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

10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 158 posts

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#21

Post by mcphage »

jorgemf wrote: post #20
mcphage wrote: post #18

Simple response to his thesis: there used to be more women in programming... back when it was harder.

was it harder before? Are you sure? I think your response doesn't change his argument, before tech was less relevant for the economy, so it was less stressful and had less status. That is why it wasn't interesting for men to get into it and preferred other jobs with more status and stress (and bigger salaries). But now the top companies are tech companies.

Less status, absolutely. But much harder. We work at such a high level of abstraction,we don't need to care about our resource usage much, we don't need to care much about what the machine is doing, we don't have to write everything ourselves because there are thousands of powerful libraries available for free.

So yes. Before, programming was hard, and low status. Now it's easy and high status, and men think that women aren't there because it's too hard. No, they were there when it was hard.

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#22

Post by jorgemf »

mcphage wrote: post #21
jorgemf wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

was it harder before? Are you sure? I think your response doesn't change his argument, before tech was less relevant for the economy, so it was less stressful and had less status. That is why it wasn't interesting for men to get into it and preferred other jobs with more status and stress (and bigger salaries). But now the top companies are tech companies.

Less status, absolutely. But much harder. We work at such a high level of abstraction,we don't need to care about our resource usage much, we don't need to care much about what the machine is doing, we don't have to write everything ourselves because there are thousands of powerful libraries available for free. So yes. Before, programming was hard, and low status. Now it's easy and high status, and men think that wom…

> men think that women aren't there because it's too hard

Who thinks that? Hard is something relative. The author says that men could be more prepared to tech because a biological predisposition that makes tech easier positions for them (better abstract thinking and more tolerance for stress, for example), while women are more prepared for other things likes taking care of others (because they are better in socializing and empathy). As tech became more competitive the women just left it for other things while men get into to get more status.

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#23

Post by Ygg2 »

mcphage wrote: post #21
jorgemf wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

was it harder before? Are you sure? I think your response doesn't change his argument, before tech was less relevant for the economy, so it was less stressful and had less status. That is why it wasn't interesting for men to get into it and preferred other jobs with more status and stress (and bigger salaries). But now the top companies are tech companies.

Less status, absolutely. But much harder. We work at such a high level of abstraction,we don't need to care about our resource usage much, we don't need to care much about what the machine is doing, we don't have to write everything ourselves because there are thousands of powerful libraries available for free. So yes. Before, programming was hard, and low status. Now it's easy and high status, and men think that wom…

I don't think that's completely fair.

Before the list of software contractor was smaller, so the few places you could work in was NASA and Military.

Now the variance of jobs is much greater, so not all jobs are NASA level hard.

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#24

Post by skybrian »

sattoshi wrote: post #16

Diversity always seems like a silly objective. Of all things, why focus on race and gender? How about hairstyle? Why not height? Maybe I feel like my weight is not represented fairly! I'm just poking fun. Those aren't real questions. The author promotes the only diversity that matters: diversity of thought. Anything else should at worst a proxy to get some.

"The only diversity that matters": says who?

You brought up height and weight, but there actually are situations where they matter. For clothes, obviously, but this also comes up when flying, or anywhere that space is a premium.

And yep, it matters even in the Air Force:

"Out of 4,063 pilots, not a single airman fit within the average range on all 10 dimensions. One pilot might have a longer-than-average arm length, but a shorter-than-average leg length. Another pilot might have a big chest but small hips. Even more astonishing, Daniels discovered that if you picked out just three of the ten dimensions of size — say, neck circumference, thigh circumference and wrist circumference — less than 3.5 per cent of pilots would be average sized on all three dimensions. Daniels’s findings were clear and incontrovertible. There was no such thing as an average pilot. If you’ve designed a cockpit to fit the average pilot, you’ve actually designed it to fit no one."

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/01/16/when-us-air-...

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#25

Post by mcphage »

jorgemf wrote: post #22
mcphage wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less status, absolutely. But much harder. We work at such a high level of abstraction,we don't need to care about our resource usage much, we don't need to care much about what the machine is doing, we don't have to write everything ourselves because there are thousands of powerful libraries available for free. So yes. Before, programming was hard, and low status. Now it's easy and high status, and men think that wom…

> men think that women aren't there because it's too hard Who thinks that? Hard is something relative. The author says that men could be more prepared to tech because a biological predisposition that makes tech easier positions for them (better abstract thinking and more tolerance for stress, for example), while women are more prepared for other things likes taking care of others (because they are better in socializi…

If you think that programming is a more stressful job than traditionally female jobs like nurse, teacher, or childrearing, then I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#26

Post by papaf »

mcphage wrote: post #18

Simple response to his thesis: there used to be more women in programming... back when it was harder.

This is so true. Twenty years ago the best programmer I ever worked with was a women, and I only thought of her as the best programmer that I'd ever worked with.

Something has changed since then and I am unable to perceive or explain what it is.

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#27

Post by jorgemf »

mcphage wrote: post #25
jorgemf wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> men think that women aren't there because it's too hard Who thinks that? Hard is something relative. The author says that men could be more prepared to tech because a biological predisposition that makes tech easier positions for them (better abstract thinking and more tolerance for stress, for example), while women are more prepared for other things likes taking care of others (because they are better in socializi…

If you think that programming is a more stressful job than traditionally female jobs like nurse, teacher, or childrearing, then I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Yes I think so. I have been a teacher and CS engineer so for me it is clear that CS is more stressful. Nurse is something I couldn't do and when I always ask them why are they nurses they say they feel great when they help people and they know they cannot help everybody. I don't know anyone in CS who feels great when writting software.

You can keep the bridge you bought in brooklyn.

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#28

Post by trav4225 »

remarkEon wrote: post #15

>Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence. This is something that's part of "training" at Google?

In my experience, this is standard "training" almost everywhere.

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#29

Post by Pulcinella »

jorgemf wrote: post #27
mcphage wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think that programming is a more stressful job than traditionally female jobs like nurse, teacher, or childrearing, then I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Yes I think so. I have been a teacher and CS engineer so for me it is clear that CS is more stressful. Nurse is something I couldn't do and when I always ask them why are they nurses they say they feel great when they help people and they know they cannot help everybody. I don't know anyone in CS who feels great when writting software. You can keep the bridge you bought in brooklyn.

What kind of teacher? What did you teach?

Re: 10 page anti-diversity screed circulating internally at Google

#30

Post by concede_pluto »

mcphage wrote: post #18

Simple response to his thesis: there used to be more women in programming... back when it was harder.

Wasn't there a period where "programmer" was the job of turning a flowchart from a "system analyst" into machine code? Basically a living compiler that didn't require a formally specified high-level language?
Post reply on HN