I’ll go point by point, just as you did.
You said:
“To start with i’ll note that you’ve popped up in my timeline off and on for quite some time, and i don’t think i can remember agreeing with you on almost anything you wrote, we seem diametrically opposed on most issues. However, with that background i was pleasantly surprised to be in pretty close to total agreement with you on your initial and subsequent posts to the OP of this thread. With that in mind i’ll focus on the relatively few points of contention.”
Well, I’m glad you found something to agree with me on. I can certainly be ‘rough’ and come across rather set in my opinions. The truth is, I’m open. I respond differently, however when I see people writing pain. I don’t know what all you’ve read, but I write with my heart. Sometimes that means I don’t reach people who read without emotional context. Yes, I know that’s an assumption. Feel free to correct it if you like. Its just my perception of you based on what you wrote.
I said:
“I hear you. The thing is, he said “made have” and “could,” etc, but he also made suggestions that were based on those same ‘tentative’ statements.”
You replied:
“That’s true, but isn’t that just the flow of any decent thought experiment? He was addressing his comments to a large group of people who, in his mind at least, all believed one way about a set of issues and therefore all agreed on a set of solutions to the supposed source of the problems.”
I didn’t get that his target audience was ‘like minded’ people. I felt he was speaking up for himself and others who felt the same way he did. We agree that his audience was the company and his goal was to change the pattern he saw and felt was not good for the company, the industry and those who agree with him.
You said:
“His intention was to provide a countering narrative first to the source of the problem, which if true would necessarily influence the path to addressing the problem.”
Right. So we agree. He was speaking to people he perceives as wrong-minded in their approach to solving a problem he doesn’t define the same way they do.
You also said:
“To my eyes he did what any good employee who brings up an issue about company matters should do, which is highlight the problem one sees, and suggest an alternative solution. Without the alternative solutions part accompanying, it probably just comes off as complaining.”
Good point. This is part of why I don’t think he should have been fired.
I said:
“It’s hard to believe he wasn’t saying he is definitely ‘right’ especially in his footnotes — which as Caleb Ramsby rightly pointed out were not citations, but more of his opinion.”
You replied:
“Well to begin with, i’d suggest reading the “manifesto” here, which contains the unedited document with accompanying charts and plentiful citations. For some reason those were removed from the Gizmodo released version.”
Yeah, I did read their disclaimer and then promptly forgot about the part where they removed his links. I will re-read what you’ve provided. I will tell you, however that for every study produced ascribing specific gender differences, there are others which take an opposing argument. And I do not buy in to “females are naturally more this or that anymore than I buy in to men being naturally more one thing or another.
And, even if we are, genetics doesn’t say, “whoops! This one has an XY, so only take the DNA associated with dad to make him; or vice versa.
I said:
“It was interesting and curious how the author framed up what he wrote — in the beginning — listed several ‘political biases’ and admitted — rightly — that neither left or right is 100% correct, but then he wrote everything else in his piece from the perspective of his ‘right leaning bias’ as if he IS 100% correct.”
You replied:
“I don’t think that’s an accurate depiction. The author’s claims are not inherently right leaning, and he described himself in the document as a classical liberal. You can certainly read some amount of certainty into his words if you like but, especially given the fact that the document is replete with qualifying words and phrases so as to avoid being flatly declarative, i’m not sure what the point would be.”
Well, I don’t really care about his labeling. His belief system regarding natural abilities regarding women reflect a certain. side of the political landscape — conservative, right, maybe even ‘alt right.’ Either way, again, who cares? He expressed awareness that no one is 100% correct and then proceeded to argue as if he is (or his sources are) — in my opinion.
You said:
“On the surface it may seem odd to begin by acknowledging bias and that neither side is 100% correct then seem to be leaning to one side, but again it must be noted that his intent was to provide a countervailing narrative to the dominant one in that environment which was perceived to be homogeneous.”
I get that. I don’t think it’s odd at all. I think it illustrates his humanity. Its not a bad thing.
I said:
“It is interesting, because he was trying hard not to be biased in the piece, but all his biases showed up and informed every assertion he made anyway. I’m not offended by it because in the first place, I think seeing that he tried and acknowledging that is important; and in the second place, nothing he said was intended to be mean.”
You replied:
“Granted, there were a lot of declarative statements, but he also included 35 linked sources throughout the document, so it’s perhaps not accurate to say his biases were informing his assertions when it can be argued that the linked sources informed them. Though this point may merely be one of semantics. To your final point, i couldn’t agree with you more. This kind of evaluation needs to be more common in today’s social media outrage machine.”
Yeah, I don’t know why the links were removed the more I think about it. Either way, these beliefs are internalized for him at this point. Though, I give him credit because I perceived him to be committed to remaining open to countering ideas.
I said:
“Its just that the focus around the why or the intent of the gap indicates rationalizing. Humans do that when they feel threatened. He clearly felt threatened by the changes in his environment and I think meeting that kind of fear with anger and frustration only feeds and fuels it.”
You replied:
“Two points i would make here. The first is that it’s absolutely important to understand the why before dealing with the how of fixing it.”
I disagree (obviously). In this case, an agreement on the “why” of the thing cannot be reached. We stand to lose years trying to agree on why and that makes zero sense because the truth is, the Google guy is kinda right, the people talking systemic discrimination are kinda right, you are kinda right and so am I. Some problems don’t have a clear reason for existing. My thought is, let’s get above the blaming, shaming and arguing about this thing we inherited from our idiot parents and just fucking fix it already.
You said:
“In a general sense, we have to understand the source of a problem in order to accurately address it rather than playing whack-a-mole with its symptoms, but in a more specific sense we have to understand the source of the gender gap in order to determine if it even IS a problem that needs addressing.”
Ok, well, I cannot go down a road in which I’m debating whether the problem even exists or the merits of correcting it. It is a pointless, circular exercise. Some people think this is a problem which needs fixing, I agree with them, even if I don’t always agree on their approach.
Working like mad to get everyone’s agreement is not productive, is a distraction and a deflection we don’t have time for engaging in. We’ve been down that road before. I’d like to choose a different path.
You said:
“Let’s grant for a moment the premise that women are not being systematically discriminated against in tech (as opposed to individual incidents of discrimination because of course they happen), and that there are not more women in tech because women are simply not choosing to be there in higher numbers.”
I can’t do that with any level of sincerity because I’ve lived it.
You said:
“If that were the case, then why should anyone care whether there’s a 50% gender representation?”
I don’t know, maybe because it’s always been 99.99999% male? And people don’t know how to measure it? I’m sure we don’t need a set number. But metrics… businesses love metrics. What can I say? Can’t make a pie chart without metrics.
You said:
“The whole goal of feminism was supposed to be that society should stop telling women what they should do with their lives, to give them the freedom to make their own choices. So if one believes that the tech disparity is due to womens’ choices, then society telling women that they need to go into tech is rather patronizing.”
That’s correct only if you believe your initial premise. I don’t agree with you because of my own lived experience. That’s not to say there are no exceptions. The team I work with today is exceptional in every regard. They don’t treat me differently because I’m a female. I respect them deeply.
You said:
“It’s not supportive of their ability to choose, it’s critical of them making what in their minds is a wrong decision. We could of course argue about whether young girls are being unduly influenced in one direction or another, causing their adult versions to be less interested in tech, but then that wouldn’t really be a problem to be fixed at the employment level through diversity programs.”
Its not supportive either to dismiss them outright because gender or not try to develop a diverse workforce intentionally.
And if we shouldn’t fix it in the employment realm then where? Are you actually suggesting that we deal with it only in the home so those adults who were steered away wrongly can’t be welcomed back and the change doesn’t happen until our children are adults? How do you think that will work out given that kids learn through being shown, not told? And when we get outrage over non-gendered toys at freaking Target?
Why do you think these things are so compartmentalized? They aren’t. My dad had a job. His beliefs were shaped by those he engaged with and he brought them home. Or he took them to work. What we have here is a chicken / egg debate and that’s why it’s circular and a waste of time. We need to fix it everywhere. At home, school, work, politics, etc.
You said:
“My second point is to note that you make several declarative statements about this man’s feelings and motivations, while criticizing him for attempting to speak for women. Your intention seems to be genuine in attempting to empathize with him, but the delivery is rather patronizing.”
I’m glad you can see I don’t intend to patronize. But the man said he doesn’t like that he isn’t free to express these thoughts openly for fear of retaliation. I happen to agree with him. My perception and analyzing of the resulting behavior is mine and I’m not doing anything wrong in my expression of my perceptions as it relates to him from what he wrote.
Its a completely different ball game to ascribe the same things to you by virtue of the fact that you are male alone. That’s my point.
You said:
“Consider if a man were to disregard the content of a woman’s post and say that she’s saying these things because she is feeling a certain way.”
Consider that this happens to me every day because I’m a woman. Consider that’s happening right this minute in this discussion with you.
You said:
“He would be shredded with cries of mansplaining and gaslighting. In general, attributions of motive, rather than addressing content, are destructive.”
Agreed they are destructive in certain contexts; this being one of them. And when they happen without warning they aren’t right. Not everyone agrees with me on this point, but again, that’s why I don’t think he should have been fired.
I said:
“People are offended by the author’s piece because he thought he could speak for them and used generalization to argue against providing assistance to people like me who are eager to learn and willing to put in the effort to acquire the knowledge.”
You replied:
“The thing is, he didn’t argue against providing assistance to anyone, he merely stated that Google’s programs were discriminatory and proposed an emphasis be placed on individualism.”
His proposal is a vote for status quo. Folks are done with that as the intention to change suggests.
I said:
“His rationalization for putting a stop to those programs is his fear that they mean less opportunity for people who look like him, and that since the gap isn’t his fault, less opportunity isn’t fair.”
You replied:
“Again you’re ascribing motive to a man you’ve never met. That is a complete assumption, and likely false. Personally i’m not in favor of most diversity programs, and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether anyone who looks like me will have more or less opportunity, so why would i assume this man to be any different?”
I don’t know why you’d assume that. I know he said those programs are leading to legal discrimination. I disagree with him fundamentally on. that point. Until someone presents a solution that isn’t the same turd wrapped in different paper, these programs are what we have to work with — why not try and make them better instead of dismissing them outright?
You said:
“On balance, i agree with much of your posts on the topic, especially that the man should not have been treated the way he was. Google rather un-ironically proved his point about the lack of tolerance for countering opinions in firing him for proposing one. If his work was not affected by his thoughts and words, he should never have been fired for them. Ideas must be met with ideas.”
I agree with this for the most point. I wish actions were congruent with this point because it’s important. “Don’t have programs to address the lack a diversity,” is not an idea. It is a negative. We will just have to disagree on this point.
And, it’s ok that we disagree. I appreciate the effort you made here and definitely your respectful approach so thank you.
-Cyborg
