I'm a woman in computer science. Let me ladysplain the Google memo to you

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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...

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.

Will HN censor this article?

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