Comment by AmIFirstToThink | Hacker News Reader

Comment by AmIFirstToThink | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

AmIFirstToThink

>What if women actually deserved 80% of the jobs, by skill and temperament? Then the 50% goal is way under reality.

You are not hiring "women" as a group. You are hiring an individual to feel in a role, gender should not be looked at, at all. I would prefer if google conducts all interview in written format without disclosing name, hiding gender, or where the voice is scrambled so that you can't make out the gender of the interviewee.

If you claim that you know that a group based on gender deserved certain representation (80%), you are the one discriminating based on gender. What's your opinion about representation of Samoans in Google ranks? What % should they get? You have no way to back up your 80% claim.

>I'd like to see passive processes produce an equitable result too.

This is the problem. I don't think it is achievable, or worthy, to seek equitable results. Results can vary based on many factors, picking one aspect of an individual, their gender, and then asking to make it equal across the group equal to that aspect of the individual, is only going to give advantage to certain individuals of that group, individuals who may not be as handicapped by the group identity as you think. E.g. does a multi-millionaire African American lawyer's son deserve a seat at Medical school based on his race? Do the individual women who qualify at Google really represent the disadvantaged representatives of groups based on "gender"? Is Dianne Green who heads Google Cloud part of this disadvantaged group?

Equity in access to opportunity is what I can definitely agree. Let's strive to make education needed to qualify for a job at Google available at fingertips of as many kids as we can across the entire globe.

>But in the mean time, the car is pulling to the left, so I steer slightly right to compensate.

The corporate america and its leaders with their fiefdoms already exercise high control over the fate of the individual employees to work there. What if you are wrong and you over correct the car and crash it?

Do not discriminate at all. Define job requirements for what makes a good candidate for the job and then hire for those skills and abilities, no matter what race, gender or religion.

I claim no special knowledge. I think that's true of both of us. I speculate, what if the existing bias is actually excluding 80% of the women. A reasonable response is, "Yeah that would be awful, we should do something about it in that case". Instead I'm accused of being discriminatory.

I fear that this argument is 'arguing toward a goal'. No real attempt to understand the situation is present. Instead, whatever supports a viewpoint is thrown into a paragraph. Cherry picking, straw men and fud result.

Discrimination is a problem; trying to counter it with goals is a praiseworthy attempt. Consider: to do nothing now means we're ok with the existing bias. Why is that, do you think? Because 'idealism'? I think its more insidious: Its 'ok' for men to have all the jobs now, because that's normal and right. Its scary to change.

> Instead I'm accused of being discriminatory.

We are talking about this, my friend, I hold no ill will towards you nor do I accuse you of any wrongdoing. If I had said something with "you", it was about the argument on the table.

>I claim no special knowledge. I think that's true of both of us.

Agreed.

>I speculate, what if the existing bias is actually excluding 80% of the women. A reasonable response is, "Yeah that would be awful, we should do something about it in that case".

The speculation is that the bias exists, and is based on gender, is significant to skew decision making, and is widespread i.e. held by majority, strong enough to warrant an active adjustment. Now, we are not talking about Saudi Arabia or Somalia, we are talking about the most liberal place in the USA i.e. California. The same google employees that support Democrats in droves, wanted first woman president, and call themselves progressives, and rally for immigrant and refugee rights and environment protection.

There are two things being assumed:

One: that there is bias that holds every woman inferior to any man. This assumption needs to be proven. That is insulting, ridiculous claim against the educated human beings that work at Google, many with wives, daughters, sisters, who call themselves liberal progressives, who would stand up for equality for all.

Two: that the demographic of google employment is because of this bias and nothing else, or at least significantly because of this bias. This assumption needs to be proven.

If you can't prove these two assumptions, you can't act as if the injustice has happened and needs to be corrected at once.

Who else would you let make same argument? For what issue would you allow them to draw same conclusions, based on as much proof, and demand similar action?

How about hijab wearing women vs. non-hijab wearing woman? Need equal or demographically equal representation? How about for-vaccination and anti-vaccination, need equal representation? How about evolution-deniers, need equal representation?

Equality for all doesn't mean 13% black, 80% white and 7% Hispanic, 33% Christian, 8% Jew, 20% Atheist, 45% woman, 40% man, 10% Trans, 10% LGBT, 60% straigt, 20% asexual. You would have put a job Ad for Muslim Gay Woman that is Hispanic. That is quota system.

Equality means it doesn't matter whether your name is Jen, Jose, Jerry or Jasmine, you are selected because of what you bring to the table for the job.

>I speculate

A kid who loves programming, wants to work for google, has taken college education that is needed, has spent countless hours of his own to learn new things, he gets rejected because Google wants to up the women count. That kid never realizes what happened to him as he walks out of the interview. That is wrong. I am not willing to do that because of a speculation.

Let me say this about Damore's claims... he asked for diversity of ideas. I disagree. Google is not in the business of having equal number of conservatives and progressives within its ranks. It has nothing to do with the job of programming gmail or youtube. Workplaces are last hangouts for people where they come together, outside of their individual bubble. We do not need to politicize the workplace. Don't Ask Don't Tell, for political inclinations, at workplace.

As you probably already know, where you are going wrong is due to that saying "you can't use logic to change the mind of someone who has arrived at a position by means other than logic". I think at it's core, this is just an old fashioned "us vs them" battle, so in that sense all the "rules" go out the door, not unlike a democratic election. Similar to how Donald Trump won the election based on emotions and story telling rather than facts, this argument will be won on emotions and story telling, not facts.

I particularly liked your earlier statement: "Does Google believe in gender fluidity or do they believe in being cis-gendered? What if male engineers claim to be a female at the time of hiring, claiming gender fluidity, is Google going to get into business of keeping someone honest about what their gender is?"

To me, that wonderfully illustrates the absurdity of this debate in particular (and most public disagreements in today's day and age for that matter), because who are we to assume that google employees with penises are actually males? And performing a survey to determine how each employee identifies themselves gender wise would be incredibly disrespectful and intrusive, would it not? (And if someone disagrees that it is disrespectful to ask that question, who are you to say what is and is not disrespectful?)

Western society is going through an "adolescent" stage at the moment, and it's just going to take time (my guess is a few decades) to work through it, that's my take on it.

And more rationalizing, that boils down to: its normal and OK for so many of the jobs to be held by men. Because (women are inferior at them; no women want the job; random accident?).

Absurdly biased statistics need to be 'proven' or they can be ignored? Remember when Yahoo had far more women than men in executive positions? That sure got slammed as discriminatory, instantly, without any demand for 'more proof'. Why, do we think? Why is the response so overwhelmingly in favor of men having jobs?

Demanding more proof (besides the decades of evidence of women fleeing workplaces because of stress; women getting paid less for the same job; women overlooked for promotion despite reviews etc) is just more excuse-making. To make us feel better about the situation; to make it ok to do nothing; to explain how we're really not the bad guy even though we're fine with half of us getting a raw deal.

>to explain how we're really not the bad guy even though we're fine with half of us getting a raw deal.

That's how this feels, wheeling and dealing. Jockeying for power.

Show me the outrage over equal representation at the national cemetery.

Show me the outrage over equal representation in the lumber industry.

How about Alaska crab fishing jobs?

How about windmill installation and maintenance?

How about garbage pickup?

Someone has it and you don't. You want it and you will say whatever it takes to get it. It's just mere words. Sexist, misogynist, just air through mouth. Throw it and see if they give you something.

If liberal Google, people educated in best institutions we had to offer throughout the world, is sexist then humanity has no hope.

>Demanding more proof (besides the decades of evidence of women fleeing workplaces because of stress; women getting paid less for the same job; women overlooked for promotion despite reviews etc) is just more excuse-making.

You are not asking to fix any of this. You are asking for hiring bar to be lowered for women so that they make up 50% of the workforce. Those are two different things.

Show me a sexist and his sexist actions and I would gladly fight that person along with you. This collective shaming is as unjust as sexism, and more insulting.

Let's show door to that male college kid, because some bosses at Google had been sexist in their past hiring practices. The bosses, who enjoy full Google employment.

Why are you punishing the kid for crimes of the Google boss who is still gainfully employed?

This is where group think, collectivism, identity politics has gone wrong. This is why people have left the political left.

> I claim no special knowledge.

> I fear that this argument is 'arguing toward a goal'. No real attempt to understand the situation is present.

> Discrimination is a problem

Do you see even the slightest bit of contradiction there?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com