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

Google’s War Over the Sexes

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 91 posts

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#31

Post by jorgemf »

Barrin92 wrote: post #8

The most troubling thing about this whole issue for me is the weird fetish about "biology" on both sides of the debate. As Mr. Hume told us a few hundred years ago, nature simply is , and doesn't tell us what ought to be . As such I have trouble understanding why we are approaching the issue from this angle. Instead of obsessing about biology, we should care about how we want our workplaces to look. And I would welco…

> nature simply is, and doesn't tell us what ought to be

A lot of studies have probe the opposite (recent studies, not old ones).

> I have trouble understanding why we are approaching the issue from this angle.

Because you have cases like Norway, one of the most genre equality countries, where the ratios or men/women in tech are even worse that less genre equality countries. And the most accepted theory for this is based on biology (actually other theories fall apart because they don't have any evidence).

> I find this discussion funny in the context of say Israel having countless women serve in the army for decades now.

The biology also explain this. Skills are not unique and their values are diffuse. Even if the average men is stronger than the average women, if you select a man and a woman is not always the case the man is stronger than the woman.

You can say biology doesn't matter but the facts are that there is a strong correlation and should be taken into account. So I suggest to not to ignore it and read about the topic.

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#33

Post by criddell »

mpweiher wrote: post #15
freeone3000 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's calling for a reintegration of the sexes through marriage and children. While I wouldn't put words in his mouth as to "stay at home", he is for sure calling on women to raise babies. His repeated references to women as childbearers in the following paragraph don't help. The author appears to be stating that the solution to sexism is to have women marry the sexists and have their babies.

> His repeated references to women as childbearers Pardon me, but this is in(s)ane. WHO ELSE BUT WOMEN BEARS CHILDREN? Apologies, but I had to get that out of my system.

You reminded me of that great scene in Life of Brian where Stan wants to be known as Loretta and wants the right to have babies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PObBA2wH5l0

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#34

Post by gozur88 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #8

The most troubling thing about this whole issue for me is the weird fetish about "biology" on both sides of the debate. As Mr. Hume told us a few hundred years ago, nature simply is , and doesn't tell us what ought to be . As such I have trouble understanding why we are approaching the issue from this angle. Instead of obsessing about biology, we should care about how we want our workplaces to look. And I would welco…

>I find this discussion funny in the context of say Israel having countless women serve in the army for decades now. Someone must have forgotten to tell them about their biological limitations.

I find this comment funny in the context of the fact that only 3% of IDF soldiers in combat roles are women. Would this be an acceptable percentage in software?

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#35

Post by willvarfar »

panzer_wyrm wrote: post #20
Barrin92 wrote: post #8

The most troubling thing about this whole issue for me is the weird fetish about "biology" on both sides of the debate. As Mr. Hume told us a few hundred years ago, nature simply is , and doesn't tell us what ought to be . As such I have trouble understanding why we are approaching the issue from this angle. Instead of obsessing about biology, we should care about how we want our workplaces to look. And I would welco…

What percentage of Sayeret Matkal are women?

Norway has female special forces members ("Jegertroppen").

Gaddafi famously had female bodyguards, but perhaps for very different reasons.

Many muslim countries have female special forces (again prehaps fro very different reasons)

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#37

Post by Barrin92 »

jorgemf wrote: post #31
Barrin92 wrote: post #8

The most troubling thing about this whole issue for me is the weird fetish about "biology" on both sides of the debate. As Mr. Hume told us a few hundred years ago, nature simply is , and doesn't tell us what ought to be . As such I have trouble understanding why we are approaching the issue from this angle. Instead of obsessing about biology, we should care about how we want our workplaces to look. And I would welco…

> nature simply is, and doesn't tell us what ought to be A lot of studies have probe the opposite (recent studies, not old ones). > I have trouble understanding why we are approaching the issue from this angle. Because you have cases like Norway, one of the most genre equality countries, where the ratios or men/women in tech are even worse that less genre equality countries. And the most accepted theory for this is b…

>A lot of studies have probe the opposite (recent studies, not old ones).

You should familiarise yourself with the philosophical basis of the is/ought distinction.

There is no good reason to assume that scientific inquiry, which tells us a fact about the world in any way tells us what we should want or should do.

Scientific evidence is a tool to evaluate whether we are effectively pursuing our normative values. Science itself will never be able to set those values for us.

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#38

Post by mpweiher »

Barrin92 wrote: post #8

The most troubling thing about this whole issue for me is the weird fetish about "biology" on both sides of the debate. As Mr. Hume told us a few hundred years ago, nature simply is , and doesn't tell us what ought to be . As such I have trouble understanding why we are approaching the issue from this angle. Instead of obsessing about biology, we should care about how we want our workplaces to look. And I would welco…

Let me quote someone who has said it much better than I can:

"But it is crucial to distinguish the moral proposition that people should not be discriminated against on account of their sex — which I take to be the core of feminism — and the empirical claim that males and females are biologically indistinguishable. They are not the same thing. Indeed, distinguishing them is essential to protecting the core of feminism. Anyone who takes an honest interest in science has to be prepared for the facts on a given issue to come out either way. And that makes it essential that we not hold the ideals of feminism hostage to the latest findings from the lab or field. Otherwise, if the findings come out as showing a sex difference, one would either have to say, "I guess sex discrimination wasn't so bad after all," or else furiously suppress or distort the findings so as to preserve the ideal. The truth cannot be sexist. Whatever the facts turn out to be, they should not be taken to compromise the core of feminism.

[..]

The nature and source of sex differences are also of practical importance. Most of us agree that there are aspects of the world, including gender disparities, that we want to change. But if we want to change the world we must first understand it, and that includes understanding the sources of sex differences. "

-- Steven Pinker, The Pinker/Spelke Debate https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.htm...

EDIT: formatting

Re: Google’s War Over the Sexes

#40

Post by dsfyu404ed »

ebola1717 wrote: post #21
danso wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, it's a column by Ross Douthat, regarded as one of the NYT's conservative opinion writers: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/business/media/12douthat.h... (Not that columns can't be well-reported stories in their own right)

Yeah, I mean, HN trends conservative, especially on issues of gender, race, diversity, etc. so not surprised Douthat is considered a sensible, middle-of-the-road writer here. Him and David Brooks are among the more reasonable conservatives out there, so I'm not lambasting their writing - just pointing out the biases in play.

I think both conservative and HN take issue with that statement.
Post reply on HN