? Would you intuitively think that someone who loves their job are going to be more interested in bigger challenges and doing great work, or someone who doesn't care for the job?
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > Would you rather hire someone that likes what they do or someone who doesn't? I wouldn't assume someone's interest level based on their demographics. I would, you know, talk to them.
    - dguaraglia 9y ago
      So, you are in favor of outreach programs where you get to talk to more people?
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        Sure. I do that already, both formally and informally. Though I've probably been underestimating how career limiting that can be. The Google firing was a really bad move if outreach programs are a good idea.
        dguaraglia 9y ago
        Not sure I follow why you think the firing had something to do with outreach? You mean they'll be losing out on candidates like Damore?
canoebuilder 9y ago
to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous. Let's just agree on two things then. _Every woman at google has every right to be there. & _The number of women at google relative to the number of men is not the result of mostly imperceptible, malicious actions by men, but rather due the fact that the personal interests between the sexes varies substantially on average, and this results in skewed sex ratios throughout the entire workforce that match nearly perfectly with what scientific evidence shows us. Women are more interested in working with people and nurturing professions and men are more interested in working with things and abstract, theoretical, mechanical and spatial professions. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-perce...
- Blackthorn 9y ago
  Can agree on number one. Can't agree on number two. Here's why: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...
- l_t 9y ago
  Can't agree on number 2, because it's a false dichotomy. The gender imbalance cannot be simplified to being because of any one specific cause (like a difference in personal interests). There is a whole cluster of causes, including: 1. Malicious actions by men. This undoubtedly happens, let's not pretend otherwise. However, it might not be very common. 2. Non-malicious but annoying behavior from men directed towards women. This could include unwanted flirtation, accidental condescension, inappropriate jokes, etc. 3. A male-oriented culture. Even if the guys don't act in an annoying way, being in a significant minority is usually less appealing than being in a situation where you have a more even gender split. 4. Boys and girls are nurtured in different ways, which can drive them towards having different interests as adults. 5. Biological differences between men and women. Personally, I think this is one of the least important factors, and it's also the only one that we can't change. Whether or not (5) is an issue, (1-4) can and should be addressed, so that women who are naturally inclined to CS are not nudged away from the industry by their life experiences.
tracker1 9y ago
Why would this mean anyone already working in the field needs to bring any burden to the table in terms of defending themselves? The subject was centered around the probability that some recruiting assumptions may be wrong, and that there may be better approaches to recruiting or improving the situation in general. Women that work in the field should definitely be respected as much as anyone else. They should be free of sexual harassment, and mistreatment. On the flip side, if only 20% of graduating classes in targeted STEM fields are women, and women represent a disproportionate amount of college students... then maybe the issue is broader than the affect of men on the field at that level. I think part of it may be natural inclination... another is probably the role of movies and media. The latter likely a much bigger role on the impressions of the work and the likely types to fulfill those roles. --- Edit: Big example Daisy/Quake from Agents of Shield... started off as a badass hacker, best of the best... as the show moved on, the role was relegated to brawler, and the impact of intellect or technical ability was largely sidestepped, or made secondary and less. Media portrayals of technical professionals all around are usually very unbalanced... and that doesn't even begin to go into the other fields that are disproportionately male or female, or the hindrance of men in higher education.
- Blackthorn 9y ago
  > Why would this mean anyone already working in the field needs to bring any burden to the table in terms of defending themselves? The subject was centered around the probability that some recruiting assumptions may be wrong, and that there may be better approaches to recruiting or improving the situation in general. Assuming you're asking in good faith: because of the idea that diversity hiring effectively lowered the hiring bar. Imagine for a second you have imposter syndrome. Now imagine that you've been told (not necessarily by Damore) that you're the (not quoting you here) "diversity hire". Imagine how much worse that imposter syndrome now is.
  - tracker1 9y ago
    I suffer from imposter syndrome all the time... but that's on me, not someone else. If you hire someone because of diversity alone over someone with a higher level of merit, then that was wrong. Also, telling someone that they were hired for diversity reasons alone is probably a bad move as well. I'm not saying that people shouldn't try to get more women into tech, or into trash collection, or construction, or every other male dominated occupation, or men as nurses, etc... however, that doesn't mean having to change the rules for men or women. And pointing out that there are differences between men and women shouldn't instantly start of with a storm of hate. "the average woman is shorter than the average man" ... "typical misogynistic cis white male patriarchal bullshit" ... I'm not saying that everyone is volatile and prone to fits of excessive rage in response, but it really feels like there's no place for civil discussion or discourse with a growing portion of the population.
benchaney 9y ago
> This was addressed in the article. This burden has fallen on women since they were teenagers. To expect them to do it yet again, to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous. You can't have it both ways. If you don't want to get involved in the argument, you don't have to, but getting involved and then doing any of the things GP is decrying is actively toxic.
- mcfunk 9y ago
  Women don't have a choice as to whether we participate. It comes up everywhere. It comes up in our workplaces, and as the minority group in conversation, we have to be there to contradict the people who take it as justification for the (evidence-based) unlevel playing field in tech, sexism etc, and we will be the ones affected if we don't ensure that our colleagues and people we respect don't go therefore shrug and decide that everyone thinks that way.
  - benchaney 9y ago
    Nothing in your comment is a reason you have to participate. > we have to be there to contradict the people who take it as justification for the (evidence-based) unlevel playing field in tech, sexism etc, and we will be the ones affected if we don't ensure that our colleagues and people we respect don't go therefore shrug and decide that everyone thinks that way. If you are concerned about third parties being swayed if you stay silent, that makes it even more important to not engage in the behavior I am decrying. Doing nothing is unlikely to impact most people's opinions. Appealing to platitudes (or worse, actively misrepresenting your opponent) will be actively counterproductive.
Houshalter 9y ago
Why would women need to "defend themselves"? He wasn't attacking them. The entire point of it was, that for whatever reason, women are statistically less likely to be interested in computer science. He never said anything about their ability.
- nodamage 9y ago
  I guess we didn't read the same memo? "I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership."
rdtsc 9y ago
>This burden has fallen on women since they were teenagers. To expect them to do it yet again, to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous. Why does research regarding this and the burden has to fall on women? If research is solid why does it matter if it was generated by a specific gender.
im3w1l 9y ago
As a white man the burden has fallen on me since I was a pre-teen to explain why I shouldn't be discriminated against.
adekok 9y ago
> This burden has fallen on women since they were teenagers. To expect them to do it yet again, to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous. See "Self made man" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Man_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Man_(book), for a real-life experience of living as a man vs as a woman. Her conclusion at the end was that women have it much, much, easier, and she would much rather live as a woman than as a man. i.e. maybe work is sexist and makes women prove themselves more than men have to. But that's only one aspect of peoples daily lives.
- mftrhu 9y ago
  IIRC at the end of those 18 months Norah Vincent had to check herself into a psychiatric hospital because of the severe depression she developed. Besides saying that men don't really have it better[1] she also commented[2] "When you mess around with that, you really mess around with something that you need that helps you to function. And I found out that gender lives in your brain and is something much more than costume. And I really learned that the hard way," which is less "women have it much, much easier" and more "women, living as women have it much, much easier". [1]: gender stereotypes hurt everyone, and in [2] she spoke about how "They don't get to show the weakness, they don't get to show the affection, especially with each other. And so often all their emotions are shown in rage"; but they can't be discounted because of this. [2]: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Entertainment/story?id=1526982 http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Entertainment/story?id=1526982

totalZero 9y ago

The burden of responding to something that is (at the very least presented as) evidence? I don't think it's possible to have a discussion if you don't expect and allow pro-affirmative-action stakeholders to respond with their own evidence and reasoning, in turn.

Blackthorn 9y ago
He could have brought up his concerns to hiring authorities in the company, whose job it is to refute diversity myths. Not expect people who have had this burden placed on them for their entire adult life to do it yet again.
- lliamander 9y ago
  He did, a month or more before the fiasco.
  - Blackthorn 9y ago
    And that's exactly where he should have stopped. If he did not like the result, he should have resigned in a much less public manner.
    - lliamander 9y ago
      The result from HR was silence. He never intended for the memo to go public, but he did want feedback from his colleagues. If HR didn't want the issue going further, they should have actually responded to him.
    - cityhall 9y ago
      "Everyone who doesn't agree with me should shut up and go away."
      - dang 9y ago
        Please don't post snarky one-liners to HN, especially not in divisive discussions, where they make things significantly worse. Also, please don't use quotation marks to make it look like you're quoting someone when you're not.
    - rakoo 9y ago
      But he saw a problem and wanted to fix it. You're basically saying he should have left the problem where it is and pretend itsr not there, which is not what engineers typically do. Can you blame him for that?
      - fma 9y ago
        Not just engineers...That kind of mentality does not advance society. Imagine..."She thought black people should not have to sit at the back of the bus. She told authorities who just remained silent. She should have sucked it up and moved to the north!"
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
mejari 9y ago
It's not just "pro-affirmative-action stakeholders" that are expected to respond. _As referenced in the article_, it's extending to expecting women to come up with responses just because they are women. You're talking about a situation where one side (the side of the manifesto) has dropped an "evidence bomb", some of which may be valid, some not, and is now complaining "why won't you have a discussion?" They weren't invited to a discussion, they weren't talked _to_, they were talked _at_, and are now being looked to as the defenders of their gender when they just want to do their damn job.
- nyolfen 9y ago
  this is textbook tone policing. it's an essay, not a spoken dialogue. you could say this about, say, a published study about climate change projections.
  - mejari 9y ago
    You can throw buzzwords designed to shut down discussion at me all you want, that's irrelevant. He claims his goal was to have a dialogue, the fact is that he chose a very poor way of doing that. Either his goals aren't what he claims or he misunderstood how to accomplish them.
    - smallnamespace 9y ago
      In all fairness, we it did at least provoke an internal debate, e.g. this discussion.
    - matt_wulfeck 9y ago
      Considering this is one of the most explosively discussed topics on HN and in the industry I would say he's been wildly successful at starting a discussion.
      - mejari 9y ago
        I can start a discussion about racism in the US by going on TV and yelling the n-word, that doesn't mean that I did a good job of opening a constructive dialogue.

generic_user 9y ago

So basically its ok to discrimate against Men because Women are 'opressed'. Thats not an acceptable argument imo.

Blackthorn 9y ago
You're begging the question. Also, don't put something in quotes that was not a quote.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- someguydave 9y ago
  Which of his premises were assumed in his conclusion?

nicolashahn 9y ago

I'm not talking about a woman having to prove her technical ability to her male coworkers at work because of their prejudices. I know that that's bullshit and I'm sorry they have to do so. I'm talking about handling what Damore claimed in an intellectually honest way. You can't dismiss his points just because you're tired of talking about them (or what you think are the same points you've always been talking about, but I think Damore's comments on each gender's preference and pressures for picking careers had something worth discussing). What he said had at least some spark of originality and insight, otherwise it wouldn't have gotten nearly the attention it did. Consider, would we be talking about the memo if it were about how he thought Sundar Pichai was a lizard man? Those who disagreed with Damore already won the battle. They kicked him out of Google and doubled down on their diversity initiatives/echo chamber. We should be able to talk about his arguments honestly and rationally without falling back on gendered reasons at this point at least.

camgunz 9y ago
> We should be able to talk about his arguments honestly and rationally without falling back on gendered reasons at this point at least. We are and lots of people are doing so, but another point made in this post is that the workplace isn't the venue for this.
- threeseed 9y ago
  Exactly. If Damore had focused his comments purely on hiring practices, quotas, discriminatory policies etc he would still be there and almost all would've found his comments constructive. But he didn't do that. He brought up scientifically baseless, insulting and emotionally immature rationales for an important and sensitive topic. Working around people in a professional environment requires nuance and tact. He showed none of this. The fact that so many in IT seem to miss this point and defend him explains so much about why many men and women stay away from this field.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    I assume you're being sarcastic, given that your description of the memo is so perfectly opposite any reasonable interpretation, but I can't tell.

Sir_Substance 9y ago

>This burden has fallen on women since they were teenagers. To expect them to do it yet again, to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous. You know what's ridiculous? Expecting people to magically agree with you because you're tired of arguing your position. Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in that world, but we don't[1]. In a society where all people are equal (which is what we are aiming for, even if the debate rages on whether that's what we have), all opinions are also equal. The tipping force on the scale of debate is tangible evidence, and it's the lifelong struggle of anyone with political opinions to continually remind others of the evidence behind their standpoint. Feel free to not bother and stuff if you're a bit tired or bored or whatever, but be aware that from a third party perspective, there's no visible difference between someone who won't provide evidence and someone who can't. [1] edit: I thought about this for a few seconds and have decided this would be a horrible world

manigandham 9y ago

What burden are you talking about exactly? You (along with many others) seem to be conflating the major point of the memo between interests and abilities. Not liking something does not mean you're not capable of doing it.

dguaraglia 9y ago
Would you rather hire someone that likes what they do or someone who doesn't? Would you intuitively think that someone who loves their job are going to be more interested in bigger challenges and doing great work, or someone who doesn't care for the job?
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > Would you rather hire someone that likes what they do or someone who doesn't? I wouldn't assume someone's interest level based on their demographics. I would, you know, talk to them.
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    So, you are in favor of outreach programs where you get to talk to more people?
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      Sure. I do that already, both formally and informally. Though I've probably been underestimating how career limiting that can be. The Google firing was a really bad move if outreach programs are a good idea.
      - dguaraglia 9y ago
        Not sure I follow why you think the firing had something to do with outreach? You mean they'll be losing out on candidates like Damore?

canoebuilder 9y ago

to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous. Let's just agree on two things then. _Every woman at google has every right to be there. & _The number of women at google relative to the number of men is not the result of mostly imperceptible, malicious actions by men, but rather due the fact that the personal interests between the sexes varies substantially on average, and this results in skewed sex ratios throughout the entire workforce that match nearly perfectly with what scientific evidence shows us. Women are more interested in working with people and nurturing professions and men are more interested in working with things and abstract, theoretical, mechanical and spatial professions. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-percentage-women-and-men-each-profession/GBX22YsWl0XaeHghwXfE4H/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/03/06/chart-the-perce...

Blackthorn 9y ago
Can agree on number one. Can't agree on number two. Here's why: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-...
l_t 9y ago
Can't agree on number 2, because it's a false dichotomy. The gender imbalance cannot be simplified to being because of any one specific cause (like a difference in personal interests). There is a whole cluster of causes, including: 1. Malicious actions by men. This undoubtedly happens, let's not pretend otherwise. However, it might not be very common. 2. Non-malicious but annoying behavior from men directed towards women. This could include unwanted flirtation, accidental condescension, inappropriate jokes, etc. 3. A male-oriented culture. Even if the guys don't act in an annoying way, being in a significant minority is usually less appealing than being in a situation where you have a more even gender split. 4. Boys and girls are nurtured in different ways, which can drive them towards having different interests as adults. 5. Biological differences between men and women. Personally, I think this is one of the least important factors, and it's also the only one that we can't change. Whether or not (5) is an issue, (1-4) can and should be addressed, so that women who are naturally inclined to CS are not nudged away from the industry by their life experiences.

tracker1 9y ago

Why would this mean anyone already working in the field needs to bring any burden to the table in terms of defending themselves? The subject was centered around the probability that some recruiting assumptions may be wrong, and that there may be better approaches to recruiting or improving the situation in general. Women that work in the field should definitely be respected as much as anyone else. They should be free of sexual harassment, and mistreatment. On the flip side, if only 20% of graduating classes in targeted STEM fields are women, and women represent a disproportionate amount of college students... then maybe the issue is broader than the affect of men on the field at that level. I think part of it may be natural inclination... another is probably the role of movies and media. The latter likely a much bigger role on the impressions of the work and the likely types to fulfill those roles. --- Edit: Big example Daisy/Quake from Agents of Shield... started off as a badass hacker, best of the best... as the show moved on, the role was relegated to brawler, and the impact of intellect or technical ability was largely sidestepped, or made secondary and less. Media portrayals of technical professionals all around are usually very unbalanced... and that doesn't even begin to go into the other fields that are disproportionately male or female, or the hindrance of men in higher education.

Blackthorn 9y ago
> Why would this mean anyone already working in the field needs to bring any burden to the table in terms of defending themselves? The subject was centered around the probability that some recruiting assumptions may be wrong, and that there may be better approaches to recruiting or improving the situation in general. Assuming you're asking in good faith: because of the idea that diversity hiring effectively lowered the hiring bar. Imagine for a second you have imposter syndrome. Now imagine that you've been told (not necessarily by Damore) that you're the (not quoting you here) "diversity hire". Imagine how much worse that imposter syndrome now is.
- tracker1 9y ago
  I suffer from imposter syndrome all the time... but that's on me, not someone else. If you hire someone because of diversity alone over someone with a higher level of merit, then that was wrong. Also, telling someone that they were hired for diversity reasons alone is probably a bad move as well. I'm not saying that people shouldn't try to get more women into tech, or into trash collection, or construction, or every other male dominated occupation, or men as nurses, etc... however, that doesn't mean having to change the rules for men or women. And pointing out that there are differences between men and women shouldn't instantly start of with a storm of hate. "the average woman is shorter than the average man" ... "typical misogynistic cis white male patriarchal bullshit" ... I'm not saying that everyone is volatile and prone to fits of excessive rage in response, but it really feels like there's no place for civil discussion or discourse with a growing portion of the population.

benchaney 9y ago

> This was addressed in the article. This burden has fallen on women since they were teenagers. To expect them to do it yet again, to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous. You can't have it both ways. If you don't want to get involved in the argument, you don't have to, but getting involved and then doing any of the things GP is decrying is actively toxic.

mcfunk 9y ago
Women don't have a choice as to whether we participate. It comes up everywhere. It comes up in our workplaces, and as the minority group in conversation, we have to be there to contradict the people who take it as justification for the (evidence-based) unlevel playing field in tech, sexism etc, and we will be the ones affected if we don't ensure that our colleagues and people we respect don't go therefore shrug and decide that everyone thinks that way.
- benchaney 9y ago
  Nothing in your comment is a reason you have to participate. > we have to be there to contradict the people who take it as justification for the (evidence-based) unlevel playing field in tech, sexism etc, and we will be the ones affected if we don't ensure that our colleagues and people we respect don't go therefore shrug and decide that everyone thinks that way. If you are concerned about third parties being swayed if you stay silent, that makes it even more important to not engage in the behavior I am decrying. Doing nothing is unlikely to impact most people's opinions. Appealing to platitudes (or worse, actively misrepresenting your opponent) will be actively counterproductive.

Houshalter 9y ago

Why would women need to "defend themselves"? He wasn't attacking them. The entire point of it was, that for whatever reason, women are statistically less likely to be interested in computer science. He never said anything about their ability.

nodamage 9y ago
I guess we didn't read the same memo? "I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership."

rdtsc 9y ago

>This burden has fallen on women since they were teenagers. To expect them to do it yet again, to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous. Why does research regarding this and the burden has to fall on women? If research is solid why does it matter if it was generated by a specific gender.

im3w1l 9y ago

As a white man the burden has fallen on me since I was a pre-teen to explain why I shouldn't be discriminated against.

adekok 9y ago

> This burden has fallen on women since they were teenagers. To expect them to do it yet again, to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous. See "Self made man" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Man_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Made_Man_(book), for a real-life experience of living as a man vs as a woman. Her conclusion at the end was that women have it much, much, easier, and she would much rather live as a woman than as a man. i.e. maybe work is sexist and makes women prove themselves more than men have to. But that's only one aspect of peoples daily lives.

mftrhu 9y ago
IIRC at the end of those 18 months Norah Vincent had to check herself into a psychiatric hospital because of the severe depression she developed. Besides saying that men don't really have it better[1] she also commented[2] "When you mess around with that, you really mess around with something that you need that helps you to function. And I found out that gender lives in your brain and is something much more than costume. And I really learned that the hard way," which is less "women have it much, much easier" and more "women, living as women have it much, much easier". [1]: gender stereotypes hurt everyone, and in [2] she spoke about how "They don't get to show the weakness, they don't get to show the affection, especially with each other. And so often all their emotions are shown in rage"; but they can't be discounted because of this. [2]: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Entertainment/story?id=1526982 http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Entertainment/story?id=1526982