James Damore and three others end Google suit

Post by searchableguy » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:12 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #271

pinkfoot wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that our community isn’t very friendly or welcoming to women Be precise, how is your community not friendly to women in ways you cannot fix in five minutes? If its obvious, its trivial to list them, if its subtle then its worth doing the exercise. We have to accept they may just not want the gig. Just like most men don't go into pre-school teaching.

> Be precise, how is your community not friendly to women in ways you cannot fix in five minutes? Techbros. Techbros everywhere. It's not what people want to hear, most people would love it if the field and the educational pipeline leading to it had more professional norms all-around. But it's a real thing. (FWIW, I don't think of Damore as part of the problem, indeed his proposals would help a lot if widely adopted.…

Post by foldr » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:12 PM UTC

spangry wrote: post #317

pydry wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Intellectual posturing and oneupsmanship in software teams. Participating in intellectual dick waving. * A strong focus on being "right" over working collaboratively (especially in domains with no right answers). * Hyper competitiveness - to the detriment of effectiveness. * A lack of empathy (e.g. PRs with "your code sucks, suck it up and stop being such a baby"). These things are hardly good from the perspective…

> but they're particularly off putting to women. This is the crux of the issue. For this to be true, it must also be true that men and women are, at least in some ways, intrinsically different (otherwise why would these things pose a greater challenge for women relative to men)?

Post by rbanffy » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:14 PM UTC

threatofrain wrote: post #335

rbanffy wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone distributes a memo that's likely to alienate half of their colleagues, the first thing I'll question is their lack of judgement. If he was uncertain about hiring policies and thought those were negatively affecting productivity, he should have taken the question to his manager or to HR, along with some evidence.

I’m talking about the liability of people sitting in the same context. Are you still talking about what James should or shouldn’t be doing? I’m talking about whether you should incur legal risk for leaking facts about people likes James.

Post by milankovic » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:15 PM UTC

somewhereoutth wrote: post #226

I am shocked that there is even a discussion to be had on this. In architecture (a somewhat older profession, but also concerning things constructed by people), women previously did have a hard time, and often had to practice under their husbands/partners name. Mercifully this ended some while ago, and now architecture schools and onwards are more evenly gender balanced. Nobody suggests that women are somehow natural…

Post by bradleyjg » Sat, May 09, 2020, 2:20 PM UTC

AzzieElbab wrote: post #312

bradleyjg wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To cut to the chase, I do think there’s a certain amount of dishonesty in the typical Silicon Valley corporate culture. But to my mind it is far more reasonable to ask that companies not engage in this dishonesty rather than asking that they live up to it. Bring your whole self to work is ridiculous and unworkable. No one can run a successful business if their employees are spending all day debating philosophy on int…

How would a geek with 0 real life experience outside Google know that? It is not what they told him about "internal discussions".