Live data from Hacker News

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

theglobeandmail.com

341–350 of 684 posts

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

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can't speak for the abuse of the term (I've never experienced what you're describing), but 'mansplaining' refers to a very real phenomenon. To put gender aside, egos and biases can always get in the way of two people explaining their viewpoints. You are pretty lucky if you've never had somebody explain a concept you already understood in a very condescending way. Many men do this to women when they assume that thes…

I 100% agree with your second statement - condescension happens all the time. I've seen it a bunch.

But first, men do this to each other all the time. Most of my conversations with my male friends involve us constantly disagreeing with each other, in a way I've rarely observed in groups of women. It's far more likely that if someone is willing to be condescending, they're going to do it to everyone.

Of course there are instances where a man may only do it to women, but we've quickly moved on from that general observation to "any time a man disagrees with a women he's mansplaining". 99% of the time I've seen this term used, it's to lazily drop out of a discussion once it becomes difficult.

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

#342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are confused about what sexism is. Sexism is a prejudice based on lack of evidence and reasoning. Saying that women are inferior to men is a sexist remark. Saying that on average, women prefer working in people oriented roles whereas men prefer working in mechanical/technical roles is not sexist, because this is a fact supported by real evidence. The author's point about societies with the most gender equity havi…

> Sexism is a prejudice based on lack of evidence and reasoning. That's not a definition I have seen anywhere. The usual definition is that it's "prejudice, sterotyping or discrimination based on someones gender". If we have different definitions of sexism to begin with, of course we aren't going to agree on whether X is sexist. So if I don't use the controversial S word: I thought his post was stereotyping and comin…

I think the problem is that 'sexist' and 'stereotyping' are loaded terms which imply bad behaviour.

Imagine I'm creating a basketball team and I reason that height is an advantage for players and men tend to be taller than women, so I will not aim to have 50% women on the team. By your definition I'm being sexist, but my attitude doesn't deserve the opprobrium that that label implies.

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

#343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> backed by links > PhD in sexual neuroscience > female There's a LOT that's new here, relative to Damore's memo.

Why does it matter what education a person has, besides as an ad-hominem attack, if the facts they use are correct? And for the gender of the person advancing an argument to matter seems only to strongly confirm the memos points about discrimination against men. Counter-factuals are always difficult, but it seems unlikely that we would ever have heard about this memo, much less seen its author fired, had the exact sa…

> Why does it matter what education a person has, besides as an ad-hominem attack, if the facts they use are correct?

Because most of the reactions were emotional, not rational. If we were rational beings it wouldn't matter, but we're not and never have been.

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

#344
post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I saw people engage with the arguments. That doesn't invalidate what I said. I said "What disturbs me most about this incident is how many people's first instinct..." I never said that literally every single person's response was like this. Are you trying to argue that there weren't a lot of people doing what I said?

Well, yes. I didn't see anyone try to suppress those views. Quite the contrary, they were widely shared. And then criticised. He wasn't silenced in any way. His message reached way more people than he probably ever imagined.

Did you see hate, insults, name calling, claims that people shouldn't be allowed to discuss such topics, or should be punished for doing so? What about comments about how wrong it was to do something to incite a culture war (as if that was the memo author's intention. And presumably such commenters don't consider opinions they agree with to be 'inciting a culture war')?

I didn't say anything about literally preventing someone from expressing their views. There were lots of views expressed that equated to saying it was wrong to even try to discuss certain matters.

And let's not forget that he was fired, and many people were approving of that. That's creating, and celebrating, an environment where you should be afraid to express unpopular opinions

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

#345

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…

I didn't read a specific causality claim like that.

I think there was a purposeful gap in the logic since the causality is too convoluted to be definitive about.

1. "Scientific studies have confirmed sex differences in the brain that lead to differences in our _interests_ and _behaviour_... our _interests_ are influenced strongly by biology, as opposed to being learned or socially constructed."

2. It might be reasonable to wonder if a biological mechanism is at play here.

3. ??? some combination of things, including innate gender characteristics, but not limited to sexism ???

4. Women are significantly less likely to work in technology.

_ Accenting mine, not in the article.

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

#346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to disagree and with all my respects I find you attacked her when you under valuate her job in the topic compared with other professionals. It is exactly her topic of research and you throw her away.

I didn't attack her at all, nevermind on her work in Neurosexuality. Frankly, it's a subject I know nothing about and have no position to do so. I did imply that it's no more her position to conclude the subject of the original essay than anybody else's, and cautioned against taking words of any number of scientists as canon on the understanding of both the original essay and any social implications it may or should…

Probably you missunderstood what neurosexuality mean. It is a mix of philosophy, psychology, social sciences, physics and biology. That is why I think it is very relevant for the topic. I didn't mean to attack you, but I would like to people to consider her opinions too. Some people trend to discard what doesn't fit with their opinions too quickly and this leads to problems

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

#347

If all this science were the end all be all, the low level engineers would be men, and men with their evolutionary handicap for empathy would be none of the managers, leaders, designers, product managers. That's how it is right?

Independent of the other things wrong with your argument, I find it curious that you think that designers are among those who benefit from empathy. Given knowledge of aesthetics, psychology and the general identity of the target audience, empathy should be all-but-unnecessary for a designer. (Edited for clarity; namely, the italicized clause is new.)

? Understanding the psychology and thought process of your target is what empathy means.

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

#348

If all this science were the end all be all, the low level engineers would be men, and men with their evolutionary handicap for empathy would be none of the managers, leaders, designers, product managers. That's how it is right?

Independent of the other things wrong with your argument, I find it curious that you think that designers are among those who benefit from empathy. Given knowledge of aesthetics, psychology and the general identity of the target audience, empathy should be all-but-unnecessary for a designer. (Edited for clarity; namely, the italicized clause is new.)

[deleted]

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

#349
post #202
post #57

I am always surprised that well educated people who are definitely not "creationists" but consider evolution as a way human kind developed are ready to ignore evolution when it comes to gender. Clearly man and woman are different physically and mentally as for millenias they played different roles. Why "gender people" keep ignoring that and are claiming that sex is not something inborn and is a "cultural" phenomena i…

You're confusing the way things are versus the way things should be. Evolutionary biology explains the way things are. Diversity measures combats that with the goal of getting us to the way things should be. There are a host of reasons why things are the way they are now. The memo tries to offload some of that to biological explanations and cites studies. Then he makes a leap of faith and recommends the should based…

> Specifically, he says at the top of the memo "Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business." I'm not aware of any studies that backs this up.

The unfairness is implicit. If more men are temperamentally inclined to 'thing' based work, it is unfair to push them toward work that they feel less affinity for. Society should support our freedoms, not impair them.

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

#350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify: your point is that the question of whether or not he's right is irrelevant; he shouldn't have said what he said, because what he said is abhorrent and/or dangerous?

No, that's a total misrepresentation of what I said. I'm saying whether he's right on that one point is irrelevant, because he tries to make a hundred others that are just as bad. But thanks for showing how Damore's supporters are just as guilty of "virtue signaling" as they accuse others of being.

If you want people to understand you, you should avoid attacking them when they try. I will not converse further with you.
Post reply on HN