Reply to post: Re: This Article

Your top five dreadful people the Google manifesto has pulled out of the woodwork

Ogi

Re: This Article

Thank you for taking the time to write this.

Honestly, this article on the reg reads like a propaganda hit piece, going off into a list of people the author doesn't like.

Did the author actually read the memo, or just assumed based on what they heard from other reports the memo actually contained?

For example, here are some extracts from the memo, and I quote:

(page 3)

I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

(page 8)

Suggestions:

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

I sure didn't read that as:

But that also ignores the fundamental fact that Damore literally argued that women were biologically unsuitable to do certain types of jobs.

as the author contents. It sounds to me like a guy who wants to have a rational debate about the situation, he isn't name calling, he isn't saying "Women can't code and should have babies and sit in the kitchen all their life", or that everything is pure black and white (in fact he says the exact opposite in the memo). He made his position clear and backed it up with evidence.

You may not like what he says, you may not agree with what he says, but the answer is to challenge the message, and debate it. If your counter arguments/evidence are strong enough, you will be be victorious, that is how debates work. You do not insult and attack the messenger. So far all I have seen in response to this memo is horrid attacks on the person, not the message.

To me, a neutral third party, that makes me think that the other party in this debate does not have any decent counter arguments, so have resolved to use character assassination of the messenger, in the hope if they discredit the author enough, people won't read or pay attention to the memo.

The way I read it, his key point is mentioned in this quote:

I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

That to me seems like a perfectly valid position to hold, I now await a reasoned counter argument against it. So far I have been let down.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019