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."
Talk about a useless position.
Includes what is purported to be an internal survey at Google:
http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2017...
Those that are criticizing the essay seem to be missing the points it makes. Primary among them is that males and females have different interests and therefore tend to pursue different careers which could account for a lot of the so-called gender gaps in the tech sector. And the author is right, there are relationships between personality traits and political leanings. Jordan Peterson has written a lot about this and his YouTube videos are well worth watching. He makes the case that the notion of equity or equality of outcome in all sectors is a dangerous one. It doesn't mean females can't be good engineers, rather than few females might be going into engineering cause they have different interests and hiring so you always have 50% male and 50% female may not lead to the best outcomes.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
One point where the author is spot on is the overwhelming efforts to silence any other viewpoints. Loom no further than the response to this memo. On twitter, a prominent tech entrepreneur said he thinks the real problem isn't the memo's content but that the author thought it was okay to share it at a place like Google. Isn't that exactly the point the author makes?
I also found interesting his point about how we feel differently about seeking 50-50 gender representation in manual labor occupations and work related deaths.
These topics are worthy of discussion. The "we must get girls to code" push always seemed worthy of skepticism. But there is no real debate in this area, and raising questions gets you labeled unfairly and possibly fired.
One thing is for sure: this guy's career is over. He will be doxxed by some news org who apparently does remember how to do investigative journalism when it comes to random civilians expressing a politically incorrect opinion. And the pitchforks will come out from the SJWs and no company -- certainly google -- wants to get mixed up in that PR nightmare. Game over, bro. Hope it was worth it.
Excellent example. I do not even remember gender ever coming up in the systemd "debate" (well, more "train-wreck"), except as a completely made-up accusation against its enemies. Of course, if you want to discredit somebody, even the most basic propaganda manual states to associate them with anything that is deemed unacceptable in society. For example, say, in Germany around 70 years ago, it would have been stated that "the Jews" were against systemd, with about as much validity to it. Or in the US a bit later, it would have been "the communists".
I do know a few pretty good women scientists and engineers. I respect them. I recently encouraged my employer to hire one of them. I also think that systemd is an engineering abomination and that the community has dropped the ball there to an extreme degree.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
This stuff has gotten so silly at this point that it's hardly even worth attacking anymore. It would be pure comic gold if it weren't so Orwellian and real people weren't losing their jobs and even facing actual jail time over this insane bullshit.
I just hope the people who designed the bridge I drive over every day didn't think that "engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers."
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I read that as "Sunday night porn!", does that mean anything?
It means you need glasses. I'm afraid to guess why.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
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.
What annoys me is that tech is not that bad for women. Sure, there are pockets of harassment, and even some really bad things happen, but that's everywhere.
If you really want to make a difference in how women are treated, look at sales. Utterly harassing towards women. Look at bankers! Look at doctors. Inappropriate advances by men having more power? It's there! While people in the tech industry complain about dongle jokes, the building/developer industry is actually groping women. Our president is!
Compared to all those communities, programmers are basically saints. The focus is in the wrong area.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Well, then I hope at least one person on that team realized that engineering also involves things like mathematics, metallurgy, wind resonance, modeling, etc.--not just feelings.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It's worth talking about precisely because people are losing their jobs or facing other consequences.
I just hope the people who designed the bridge I drive over every day didn't think that "engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers."
I sure hope they did! I am an engineer, electronic and software, and a bit of mechanical stuff. Cooperation and collaboration are key to building a good, reliable product because when they break down is when mistakes happen. The wrong material gets used, the contractor building the thing doesn't understand what is required for structural integrity etc.
That's exactly what happened with the infamous Hyatt Regency walkway.
As for empathy, I find it much easier to deal with other human beings, from explaining complex ideas to them (something essential for engineers) to getting them to do what I want and work well with me if I can understand their mindset and how they view things.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Speaking for structural engineers, that's college stuff. EVERYBODY on the team knows it. Budgets, schedules, coordination of six contractors, placating government inspectors...that's the "project management" piece, which is adult-hard. And women are often better at.
It doesn't matter if the design is correct if the rebar isn't inspected correctly because the site engineer had a shouting match with the inspection company foreman. Because he was a dick.
Speaking for structural engineers, that's college stuff. EVERYBODY on the team knows it. Budgets, schedules, coordination of six contractors, placating government inspectors...that's the "project management" piece, which is adult-hard. And women are often better at.
Why the flying fuck is it not sexist and dismissive to say women are better at something than men, but if you say men are better at some things than women, you risk losing your job and dozens of news outlets tear apart your reasoning?
The hypocrisy and indoctrination is at levels the Catholic church would be proud of.
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.