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

Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 1001 posts

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#251

Post by moduspol »

framebit wrote: post #100

As for the memo itself, I think it's a bit of a Rorschach blot: people are seeing what they want to see in it, largely because the writing is so poor that the author fails completely to get his own points across in a coherent manner. The conversation about "women in tech" is severely hamstrung by folks conflating issues of sexual harassment with the hiring pipeline. These are two very different problems requiring two…

I'd like to think it's everyone seeing what they want to see in it, but that's not really a fair description.

The writing's not ideal, but truly if opponents can read even this and frame it as "women have inferior genes," then this is a discussion that can't be had. There is no way to make the case that sexism and oppression are not the only causes for inequal representations in tech that will not be an "anti-diversity" position that makes some coworkers uncomfortable.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#252

Post by dang »

toxiccwm wrote: post #236

I'm not sure which world people live in where men are not expected to defend their ideas against the great misunderstanding masses who don't accept them on pronouncement, but it sounds lovely. Can I move there?

We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamebait to HN. That's vandalism if not arson, and ideological battle is not what this site is for.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15022166 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#253

Post by nicolashahn »

Blackthorn wrote: post #156
nicolashahn wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then the correct way to handle it is to drop another refutational evidence bomb attacking his primary points instead of picking the low hanging fruit of claiming it's "too confrontational," "poorly written," "naive," or whatever other secondary problems exist (this is aside from wilfully misrepresenting his claims, which is definitely a bigger problem). Plenty of far more aggressive articles and essays have been writ…

> Then the correct way to handle it is to drop another refutational evidence bomb attacking his primary points instead of picking the low hanging fruit of claiming it's "too confrontational," "poorly written," "naive," or whatever other secondary problems exist (this is aside from wilfully misrepresenting his claims, which is definitely a bigger problem). This was addressed in the article. This burden has fallen on w…

I'm not talking about a woman having to prove her technical ability to her male coworkers at work because of their prejudices. I know that that's bullshit and I'm sorry they have to do so.

I'm talking about handling what Damore claimed in an intellectually honest way. You can't dismiss his points just because you're tired of talking about them (or what you think are the same points you've always been talking about, but I think Damore's comments on each gender's preference and pressures for picking careers had something worth discussing). What he said had at least some spark of originality and insight, otherwise it wouldn't have gotten nearly the attention it did. Consider, would we be talking about the memo if it were about how he thought Sundar Pichai was a lizard man?

Those who disagreed with Damore already won the battle. They kicked him out of Google and doubled down on their diversity initiatives/echo chamber. We should be able to talk about his arguments honestly and rationally without falling back on gendered reasons at this point at least.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#254

Post by dguaraglia »

gavanwoolery wrote: post #152

Interesting thoughts - I think the biggest misunderstanding thus far involves generalizations. You can accurately make generalizations about a group of people, without implying that a given individual necessarily falls under that generalization. For example you could say "80 percent of males are into action movies" - but you should not go up to an individual male and state "you are into action movies" if you care abo…

I'll just refer to the women in the article:

> Assuming that it’s true that women on average are more likely to have trait X, why should any woman have to overcome the additional barrier of proving that she’s not like other women, or that if she IS like other women, that the trait has no bearing on her job performance?

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#255

Post by Danihan »

throwawaygmemo wrote: post #117

These comments are largely directed at a straw-man, and in many cases actually agree with the memo, when they think they disagree. "I disagree with...his arguments pointing to biological factors as a primary reason that there aren’t more female software engineers" - straw-man - he argues that biology may in part explain the lack of 50/50 representation. from the TLDR: "Differences in distributions of traits between m…

It's so funny (and sad) to me that you had to create a throwaway to outline these obvious strawmen misrepresentations of what Damore wrote.

Whatever happened to reading comprehension..?

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#257

Post by humanrebar »

gmarx wrote: post #198
jccalhoun wrote: post #38

I think this is one of the better responses I've seen This line really struck me as being spot on: >There’s a difference between “let’s have a discussion” and “let me tell you what’s up, all you wrong people.”

This is literally what almost all persuasive writing is about. I cannot recall the last time I saw someone write or heard someone speak the words "let's have a discussion" to people who didn't already agree without really meaning "you people need to shut up and listen". I actually find it refreshing when people say that instead. But seriously who is writing to this standard we seem to have suddenly adopted for this o…

Likewise:

> I’m also disappointed that the men I know, including most of my male colleagues, remained silent on the topic. And the ones that did participate, either seemed to support Damore or demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding for the issues women engineers are faced with and care about.

...means she's frustrated that more men weren't saying what she was thinking. So "speak up" also means agreement.

And, as an aside, I've seen lots of men criticizing Damore. I don't know what more needed to happen. Maybe she has particular people in mind.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#258

Post by Blackthorn »

sheepmullet wrote: post #237

More likely your female teammates are creating a hostile work environment by being unable to handle minor ideological disagreement. Or even more likely, you have misinterpreted them and are unaware that they were not shaken or seriously disturbed in any way. Edit: edited to remove the personal attack while still keeping the meaning.

I was there. Literally. Why are you trying to say you understand my colleagues, who you do not know, better than I do?

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#259

Post by sebow »

hedgew wrote: post #21

Many of the more reasonable criticisms of the memo say that it wasn't written well enough; it could've been more considerate, it should have used better language, or better presentation. In this particular link, Scott Alexander is used as an example of better writing, and he certainly is one of the best and most persuasive modern writers I've found. However, I can not imagine ever matching his talent and output, even…

He was a "coder" for Google, not a writer.And even for his status the memo was written pretty-well, people are just still questioning it for mostly other reasons.

Re: Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

#260

Post by Danihan »

killedbydeath wrote: post #33
SandersAK wrote: post #14

Google, like all corporate structures is hierarchical. Corporations recognize "success" for employees through promotion. Promotion usually includes higher pay. Men are taught from a young age that they need to "compete" for "success" There is no way to win the game for all players inside corporate hierarchy. If you can't win the game, but wish to remain (or are trapped by your economic situation) you will have pressu…

Are women not taught to compete? I do not remember girls being any less competitive (in school, in sports, etc.) Almost everyone wants to stand out and be better than others in some aspects and is proud when they can achieve that. Life is very competitive, I am not sure why need to de-emphasize it to much. Making it "us" vs "them" is the more problematic part, but individual competition is a pretty constructive force…

Do you have a Casino nearby? They usually have weekly poker tournaments.

Go to one and tell me how many women are competing.

Here's a typical picture: http://i.imgur.com/h6cDkDB.jpg

There are zero hiring biases at a poker tournament.

So why isn't the gender distribution close to 50/50, instead of 99/1?

Post reply on HN