Hacker News Reader

Comment by KhanMahGretsch | Hacker News Reader

One thing I enjoy about working in tech is having the opportunity to discuss things other than work during breaks.

We often spend more waking hours with our colleagues than our friends and family, forming strong bonds and friendships.

I've been lucky enough to work with intelligent people originating from many parts of the world, and have enjoyed stimulating discussions that include geo-political and social issues.

While there are a myriad of reasons why one could feel bad about facing a day in the office, I personally find sexism and harassment to be particularly heinous, and indicates weakness of character more than a lack of ability.

Something I worry about is the possibility of a work environment where the free discussion and conversation I mentioned above is inhibited. Especially one in which "acceptable" conversation is not politically neutral, but instead favouring progressive viewpoints exclusively.

View on HN

I hear you. That sounds very nice, but a work environment can simply never be the same as hanging out with a friend over lunch. There needs to be some way to discourage harassment and promote a positive, friendly work environment that values people for their skill set rather than other given irrelevant attributes.

Free discussion is just not appropriate at a work place - the line must be drawn somewhere and usually that means veering towards acting professional. There is ample opportunity to be yourself fully outside of this context.

Nothing has been more positive to me as a woman in tech than working in environments with professionalism. I got to focus on what I love to do, what I am best at. It works in the interest of companies too.

Professionalism itself is an evolving standard and a moving target. It varies wildly between companies, industries, cultures, and even regions within the United States. Professionalism used to mean 9-6PM M-F work with suit and tie or formal dress and strong hierarchical organizations. In some industries it still means that. The startup tech industry was sort of founded on a rebellious disregard for old standards of professionalism with flatter hierarchies.

At a company like Google, it appears that discussion on internal forums is actually an internal cultural virtue. Google's innovation and evolution as a company has probably depended on that very openness that we the general public are getting a peek into through these leaks.

An article I read on Wired showed images of these discussions. Apparently very progressive viewpoints are welcomed on the internal channels there. It would seem that any viewpoints that run counter to that worldview, however, are gradually being eradicated by shaming and firing those with alternative views.

What's unfortunate is that with the actions that have been taken...I think everyone loses. Fuel has only been added to this fire on both sides.

Honestly I don't think there is much fuel added on both sides. This argument is age old. Since I was in middle school boys were asserting to me that due to biological reasons I probably wasn't as capable as them as I was very competitive in math and science. When I went to college, we heard the same argument used by Larry Summers president of Harvard.

None of this is new, especially when I discuss it with my mother and grandmother. Same story, different colors.

What I hope is that other woman continue to do what I did- ignore those people. Youll never convince them because the biological argument is impossible to disprove. The statistics are on their side. Now are the statistics due to social conditions, expectations, belief patterns, and women who simply want to avoid these discussions and intimidations - or are they from biology?

There is no hesitation from my life experience that it is the former. First woman was allowed in Harvard in the 60s. This is only just getting started but expect more of the same.

You're completely misconstruing what Larry Summers and the memo's author said.

The memo's author outlined some gender differences, and offered suggestions based on these differences to make working at Google more appealing to women.

Here's the excerpt from Larry Summer's speech that the ignorant masses and agenda-driven feminists have misconstrued to confirm their biases and advance their agenda:

> "So my best guess, to provoke you, of what's behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people's legitimate family desires and employers' current desire for high power and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination. I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong, because I would like nothing better than for these problems to be addressable simply by everybody understanding what they are, and working very hard to address them."

He is not saying that women are biologically less capable of pursuing math and science than men.

[1] http://www.harvard.edu/president/speeches/summers_2005/nber....

Reply on news.ycombinator.com