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

41–50 of 684 posts

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

#41

Post by DarkKomunalec »

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?

Higher levels of programming may be composed of more work with people (coordinating a team, extracting requirements from clients, etc.), but the lower levels, and the education leading up to there, is tech focused. And it's from there that managers are sourced.

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

#43

Post by UK-AL »

danpalmer wrote: post #23
EJTH wrote: post #3

I fail to understand how a memo calling for MORE diversity can get headlined as "anti-diversity memo" on all big media outlets. Do journalists even do independent research anymore or are they just regurgitating whatever reuters send their way without scrutiny? Debate me instead of downvoting please. Downvoting is like forfeiting a discussion and shows that you question your own narrative.

As far as I could tell from the coverage (I couldn't get past the first few paragraphs of the memo), it asks for more diversity in terms of right-wing/conservative thinking, and for Google to stop encouraging women to apply. On the surface – that's asking for both more and less diversity, however Google rejects the idea that conservative views (that are compatible with Google's HR policies) are discouraged, which wou…

I would think the author would encourage women to apply, but discourage making interview pass rates biased towards one group or the other.

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

#44

Post by peoplewindow »

abhi3 wrote: post #26
UK-AL wrote: post #5

Please don't flag the article if you simply disagree. The key to changing minds is understanding the other side. Not shutting them out of the conversation.

I flagged it. How many times do we need to have the same repetitive discussion? This topic is crowding out other quality submissions.

How many times do we need Rust vs Go vs whatever debates? HN has quite a lot of repetitive discussions, and that's OK. When people get bored they'll stop voting things up.

"I am bored of this" doesn't seem like what the flagging mechanism is for, actually. Or would I be justified in flagging any story about Go because it happens to not be relevant to me and I think there's enough discussion of it already? Seems wrong.

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

#45

Post by jpmattia »

I'm surprised greater attention is not focused on the fact the "science" is in the midst of a reproducibility crisis. This is a big issue in the hard sciences; I can only imagine what it's like in the squishy science of gender behavior.

Tying your reputation to such a soft foundation is just inviting trouble.

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

#46

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

alkonaut wrote: post #10

Why can't the memo be both sexist and science? Arguing that there are differences between genders that make one gender unsuitable for a task can be as scientific as you want, it's still sexist. It's no different from doing the same but replacing gender with race - it's racist no matter how carefully and scientifically you worded it. It's almost as if the person writing this article believes that if the manifesto is f…

Science by definition can't be sexist. In science there is no place for prejudices, beliefs and biases - only facts. It's human attitudes interpreting these facts that can be sexist, racist and so on. Second, the author didn't argue there are differences between genders or sexes that make one unsuitable for a given task. That's one of the most gross and unfair misrepresentations of the memo.

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

#48

Post by jazzyk »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #21
alkonaut wrote: post #10

Why can't the memo be both sexist and science? Arguing that there are differences between genders that make one gender unsuitable for a task can be as scientific as you want, it's still sexist. It's no different from doing the same but replacing gender with race - it's racist no matter how carefully and scientifically you worded it. It's almost as if the person writing this article believes that if the manifesto is f…

> Why can't the memo be both sexist and science? Arguing that there are differences between genders that make one gender unsuitable for a task can be as scientific as you want, it's still sexist. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/ Definition by motives vs. definition by belief.

So, as a male, should I sue someone who (correctly) points out that I cannot breastfeed for being "sexist", and for "perpetuating gender stereotypes"

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

#50

Post by blub »

and0 wrote: post #39
jamesrcole wrote: post #15

What disturbs me most about this incident is how many people's first instinct, when faced with views they strongly disagree with, is to try and suppress those views and the person speaking them. Not to engage with the argument or to try and argue against it, just to shut the other person down. It's a totalitarian kind of response.

Some people may have reacted that way. I think you're very intentionally trying mischaracterize people rolling their eyes the same way they always do as some sort of ignorant knee-jerk reaction. I read the memo entirely. It was half-baked, ideologically, but also creepy. I've heard what it had to say a million times before and it's still stupid.

You're basically doing it yourself. Trying to dismiss it with adjectives as "half-baked" or "stupid".

The point is, it's neither and I think it deserves a proper dismissal instead of ad-hominems and insults.

Surely there is someone that can perform a point by point analysis and disprove the memo? I have not seen one comment doing that. Not one.

So no, you don't get to say it's stupid and call it a day. Prove it.

Post reply on HN