Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s War Over the Sexes

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 91 posts

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#71

Post by jholman »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #63
mpweiher wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me quote someone who has said it much better than I can: "But it is crucial to distinguish the moral proposition that people should not be discriminated against on account of their sex — which I take to be the core of feminism — and the empirical claim that males and females are biologically indistinguishable. They are not the same thing. Indeed, distinguishing them is essential to protecting the core of feminism…

Have you read Adam Grant's piece on linkedin? I think you'd like it. Basically the argument is that biological differences exist but are small or mostly isolated to a few (mostly physical) domains. And that those domains have little to do with computer science, the reason google has less women than men is mostly a cultural problem. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/differences-between-men-women...

It is indeed an interesting piece.

And have you read Alexander Scott's piece on how mistaken Grant is about the actual state of science? http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger... Basically the argument is that Grant has failed to actually read the science he cites, because it the actual results from that science don't say what Grant say they says, especially as it relates to Damore's memo's worldview.

And then you can read Grant's reply to Alexander, and Alexander's reply to Grant. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger... All pretty interesting.

And the outcome of all that, for me, is a strong reinforcement of the Pinker quote that mpweiher quoted: feminism must not be held hostage to the science, because otherwise many scientists will see things that will require them to become non-feminists.

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#72

Post by Barrin92 »

mpweiher wrote: post #65
Barrin92 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The nature and source of sex differences are also of practical importance. Most of us agree that there are aspects of the world, including gender disparities, that we want to change. But if we want to change the world we must first understand it, and that includes understanding the sources of sex differences. " completely agree with Pinker's sentiment but it is very important to note that for him understanding natur…

Except that the author of the memo used it exactly in the Pinker sense: "We want more diversity. I want more diversity" "What we're doing, it's not working" "Maybe we're doing it wrong. Maybe we're missing something" "Here are things [well-supported by the science] that we might be missing" "Here's how we might use this knowledge to make things better"

If that truly was or is his intention I don't think he has found the best way to express this. Pointing towards female neuroticism, criticising 'politically correctness' and vague allusions to 'Marxism', he managed to make himself sound like a real jerk with exactly the agenda in mind women do not want to experience any more.

If you want to have a cool-headed discussion don't style yourself as a martyr and accuse other people of silencing you. This is not the way to have that discussion.

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#73

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

mpweiher wrote: post #68
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever looked? Here's what NOW's president said about women and selective service registration back in 1981: by excluding women even from registration, the government held that “every man, regardless of any disability, must register, but that all women, regardless of competency, cannot,” a distinction which created the “myth that all men are more competent than all women.” That's the biggest (as far as I know)…

"NOW had previously opposed the draft, and its apparent about-face infuriated its members at the grassroots level, according to Cynthia Enloe, a research professor of political science and women's studies at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. Enloe, who has written extensively on women and the military, said she was just starting her research at the time, but as she recalls, "The local chapters were really angry. T…

So NOW supported women in the draft and actively fought for it legislatively and what? Their motives weren't pure enough? Who cares? It's a women's organization (a huge one) trying to get women into dangerous, dirty jobs.

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#74

Post by jholman »

jorgemf wrote: post #48
Barrin92 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A lot of studies have probe the opposite (recent studies, not old ones). You should familiarise yourself with the philosophical basis of the is/ought distinction. There is no good reason to assume that scientific inquiry, which tells us a fact about the world in any way tells us what we should want or should do. Scientific evidence is a tool to evaluate whether we are effectively pursuing our normative values. Scien…

> You should familiarise yourself with the philosophical basis of the is/ought distinction. don't assume I am not. You could be making a mistake > there is no good reason to assume that scientific inquiry, which tells us a fact about the world in any way tells us what we should want or should do. actually the scientific community has this into their theories. There are two factors: biological factors and the environm…

Respectfully, it very much appears that you do not understand the is/ought distinction. But I assume that you know yourself better than we strangers do.

Given that, to most of us, the is/ought distinction makes the sentence "nature simply is, and doesn't tell us what ought to be" a tautology, and given that you say 'a lot of studies' have demonstrated otherwise, I'm super curious what you mean. Could you explain, please?

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#75

Post by mpweiher »

Barrin92 wrote: post #72
mpweiher wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the author of the memo used it exactly in the Pinker sense: "We want more diversity. I want more diversity" "What we're doing, it's not working" "Maybe we're doing it wrong. Maybe we're missing something" "Here are things [well-supported by the science] that we might be missing" "Here's how we might use this knowledge to make things better"

If that truly was or is his intention I don't think he has found the best way to express this. Pointing towards female neuroticism, criticising 'politically correctness' and vague allusions to 'Marxism', he managed to make himself sound like a real jerk with exactly the agenda in mind women do not want to experience any more. If you want to have a cool-headed discussion don't style yourself as a martyr and accuse oth…

> female neuroticism

While he used the technically correct term, its use without explaining the term was definitely unwise. I explain here: http://blog.metaobject.com/2017/08/the-science-behind-manife...

> accuse other people of silencing you

Considering they fired him, not exactly a baseless accusation.

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#76

Post by jholman »

zhengyi13 wrote: post #61
mpweiher wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His repeated references to women as childbearers Pardon me, but this is in(s)ane. WHO ELSE BUT WOMEN BEARS CHILDREN? Apologies, but I had to get that out of my system.

I think there's a significant difference between identifying a person's unique capability: "Women are the only part of the human species capable of bearing children" versus defining them by that role: "Women are childbearers" ... where the latter construction has a strong connotation that that's all or even primarily what they are. I think that's problematic. I'm not sure, but I think GP might have perceived that in…

There is a difference, yes. But neither of those is what Douhat says, so why are you bringing it up?

From TFA: "Women bear children; men do not". There is no other mention of this gender difference.

Why on earth would you bring up "Women are childbearers" and this interpretation of "defining them by that role"?

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#77

Post by mpweiher »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #73
mpweiher wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"NOW had previously opposed the draft, and its apparent about-face infuriated its members at the grassroots level, according to Cynthia Enloe, a research professor of political science and women's studies at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. Enloe, who has written extensively on women and the military, said she was just starting her research at the time, but as she recalls, "The local chapters were really angry. T…

So NOW supported women in the draft and actively fought for it legislatively and what? Their motives weren't pure enough? Who cares? It's a women's organization (a huge one) trying to get women into dangerous, dirty jobs.

No, they actively fought the draft for women until it became politically necessary/expedient to change their position.

And of course opposition to the draft for women was the primary reason for the defeat of the ERA.

"Experts agree that Phyllis Schlafly was a key player in the defeat. Political scientist Jane Mansbridge in her history of the ERA argues that the draft issue was the single most powerful argument used by Schlafly and the other opponents to defeat ERA.[93] She concludes, "Many people who followed the struggle over the ERA believed—rightly in my view—that the Amendment would have been ratified by 1975 or 1976 had it not been for Phyllis Schlafly's early and effective effort to organize potential opponents."[94] Legal scholar Joan C. Williams argues, "ERA was defeated when Schlafly turned it into a war among women over gender roles."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment#Opposit...

Oh, and >90% of workplace fatalities are men.

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#78

Post by jxramos »

Barrin92 wrote: post #60
mpweiher wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me quote someone who has said it much better than I can: "But it is crucial to distinguish the moral proposition that people should not be discriminated against on account of their sex — which I take to be the core of feminism — and the empirical claim that males and females are biologically indistinguishable. They are not the same thing. Indeed, distinguishing them is essential to protecting the core of feminism…

>The nature and source of sex differences are also of practical importance. Most of us agree that there are aspects of the world, including gender disparities, that we want to change. But if we want to change the world we must first understand it, and that includes understanding the sources of sex differences. " completely agree with Pinker's sentiment but it is very important to note that for him understanding natur…

This is a fascinating thought about the emancipatory aspect to this, but I also recognize it presupposes obstacles at the current boundaries that are capable of being pushed as opposed to some fixed upper limit constraint. I think the area where we could all benefit from much thought is just what sort of effort would be involved in this boundary enlarging in order to weigh the cost of such an endeavor. I think its always fair to presume yielding boundaries and is probably my optimism that speaks, but it seems to me a lot of the outrage spans from someone declaring ultimate constraints and fixed boundaries. More thought should go to harnessing the potential energy if you will for doing work in a certain force field to draw a physical analogy and understanding the friction experienced in the motions of both bodies. If one presents less effort, that is a key fact to consider.

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#79

Post by [deleted] »

jholman wrote: post #74
jorgemf wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You should familiarise yourself with the philosophical basis of the is/ought distinction. don't assume I am not. You could be making a mistake > there is no good reason to assume that scientific inquiry, which tells us a fact about the world in any way tells us what we should want or should do. actually the scientific community has this into their theories. There are two factors: biological factors and the environm…

Respectfully, it very much appears that you do not understand the is/ought distinction. But I assume that you know yourself better than we strangers do. Given that, to most of us, the is/ought distinction makes the sentence "nature simply is, and doesn't tell us what ought to be" a tautology, and given that you say 'a lot of studies' have demonstrated otherwise, I'm super curious what you mean. Could you explain, ple…

[deleted]

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#80

Post by jxramos »

negativez wrote: post #67
Barrin92 wrote: post #8

The most troubling thing about this whole issue for me is the weird fetish about "biology" on both sides of the debate. As Mr. Hume told us a few hundred years ago, nature simply is , and doesn't tell us what ought to be . As such I have trouble understanding why we are approaching the issue from this angle. Instead of obsessing about biology, we should care about how we want our workplaces to look. And I would welco…

Not to defend the manifesto or it's content: 1) It's all to common for people to reinterpret a claim of the form "biology has significant effects on the behavior of humans in the aggregate" into "we can assume biology is a limiting factor on individuals". Since the latter is an indefensible position this technique is used to preemptively invalidate any argument that actually only claims the former. This is what you'v…

To your point on 1) regarding the individual, I think the memo author's original point may have been too inconspicuous "...so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions." I agree with the flaws in projecting stats to any given individual.

That point about equilibrium is very interesting; makes me wonder about civilization fitness and competitiveness for those that discover the natural equilibriums and exploit them to their advantage. Sort of like a Star Trek Next Generation episode where some planet's society was able to measure all the traits in their children and direct them to where they were optimized. Makes me want to dig up that old plotline and see what the writer's thought about such a ordering of society.

Post reply on HN