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

81–90 of 91 posts

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#81

Post by Caveman_Coder »

gthtjtkt wrote: post #30

What I find odd about all this is the apparent lack of concern for other male-dominated industries like deep-sea fishing, logging, coal mining, sanitation, construction, power-line maintenance, etc. Look at all the most dangerous, physically demanding jobs in the world and what do you see? They're all more than 95% men. Where are all the women clamoring to get into those fields? Where are all the women wondering why…

They aren't precisely because those professions are hard, physical labor intensive, potentially dangerous, and sometimes outdoors. Compare that to a cushy office job in SV that pays well. It's no wonder that females have lobbied as hard as they do for the "Women in Tech" compared to say "Women in HVAC" or "Women Boiler Inspectors."

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#82

Post by tracker1 »

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...

But is it Google's culture that is the problem? I mean if there are only 1:5 female to male graduates in engineering/cs, then it stands to reason that if Google has more than that ratio, they are probably fine, in terms of their own distribution model. (Not sure what the actual ratios are in either case).

I'm more disturbed by the visceral reaction to a memo that was meant to be internal, made enough effort to stay somewhat centrist and isn't really calling out any individual, but mostly calling for a re-evaluation of their processes based on empirical data. Even if his thesis may be in error, or may have said things that bother some.

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#83

Post by dragonwriter »

gthtjtkt wrote: post #30

What I find odd about all this is the apparent lack of concern for other male-dominated industries like deep-sea fishing, logging, coal mining, sanitation, construction, power-line maintenance, etc. Look at all the most dangerous, physically demanding jobs in the world and what do you see? They're all more than 95% men. Where are all the women clamoring to get into those fields? Where are all the women wondering why…

> What I find odd about all this is the apparent lack of concern for other male-dominated industries like deep-sea fishing, logging, coal mining, sanitation, construction, power-line maintenance, etc.

Except, Google “gender imbalance construction” (for instance) and you'll find lots of concern for it. Same for fisheries and most of the other fields at issue. (Maybe not coal mining, where total jobs are evaporating rapidly.) People who hang out on HN are more likely to notice concern in tech because it relates to what brings people to HN in the first place, and also is more likely to be on-topic here. And the concern over tech may be more visible because it's a white collar field connected to middle class aspirations and that is viewed as more interesting to prime media demographics, and this gets more media attention.

> Where are all the women clamoring to get into those fields?

Mostly, out clamoring to get into those fields, in venues that don't get a lot of attention on HN.

> Where are all the women wondering why women aren't clamoring to get into those fields?

Doing that, in many of the same venues. (Yes, there are both women trying to eat into the fields and people, not all women, analyzing the social factors that lead to them not trying in greater numbers.)

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#84

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…

I just wrote the following response to the child comment that you deleted. So here's my response, in case it's useful to you:

--------------

That is totally not what "is/ought distinction" is about, at all. Perhaps start your reading with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem , although I'm sure there are better sources.

The idea is that the answer to one of the following two questions is of no use in deciding the answer to the other one:

  Is it the case that X?
  Should it be the case that X?
--------------

Aside from your confusion about what the word "ought" means, I think the rest of your (now-deleted) comment is straightforwardly correct.

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#85

Post by threatofrain »

tracker1 wrote: post #82
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

But is it Google's culture that is the problem? I mean if there are only 1:5 female to male graduates in engineering/cs, then it stands to reason that if Google has more than that ratio, they are probably fine, in terms of their own distribution model. (Not sure what the actual ratios are in either case). I'm more disturbed by the visceral reaction to a memo that was meant to be internal, made enough effort to stay s…

If Google has a disproportionate share of females coming through the hiring pipelines, then other companies are only going to be even more lopsided.

The problem must be fixed before Google gets into the equation, not at the Google level.

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#86

Post by dragonwriter »

threatofrain wrote: post #85
tracker1 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is it Google's culture that is the problem? I mean if there are only 1:5 female to male graduates in engineering/cs, then it stands to reason that if Google has more than that ratio, they are probably fine, in terms of their own distribution model. (Not sure what the actual ratios are in either case). I'm more disturbed by the visceral reaction to a memo that was meant to be internal, made enough effort to stay s…

If Google has a disproportionate share of females coming through the hiring pipelines, then other companies are only going to be even more lopsided. The problem must be fixed before Google gets into the equation, not at the Google level.

> If Google has a disproportionate share of females coming through the hiring pipelines, then other companies are only going to be even more lopsided.

Not if Google attracts women that would not otherwise be applying at other tech firms.

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#87

Post by willvarfar »

gozur88 wrote: post #64
willvarfar wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norway has female special forces members ("Jegertroppen"). Gaddafi famously had female bodyguards, but perhaps for very different reasons. Many muslim countries have female special forces (again prehaps fro very different reasons)

Countries who have troops in the ME (including the US) tend to have women in (or attached to) commando units because the locals get very shooty when male soldiers search their women. But those SF women tend to not get involved in pure combat missions due to lack of physical strength.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39434655 they are all about interacting with the public, but they are proper soldiers.

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#88

Post by sctb »

honestoHeminway wrote: post #32

Never heard of feminists pushing for quotas for dangerous or dirty jobs.

Let's please not scoot straight up to tedious generic flamewars that we've all heard before.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14973457 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#89

Post by thephyber »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #57

What's interesting is if you read the comment section there is literally 0 comment that agrees with the author. Even the "NYT picks" are the comments bashing on this guy. It just shows that NYT has turned itself into an opposite of Breitbart, instead of aspiring to become more unbiased news source. I'm actually surprised that they even let this guy write this piece on NYT.

"The Great Sort". Americans, the readers, are sorting themselves.

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#90

Post by jorgemf »

jholman wrote: post #84
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…

I just wrote the following response to the child comment that you deleted. So here's my response, in case it's useful to you: -------------- That is totally not what "is/ought distinction" is about, at all. Perhaps start your reading with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem , although I'm sure there are better sources. The idea is that the answer to one of the following two questions is of no use i…

Ops, I am really sorry. I kept reading and realizing that I was confused and needed to read more. That my comment could be not related and I missunderstood the concept. I wanted to take more time to read and express myself better and so I deleted the comment in order to rewrite it when I came back home after reading more.

Your response is useful. Thanks.

I don't want this to be out of context. Here exactly my original comment:

I assumed in his context he means you are a biological entity but there is not correlation with the abstract entity (the mind). Because of that you can state your personal interests are not linked with your DNA in any way. But this has been probed to be false. Scientist have observed a high correlation between the testosterone and the social skills and interests. As the testosterone that is generated based on our DNA you can link you abstract entity with your physical entity. So scientist can predict how social are you going to be or whether you will be more interested in dolls or mechanical objects before you have even be born.

This is the biological factor, and then you have the cultural factor, the one you call "the ought to be". So genetically you have a predisposition to be one way, but this can be shaped by the environment, not only because you can reason about your behavior and change it but because the environment also modifies the DNA and so the levels of testosterone (and more things). How much can you shape the biological predisposition is a good question to answer. For example: I could say that being gay or straight is a biological factor but I doubt any environment factor can change that, maybe you will fake it for the shake of the social acceptance but not changing it.

EDIT: I forgot to say that the testosterone has an influence in the plasticity of the brain.

Post reply on HN