10 ms·

Probably worth noting this story was first published by the New York Post. Take that for what you will. That said, this is a pretty wild turn of events. From t

• NeverFade 4y ago
  > More curious is the very direct "your team is too male" and the encouragement to fire someone. Everyone in tech knows this is happening, and it's illegal, but nobody will do anything about it. Similar to ageism back in the 2000s.
  • Seattle3503 4y ago
    Have you seen this first hand?
    • malandrew 4y ago
      I have. Only once or twice this egregious. Most of the time however it’s explicit diversity incentives for executives if they want to hit their perf targets. If you can’t get the hires, the other way to game it is to shrink the denominator if you fail to increase the numerator.
    • NeverFade 4y ago
      I have witnessed first hand discrimination based on race and gender. Ageism too.
    • oh_sigh 4y ago
      I work at a FANG and there was a reshuffling in my team of 30 people as a new manager came in - there were 5 women/25 men. After the reshuffling, the 5 women became the 5 new TLs of the 5 projects our team was subdivided into. And the manager talks all the time about how he wants to empower women. Not sure if that counts. I guess it could have just been coincidence.
      • EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
        Is TL a Teralitre, Turkish lira or Teen's Love?
        • blindriver 4y ago
          Tech Lead
        • potatochup 4y ago
          Team/tech Lead?
    • at_a_remove 4y ago
      I saw this in academia over a decade ago. Someone who was the ultimate decider said that the group already had enough "pale males;" a look was given to me and guy in the wheelchair because, by virtue of our disabilities, we were presumed to already be on the Yay Diversity! Squad, despite our pallor and penisness. That was the phrase, I was in the room, etc. It doesn't just happen, they don't really try to hide it now.
  • 0xcafefood 4y ago
    Had a manager at one job tell me explicitly that they gave an interview to a candidate but knew it wouldn't move forward to a hire since they wanted to hire a woman. I felt gross hearing and knowing that but it was said and not written so there was nothing I could do about it. And I probably would've gotten fired for raising an issue even if I did have that in writing.
    • ipaddr 4y ago
      By you sharing you have added some good to a bad situation.
    • eh9 4y ago
      [flagged]
      • ocdtrekkie 4y ago
        HR roles, like most others, are numbers driven. Recruiters are expected to deliver a number of applicants, interview a number of candidates, etc. This means that yes, they often interview people they have no intention to hire: It makes the HR person look good. This can happen if they have a diversity hire directive but interview non-diverse candidates, but it can also happen if they want to hire a white guy but have a company directive to interview diverse candidates for every role. Either way, they can say they looked at everyone before hiring whatever candidate they wanted.
      • bluefirebrand 4y ago
        I dunno where you all are working but I've never worked on any software team that was exclusively white and male.
        • eh9 4y ago
          Of course, statistically speaking, it was probably only 80-90% white male.
          • 4y ago
  • riffraff 4y ago
    > Similar to ageism back in the 2000s. do you believe ageism "solved", or do you mean it's something people talk about openly these days? I thought it was discussed in the 00s too.
    • NeverFade 4y ago
      I think it's much less of a problem these days, partly because the talent crunch forced tech companies to hire older employees as well. It's still present, but not as rampant and intense as it was. Also, note that it was discussed and acknowledged at the time, but that didn't magically make it go away. Zuck stated on record that if you're over 30, successful companies should not employ you, and he was the founder, owner, and chief exec of a major tech corporation. Everyone knew it was going on, it was also acknowledged, and it was illegal, yet nobody did anything about it, and it kept going. Dispels your illusion of how illegal / immoral practices just go away when they are exposed. The current trend of gender and race-based discrimination won't just go away by itself, either.
    • freetanga 4y ago
      The ageists of the 00s now are running the company, but also nearing their 50s. So less ageism.
  • TheDong 4y ago
    [flagged]
  • malwrar 4y ago
    Once during a hiring panel at a previous role, the hiring manager asked us to be sure we reviewed the candidate as a junior. After we gave feedback, they mentioned they were being pressured to hire a woman and that this was why we were asked to judge the candidate below standards. Ultimately got the job, and while she turned out to be a quick learner and great coworker I still remember how shocked and… helpless I felt to actually witness it for myself. Several other candidates, all male, were not hired because we only had one remaining headcount. I feel like I was party to discrimination and still feel vaguely guilty about it.
    • RangerScience 4y ago
      [flagged]
      • malwrar 4y ago
        I agree with your take despite the downvotes. Ultimately this person went on to be successful and was formidable and honest. They deserved the chance they were given, just as most of the other candidates so far have made it my way (imo) did. People have taken chances on me too. Real life is full of complex feelings. I don’t really think this experience demonstrated anything to me other than that this sort of pressure exists.
        • RangerScience 4y ago
          Totes, and thanks :) BTW, I think about this conversation a lot, any time I think about ends versus means, you might also appreciate it: https://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-6/page-112-2/ https://strongfemaleprotagonist.com/issue-6/page-112-2/
• gleenn 4y ago
  It me quite a while to realize by "not work another day in his life" as actually meaning he will win large sums of money and not have to work, instead of my initial parsing as "he would never be allowed to work somewhere again".
  • FredPret 4y ago
    I hope the first is true; I know the second is unfortunately probably also true
• couchdb_ouchdb 4y ago
  After 16 years at Google, i'm pretty sure he doesn't have to work another day in his life.
  • SilasX 4y ago
    You'd think, but then you read stories like this, about people who have worked 16 years at Google but still need the job badly: https://www.businessinsider.com/laid-off-engineer-says-google-considers-staff-disposable-2023-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/laid-off-engineer-says-googl...
    • Thorrez 4y ago
      That article doesn't seem to say he needed the job badly.
      • SilasX 4y ago
        Not in those words, no. But if you're that resentful about being laid off, and talking to the media about what a cosmic injustice it is rather than, "oh, well, I guess I can start spending some of the interest on the fortune I built up from 16 years at Google", then yes, you do still need the job badly.
        • nullc 4y ago
          Hm? If you need work and are laid off you don't get mad: you get another job. You get mad if you were working for prestige, connections, or power-- things you can't just replace by getting another job.
          • SilasX 4y ago
            >Hm? If you need work and are laid off you don't get mad: you get another job. Some people do both -- from the context, it sounds like Moore also hopes to replace it with a similar job, while also venting to anyone in the media who will propagate his framing about what a horrible injustice it is that Google can pay him a fortune and keep him around for 16 years. >You get mad if you were working for prestige, connections, or power-- things you can't just replace by getting another job. And this fits your model of someone eager to trade personal time for the prospect of power even when his material needs are met? From the link: >>"This also just drives home that work is not your life, and employers — especially big, faceless ones like Google — see you as 100% disposable," Moore said. >>"Live life, not work," he added.
• caminante 4y ago
  > Probably worth noting this story was first published by the New York Post. Take that for what you will. Instead of an ad hominem dogwhistle, please describe how the paper's political leanings could bias its reporting here. At face value, it's workplace sexual assault allegations with a power imbalance.
  • CoastalCoder 4y ago
    > Instead of an ad hominem dogwhistle I don't think that's what "dogwhistle" means. IIUC, dog-whistling is surreptitiously sending a message to some readers, but having plausible deniability and/or non-recognition for the rest of the readers.
    • caminante 4y ago
      Try this: >I'd like to point out that CoastalCoder wrote this comment. Take that for what you will. See? Highlighting with this phrasing aligns exactly with your definition. The framing is defaulting to negative-neutral.
      • CoastalCoder 4y ago
        I don't think this is a case of dog-whistling, because AFAICT the author isn't trying to conceal his point. I.e., he intends every reader to recognize that he's saying that the publisher might be biased. He's not being explicit about what that bias is, but presumably he expects curious readers to look into it themselves.
        • caminante 4y ago
          It's flawed (by your own definition) to say that just because you don't detect a dogwhistle that it's not a dogwhistle. >the author isn't trying to conceal his point False. The parent asked you to draw your own conclusions!
    • blindriver 4y ago
      To me, all these new terms that have no actual meaning to what they are trying to describe is very annoying. Terms like "phishing", "gaslighting", "bike shedding", "yak shaving", "dog whistle", "gatekeeping" are extremely confusing to understand because there's no direct connection to what they are trying to imply. You literally have to memorize what it means and it's generally unguessable.
• deaddodo 4y ago
  I worked at a company a few years back where the hiring manager for the engineering and product teams proudly exclaimed that she would actively go against hiring a man, until the teams were at minimum 50% women and would maintain this ratio once she reached that goal. Totally admirable intention, for sure (if only viewed from the lens of strict equality). But I’m sure the 90% of applicants that were male wouldn’t see it that way. So, poor execution. Edit: clarified some incendiary phrasing
  • koonsolo 4y ago
    > STEM is 100% historically discriminatory to women So that women prefer to pick other fields is STEM's fault?
    • defrost 4y ago
      [flagged]
      • koonsolo 4y ago
        I don't know where you did STEM related education, but in my environment a women in a group project would get extra points relative to the rest. So I saw the exact opposite of what you describe. And at work, women seems to rise to management levels easier than men. But hey, this is EU, not US. Edit: you're pointing me to something that happened in 1890? WTF???
        • defrost 4y ago
          > 100% historically discriminatory to women You replied to a comment about historically - and what was once a pattern still persists to a lesser degree. The roots of higher education were laid with the exclusion of women baked in.
          • koonsolo 4y ago
            So women are now excluded from education like the olden days? Wtf?
• lambdasquirrel 4y ago
  > Probably worth noting this story was first published by the New York Post. Take that for what you will. I think that even just five years ago I would’ve agreed with you on this, but when the attacks on elderly Asians began to happen during the pandemic, it was one of those painful things that it was the NY Post that could be counted on to make those visible. As I’ve gotten older, I haven’t become more conservative. But I’ve realized that the left side of the spectrum is a lot sicker than I realized when I was younger, and to not automatically discount everything that goes on in the right, wince-worthy as it may often be.
  • greenn 4y ago
    [flagged]
  • kodah 4y ago
    For whatever reason folks think I made a political jab. I did not. Here's what I said to someone who posted something similar to you: Frankly, I read this article this morning when it broke on the NYP. The NYP stays in my feed but when I read their stuff I almost always cross it with other sources. There are none though because all that exists of this story right now is the docket. Miller, Google, and Olahan aren't talking. How victims are portrayed in the media matters a great deal. Media can skewer a case by either poking holes in it or by flatly not investigating. The latter is what I feel is going on here. They could've interviewed potential witnesses at these NYC events, they could've interviewed some Googlers to find out if this "your team is too male" attitude actually exists in any contingent. They didn't do that though, instead, they plugged the hottest claims of the docket which all come from the plaintiff. My statement was ambiguous on purpose. It says two things simultaneously: 1. If you don't believe this article, wait for better reporting. 2. If you believe this article, wait for better reporting. I was hoping that might remind some people to temper their expectations until more information is known, which is why the last sentence is the way it is, and why I cited each of the allegations.
  • heilei 4y ago
    > As I’ve gotten older, I haven’t become more conservative. But I’ve realized that the left side of the spectrum is a lot sicker than I realized when I was younger, and to not automatically discount everything that goes on in the right, wince-worthy as it may often be. Changing perception is usually exactly how one would become more political.
• ShredKazoo 4y ago
  >More curious is the very direct "your team is too male" and the encouragement to fire someone. My friend who still lives in the Valley says this kind of sentiment is incredibly common there nowadays, e.g. advertising an open position and having discussions internally that a man won't be hired for the role. It's pretty surprising to me, because statistics show that most major careers have a gender imbalance in one direction or the other: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-20180307-1 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/E... https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/software-developers-overtake-retail-workers-as-most-common-job-in-seattle-area/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/software-deve... Yet the gender imbalance in software engineering receives unique attention, to the point where people are willing to violate ethical rules in order to try & even out the genders in that particular career. Why is this? What is the ethical justification for why addressing the gender imbalance in STEM/software engineering should be such an urgent moral priority? My suspicion is that there is no good justification that holds up under scrutiny, and it's all just a moral panic fueled by social media.
  • alwayslikethis 4y ago
    This general phenomenon is not just a moral panic, and is not caused by social media, though it may have a role in its spread. It is caused by a number of deep-rooted factors compounding on one another. One of them is the increasingly bloated managerial class in Western societies that are trying to hold on to their power. This is done by sowing division in the society, dismantling its former institutions (religion, civil society), and instilling a new set of values which they can enforce. Another one of them is the legacy of the two World Wars of the previous century, in which the West lost belief in the values it once believed in, and postmodernist values took their place. One of the most prominent values among these is a view of any sort of heterogeneity as oppression, and that there is a moral imperative to "correct" it by any means possible. The elites, fearing that they might lose power if people became more class-conscious, channeled this sentiment to certain issues that would not harm them too much, such as gender and race politics.
    • FredPret 4y ago