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

431–440 of 684 posts

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

#431

Post by daughart »

dm319 wrote: post #75

> But sexism isn’t the result of knowing facts; it’s the result of what people choose to do with them. We know that men are taller than women. I can see you agreeing, but actually this statement is ambiguous, because these two are not the same thing: A man is taller than a women On average, men are taller than women Sexism is taking a random male and a random female, and claiming that despite all the facts presented…

There is a tremendous environmental component to height. Women in South Korea have gained 8 inches in height, on average, in the past century. They are now taller on average than Korean men a century ago, despite no genetic differences.

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

#432

Post by Jabanga »

clavalle wrote: post #316
Jabanga wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is toxic postmodernist/feminist dogma. It frames everything through a lens of identity power struggles. Therefore, whether an argument is scientific and factual is secondary to what identity group the person making it belongs to, and what their group stands to gain from it. This ideological lens is anti-science, anti-cooperation, extremely racist/sexist and ultimately focused on only one objective: reducing the…

The author of the memo framed his argument in exactly this way. To quote the memo: "As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”" T…

No, postmodernism and feminism are rooted in Marxist ideology. Marxist intellectuals shifted to postmodernism in the 1970s after it became impossible to deny that Marxist doctrine had led to authoritarian police states and democides all over the world. Postmodern ideology changes Marxism's fixation on capital with a fixation on power, and replaces income-class with race/gender/income-class identity groups. It's extremely similar to Marxism in its perspective, goals and methods.

The evolution of postmodern ideology is well-documented and so his claim can be validated. Even the reaction to the memo validates the memo author's claims, as it shows the dogmatic, sexist/racist and hateful nature of postmodern/feminist ideology.

With respect to the ideological foundation of postmodern/feminist ideology: the fact that one fifth of social scientists in today's universities identify as adherents of Marxism - an ideology as murderous as Nazism - is a testament to its prevalence in academia, and the malevolent nihilism animating postmodern/feminist ideology.

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

#433

Post by brl »

markdog12 wrote: post #194

Was horrified to see this flagged. Why would anybody flag a scientific viewpoint from a credible source with citations? Refute and discuss it, sure, but why flag it?

Why would anybody censor the viewpoint of a woman scientist in this particular debate? How much cognitive dissonance is too much?

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

#434

Post by Jabanga »

foolrush wrote: post #218
Jabanga wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is toxic postmodernist/feminist dogma. It frames everything through a lens of identity power struggles. Therefore, whether an argument is scientific and factual is secondary to what identity group the person making it belongs to, and what their group stands to gain from it. This ideological lens is anti-science, anti-cooperation, extremely racist/sexist and ultimately focused on only one objective: reducing the…

You realize that science is ideological, epistemological, and political? Edit: I appreciate all of the vote downs. Empiricism is as guilty in choosing models according to power dynamics as any ideological endeavor. See phrenology. To suggest science isn't political and ideological is absolutely delusional.

That is the postmodern anti-science belief, which assumes that truth is not really truth. It is just a device used in power struggles between identity groups. It's so extreme that there was actually paper published on feminist glaciology [1]. This is not science. It is just dogma and actually hostile to the principle of science as a pursuit of objective truth carried out by people of good faith.

[1] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132515623368

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

#435

Post by HumbleGamer »

jorgemf wrote: post #277
humanrebar wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some feel it's not something inherent and can be changed. That's a fair position. But it's not an indisputable position, clearly. The biggest issue here isn't about whether there are fair points against the google manifesto. It's about whether thoughts, hypotheses, and opinions like this are harmful and punishable . > ...many people feel very bad... And many people feel bad that someone expressed himself earnestly…

I think he was fired because he offended people in the company (with his opinions). If this is the case they should fire everybody because someone is going to be offended by the opinions of others. I found very stupid what google did without taking some time to analyse what happened and the consequences. The research community is turning against google with this type of articles now.

Nobody asked for his opinion, though. You arent required to voice your opinions. He shared his thoughts and now he deals with the reactions. Just like he is entitled to his opinions, those of others should be respected. Thats life. He was treat horribly? Who initiated the treatment? He did with his 10 page write-up.

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

#436

Post by dsfjksdf »

omikun wrote: post #210
dsfjksdf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that is not related to "shortage of women in tech/STEM". More women in management wouldn't change that. Maybe it is just difficult to put managers without experience in the trenches in front of people? That is, managers who have no tech skills as such?

Maybe it is just difficult for a women to manage a bunch of guys? Maybe if the team has more women, this wouldn't be a problem?

I'd like to see Google become 100% female engineers.

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

#437

Post by luckydude »

durgiston wrote: post #220
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's already a number of companies that do blind reviews of resumes, or applicants that intentionally hide or change their names - not sure if it makes a big difference, also because there's just less female applicants in general. Actually, how many female software developers can't get a job nowadays?

The problem isn't that women aren't getting jobs (the market is currently in too serious of a demand for hands on keyboards for that) but that they aren't getting as good a job as you would expect from their qualifications and/or that they aren't being paid as much.

I'll have to go see if I can find it, but recently there was a study in Britain, France and ? (Germany I think) on compensation. Ah, here it is:

https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/08/daily-...

While there was a definite gap for the population as a whole, when you zoomed into the same job at the same company, the pay gap disappears.

No idea if that applies to women in tech but it was new info to me. Does anyone have a source for a pay gap in tech?

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

#438

Post by Jabanga »

SippinLean wrote: post #268
Jabanga wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Postmodernists reject the role evolution plays in human attributes. They reject its effect on intelligence, gender and race.

Easily disproved by the entire school of evolutionary psychology and many other modern schools of thought. The question is if there is more to consider in social constructs than simply evolutionary biology.

Postmodernists and feminists are generally very critical toward evolutionary psychology and hostile toward its scholars, so you're actually supporting my point.

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

#439

Post by tptacek »

agarden wrote: post #409
tptacek wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damore is smart enough not to come out and say directly that he believes all women to be less qualified; instead, he just strings together a series of assertions that leaves reasonable people with only one conclusion, which is that the women at Google are beneficiaries of a lowered bar that results in the women at Google being on average less qualified than the men. I have very little patience with arguments rooted i…

Oh, so you know what he is actually thinking even though he doesn't say it and says things that are contrary to it. I see. This, too, helps me understand the outrage. Thank you for being honest. (I do hope the 'thank you' above can be read by people in a calm, snark-less voice. It is genuine. I appreciate Ptacek being forthright. I learned from it. It really does make the thread better and furthers the conversation i…

For what it's worth: your thanks might be intellectually honest, but your summary of my argument is not.

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

#440

Post by Jabanga »

Delmania wrote: post #233
Jabanga wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bul…

>These 2 lines essentially state that as women are more interested in people, there are some roles they might not be able to perform.

That's absurd. You're not even interpreting his comments at face value. You're attributing a subtext to them that only exists in your imagination.

>Strip away his science and his words, he's a misogynistic techbro

What an absolutely hateful and sexist comment. It amounts to: "strip away his message and judge him by what identity group he belongs to"

Post reply on HN