Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo • Hacker News Board

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

#591

Post by mpweiher » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 10:33 PM UTC

mathw wrote: post #438

mpweiher wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering women make up >50% of college graduates, for every profession that has more men there are more profession that have more women (or a greater imbalance). How about: People are capable of choosing professions they like. Respect their choices and don't second guess them.

That doesn't account for the cultural pressure on girls throughout childhood to be princesses, like pink things and cooking and babies and ponies, while boys are supposed to like computers and engineering and guns. We're still preparing girls to stay home, cook dinner and have babies while the men go out and earn the money.

“Gender-Differentiated Parenting Revisited: Meta-Analysis Reveals Very Few Differences in Parental Control of Boys and Girls”

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

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

#592

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 10:33 PM UTC

mathw wrote: post #438

mpweiher wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering women make up >50% of college graduates, for every profession that has more men there are more profession that have more women (or a greater imbalance). How about: People are capable of choosing professions they like. Respect their choices and don't second guess them.

That doesn't account for the cultural pressure on girls throughout childhood to be princesses, like pink things and cooking and babies and ponies, while boys are supposed to like computers and engineering and guns. We're still preparing girls to stay home, cook dinner and have babies while the men go out and earn the money.

[deleted]

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

#593

Post by StanislavPetrov » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 10:33 PM UTC

nicolashahn wrote: post #124

ryanbrunner wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one thing that struck me from the linked article was the point that the memo wasn't structured to invite discussion. It wasn't "let's have a chat", it was "here's an evidence bomb of how you're all wrong". I think advancing points is fine, but if you're after productive discussion rather than an adversarial debate, you need to proactively invite discussion. And if an adversarial debate was what he was after,…

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…

> I think many people were just so unprepared to hear any argument from an opposing viewpoint that they read into it what they wanted to.

You hit the nail on the head, and it isn't limited to this memo. We have a serious intolerance problem in this country that goes far beyond Nazis and racists. Over the last 25 years our culture has warped to the point where opposing viewpoints are considered by many to be offensive. Kids have been raised in an environment where they are told that they (and their opinions) are always worthy of respect (no matter how uninformed or ignorant those opinions might be). Those who show insufficient respect (in the eyes of the person being "disrespected") are seen as hateful aggressors who must be attacked or silenced. In today's society, many people (especially young people) don't want vigorous debate between those of opposing views. They don't want to live in a marketplace of ideas where logic, morality, and the ability and willingness to articulate and defend your beliefs in a public forum are valued. These younger people have been conditioned to appeal to authority when they are offended or their beliefs are challenged, rather than answer the bell and debate the merit (or lack of merit) in an idea or statement.

Unfortunately this withering of public discourse is a bellwether for authoritarianism. You need look no farther than the recent outcry against the ACLU for their defense of free speech. There are very dark days ahead.

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

#594

Post by randyrand » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 10:33 PM UTC

ryanbrunner wrote: post #52

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…

I think one thing that struck me from the linked article was the point that the memo wasn't structured to invite discussion. It wasn't "let's have a chat", it was "here's an evidence bomb of how you're all wrong". I think advancing points is fine, but if you're after productive discussion rather than an adversarial debate, you need to proactively invite discussion. And if an adversarial debate was what he was after,…

As someone with a very debate-loving personality, I disagree. Saying how I'm wrong is the best way to start discussion.

Now of course, not everyone will be the same. But for those that like to debate and have discussions, then just tell me why you think I'm wrong and we can go from there. I don't need you to coddle me.

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

#595

Post by dang » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 10:34 PM UTC

baitbiter wrote: post #135

Even more harm is done by Affirmative Action for women now being implemented in all companies. Feminism has given up on the aspect of competing and turned to shaming all men. There are several professions where women dominate with > 80%. Where's all this fucking outrage in those?

This breaks the HN guideline that says "Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15021781 and marked it off-topic.

Edit: since this account has been using HN just for ideological flamewar (and personal attacks), we've banned it. Doing this will eventually get your main account banned as well, so please don't do it.

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

#596

Post by turtleofdeath » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 10:34 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #250

tedivm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets assume that we're in an alternative universe where the document was never leaked. The document still did harm. Just read this quote from the posted article- > When I walk into my job at a tech company, how do I know which of my colleagues thinks I’m an outlier among women versus someone who was hired because I’m female that doesn’t deserve the job they have? How do I prove myself to people one way or another? Th…

So if I say "the average women is shorter than the average man", am I now liable for being fired for creating a hostile environment for my female coworkers? That leap of logic - taking a general statement and interpreting it as a personal attack - strikes me as something I'd read in Dilbert. It strikes me as a justification for the outrage people want to feel. It's an excuse; nothing more.

Well, I agree with the spirit of your argument. However:

> So if I say "the average women is shorter than the average man", am I now liable for being fired for creating a hostile environment for my female coworkers?

You wouldn't just be saying that. You'd be saying, "we know about implicit/explicit biases, but maybe short people are less interested in tech and that helps to explain the hiring gap." That and a series of studies about how short people, on average, have biological qualities that differentiate them from taller people, which you use to bolster your supposition. In effect, you'd be saying that, on average, short people are possibly just less interested in technology because they like other things, respond differently to stress and don't have the drive for status that tall people do.

So, while you wouldn't necessarily be _wrong_ for supposing that and people would be wrong to impute any further meaning than is represented (such as, short people aren't fit for tech, short people are not as good as tall people, etc.), you might be at least partially wrong for not being as clear as possible in your phrasing ... but not much else. Mainly, because his intention isn't to say women aren't fit for tech, but to point out why they might, on average, be less interested in tech, which would help to explain the gap in STEM interest.

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

#597

Post by Danihan » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 10:34 PM UTC

dguaraglia wrote: post #484

Danihan wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said PC_authoritarians are violent. Not leftists.

Straight from the memo: > While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment . Emphasis mine.

You seem to have modified the memo slightly to enforce your point.

>While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftist protests that we’re seeing at universities

He's saying the leftist protests at Berkeley were violent. Which... is simply a factual statement.

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

#598

Post by glibgil » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 10:35 PM UTC

Are ten-page screeds on any subject welcome and most companies? Google was this guy's only job after academia. I value his opinions on Google and corporate life in the same way that I value the opinions of unmarried people or people without kids on those respective subjects. I wince a smile and nod and think, "check back with me in ten years when you've been around the block a few times". This is not a person to take seriously. He does not even know what he doesn't know

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

#599

Post by merb » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 10:35 PM UTC

Everything I actually read about the memo (and I didn't read it besides some points) is: - Some Points are valid - Some Points are discussable (that's why this post was created, wasn't it?)

but nearly none addresses them as totally invalid. I mean even in this post of ycombinator the person in question couldn't straight said "No! This is wrong" and back it up with data.

I just don't get the whole gender/race discussions, but if such a memo can exists and things like gender diversity programs do exists, than something is probably really really wrong.

But with one thing I disagree with her, firing him was not the right thing to do, at least not directly. I mean wouldn't it be better to just discuss this, probably in the open, with him, the company and even more and make a great discussion panel? I mean with just firing him, they actually just ignored all points, even valid ones.

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

#600

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Aug 15, 2017, 10:36 PM UTC

turtleofdeath wrote: post #550

BearGoesChirp wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When I walk into my job at a tech company, how do I know which of my colleagues thinks I’m an outlier among women versus someone who was hired because I’m female that doesn’t deserve the job they have? That is a result of affirmative action, not of the memo. Shooting the messenger, if you will.

Exactly. Affirmative action causes everyone, including the person, to question whether they got there on merit or based on filling some quota. Multiple biases are created.

> Affirmative action causes everyone, including the person, to question whether they got there on merit or based on filling some quota.

Affirmative Action does not require having quotas (and, in fact, they are in mlst contexts explicitly illegal, even in venues required to have Affirmative Action policies). So, insofar as it “causes” the that result, it is largely by interaction with false information deliberately spread by its opponents.