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

Google’s Testament to Political Correctness

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: Google’s Testament to Political Correctness

#41

Post by RealityNow »

taysic wrote: post #40
RealityNow wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The channel he voiced the memo was apparently opt-in, thus I don't see that as inappropriate. If an opposing viewpoint backed by facts and evidence make you feel alienated, then the problem is not with the person who presented the facts. Affirmative action by definition discriminates in favor of women and underrepresented racial minorities, and this is simply a fact - the very definition of affirmative action itself.…

As I already explained diversity of thought isn't appropriate in a workplace. If it were, that would mean bullying and teasing would be appropriate. The problem is where to draw that line. Where Google drew this line was firing someone for implying some people were undeserving of their jobs due to the biological argument. This declaration breeds hostility and is an outright attack on the qualifications of his coworke…

Bullying and teasing is not diversity of thought. Diversity of thought means being open to people with different perspectives and opinions. Bullying and teasing is unacceptable.

The author did not state or imply that his co-workers were undeserving of their jobs. He was simply stating that biological differences may influence one's career ambitions.

For example: Women tend to be more empathetic than men, and this may have something to do with why they're more likely to pursue psychiatry as a profession than men.

This statement does not imply that men shouldn't pursue psychiatry, just that they're probably less likely to do so. I don't see how that statement is sexist.

> affirmative action is practiced in colleges while companies practice seeking diversity out of the same pool of qualified applicants

I'm not sure what the difference there is. Google calls itself an "affirmative action employer", and thus likely engages in the same kind of affirmative action that colleges do.

It's unfortunate that you've been the brunt of such prejudices. But as long as affirmative action is conducted the way it is (discriminating in favor of underrepresented minorities), those prejudices will always exist.

A better and more fair way of promoting diversity is to keep the interview process strictly meritocratic and gender/race-blind, but engage in initiatives that help prepare underrepresented minorities (ideally from low income backgrounds) for the interview process and encourage them to apply. My one stipulation would be that these programs should be open to anyone, rather than being restricted by race/gender.

Re: Google’s Testament to Political Correctness

#42

Post by RealityNow »

funnyguys wrote: post #37
RealityNow wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because women tend to be naturally more empathetic than men doesn't mean that men aren't fit to be psychologists. It just means that more women will pursue that profession.

Are there any studies that concludes empathetic people become psychologists (honest question as I do not know)? Or is it an assumption that we make because of the nature of the profession? Also, is empathy a function of only gender - would not the surrounding environment, role model, religion, books read, experiences in life and various other countless factors affect if a person develops empathy?

> Are there any studies that concludes empathetic people become psychologists

I don't know, but it would follow from common sense that people who are better at X will be more likely to pursue a career where being good at X is beneficial.

> Also, is empathy a function of only gender

Definitely not. Empathy can most certainly be developed.

Re: Google’s Testament to Political Correctness

#43

Post by RealityNow »

funnyguys wrote: post #38
beaconstudios wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but that's not what he's saying at all is it? The memo says that the diversity initiatives that google puts in place (I presume trying to get close to 50/50 gender representation) is a bad idea because more men than women are going to be developers naturally, due to gender differences in interest or aptitude. That doesn't mean women can't be developers or that female developers are less capable - it means there are n…

I read in comments from people who claimed to work for Google - diversity initiatives in Google aim to bring the diversity close to the male-female ratio in the applicant pool. Couple of other companies I know where number of employees are in thousands, the diversity initiative aims to achieve something similar. That does not seem like a bad idea at all. Humans are complex beings. Is interest in a specific field or p…

> Google aim to bring the diversity close to the male-female ratio in the applicant pool.

This is a laudable goal only if gender isn't used to discriminate against candidates. Discrimination on gender and race is wrong, period. Discriminating against men, whites, and Asians is still discrimination, and is not ok.

Nobody's going to disagree with you that environment and the individual play a strong role in affecting one's character. These straw man arguments are getting old.

Re: Google’s Testament to Political Correctness

#44

Post by RealityNow »

UncleMeat wrote: post #24
RealityNow wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was simply a list of topics that PC culture has deemed indisputable and heresy to even question. The topic of whether or not they're appropriate in a work environment is a whole different discussion. The Google memo was pertaining to their own company's diversity policy, and hence should be fair game for discussion. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, then the Obama quote at the bottom of the article summarize…

There is considerable controversy among social justice groups about how best to approach sex work. It is absolutely not verboten to suggest that sex work can be empowering rather than oppressive. Controversial, but certainly not forbidden.

Fair point. I do think that as a male you're not really allowed to say that "prostitution empowers females", it seems that only females are allowed to say that.

One time a woman working at a prominent NGO in human trafficking told me that prostitution was oppressive to the woman. I told her that although that may be the case some of the time, there are women out there doing it by choice. She got really angry at me and went on an emotional tirade.

It's definitely one of those "touchy" PC subjects where honest debate is difficult without being shamed and called "sexist".

Re: Google’s Testament to Political Correctness

#45

Post by RealityNow »

funnyguys wrote: post #27
mindfulplay wrote: post #26

I don't understand this stupidity - the original dude who wrote this thing. A company is not a place to air out your public opinion internally and expect no consequences. This is not the National Monument. This is not your open Mike night in your comedy club. This is not where you scream and run and then cry first amendment first amendment. This is a place of work. Actual women work with this dude. Imagine how they w…

This exactly - it was mediocre crap. When you insinuate that some of your co-workers have certain drawbacks because of their gender, it makes that gender more aware of their behaviour and they are put in a position where they to take extra effort to prove otherwise. This is creating hostile environment for them. This is the reason why similar forms of generalisation, like racism, is frowned upon – not just because of…

So is stating that women tend to be more empathic than men sexist and creating a hostile environment?

Re: Google’s Testament to Political Correctness

#46

Post by RealityNow »

mindfulplay wrote: post #26

I don't understand this stupidity - the original dude who wrote this thing. A company is not a place to air out your public opinion internally and expect no consequences. This is not the National Monument. This is not your open Mike night in your comedy club. This is not where you scream and run and then cry first amendment first amendment. This is a place of work. Actual women work with this dude. Imagine how they w…

> But to espouse a stupid thing as 'women are less capable'

Where in the memo did he say this?

Re: Google’s Testament to Political Correctness

#47

Post by RealityNow »

taysic wrote: post #39
chrisco255 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Professionalism itself is an evolving standard and a moving target. It varies wildly between companies, industries, cultures, and even regions within the United States. Professionalism used to mean 9-6PM M-F work with suit and tie or formal dress and strong hierarchical organizations. In some industries it still means that. The startup tech industry was sort of founded on a rebellious disregard for old standards of p…

Honestly I don't think there is much fuel added on both sides. This argument is age old. Since I was in middle school boys were asserting to me that due to biological reasons I probably wasn't as capable as them as I was very competitive in math and science. When I went to college, we heard the same argument used by Larry Summers president of Harvard. None of this is new, especially when I discuss it with my mother a…

You're completely misconstruing what Larry Summers and the memo's author said.

The memo's author outlined some gender differences, and offered suggestions based on these differences to make working at Google more appealing to women.

Here's the excerpt from Larry Summer's speech that the ignorant masses and agenda-driven feminists have misconstrued to confirm their biases and advance their agenda:

> "So my best guess, to provoke you, of what's behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people's legitimate family desires and employers' current desire for high power and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination. I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong, because I would like nothing better than for these problems to be addressable simply by everybody understanding what they are, and working very hard to address them."

He is not saying that women are biologically less capable of pursuing math and science than men.

[1] http://www.harvard.edu/president/speeches/summers_2005/nber....

Re: Google’s Testament to Political Correctness

#48

Post by taysic »

RealityNow wrote: post #41
taysic wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I already explained diversity of thought isn't appropriate in a workplace. If it were, that would mean bullying and teasing would be appropriate. The problem is where to draw that line. Where Google drew this line was firing someone for implying some people were undeserving of their jobs due to the biological argument. This declaration breeds hostility and is an outright attack on the qualifications of his coworke…

Bullying and teasing is not diversity of thought. Diversity of thought means being open to people with different perspectives and opinions. Bullying and teasing is unacceptable. The author did not state or imply that his co-workers were undeserving of their jobs. He was simply stating that biological differences may influence one's career ambitions. For example: Women tend to be more empathetic than men, and this may…

"Diversity of thought means being open to people with different perspectives and opinions."

Where exactly do you draw that line? As some thoughts are felt as hostile/ insulting to other people and enter grey territory. You can't really obligate people to be open to all thoughts - good luck with that.

What does that look like anyway within a workplace? If such a memo was sent out in my workplace and I had a slew of different thoughts on the topic, would I be allowed to spend work time to pitch my ideas to my coworkers and discuss them to my hearts content or simply send out a memo of my own? And then where does it end?

"Women tend to be more empathetic than men, and this may have something to do with why they're more likely to pursue psychiatry as a profession than men."

While that may be true statistically it's impossible to prove woman choose psychiatry because they're empathetic rather a myriad of other complex reasons. I can tell you as a woman, I don't think Biology plays a large part at all.

"But as long as affirmative action is conducted the way it is (discriminating in favor of underrepresented minorities), those prejudices will always exist."

Affirmative action is meant to level the playing field and balance out the effect of existing prejudices and biases when interviewing etc. So the real question is do you think those prejudices exist and can be alleviated by affirmative action? I do and talking with the woman of the previous generation I would say we've come a long way thanks to affirmative action.

Thanks for the discussion!

Post reply on HN