Slashdot Mirror
Google Engineer's Leaked 'Gender Diversity' Essay Draws Massive Response (medium.com)
An anonymous reader writes: An engineer at Google's Mountain View headquarters circulated a 3,400-word essay internally that argued a "moral bias" exists at Google that's "shaming dissenters" and silencing their voices against "encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies." It attributes the gender gap in technology to biology-based differences in abilities (such as "speaking up" and "leading") and different personality traits (including "neuroticism"). Its suggested remedies include "Stop alienating conservatives" (calling it "non-inclusive" and "bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness"), and it also suggests as a solution to "de-emphasize empathy" (which "causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases").
As the essay leaked over the weekend, former Google engineer Yonatan Zunger identified its anonymous author as "not someone senior," saying the author didn't seem to understand gender -- or engineering -- or what's going to happen next. "Essentially, engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers. If someone told you that engineering was a field where you could get away with not dealing with people or feelings, then I'm very sorry to tell you that you have been lied to... It's true that women are socialized to be better at paying attention to people's emotional needs and so on -- this is something that makes them better engineers, not worse ones... You need to learn the difference between 'I think we should adopt Go as our primary language' and 'I think one-third of my colleagues are either biologically unsuited to do their jobs, or if not are exceptions and should be suspected of such until they can prove otherwise to each and every person's satisfaction.'"
The leaked internal essay is now being discussed in literally dozens of news outlets. Click through for some official responses, including leaked reactions from Google's VP of Engineering, from Google's new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance -- and from Slashdot's readers.
Google's new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance -- who started just a few weeks ago -- responded internally that the document "advanced incorrect assumptions about gender," saying it's not a viewpoint Google endorses or encourages, and adding that "Changing a culture is hard, and it's often uncomfortable."
Zunger seemed to agree in part, writing sympathetically that "One very important true statement which this manifesto makes is that male gender roles remain highly inflexible, and that this is a bug, not a feature. In fact, I suspect that this is the core bug which prompted everything else within this manifesto to be written."
Google VP of Engineering Ari Balogh also responded internally that "we want to continue fostering an environment where it's safe to engage in challenging conversations in a thoughtful way. But, in the process of doing that, we cannot allow stereotyping and harmful assumptions to play any part. One of the aspects of the post that troubled me deeply was the bias inherent in suggesting that most women, or men, feel or act a certain way. That is stereotyping, and it is harmful."
Long-time Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein believes that leaking the internal memo to the outside world was a major breach of trust that will do more damage. But he also links to an earlier essay which argues "The men of computer science and the computer industry are misogynous jerks. Not all of them of course. Likely not even the majority. But enough to thoroughly poison the well."
As the essay leaked over the weekend, former Google engineer Yonatan Zunger identified its anonymous author as "not someone senior," saying the author didn't seem to understand gender -- or engineering -- or what's going to happen next. "Essentially, engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers. If someone told you that engineering was a field where you could get away with not dealing with people or feelings, then I'm very sorry to tell you that you have been lied to... It's true that women are socialized to be better at paying attention to people's emotional needs and so on -- this is something that makes them better engineers, not worse ones... You need to learn the difference between 'I think we should adopt Go as our primary language' and 'I think one-third of my colleagues are either biologically unsuited to do their jobs, or if not are exceptions and should be suspected of such until they can prove otherwise to each and every person's satisfaction.'"
The leaked internal essay is now being discussed in literally dozens of news outlets. Click through for some official responses, including leaked reactions from Google's VP of Engineering, from Google's new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance -- and from Slashdot's readers.
Google's new VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance -- who started just a few weeks ago -- responded internally that the document "advanced incorrect assumptions about gender," saying it's not a viewpoint Google endorses or encourages, and adding that "Changing a culture is hard, and it's often uncomfortable."
Zunger seemed to agree in part, writing sympathetically that "One very important true statement which this manifesto makes is that male gender roles remain highly inflexible, and that this is a bug, not a feature. In fact, I suspect that this is the core bug which prompted everything else within this manifesto to be written."
Google VP of Engineering Ari Balogh also responded internally that "we want to continue fostering an environment where it's safe to engage in challenging conversations in a thoughtful way. But, in the process of doing that, we cannot allow stereotyping and harmful assumptions to play any part. One of the aspects of the post that troubled me deeply was the bias inherent in suggesting that most women, or men, feel or act a certain way. That is stereotyping, and it is harmful."
Long-time Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein believes that leaking the internal memo to the outside world was a major breach of trust that will do more damage. But he also links to an earlier essay which argues "The men of computer science and the computer industry are misogynous jerks. Not all of them of course. Likely not even the majority. But enough to thoroughly poison the well."
It's going to be a bumpy ride
That somewhat depends on what you call "Christian values". It seems to me (from Europe) that a lot of the views put forward by so called "Christians" in America are the exact opposite of what Jesus was arguing for.
As to "preserving your culture" being a valid viewpoint, well, I would argue that if your culture is one of violence against people because they threaten your own criminal activities, and bullying minorities, then, no, probably not.
In another country, you would be an ISIS supporter - bear that in mind.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
He was doxxed by the VP of diversity, she released his name in her response, which was released to the press. What is the point of using calling someone out in a memo to all employees? The VP is guilty of harassment .
Indeed. "Equal opportunity" means a woman can become an engineer, a scientist or a pilot by bringing about as much talent and as much dedication to the table as a man. I know quite a few female engineers and scientists. None of them said they ever faced discrimination on a level that mattered to their career-choice. But most of them have stories of women that decided to study something easier when faced with what it actually takes to get though such an education path. Ask a female engineer or scientist in the hard sciences why there are so few women in engineering and the hard sciences and you will hear things that would get a man burned at the stake if he dared to utter them.
So, while equal opportunity is a good thing, enforcing equal numbers in such a situation is about the worst thing you can do. It will kill a technological society. As does denying clearly observable statistical facts.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
This forum is blessed with a simply *massive* brains trust, with technical skills and experience contributed regardless of age, ethnicity or gender. Unless a contributor selects a user name which explicitly identifies them by age, gender or background, the way that Slashdot operates actually promotes equality. In other words, as Slashdot shows, equality is possible, it just needs to be implemented thoughtfully...
Having read the email/document that forms the subject of this article, one of the things I observe is that the document itself discusses both conscious and subconscious bias as it can be applied in a workplace [and for this post I'll group together *all* forms of bias, not merely gender bias].
So let's think about this for a moment. Most of us probably work for organisations which claim [publicly at least] to be a meritocracy. But how objective are the performance review procedures? [ Or recruitment, for that matter? ] Here are a few points to consider:-
If your recruitment process gives hiring managers application forms with the age and/or name of the candidate included, then your organisation has an open door for selection bias.
If your appraisal process includes a ranking process that is susceptible to tactical voting ["I'll give your promotion candidate the nod if you do the same for me", then your organisation has an issue with performance review bias.
If your organisation allows a single manager - *any* single manager - to make recruitment, promotion and/or disciplinary decisions in isolation, then your organisation is at risk of allowing "individual bias" to harm your employees.
Creating a truly neutral, inclusive and meritocratic workplace is *HARD*. It requires leadership, sponsorship [from the top], honesty, integrity and commitment. But it also requires something that large, modern organisations have gradually sacrificed. As individuals are pushed ever harder, as we move into more and more of a "performance culture", acts of mutual support and inclusiveness are not merely not helpful for the giver, but they are detrimental - they help someone else to succeed to the giver's loss.
These two things, then, are not mutually exclusive, but they are rarely found in the same organisation in full and effective health.
I'm concerned at the way that the author of the original piece chose to express their views. I do not believe that the author did themselves or their suggestions any favours. I also worry that some of the issues a rooted far more deeply, insidiously and tenaciously than we might yet be willing to accept.
Poor bastard. Add yet another name to the list of "social justice" crucifixions. At least this poor guy will just lose his job and career, not face actual jail time for his wrongspeak.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Would you agree that where a particular occupation's culture (rather than required skill set) is biased against certain groups that organizations are hardly stomping on anyone's rights to create a workplace culture that minimizes that bias?
For instance, take this essay. This person clearly contributes to a workplace toxic to women. Don't you think Google trying to deal with that toxicity is well within their rights?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I agree. My wife and I have 16 month old fraternal twins. One girl and one boy. We also have two older sons and an older daughter.
The twins are always (due to their age) in the same play environment, wether it be the play room, living room, their bed room, or in the back yard. She gravitates towards dolls, picture books of people, and wants to be held/cuddled a lot. He gravitates towards cars, dump trucks/loaders, blocks, picture books of trucks and construction sites, and only wants to be held if it involves tumbling, tossing, and spinning. This is not to say they don't have significant similarities, however there are also significant differences, especially in how they choose to play when by themselves. As I said, they are always in the same play environment where they can choose for themselves which toys they want.
So from my limited observation, little boys and little girls appear to have different play patterns which then will not surprise me if when they are adults they have different interests.
I've been in tech in some way for almost twenty years now, from programming and IT heavy classes in high school through today. The way I see it, we bred this attitude, and should all have a little compassion for this writer.
In the late 90s and early 2000s, I never heard anyone suggest the all male or nearly all male CS and IT classes I was in were full of sexist men keeping the women out. Just the opposite, I constantly heard they were full of loser boys, women weren't there because they had better ways to spend their time. These guys were nerds, and were on the fringes where they belonged. (The notion that "nerd" and "geek" were positive words was just barely beginning to become a thing.)
Fast forward 15-20 years, and that time they thought they were outcasts? They're now being told that no, quite the opposite, they were being privileged jerks. That whole time they thought they were being ostracized, they were actually gender bullies who now must take responsibility for all the women they've been keeping out of the field. The shift should be enough to make anyone's head spin, but It was a slow burn with no clear demarcation. It's easy to miss. It's not surprising some people who've been in this system feel unhappy, betrayed, angry, or a number of other things.
Twenty years may seem like a long time, but what other profession has changed so fast? "Changing a culture is hard, and it's often uncomfortable." Indeed.
I'm not saying this guy is right. I'm not even saying he's wrong. I'm saying we shouldn't be surprised quite a few of him exist. I'm surprised there aren't a lot more.
It's telling that a conservative was the author of the essay, claiming that men get their positions because they push harder for them instead of competing solely on merits.
The manifesto claims that men have a higher drive for status, that women might not like coding because they have more interest than men in “people and aesthetics”, and that the low number of women in “high stress jobs” is down to them having more “neuroticism”. “We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism,”
So tech isn't a meritocracy. No wonder women are under-represented.
"Conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company."
Higher in conscientiousness? Which is why the republicans used the 7 years that they were saying they wanted to replace Obamacare to come up with a detailed, fully-costed, cheaper alternative that will cover more people. Oh wait - they didn't. They were the polar opposite of conscientious, spending 7 years throwing rocks without proposing an alternative, and when they get the chance - they've got nothing.
Mind you, if conservatives believe that men are genetically better than women to do tech work, and transgender women are really men, they should be in favour of actively recruiting transgender women into tech instead of telling us which bathroom to pee in. Ditto with military service.
So, what about it, all you right-wing guys? Are you going to admit that transsexual women are to be valued in a mature company? Or are you just going to keep being lying cry-babies when your inconsistencies are pointed out?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I've read your response. It is well thought out (considering its goal) and sourced (though sources aren't used, but there are a number of baseless assertions), and very cleverly written, but the ideas it expresses are not reasonable or novel.
The response is meticulously written to keep one's SJW radar close to background noise level. The effort put into this response's stealth is admirable. There are only a few sentences that should send it into yellow alert.
But under this response's matte black, angled surface, it carries a rather primitive payload of authoritative shaming and public posturing. and blanket opposition to the concept of personal preferences. The author makes his argument by attempting to dress these concepts as the lesser evils and the more meritocratic and logical options. It's a great work of underhanded political writing hiding a rather crude and unremarkable argument.
----------
Wow, it's amazing how your critique can work to dismiss pretty much anything, isn't it?
"Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
Yes, that would be a great thing. Unfortunately sociopaths make great managers. They don't give a shit about anyone but themselves, if they could get away with it they'd literally grind people into meat to sell, and that's what the shareholders want: People who have no remorse and would poke kittens' eyes out if it meant more money.
Fix the capitalist system if you want to change this, because nothing short of tossing the whole basis of our economy would possibly accomplish this. Because if you try to "do the right thing" and refuse to hire sociopaths and psychopaths for your management staff, your company will be eaten alive by those companies that do hire them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why is your conclusion, with a sample size of two, that men and women prefer different things rather than you and your wife, as two different people, prefer different things. That is pretty much the textbook definition of prejudice.
How is it a strawman? This is the kind of behavior, that when organizations try to stop it out, gets them accused of being SJW.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I really don't care if there's an ideological echo chamber at Google. I'd guess he's probably right, but if it pisses him off so badly, he doesn't have to work there either.
However, we can't be hypocrites.
If we are ok with Google stomping its ideology into its employees, then we should be equally ok with other ideologues pushing their private causes onto their employees, or inviting them to leave if they don't like it, such as Chik Fil A.
If it's ok for Google, it should be ok for Hobby Lobby, no?
-Styopa
Not just his knees, the whole media is doing this right now with their knees, and the hyperbole is in full swing. Here are a few headline titles I've seen on Google News:
- Dueling Google Memos Reveal a Company Struggling With Culture Change
- Google Employee's Anti-Diversity Manifesto Goes 'Internally Viral'
- Google Engineer writes anti-women essay
Anyways, it's best to just ignore barbarahudson, he's a narcissist who can't stand it when people say something that he doesn't like, up to and including telling you to go to Canada so he can have you arrested for your opinions.
If they guy really believes what he wrote, why doesn't he put his "gender-based superiority" to the test and just go start his own tech biz filled with guys who think like him and make bazillions consulting to all those mature companies he says want guys like him, instead of working for Google?
Google already did. Now that they are huge and rich, they can dabble in this nonsense.