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

The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

theglobeandmail.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 684 posts

Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

#231

Post by renaudg »

tptacek wrote: post #101

This defense of the "manifesto" is flawed just like the others. It picks out a small subset of the claims made in the document, discards the context and all the other claims, and then harangues us for having a problem with "science". I could argue "water is composed of two hydrogen molecules and one oxygen molecule, so women are bad at software development", and my argument would just be a difference of degree worse…

>the argument against gender bias in computer science has to confront another damning fact, which is that gender disparity in the field isn't global. Unless women in Asia are somehow biologically different than those of the US, her argument needs some way to address the fact that women make up the majority of STEM majors in many of those cultures.

There is research finding that the more advanced a country is in terms of gender equality (by generally accepted metrics), the more pronounced the occupational gender gap actually is in most fields.

One proposed explanation is that women in advanced economies are freer of constraints and higher up in the Maslow pyramid of needs, and can afford to go into jobs they actually like, rather that whatever they feel is their duty/more lucrative/otherwise rewarding. Kind of like yuppies (of either gender) dream of exiting the corporate world to set up an organic food shop. That would certainly explain the very different STEM gender gaps in the US/Sweden vs India/China, for example.

I don't have the reference handy, but if someone can provide it, please do !

Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

#232

Post by tenaciousDaniel »

stillkicking wrote: post #201
tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also interesting is that it's one of the things social justice activists constantly criticize others for. I can't count how many times I've heard the following: "when we say men are privileged, we don't mean any and all men are privileged to the same extent." Or "when we say white people are racist, we're not talking about every single individual white person." And it makes sense. Yet when it comes time for someone t…

Worse, with social justice this usually takes the form of a motte and bailey argument. The statement that "we don't mean all white men" and "we mean a system of systemic biases/practices" is usually a defense in response to being called out for dismissing someone for being white or male. "Mansplaining" is the clearest example of this. Supposedly it's only used to describe a man condescendingly explaining something a…

Of all terms that have been formed on the internet, "mansplaining" is the one I hate the most. All a discussion is, at the end of the day, is two people explaining their own viewpoints. But now, with this word, you have a get-out-of-conversation-free card because if you don't like someone's response, just say it's mansplaining. It's almost unbelievably ignorant.

Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

#233

Post by Delmania »

Jabanga wrote: post #193
Delmania wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things > Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).

Do you believe these comments defend discrimination against women? I'm trying to understand how one could see it that way. I see both of these statements as unquestionably true, and the sexism accusation as stifling the type of free expression needed for rational dialogue. If facts are sexist, then the definition of sexism being used is wrong.

It's subtle, but yes. These 2 lines essentially state that as women are more interested in people, there are some roles they might not be able to perform. A little further down he makes a similar claim that since women look more towards work life balance, technical and leadership roles may not seek out leadership roles as much as men. This can be used again to claim women don't belong in those roles. This is also bullshit, as I know several women who run a company and have a decent life.

Strip away his science and his words, he's a misogynistic techbro (I'm reminded of ESR) who wants to pretend technology is some sort of meritocracy and that a woman doesn't play well in that situation. Almost every one of his claims has a hanging but attached to it.

Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

#234

Post by jorgemf »

snowwrestler wrote: post #33

The article hides a common but incorrect assumption. Look at this paragraph: > As mentioned in the memo, gendered interests are predicted by exposure to prenatal testosterone – higher levels are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood. Lower levels are associated with a preference for people-oriented activities and occupations. This is why STEM (science, technolog…

> So why aren't the management layers of tech companies composed of mostly women?

In competitive environments men are more willing to fight than women, so they are more likely to get the jobs because women are more likely to give up. And I think we should try to change this because as you said "people skills" have a lot of value in management. We need both skills and try to represent both in management roles.

> WEIRD how none of these guys ever argue that because our ladybrains are better at communication and teamwork we should be paid more

There are profession typical for women like nursing that they have less salary than tech jobs. The reason is economical, tech companies produce more money. But I strongly thing the nursing job is as important as a tech job and we should try to remove the gap between professions. But with a capitalism system you cannot do this easily.

Note: I am one of the persons who agree with the biology differences between male and female.

Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

#235

Post by cpncrunch »

kartan wrote: post #76

Women work in the Berlin Post Office with calculators, 1928: http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-women-work-in-the-berlin-po... The managers, a more people-oriented activity, are all men. But the people working with actual calculators are women. And it was not just this office, this was happening everywhere. Working with a calculator was a woman's job. More: http://www.history.com/news/human-computers-women-at-nasa Ther…

>I don't know if the engineer wrote something awful or not

Perhaps you should read it then.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14969705

>this article is just a justification for the difference as if nothing can be done. And that is not true.

No, the memo did actually give suggestions for getting more women into programming (e.g. pair programming).

Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

#236

Post by and0 »

monktastic1 wrote: post #162
and0 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant to respond to the response someone else made: It's not a debate to be won. Some people just keep insisting it is with this cloying, sweaty desperation. It's embarrassing, and it's awful that these Silicon Valley ghouls have so much power that we have to consider them at all. I read the article, it didn't have any real science and made a bunch of insane, half-baked assumptions. The guy is a dumbass and deserve…

In other words, you're the only sane one in this world full of crazy, stupid, sweaty, sexists, and you have every right to shut them up. Sounds like a scary place to be, and I'm genuinely sorry you find yourself there.

Most people don't agree with the contents of the memo, or it's conclusion. But HN is filled with a specific breed of pseudo-intellectual that I will happily poke fun at whenever possible.

Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

#237

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

jorgemf wrote: post #203
52-6F-62 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally never called it out for sexism. I called it out for regressive-thinking as a solution based on plain fact. I can only be brief right now, but it's starting to get to me how so many people in an innovative sphere seem to have such a hard time with this. To me, it seems like it shouldn't be a second thought. If the main argument is that women do not [by nature of our scientific understanding] have minds tu…

> If the main argument is that women do not [by nature of our scientific understanding] have minds tuned to engineering prowess to the extent that men do for whatever cause, then just how does that itself prescribe that we should stop pushing for an expansion there? You are wrong in this assumption. I am going to try to explain it. We have group A and group B with different genetics. We measure everybody in the group…

The point is, many people feel very bad at the thought that the distribution you mention exists. Some feel it's not something inherent and can be changed.

Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

#238

Post by [deleted] »

atomi wrote: post #189
iotb wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please define what's Regressive about plain facts... > it's starting to get to me how so many people in an innovative sphere seem to have such a hard time with this The prevailing (cultural) attitude is clearly against plain facts. The question should be why the prevailing attitude is against facts and real solutions but embraces lies and bad solutions. That is what is getting to intelligent people no matter their sp…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

[deleted]

Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

#239

Post by dpark »

occultist_throw wrote: post #119
root_axis wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I flagged this comment because it's a low-quality political attack made in bad faith which can only serve to start a political flamewar.

Ive had a handful of previous Democratic voters, whom are classify themselves a Liberal, observe the same actions. "We support free speech, as long as you agree with the core tenants of Political Correctness, Affirmative Action, Feminism, and Liberalism." Whereas, Republicans/Conservatives have a much greater variance of ideas. There's the RINOs, the Moderates, the Libertarians, Tea Partiers, and more. Yes, there is…

You talk about Republicans essentially being more inclusive and then trot out "RINOs" as an example. RINO is a disparaging term used specifically to exclude and shame certain Republicans. In what way do you imagine that this demonstrates that Republicans support diversity of thought?

Re: The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science

#240

Post by alkonaut »

dustinmoris wrote: post #178
alkonaut wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Science by definition can't be sexist. Of course. But depending on context the use and quoting of it sure can. I'm sure there is plenty of evidence of physical difference betweeen races, and there are reasonable ways to use those scientific results - and there are racist ways of using them. Doesn't change that > Second, the author didn't argue there are differences between genders or sexes that make one unsuitable…

Well I can tell you exactly what you misunderstood: The English language. You are making shit up, because at no point in this whole memo did the author use the word "unsuitable" or "suitable" AT ALL. AT NO POINT. Yet, people like you constantly keep quoting him saying "genders or sexes that make one unsuitable for a given task". Go back to school, I am seriously losing tolerance with this stupidity. Enough is enough.…

As it has been made obvious I other parts of this thread, people even disagree on what sexism or racism is. Some argue that falsehood is required, for example.

I use the definition that includes prejudice, stereotyping or discriminating based on gender, and irrespective of whether something is factual (I.e I do not subscribe to the idea that facts can't be sexist/racist).

I apologize for reading the "unfit" between the lines - what jumped out at me as stereotypical was remarks such as women being more neurotical and having lower stress thresholds.

I'm not going to argue the truth of it, and I won't argue whether that's sexist (for the reasons outlined above) - but it's definitely stereotyping women - fact or not.

Post reply on HN