
I'm a woman in computer science. Let me ladysplain the Google memo to you - eridius
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/11/16130452/google-memo-women-tech-biology-sexism
======
pragmar
Probably the most persuasive rebuttal I've read in trying to follow memo
story. It has an honesty about it. So the issues with the memo are lie largely
in the subtext and motivations, it seems. When framed this way, it's easier to
understand.

One issue I have is that the author implies the memo is alluding to a lack of
aptitude, where in my reading of the original memo, the issue was of a lack of
_interest_ (wrt affinity towards people vs. objects and so forth). Perhaps
that's six of one vs half a dozen of the other from a certain perspective, but
it comes off as a misrepresentation.

~~~
abandonliberty
> So the issues with the memo are lie largely in the subtext and motivations,
> it seems.

It is very interesting that so much of the response focuses on outrage,
mischaracterizations of the memo, and (seemingly accurate) ad hominem attacks
on the author.

This appears to support the central point of the manifesto: that we are not
able to have a mature discussion about this. While we may disagree with what
James said the response makes this point undeniable.

It seems that Google isn't the only place stuck in an ideological echo
chamber.

------
undersuit
Maybe HN is fatigued with discussions of the Google memo, I don't think there
has been enough.

I'm vouching for the new contributor to Vox, hoping she can continue talking
about issues she's seen.

~~~
Rapzid
I've vouched as well. We have tools to handle inappropriate comments threads
without needing to avoid the topic wholesale.

~~~
kps
Vouching still exists? I suppose I got it taken away for using it ‘wrong’.

~~~
DanBC
You can vouch for comments. You can't vouch threads. You upvotes threads.

~~~
acheron
I believe you can vouch stories once they are marked [dead]. If they're just
[flagged] but not actually [dead] yet then you can't vouch.

~~~
sctb
Yes, that's right. More info here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12984398](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12984398).

~~~
curtis
From the linked comment:

> _You 're right that we could have 'vouch' show up even if an article is
> merely [flagged] rather than [dead]._

There's the problem right now that flagging articles can drop them so low on
the new articles feed (3rd or 4th page) that they are effectively dead. Some
discussion may continue for a while from people who were already participating
in discussions or are dropping in via the comments link. But typically this
will be a very small number of people. So even if an article is not, strictly
speaking, dead, it is effectively zombie-ified.

Allowing a "vouch" on a flagged article which actually works to offset a
single flag might be a good compromise.

------
jaredklewis
> If, as the manifesto’s defenders claim, the population averages do not have
> anything to say about individual Googlers, who are all exceptional, then why
> is Google the subject of the manifesto’s arguments at all? What do averages
> have to do with hiring practices at a company that famously hires fewer than
> one percent of applicants? In the name of the rational empiricism and
> quantitative rigor that the manifesto holds so dear, shouldn’t we insist
> that it only cite studies that specifically speak to the tails of the
> distribution — to the actual pool of women Google draws from?

This is a great point.

~~~
unityByFreedom
> shouldn’t we insist that it only cite studies that specifically speak to the
> tails of the distribution — to the actual pool of women Google draws from?

Yes. If women fall on a bell curve, and Google pulls only from the far right
(x-axis is skill, y-axis is number of women), then the research used to change
Google's hiring practices should be based on that selected portion of the
curve, not the whole population.

If Damore was really just questioning Google's hiring practices, he should
have sought out research that looks only at the pool of candidates from which
Google draws. And, if he was questioning all affirmative action policies for
women, then he was being disingenuous by targeting Google.

------
panic
Thanks for posting this. Since gender-based employment policies affect women
much more than they do men, it seems like women should be the ones leading the
discussion about whether these policies are a good idea or not.

~~~
LyndsySimon
> Since gender-based employment policies affect women much more than they do
> men

How so? If men are advantaged, women are disadvantaged. Likewise, if women are
advantaged, men are disadvantaged. Therefore, gender-based employment policies
affect both genders, in equal but opposite ways.

~~~
j1o1h1n
This is not a zero sum game (like war) but a greater-than-the-parts game (like
trade). Having access to a larger pool of potential employees because the
workplace environment is not unpleasant or toxic makes the averages go up. Who
doesn't want to work with great people?

------
goalieca
The memo came across as both arrogant and poorly constructed. To cherry-pick
some pieces of data without context of the greater body of work is the domain
of politicians and talk radio hosts. I can find you a paper with data showing
whatever fact you want.

Second, I find this whole thing American centric. When it comes to politics,
there are never examples cited from other countries.

~~~
kagol
Gender differences in personality is cross-cultural [1].

Something to consider is that the Scandinavian countries have arguably done
the most for gender equality, but instead saw gender proclivities in
occupation choice and personality maximize [2][3][4][5]. Probably because by
creating an equality of opportunity, people were free to pursue their
interests.

[1]:
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14018323_Gender_Dif...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14018323_Gender_Differences_in_Extraversion_Neuroticism_and_Psychoticism_in_37_Nations)

[2]: Watch "The Gender Equality Paradox":
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70)

[3]:
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223529887_Culture_c...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223529887_Culture_consumption_in_Sweden_The_stability_of_gender_differences)

[4]:
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24001221_Why_Can%27...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24001221_Why_Can%27t_a_Man_Be_More_Like_a_Woman_Sex_Differences_in_Big_Five_Personality_Traits_Across_55_Cultures_vol_94_pg_168_2008)

[5]:
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11825676_Gender_Dif...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11825676_Gender_Differences_in_Personality_Traits_Across_Cultures_Robust_and_Surprising_Findings)

~~~
unityByFreedom
> Gender differences in personality is cross-cultural [1].

Meanwhile, gender differences in career choice is not cross-cultural.

------
codecrusade
My problem is not with diversity programs. But with the fact that diversity
programs are usually benefiting those of the creamy layer who are already in a
position to utilize these and not the genuine women who need the same.

Arguments on both sides completely miss this. No data no specifics, just
rhetoric.

------
zEVE16Ug50tV
> Why do women report higher levels of anxiety at Google, according to the
> manifesto? Because of their gender’s higher levels of “neuroticism.”

Neuroticism is one of the Big Five personality traits and, as such, is a very
mainstream topic in the psychology of personality. Scare quotes are used to
suggest that a word is being used inaccurately, or in an unusual way. As such,
a reader of this article who is not familiar with the Big Five model (aka
OCEAN/CANOE) is likely to erroneously believe that the memo author is using
'neuroticism' to mean to having a neurosis or some kind of mental illness,
which would indeed be inaccurate here.

------
nicolashahn
Another rebuttal guilty of misrepresenting and being dismissive of the
original memo, and just being wrong on certain details.

Her reasons for outrage:

> 1) Fatigue

She claims women 'feel as the legitimacy of [their] presence is constantly
questioned.' Of course I'm not going to argue this, I'm sure it's true, but
it's also not a reason to ignore his arguments.

> 2) Women's resistance to the "divide and conquer" strategy.

Trying to paint Damore as attempting to undermine females as a group and turn
them against each other. I certainly got none of that from reading the
original memo. Because some women might actually agree with some of Damore's
points, he's trying to divide the gender against each other? Not buying it.

She again is misinterpreting Damore's claim that there may be a reason why
women might prefer not to work in IT aside from male sexism as 'skepticism and
condescension' of women's ability in general.

> 3) The author cites science about "averages." But Google isn't average.

First off, her claim that Stanford at 30% and Harvey Mudd at 50% female CS
graduates is irrelevant when the average across the US as of 2014 is 18%[1], a
percent less than Google's 19% female workforce. Those figures are just cherry
picked data and useless unless we have statistics on where Google hires from.

Second, she's trying to undermine his claim that the diversity initiatives may
actually be doing harm to the company by making it a foregone conclusion that
they are "Google's attempts at creating a fair and broadly welcoming working
environment." Lots of saying "Artificial diversity good, Damore bad" without
attempting to consider what he's suggesting or even addressing it or rebutting
his individual points at all. Just glossing over his claims using citations of
scientific studies as 'dispassionate facts [with] no rigorous connection to
[average women].' It seems if she could have constructed an argument against
these she would have.

She again misses the point by claiming that "it wouldn't be some abstract
concept of 'average' that doesn't get a scholarship, it would be an actual
individual woman." Of course making changes to diversity programs would affect
individuals. But right now, Damore is claiming that they're already affecting
individuals negatively by stifling speech outside the list of culturally
whitelisted opinions and giving individuals with (possibly) less merit more
opportunities over others. Considering the alternative seems to never have
entered the author's mind.

> 4) Race

Though Damore's essay is primarily about gender, he also mentioned race
because Google's diversity initiatives (and usually whenever diversity is
discussed in general) also are aimed at achieving a more equal gender and race
representation. I actually ctrl-f'd 'race' in the memo and every time it was
used it was also accompanied by 'and gender'. I see no reason to accuse him of
being a racist because of this.

> 5) The author says he’s open to diversity, yet no real-world diversity-
> enhancing program meets his standards

It's like she didn't even read the memo. Diversity-enhancing programs are bad
according to Damore when they give opportunities to one group of people over
another based on their gender (or race). He's suggesting we step back one
level of causation and consider that there may be another reason besides
sexism that causes there to be a gender imbalance. Based on this article, I
don't think the author ever did that.

I will agree with her that his suggestions for alternatives are lacking and
vague. However, the memo still has merit for drawing attention to the problem.
A suggestion I might make (and has been made many times and more articulately
by much smarter people than me) is while cutting back on the forced diversity
initiatives, we increase cultural acceptance of girls in STEM starting in
preschool. This won't yield results in the short term but I believe it is at
least a part of the long term answer.

[1] [https://www.usnews.com/news/data-
mine/articles/2016-10-20/st...](https://www.usnews.com/news/data-
mine/articles/2016-10-20/study-computer-science-gender-gap-widens-despite-
increase-in-jobs)

~~~
vlehto
I find it bit weird that women and minorities seem to be able to use this
"fatigue" thing as argument or excuse to blow up on some situations. The same
does not seem to apply to white men, as otherwise she would started how Damore
might have felt exhausted before writing that memo. Holding white men to
higher standard might backfire in the long run.

------
throwaway12124
Re the "fatigue", that sucks. But unfortunately, it's a rational reaction to
AA, etc.

I recall running into women in CS in the 80s, far before the days of diversity
hires. It was instant respect, as you knew that that person was not only
legit, but had probably overcome extra obstacles to get where they were.

These days, anyone who could have been a diversity hire is guilty until proven
innocent.

~~~
throwaway2812
FWIW -- google does not have diversity hires in the interview pipeline.
Everyone gets the same interview bar. But 'diversity recruiting' is more
aggressive to try and increase the available interview pool.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
The author claimed he attended a workshop and discovered that this is not
entirely true.

Do diversity hires get any special treatment after a no-hire vote?

------
jcriddle4
Will HN censor this article?

~~~
frik
They have. All Google related news of the last two days got censored. "The
user flagged it", "the algorithm flagged it" \- blabla. Disgusting.

Over at NYT, an many other media, one can read the stories from both sides.

------
tilt_error
Cynthia produces a compelling argumentation that brings important views to the
table.

