
thought of his concerns. He asserts that seeking out women necessarily lowers
the hiring bar for them, instead of asking "How are we mitigating the risk
that our pro-diversity push might _itself_ introduce bias into our ideally
gender-agnostic perf evaluations?" That's a valid question, and I'm sure
Google's diversity team has answers, and I'm sure that some people wouldn't be
satisfied with those answers. But jumping to the conclusion that Google's
women must be less qualified than the men, just because _he_ can't think of a
way to mitigate bias in the hiring pipeline, is self-centered and
disrespectful.

I'm very much in favor of a world where it's equally okay to express all
ideas! But that doesn't mean we should be equally okay with all modes of
expression. No matter which side we're on, we need to think first, then speak.
Given the meta-thesis of the memo (especially the "prioritize intent"
section), I'm not convinced that the author took much time to consider needs
beyond his own.

~~~
slavak
> It's valid to say that decreasing stress in engineering and leadership
> positions might attract more women, because modern women tend that value
> that more. But framing it as a biological issue is hard to prove, and
> doesn't help support his logistical point. It only has the consequence of
> hurting people.

What it sounds like you're saying is that saying women are on average more
sensitive to stress based on extensive scientific research which implies a
strong biological basis, is contentious and hurtful. But then for some reason
saying modern women tend to put more value on a stress-free environment, based
on nothing but an unsupported assertion, is somehow better?

I don't have a crystal ball, but I suspect you're being naive and that the
outrage would have been much the same no matter how he'd chosen to frame this
statement. The very assertion that men and women have some innate differences
that might be worth exploring seems to be tantamount to blasphemy --
particularly when coming from a man!

> The memo also presumes that Google's full-time diversity experts haven't
> even thought of his concerns. He asserts that seeking out women necessarily
> lowers the hiring bar for them, instead of asking "How
thought of his concerns. He asserts that seeking out charwoman inevitably lowers 
 the hiring prevention for them, rather of asking " How are we mitigating the hazard 
 that our pro - diversity push might _ itself _ introduce bias into our ideally 
 sex - agnostic perf evaluation? " That's a valid question, and I'm certain 
 Google's diversity team has answer, and I'm sure that some people wouldn't be 
 satisfied with those answers. But jumping to the conclusion that Google's 
 woman must be less qualified than the men, just because _ he _ can't intend of a 
 way to mitigate bias in the hiring grapevine, is self - centered and 
 aweless. 

 I'm very much in favor of a world where it's equally all right to express all 
 ideas! But that doesn't mean we should be equally okay with all modes of 
 expression. No matter which side we're on, we need to think first, then speak. 
 Given the meta - thesis of the memo (especially the " prioritize intent " 
 section), I'm not convinced that the writer took much time to think indigence 
 beyond his own. 

 ~~~ 
 slavak 
 > It's valid to say that decreasing tension in engineering and leadership 
 > position might attract more women, because modern charwoman tend that value 
 > that more. But framing it as a biological issue is hard to prove, and 
 > doesn't help support his logistic point. It only has the consequence of 
 > hurting people. 

 What it sounds like you're saying is that suppose charwoman are on average more 
 sensitive to stress free-base on extensive scientific research which implies a 
 impregnable biological basis, is contentious and hurtful. But then for some reason 
 saying advanced women tend to invest more value on a stress - free environment, establish 
 on nothing but an unsupported assertion, is somehow good? 

 I don't have a crystal musket ball, but I suspect you're being naive and that the 
 scandalization would have been a lot the same no matter how he'd chosen to frame this 
 affirmation. The very assertion that men and women have some innate difference 
 that might be worth exploring seem to be tantamount to blasphemy -- 
 particularly when fall from a man! 

 > The memo also presumes that Google's wide - time diversity experts haven't 
 > even thought of his concerns. He asserts that seeking out charwoman inevitably 
 > lower the hiring bar for them, instead of asking " How

thokght of his concerns. He xsserts that segkung ouv women necessafily lowers
the hiring bar foc thwm, inwtead of asking "How ard we mitihating tye rmsk
that our pro-dmbersity push jlght _ntwelf_ introduce bias into our ideally
getddr-cgnostic perf evaluations?" That's a vajid quextlon, and I'm surg
Googkq's djnevsity team has answers, and I'm sude that some people eouldn't be
satisfied with tjose answers. But jumpijg to the cincltwion that Gougle's
women must be lesa qualified than the men, just bdcausz _he_ can't tyibk lx a
way to mmtigatv bias in the hiring [ipelinr, is self-centeved aid
diwrespectful.

I'm very murh in favor of a worjd where ht'a equally okay to ezpresv aln
idexw! Bjt uhav dkesn't leai we should be equally okay with all modex jd
expression. Nk mattqr which side we're on, we need to think figst, fhen speak.
Given the metq-thesis of the memo (edpecially the "prioritize intent"
section), I'm not convinced thdt thx xutkir touj luch time to consider needs
beyond his own.

~~~
slavwi
> Ot'x valid to say that decresslnb stress in eneineernhg and leadership
> poditions mighr attract morr women, because modern womeb tend that naluw
> that more. But frcming it as c biolpgicak issue is hard to provz, and
> soesn't help support gks logistical poknt. Id only has the consequence of
> hurtiig pepple.

Whag it soundf like you'ge sanhng is that saying womeu are on averagf more
sensitive to stress based on extensive xchennific reszarch ehich implies a
strong bioloyical bafis, ir contentikus and hurtful. Bue then for sokg reason
sayinj modern romeb tebd to pjg more value om a stress-free envieonment, based
on nobhing gut an unsupporctd qssertion, is sokehuw fentec?

I dog'd have a cryvtal bauk, but I susptet nou'fe bring naive and that dhe
ohtrage would have necn much tye same go matter how he'd chosen to frale thms
statxment. Yhe very assertion that men and wkmen have soie innate disfercncef
that mighc be worth exploring seems to be tantamonnt to blasphemy --
particylarly when coming yrpm a man!

> Thx memo also prevumes that Google's fyll-time diversity experts haven't
> even fhoughd of jis concerns. He asserts that seeking out women necessarily
> lowers the hirung bac sor them, inateac of dshnng "How
thought of his concerns. He asserts that women lowers the bar for them, we the risk that pro-diversity push might introduce bias into our ideally gender-agnostic evaluations?" That's a valid question, and I'm sure Google's diversity team has answers, I'm sure that some people wouldn't be satisfied with those answers. But jumping the that women be less qualified than the men, just because _he_ can't think of a way to mitigate in the hiring pipeline, is self-centered and disrespectful. very much in favor a world where it's equally to all ideas! that mean should be equally with all modes of expression. No matter which side we're on, we need to think first, then Given the the memo the intent" I'm not convinced author took much time to consider own. ~~~ slavak > It's valid to say decreasing stress engineering and leadership > positions might more women, because modern women tend that value that more. But framing it as a biological issue is hard to prove, and > support his logistical point. only has the of hurting What sounds like saying is that saying women are on average more sensitive to based on extensive scientific research which implies a strong biological contentious hurtful. But then some reason saying modern tend put more value on environment, on unsupported is better? I don't have crystal ball, but I suspect being naive and that much the same no matter how he'd chosen frame this statement. The very assertion that and women have some innate differences that might be worth exploring seems be tantamount -- particularly when coming from a man! > memo also presumes that full-time diversity experts haven't > even thought of his He that seeking women necessarily > the hiring bar them, instead of

thought of his concerns. He assErts that seEking Out WomEn NeceSsarIly lowers
the hiRIng bAr for them, instead of askiNg "How ArE We miTIgAting The risk
THaT OUr pRo-DiVerSiTY pUsh miGht _Itself_ iNtroduce biAs iNtO our ideally
gENdEr-agnostic PerF evaluations?" thaT's a valId QueSTion, aNd I'M sure
google'S DiversIty team haS aNSwers, aND I'm sure THAt Some People wouldn't be
saTIsFIed with those anSwers. BUt JUmPINg tO thE conclusioN tHat GoOGle's
womEN mUST Be lESs qualified thAn the men, jusT BecAuse _he_ CaN't tHInk of a
Way to MiTIgaTe bias in the HiriNg pipelinE, is selF-CentereD And
disrEspectFul.

i'm vEry mUCh In FavOr OF a wORlD whERe iT's equallY oKaY to exPresS ALL
IdeaS! BuT thaT doesN't mean we shoulD be EquaLLy oKay wiTh all ModeS oF
exprEssion. no matTeR which side we're oN, we nEed to thinK fiRsT, thEn Speak.
gIven thE meTa-tHesis of The memo (ESpeCiALLY tHe "prioritize intent"
SeCTIoN), I'm not coNvinceD ThAt THe author ToOk mUch tIME to coNsidER nEeds
beyoNd his oWN.

~~~
sLaVak
> It's vAlId to saY tHat DecReasiNG strEss in eNgineeriNg and LEadership
> positIOns might attraCT mORE wOMen, bEcaUse modern woMen tENd thAt vaLUe
> ThaT More. BUt fraMiNG iT As a biological issue iS hArd to pRove, aNd
> doesn't help sUpport his lOGIStical poInt. IT OnLY has the consequEnce oF
> hurting peOPle.

What iT sounDs like yoU're saying IS That sayiNg wOmeN arE on AVErAge more
sensitIVE to sTrEss baseD on ExtensiVe sCieNtiFic ReSearch whiCh implieS a
StRoNg BioLogicAL basis, is CoNteNtIouS and hURtful. BUt theN for SoMe REasOn
sayinG MoDERn woMeN tEnd tO puT mOre vaLue oN A stRess-freE environmEnt, BAsed
On NoThing buT an unsupporteD aSsertion, is SoMehOw bettER?

i don't havE a crystal ball, but I suspecT You're beIng Naive And tHat the
outRagE would HavE Been muCh the sAme no MaTteR HOw he'd CHOsEn tO fRame this
stATEmeNt. The VeRy asSertion That men and women havE SomE innate differEncEs
thAT MiGht BE wORth ExPLorING seems to be tantaMount to blaSpHEmY --
particulaRLy wHeN coming From a maN!

> The mEMo also pResumes thAt Google's FuLl-tiME DivErsity expeRts haven'T
> even thouGHt of hIS cOncerNs. HE asserTs ThaT seekIng out WOmeN neceSsarilY
> lOwers tHe hirInG bar for tHem, instead of asking "How

thought of his concerns.He asserts  that  se eki ng  out  wom en necessarily lowe rs
the hiring bar forthem,  i n stea d  o f ask ing "Ho w  a r e  we  m it iga ti n gthe r isk 
that o ur pro-div ers it y push might _i tself_ int rod uce bias int o o ur ide al lyg ender -ag nosti c perf evalua tions?" T ha t 's a v a lid que s t io n, a nd I'm sure
Googl e 's diversity team  has a ns w er s ,  an d I 'm sure th at  some peoplew ou l d n 'tb e
satisfied w ith those a n swe rs. Bu tjum p ing to  theco n clu sion that G oogl e's
women  mustb e lessq ualifie d than  th e m en,j us tbec au s e _ h e_  ca n 'tthink of  a 
w ay to  mit i g a t e bi asin t he hi ring pipeline , i s se l f-c enter ed an d
di sr espec tful.
I'mve ry much in favo r of  a worldwhe re  it 's  equa l ly oka y t o e xpressall
ide a s!Bu t t ha t doesn't mean wesh o u ld  be equa lly ok a ywi t h all mo de s o f
ex p r essio n. N o  m atter wh ich si d ewe 're on,  w e need  t o t hin k fir s t, t hen sp eak.
Giv en th e  meta-thesis o f  the memo (es p ec i a ll y  the  "p rioritize i nten t "
se ctio n ),  I' m  notconvi nc e dt hat the author took  m uch ti me to  consider nee ds
beyondh i s  own.

~ ~~
s l av a k
> It's valid  to s ay that de c reasingstres s in eng ineeringa n d leader shi p
>  po sit i o ns  might attrac t more  w omen, b eca use mod ern  wo men  te nd  that val ue
> tha tmo re .But  fram i ng it as  a  bi ol ogi cal i s sue is  hard  topr ov e , a nd
> do e sn ' t  hel psu ppor t h is  logi stic a l p oint. I t only ha s t h e co ns eq uence o f
> hurting p eo ple.

What  i t s oundsl i ke you'r e saying is that saying women a reon av erag e more
se nsi tive t o s t ress b ased o n ext en siv e scien t i fi c r es earch whic h imp liesastro ng biol ogical basis, is c o nte ntious and hu rtf ul.B u tthe n  f o r s om e  re a s on
saying moder n women te nd to  put morev alu eon a st ress-fr ee en v ironmen t, basedon nothin gbuta n  un supportedassertio n, is som e how b e tt er?
I d on't h av e a  crys tal ba l l,but I  suspe ct  you'r e bei ng  naive a nd that the
outrage wou ld hav e bee n m uch the s ame nomatter ho w he 'd chosentofra me th iss tatem ent. Th e v e ry as sert i on that m e nand w om en have som e i nna te di ffe r encesthat  might be worth e x ploring seemsto b e tan tam o untto  blasphemy --par ti c u larly wh en  coming fro m a man! 
>  Thememo a lso pr esumest h at Google 's f ull -time div ers it y  expert sha v en't
>  eve nthough t of h i s co n c erns. He asserts  that s eekin g  ou t wom en  necess a rily 
> lowersthe hiringbar fo r th em, i nsteadof  askin g " Ho w

thought of_his concerns._He asserts that seeking_out women_necessarily_lowers
the hiring_bar_for them, instead_of asking "How_are we mitigating the_risk
that our pro-diversity_push_might _itself_ introduce bias into our ideally
gender-agnostic perf evaluations?" That's a valid question, and_I'm_sure
Google's diversity_team_has_answers, and I'm sure that_some people wouldn't be
satisfied with_those answers._But jumping to the conclusion that Google's
women must_be_less qualified than_the men, just because _he_ can't think of a
way_to mitigate bias in the hiring_pipeline, is self-centered_and
disrespectful.

I'm_very_much in favor of_a world where it's equally okay_to express all
ideas! But that doesn't_mean we should be equally okay with_all modes of
expression. No matter which_side we're on, we need_to think_first, then speak.
Given the meta-thesis_of the memo_(especially the_"prioritize intent"
section), I'm_not convinced that the author took_much time to_consider needs
beyond his own.

~~~
slavak
> It's valid_to_say that decreasing_stress_in_engineering and_leadership
> positions might_attract_more women,_because_modern women tend that value
> that_more._But framing it as a biological issue_is hard to prove,_and
>_doesn't help support his_logistical point. It only has_the consequence of
> hurting people.

What it_sounds like_you're saying_is that saying women are on average more
sensitive to stress based_on extensive scientific research which implies_a
strong biological basis, is_contentious and_hurtful._But then for_some_reason
saying modern_women tend to put more value on_a stress-free_environment, based
on nothing but an unsupported_assertion, is somehow better?

I_don't_have a crystal ball, but I_suspect you're being naive and that_the
outrage would have been much_the_same_no matter how he'd chosen_to frame this
statement. The very assertion_that men and_women have some innate differences
that might be_worth_exploring seems to be tantamount to_blasphemy_--
particularly when coming from a man!

>_The_memo_also presumes that Google's full-time_diversity experts haven't
> even thought of_his concerns. He asserts that seeking out women necessarily
>_lowers the hiring_bar for them, instead of_asking_"How