<story><title>Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo</title><url>https://blog.ycombinator.com/ask-a-female-engineer-thoughts-on-the-google-memo/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>camgunz</author><text>&amp;gt; We should be able to talk about his arguments honestly and rationally without falling back on gendered reasons at this point at least.&lt;p&gt;We are and lots of people are doing so, but another point made in this post is that the workplace isn&amp;#x27;t the venue for this.</text></item><item><author>nicolashahn</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m not talking about a woman having to prove her technical ability to her male coworkers at work because of their prejudices. I know that that&amp;#x27;s bullshit and I&amp;#x27;m sorry they have to do so.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m talking about handling what Damore claimed in an intellectually honest way. You can&amp;#x27;t dismiss his points just because you&amp;#x27;re tired of talking about them (or what you think are the same points you&amp;#x27;ve always been talking about, but I think Damore&amp;#x27;s comments on each gender&amp;#x27;s preference and pressures for picking careers had something worth discussing). What he said had at least some spark of originality and insight, otherwise it wouldn&amp;#x27;t have gotten nearly the attention it did. Consider, would we be talking about the memo if it were about how he thought Sundar Pichai was a lizard man?&lt;p&gt;Those who disagreed with Damore already won the battle. They kicked him out of Google and doubled down on their diversity initiatives&amp;#x2F;echo chamber. We should be able to talk about his arguments honestly and rationally without falling back on gendered reasons at this point at least.</text></item><item><author>Blackthorn</author><text>&amp;gt; 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&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;too confrontational,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;poorly written,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;naive,&amp;quot; or whatever other secondary problems exist (this is aside from wilfully misrepresenting his claims, which is definitely a bigger problem).&lt;p&gt;This was addressed in the article. This burden has fallen on women since they were teenagers. To expect them to do it yet again, to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous.</text></item><item><author>nicolashahn</author><text>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&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;too confrontational,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;poorly written,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;naive,&amp;quot; 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 written from the opposite side that have not been criticized in the same way.&lt;p&gt;And for the record, I did not get any aggressive tone from his paper. I thought he was as polite as he needed to be and made the necessary caveats. 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.</text></item><item><author>ryanbrunner</author><text>I think one thing that struck me from the linked article was the point that the memo wasn&amp;#x27;t structured to invite discussion. It wasn&amp;#x27;t &amp;quot;let&amp;#x27;s have a chat&amp;quot;, it was &amp;quot;here&amp;#x27;s an evidence bomb of how you&amp;#x27;re all wrong&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;I think advancing points is fine, but if you&amp;#x27;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, that does strike me as inappropriate work communication.</text></item><item><author>hedgew</author><text>Many of the more reasonable criticisms of the memo say that it wasn&amp;#x27;t written well enough; it could&amp;#x27;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&amp;#x27;ve found. However, I can not imagine ever matching his talent and output, even if I practiced for years to try and catch up.&lt;p&gt;I do not think that anyone&amp;#x27;s ability to write should disbar them from discussion. We can not expect perfection from others. Instead we should try to understand them as human beings, and interpret them with generosity and kindness.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>nicolashahn</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m still making up my mind on this one, but for the sake of argument, I&amp;#x27;ll disagree with you.&lt;p&gt;The workplace &lt;i&gt;was&lt;/i&gt; the venue for this, because &amp;#x27;this&amp;#x27; was evidence was that Google(his workplace)&amp;#x27;s diversity initiatives and censorship were harming the company. He attempted to go through the proper channels (HR) as discussed in another part of the comment section for this very article.&lt;p&gt;Completely ignored by HR, and after some watercooler discussion in which he received confirmation that he was not the only one to have such thoughts, he decided to organize his thoughts into a memo, which from his perspective, introduced ideas that could explain the gender employment gap at Google and help make the company better by erasing the notion of being a &amp;#x27;diversity hire&amp;#x27; among other things.&lt;p&gt;What it did &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; do was claim that his female coworkers were inferior. I feel the need to reiterate that because that seems to be the disinformation that many take home with them and use for their arguments against him. With it, they vilified and ousted him.&lt;p&gt;Going back and reading it now, it&amp;#x27;s hard to believe such a seemingly harmless claim (women aren&amp;#x27;t as well represented in tech because they&amp;#x27;re not as interested in it) has created such outrage. I blame this mainly on Gizmodo, and those who piggybacked their original article (that blatantly lied about what he wrote and presented his memo which they had quietly edited). Some credit also needs to go to whoever leaked the memo, which Damore probably did not mean to leave the relatively small group of people he originally introduced it to, at least at that point in time.&lt;p&gt;Really, what he presented and how he presented it were not very controversial. It easily could have been addressed internally by HR, or discussed within the company by its employees without the dishonesty and witch hunting. My point is, what he presented should have been acceptable in the way he did it especially given Google&amp;#x27;s claims of free speech and the historical precedent of memos like these, but dishonesty and close-mindedness distorted it until it looked like he was calling for repealing women&amp;#x27;s suffrage.</text></comment>
<story><title>Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo</title><url>https://blog.ycombinator.com/ask-a-female-engineer-thoughts-on-the-google-memo/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>camgunz</author><text>&amp;gt; We should be able to talk about his arguments honestly and rationally without falling back on gendered reasons at this point at least.&lt;p&gt;We are and lots of people are doing so, but another point made in this post is that the workplace isn&amp;#x27;t the venue for this.</text></item><item><author>nicolashahn</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m not talking about a woman having to prove her technical ability to her male coworkers at work because of their prejudices. I know that that&amp;#x27;s bullshit and I&amp;#x27;m sorry they have to do so.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m talking about handling what Damore claimed in an intellectually honest way. You can&amp;#x27;t dismiss his points just because you&amp;#x27;re tired of talking about them (or what you think are the same points you&amp;#x27;ve always been talking about, but I think Damore&amp;#x27;s comments on each gender&amp;#x27;s preference and pressures for picking careers had something worth discussing). What he said had at least some spark of originality and insight, otherwise it wouldn&amp;#x27;t have gotten nearly the attention it did. Consider, would we be talking about the memo if it were about how he thought Sundar Pichai was a lizard man?&lt;p&gt;Those who disagreed with Damore already won the battle. They kicked him out of Google and doubled down on their diversity initiatives&amp;#x2F;echo chamber. We should be able to talk about his arguments honestly and rationally without falling back on gendered reasons at this point at least.</text></item><item><author>Blackthorn</author><text>&amp;gt; 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&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;too confrontational,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;poorly written,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;naive,&amp;quot; or whatever other secondary problems exist (this is aside from wilfully misrepresenting his claims, which is definitely a bigger problem).&lt;p&gt;This was addressed in the article. This burden has fallen on women since they were teenagers. To expect them to do it yet again, to have to defend themselves at work this time, is ridiculous.</text></item><item><author>nicolashahn</author><text>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&amp;#x27;s &amp;quot;too confrontational,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;poorly written,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;naive,&amp;quot; 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 written from the opposite side that have not been criticized in the same way.&lt;p&gt;And for the record, I did not get any aggressive tone from his paper. I thought he was as polite as he needed to be and made the necessary caveats. 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.</text></item><item><author>ryanbrunner</author><text>I think one thing that struck me from the linked article was the point that the memo wasn&amp;#x27;t structured to invite discussion. It wasn&amp;#x27;t &amp;quot;let&amp;#x27;s have a chat&amp;quot;, it was &amp;quot;here&amp;#x27;s an evidence bomb of how you&amp;#x27;re all wrong&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;I think advancing points is fine, but if you&amp;#x27;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, that does strike me as inappropriate work communication.</text></item><item><author>hedgew</author><text>Many of the more reasonable criticisms of the memo say that it wasn&amp;#x27;t written well enough; it could&amp;#x27;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&amp;#x27;ve found. However, I can not imagine ever matching his talent and output, even if I practiced for years to try and catch up.&lt;p&gt;I do not think that anyone&amp;#x27;s ability to write should disbar them from discussion. We can not expect perfection from others. Instead we should try to understand them as human beings, and interpret them with generosity and kindness.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>humanrebar</author><text>Shouldn&amp;#x27;t employers abstain from controversial subjects as well, then? It seems one sided to hold employees to that standard but not the corporations and bosses they work for.</text></comment>