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

James Damore and three others end Google suit

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#891

Post by fastball »

foldr wrote: post #887
fastball wrote: post #812

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a strange argument, given the start to this entire subthread ("women used to be the majority"). Let me get this straight: 1. Most women were programmers. 2. Women aren't sexist, so they let men in. 3. Men overwhelmed the women. 4. Men are sexist, so they stopped letting women in. 5. Now we need to deliberately reverse the results of stage (4). Is that the sequence of events as you see it?

You have 1 the wrong way round. Women would not have been in charge of hiring, so no to 2. (The programming jobs men were hired for would likely not have been considered the same kind of job.) Not sure what you mean by 3. Roughly yes to 4, although the issue is systematic sexism, not the personal prejudices of men and women. Society in general, including many women, disapproved of women becoming programmers once it b…

If it's society in general that is sexist, why have many industries that are "high-status high-skill" seen a serious increase in the number of women in the profession, while engineering has not?

These arguments seem to go in circles a lot.

First it matters that "the majority of programmers were women". But then it doesn't actually matter, because the people in charge of hiring weren't women. Ok. Then it's society in general that is sexist, but actually it's only certain professions where this "general sexism" manifests itself, for no apparent reason. Ok. Then you have the most egalitarian countries in the world seeing more disparate outcomes than other western countries. But this is apparently because sexism and cultural norms are so nebulous and hard to pin down that there must still be some sexism going on there too, we just can't see it. Ok.

There are a lot of claims being made with no evidence whatsoever. While I personally don't put much stock in psychology, at least Damore's points had actual studies behind them. And though it has been thrown around in this thread that "some of the authors disagreed with Damore's interpretation!", I have actually read the studies and found nothing factually inaccurate with the interpretation. That's what is so difficult about a lot of psychology – the hard facts are few and far between, so effectively every result is subject to interpretation. An author of a paper can disagree, but that doesn't make Damore wrong.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#892

Post by foldr »

fastball wrote: post #891
foldr wrote: post #887

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have 1 the wrong way round. Women would not have been in charge of hiring, so no to 2. (The programming jobs men were hired for would likely not have been considered the same kind of job.) Not sure what you mean by 3. Roughly yes to 4, although the issue is systematic sexism, not the personal prejudices of men and women. Society in general, including many women, disapproved of women becoming programmers once it b…

If it's society in general that is sexist, why have many industries that are "high-status high-skill" seen a serious increase in the number of women in the profession, while engineering has not? These arguments seem to go in circles a lot. First it matters that "the majority of programmers were women". But then it doesn't actually matter, because the people in charge of hiring weren't women. Ok. Then it's society in…

>If it's society in general that is sexist, why have many industries that are "high-status high-skill" seen a serious increase in the number of women in the profession, while engineering has not?

Because those industries accepted that they had a problem and took steps to fix it. Altering the perceptions of the broader society can be a big part of that. People no longer see anything unusual about a woman being a lawyer or a doctor. Fifty years ago, that wasn't the case. So there's no paradox here. "General sexism" includes stereotypes about appropriate occupations for men and women. These can change over time, as we've seen in the case of lawyers and doctors.

>First it matters that "the majority of programmers were women". But then it doesn't actually matter, because the people in charge of hiring weren't women.

It matters because it shows that women were, at one time, both interested in and capable of programming. No-one has said that it doesn't matter, so your 'but' makes no sense.

You're quite right that there's nothing to be learned by throwing around citations to half-read and half-understood studies (which is why I haven't done any of that). All you have to do is listen to what women in tech say. If James Danmore had done that for five minutes instead of wasting his time on his half-assed "research", none of this would have happened.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#893

Post by fastball »

foldr wrote: post #892
fastball wrote: post #891

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's society in general that is sexist, why have many industries that are "high-status high-skill" seen a serious increase in the number of women in the profession, while engineering has not? These arguments seem to go in circles a lot. First it matters that "the majority of programmers were women". But then it doesn't actually matter, because the people in charge of hiring weren't women. Ok. Then it's society in…

>If it's society in general that is sexist, why have many industries that are "high-status high-skill" seen a serious increase in the number of women in the profession, while engineering has not? Because those industries accepted that they had a problem and took steps to fix it. Altering the perceptions of the broader society can be a big part of that. People no longer see anything unusual about a woman being a lawye…

Women did a lot of the manufacturing during the last World War. Does that mean women are interested in being factory workers? As to capacity, nobody, including Damore, claimed that women do not have the same capacity as men to be programmers.

Anecdotal evidence is worse than psychology studies.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#894

Post by SamWhited »

camelite wrote: post #802
SamWhited wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have to accept they may just not want the gig. If this is true it's probably because the community isn't very friendly or welcoming to women like the poster said… That being said, I don't think this is true. My only evidence is anecdotal, but at a previous company when we tried to recruit at events that weren't primarily male dominated, we got roughly equal percentages of responses from people who identified as…

> Why don't most women want the software job? Amusingly, the damore memo was an attempt to address just this very question. Are we not beyond pretending responses outside the proscribed woke ideology will be engaged with in good faith, at this late stage?

There are actual things in the world that we know are true or false and aren't just part of some "ideology" as you put it it. One of them is that the kind of pseudoscientific bullshit damore was spouting is false. We know this. It is in no way engaging in good faith to post an internal memo to your coworkers full of stupid stuff that's been used for years to justify your dominance. His memo was not engaging in good faith, it was a deliberate attempt to lie and mislead, and we as a society need to move beyond this sort of thing.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#895

Post by reroute1 »

magic5227 wrote: post #857
reroute1 wrote: post #834

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually it's pretty basic biology and psychology. What "conclusions" are disagreed? Can you really not see how this would apply in real life with personality differences? It seems obvious and intuitive not even mentioning the science, women are more social on average, men more into things that make a whirring noise. What data am I missing?

"...men more into things that make a whirring noise." You are proving my argument. Nonsense like this has prevented women from feeling like equal participants (and equally capable) in many fields for decades.

How is it nonsense though? You just saying it doesn't make it so sorry... It's a pretty obvious observation made over and over you are going to need to give some data or reasoning why this is wrong, because science and logic both say these are the gender norms in a general population

How does that prove anything for you? You haven't shown anything except that you disagree, that doesn't give us anything except your opinion and definitely won't convince people who know the science also... The personality differences between men and women are not edgy science. I have a degree in psychology and I'm pretty confident you have no legit science (and haven't even give logical reasons) to back your claims but feel free to post something different

You also seem to have a lot of misinformation in this thread. Calling his memo a manifesto... Mixing neurotic with neuroticism... Basic facts you are smearing... You aren't giving people a reason to believe any of what you say so maybe you should think about why you have such an extreme view

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#896

Post by fastball »

jhedwards wrote: post #841
fastball wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have cultural factors not been ruled out? Affirmative action policies literally make it easier for one group to get a spot in [insert institution here] than another group. And yet we still see discrepancies. We publicly shame and fire anyone who says "maybe biological differences play a role". And yet we still see discrepancies. If we haven't ruled out cultural factors in the West at this point, I'm not sure how we c…

> Have cultural factors not been ruled out? How could they be? That is an intractable problem. Cultural factors permeate our existence from birth. You'd literally have to catalogue every single thing influencing an individual's life from birth to the time they enter the workforce. I have two daughters and I've seen just how powerful subconscious messages from media influence the way they think. My oldest daughter is…

Your four-year-old daughter assuming that the norm is the only way to do something is her jumping to conclusions, not a mark against society. It is ok for children to jump to conclusions. Girls do generally marry boys, as >90% of sexuality is heterosexuality. Children are wrong all the time. This is only a problem if you don't correct her misconceptions. Your child growing up the way you think is right and proper is 100% your responsibility – not Netflix and Disney's. Likewise, if she grows up thinking that girls shouldn't be programmers, that is on you.

> Affirmative action is useless if people's minds are already fully constructed by the time those programs take effect.

This is exactly my (and, funnily enough, Damore's) point. Affirmative action / quotas are a bandaid that does not solve the problem and can actually make it worse by encouraging resentment (from non-affirmed groups) and increasing self-doubt (among affirmed groups). The solution is to treat individuals as individuals and not look at their race, sex, religion, etc. The only way to move forward as a society in the long-term is to truly look past any groups a person belongs to and see them as an individual. Continuing to lump people into groups and make decisions based of those groups has the opposite effect and will only hurt us in the long run.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#897

Post by foldr »

fastball wrote: post #893
foldr wrote: post #892

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If it's society in general that is sexist, why have many industries that are "high-status high-skill" seen a serious increase in the number of women in the profession, while engineering has not? Because those industries accepted that they had a problem and took steps to fix it. Altering the perceptions of the broader society can be a big part of that. People no longer see anything unusual about a woman being a lawye…

Women did a lot of the manufacturing during the last World War. Does that mean women are interested in being factory workers? As to capacity, nobody, including Damore, claimed that women do not have the same capacity as men to be programmers. Anecdotal evidence is worse than psychology studies.

I'm not sure why you think there's any analogy between women working as programmers in the 60s and women working in factories during the second World War. But in fact, WWII did effect a huge change in perceptions of women as part of the workforce.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#898

Post by pydry »

spangry wrote: post #375
foldr wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contrary to a popular straw man, few people deny that men and women are different in some respects. The point is that there is no reason to think that these differences should, in a healthy culture, put women off becoming programmers, or make them less capable of doing a good job.

Sure, and that's not an argument I'd make. But, as Damore suggested in his memo, mightn't these innate differences mean that women are less likely, on average, to prefer careers in software engineering? And mightn't these innate differences also explain why women are strongly over-represented in certain other professions like nursing (91%), elementary and middle school teaching (81%) and social work (80%)?

>Damore suggested in his memo, mightn't these innate differences mean that women are less likely, on average, to prefer careers in software engineering?

As far as I understood it, this wasn't the bit of the memo that people were attacking.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#899

Post by pydry »

manigandham wrote: post #767
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…

It's very strange to say that's male only and "off-putting" to women. Have you ever tried exploring female-dominated industries? Because women can and do display all those behaviors as well.

I think these behaviors are toxic and off putting to other men too, but men seem to be more willing to put up with them.

I don't see an equivalence to nursing or primary school teaching since by and large it's not the toxic aspects of these careers that puts off men, it's the lack of pay and status.

Re: James Damore and three others end Google suit

#900

Post by fastball »

foldr wrote: post #897
fastball wrote: post #893

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women did a lot of the manufacturing during the last World War. Does that mean women are interested in being factory workers? As to capacity, nobody, including Damore, claimed that women do not have the same capacity as men to be programmers. Anecdotal evidence is worse than psychology studies.

I'm not sure why you think there's any analogy between women working as programmers in the 60s and women working in factories during the second World War. But in fact, WWII did effect a huge change in perceptions of women as part of the workforce.

You literally claimed that women working in an industry means women are interested in working in that industry.

That's not necessarily true. Hence the analogy.

Post reply on HN