>Damore said that those differences include women generally having a stronger interest in people rather than things, and tending to be more social, artistic, and prone to neuroticism (a higher-order personality trait)
Imagine thinking that you can literally publish and circulate several revisions of an internal company memo telling 50% of your coworkers that they should be paid less because they're genetically inferior to you in regards to the job and then when people tell you that you're kind of a dick and they want nothing to do with you, getting outraged and making a grandstand about being unfairly and terribly oppressed, while bemoaning of course that people nowadays are "too sensitive".
Sadly, you can find many examples of this amazing exercise in woke coherence right here on HN.
#Edit, since I've been accused of "being ignorant" and not having read the memo by people who clearly haven't read the thing themselves. In a section titled "Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech", wholly dedicated to justifying, among other phenomena, gender pay gap for reasons other than sexist bias, in James Damore's own words:
> Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.
>Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
>Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from 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.
I've not cherry-picked these quotes. There are no omissions, they're whole, untouched paragraphs.
> Imagine thinking that you can literally publish and circulate several revisions of an internal company memo telling 50% of your coworkers that they should be paid less because they're genetically inferior to you in regards to the job
This is an outright fabrication. Nowhere did Damore write that women should be paid less, or that they were genetically inferior at tech. He said that gender differences can explain, in part, difference in preferences between men and women.
Is it sexist to say "hey, maybe 95% of kindergarten teachers are women not because men are discriminated against, but because men don't prefer to work with young kids at the same rate as women due to innate biological reasons."
>This is an outright fabrication. Nowhere did Damore write that women should be paid less, or that they were genetically inferior at tech.
Oh no, he simply stated that women get paid less not because of sexism, but because it's natural, since they genetically lack assertiveness and are worse at leadership positions and negotiating:
>Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.
And certainly he didn't say that women were genetically inferior in high-powered tech jobs! He simply said that they're genetically predisposed to dislike jobs that involve systematizing (such as...tech jobs), and that they're genetically inferior when it comes to handling stressful jobs (which, by pure chance, he happens to exemplify with Googlegeist, a...tech job), since they can't handle stress as well as men do because they're genetically predisposed to anxiety and neuroticism:
>Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing). (...) More men may like coding because it requires systemizing.
>Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist
I don't even know why I bother. I regret getting into this argument. Believe what you like; as long as you see movements for social improvement as some kind of personal accusation, it's what you'll do anyway. Yes, women in tech are not discriminated against, or if they are, it's either exaggerated or there's a reasonable explanation for it. Whatever, downvote away.
> Oh no, he simply stated that women get paid less not because of sexism, but because it's natural, since they genetically lack assertiveness and are worse at leadership positions and negotiating
Closer to reality, but you're still injecting your own narrative here. He did not say that women are worse at negotiating. He said that Google rewards assertiveness rather than agreeableness in it's negotiations, and because women are on average more agreeable this disadvantages women. And later, he suggested that Google should make it's environment more rewarding of agreeableness to make things fairer for women.
How people made the jump from this to, "women are genetically inferior at tech" is astounding to me.
On a section dedicated to offering alternative explanations to sexism for the gender gap in tech, James writes:
>Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.
>Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
The implication is that it's partly natural that women do worse and get lower salaries at tech. In case there's any adoubt, the section it's written in is titled "Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech", in the subsection "Personality differences".
No, it's not there, it's on the memo itself, in his own words, in a section literally titled "Non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech" if you'd like a more reliable source than Wikipedia.
>Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.
Do you see it? The part where he says women are genetically worse leaders, and have worse salaries because they're genetically worse negotiators? Remember, the section is titled "Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech", implying that women are paid less because it's natural, not because of sexist bias.
At any rate, I appreciate the patronizing "making well meaning but confused leaps of logic" pat in the head.
No, it does not say that women should be paid less than men. It says that just because there are differences in average pay between men and women there isn't necessarily discrimination. And he offers suggestions to help close this gap later on in the memo.
Yes, your are making an unsubstantiated leap from what was actually written to claiming that Damore write that his female coworkers should be paid less than men for the same work.
He said it was a possible explanation, not that it was necessarily true or that the current situation is fair. The memo was a response to the very common fallacy "Women are underrepresented in X, this is proof that women are discriminated against".
Statistics are all we have to go on in this regard, and they are in Damore's favor.
The truth is not bigoted.
"White men can't jump" is generally true.
Personality traits are like most things on a spectrum, and women tend to have less of the traits which have until now been perceived to be necessary for "negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading"
Your characterization of things makes it sound like you only read headlines and never the memo. Which is fine I guess, but it seems silly to have such strong opinions about something without looking into it at all.
> Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.
Yes, that does say that women are genetically worse leaders and implies that their lower salaries are at least in part because they are naturally worse negotiators.
The whole section it's written on is focused on explaining how sexism is mostly a exaggeration and that sex differences can instead be explained by genetic factors. Any more questions?
> Yes, that does say that women are genetically worse leaders and implies that their lower salaries are at least in part because they are naturally worse negotiators.
No it does not. It says that women are more agreeable and less assertive, on average. And because Google rewards assertiveness, this means women have a harder time negotiating salaries at Google. In a workplace the prioritizes agreeableness over assertiveness, women would be at an advantage. And later in the memo he says Google should better reward agreeableness.
It does not claim "women are genetically worse leaders". This is a fabrication.
>No it does not. It says that women are more agreeable and less assertive, on average.
Please, PLEASE look up the definition of 'discrimination' in any dictionary you like, and tell me if you really believe that saying 'women are more agreeable and less assertive, on average' does not fit the definition, or that James Damore's many characterizations of women on his memo ("higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance", "women generally have a harder time leading") don't, either. If that's the case, we are simply not going to agree with each other, so we shouldn't waste our time trying.
No, it does not fit the definition of discrimination. For example, saying men are on average more violent than women is not discrimination either - it's fact.
Yes: the claims James Damore makes are cold, hard facts based on the many, many studies and statistics available on, for example, women's assertiveness (which is genetically and biologically quantifiable), that he carefully reviewed and contrasted in order to form an opinion. As such, they are facts, which do not fit the definition of discriminatory.
In order to be discriminatory, they would have to be broad, ignorant statements based on personal anecdote and prejudice that he pulled out of his ass right before adding 'on average' at the end of the phrase; since they are not that in any way, but carefully researched, unbiased observations, they do not fit the definition of discriminatory.
Now that you've explained to me what facts are, I finally understand James' logic, so please consider this argument won.
What happened to James, who simply circulated a fact-based memo telling half of his coworkers that they need special rules to make things fair since they're at least partly genetically inferior when it comes to the job, was yet another gratuitous act of SJW, PC, fact-censoring repression against one of society's most silenced and powerless collectives: top-salaried, Ivy League educated young white males working at the top companies of male-dominated high growth industries in the largest economy on the planet, like so many others we sadly see so often here on HN.
It's time we finally took a stand on these issues.
> In order to be discriminatory, they would have to be broad, ignorant statements based on personal anecdote and prejudice that he pulled out of his ass right before adding 'on average' at the end of the phrase; since they are not that in any way, but carefully researched, unbiased observations, they do not fit the definition of discriminatory.
If you think that there is no difference between saying people who belong to a certain group are more or less X on average, and saying that individual members of that group are X then I really cannot help you. This is just patently wrong. There's nothing sexist about saying "men on average commit rape 50 times more than women". That's fact. If you told a man, "you're a rapist" because of mere fact that he is a man, then yes that is prejudice.
He didn't just add the word "on average" at the end. He explicitly pointed out that conflating population wide averages and individual characteristics is wrong:
> 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.
I'll keep it simple, so that you can't keep obtusely ignoring it: there are stats on rape. So they are fact. There are no stats on "women's assertiveness". So they are not fact.
Yes there are and he cited them in his memo. And the studies have been replicated in studies that draw participants from as many as 51 countries and find similar results across different cultures [1].
If you think his presentation of this data is ineffective, then the productive thing to do is offer a reasoned refutation. Not exaggerate (to be generous, I'm more inclined to call these fabrications) and write that he claimed "women are genetically worse leaders" and "naturally worse negotiators."
Saying "Women do on average have more of trait X" is sexism, not discrimination. Discrimination would be if you said something like "We shouldn't hire women since they have trait X" or "Since women often have trait X they need to score higher in other areas for me to hire them" or "I always make sure that women don't have trait X before hiring them".
So for example "I want to hire people who don't have trait X. I give an objective test for this. More men than women pass it. Studies have shown that more men than women pass this globally, so it is as expected. Therefore, due to this test, the people I hire tend to be more men than women." is not discrimination.
Enough. Just believe what you want, I give up. There's no sexism on the tech industry or schools. James Damore is right and is an oppressed victim of his own bravery. Whatever.
Damore advocated for neither prejudice nor discrimination. He explicitly stated that people should not assume that differences in averages should be applied at an individual level. And not only did he not advocate for discrimination, he advocated for Google to eliminate it's discriminatory practices.
>1. prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment
Hm. Let's check out the definition of sexism again.
>1. prejudice or discrimination based on sex
Prejudice or discrimination. And discrimination also means prejudiced or prejudicial...since I'm not a tech person like yourself I wouldn't know what 'or' means, it's too complicated for me, but I think I do know what 'and' means: for example, you are wrong about your definition of sexism, and about your definition of discrimination, and about your use of 'or'.
This is great, I love learning new tech concepts on tech forums from tech experts.
The second is unacceptable if it happened as told. I don't know what to think of the first point without context. The third point seems like an innocent joke to me, if slightly inappropriate.
I don't mean to defend him from any kind it accusation, but all of this is meaningless without full context and hearing the story from both sides.
Hence "if it happened as told". These kinds of allegations are tough because while these things do happen, they're also strong enough allegations that they require serious proof, while also being essentially unprovable. I never know how to feel when something like this comes up since on the one hand I don't want to discourage victims from speaking up, but on the other hand, no good ever comes from them.
> harsh, impolite, unempathetic, creepy or whatever BS they are throwing now at RMS.
He has been accused, by several independent parties, of, among other things:
-Asking female coworkers to lay down topless on a mattress in his office.
-Threatening a colleague to kill himself if he/she didn't go on a date with him.
-Posting up signs in his workplace along the lines of "Knight for Justice (Also: Hot Ladies)".
Do you think that reprieving someone for threatening a colleague to kill yourself if they don't give in to your romantic/sexual advances is "throwing BS"? It's an honest question.
I see no dates, names, details or basically anything of substance relating to the suicide threat story. It seems to just be one of those sourceless rumours that get passed around as gospel.
Note in particular that the commentator does not say they saw this or even that someone who saw it told them. You're just hearing a rumour this person heard at MIT.
Can you detail, without strawmen or anecdotes, the thought process by which you equate asking to use gender neutral pronouns, or discussing the possibility of it, with "attacks"?
Can you provide some examples that prove the existence a common pattern in the software development industry of people being "screamed at", "threatened", and "drummed out of their jobs" for not using gender neutral pronouns, please?
I'm more than ready to agree with you if you can.
I would also like to know, if you don't mind, what you consider to be good reason to "refuse to comply" with addressing someone in a way they prefer to be addressed, by using a three-letter word instead of another three-letter word.
> Asking female coworkers to lay down topless on a mattress in his office.
Even the initial accusation doesn't try to push the story that far:
"He literally used to have a mattress on the floor of his office. [..] (the mattress was also known to have shirtless people lounging on it…)"
Person has sleeping accommodation in place where he lives (odd thought it may be). Sometimes people use it as chair. No mentions of requests or toplessness.
> -Threatening a colleague to kill himself if he/she didn't go on a date with him.
Unsubstantiated: saying something like "I can't imagine life without you" can be interpreted just like that depending on a variety of circumstances. That was also decades ago.
> Posting up signs in his workplace along the lines of "Knight for Justice (Also: Hot Ladies)".
Really now? Incidentally also the only one of your accusations of which there is evidence instead of hearsay or urban legends. Furthermore, "a sign" not "signs".
How excellent of you to redact the most damning part of your quote of the initial accusation, that literally says:
> He kept the door to his office open, to proudly showcase that mattress and all the implications that went with it. Many female students avoided the corridor with his office for that reason
Now go ahead and tell me it's a coincidence you kept that part out, and it was probably not a big deal, and they were all exaggerating in some inexplicable coordinated effort to be disturbed.
So your arguments basically consist on half-quotes, "it happened long ago, so it isn't true", "unsubstantiated; since there's no recordings of it, he probably just said something nice and was misinterpreted yet again" and "maybe that happened, but since I, a man, who'd never be targeted by his sexual advances, think it's ok, it's ok", completely disregarding the fact that all these accusations have been corroborated by witnesses, ranging from people interviewed on several media and dozens of reports and online comments from people who claim to have worked with him over the years, let alone the several unrelated victims of his "urban legends", and most of all, the fact that people repeatedly let him know about his attitude and he didn't give a damn.
In short, yet another big, somehow coordinated witch hunt by overly sensitive SJWs.
I've been in grad school offices that had cots or bean bags in them. Is the contention in here he explicitly said that "people fuck me in my office" or something as coarse as that? Tbh, the only purpose those beds served was for people to rest on them during late nights working. Now, the issue of course why they need to spend so many late nights at the university working, but that's besides the point.
Btw, you seem to be citing something. Could you share it here?
Sure. There are plenty of first-hand accounts of his behavior, a quick Google search will lead you to many.
Here's a link to one I've most recently run into from someone who worked at MIT. Yes, it's a Reddit comment, but if you check out his profile you'll see the user's been on the site for 11 years, has close to 140k karma, and has many posts in the past that refer to his professional career.
>A lot of people are acting like this is just about the Epstein comments. The MIT community was up in arms not just over that but at the mountain of shit Stallman has gotten away with over the last few decades, including crap like telling female researchers he'd kill himself unless they dated him, keeping a mattress in his office and inviting people to lay topless on it, defending pedophilia and child rape. He's been making women at MIT uncomfortable for years
>I wish there were more to tell but it's exactly what it sounds like. He had a mattress in the corner of his office and he'd leave the door open and if you were a woman who happened to walk by or heaven forbid need to talk to him for academic reasons he would find an excuse to invite you to use it
You'll also find other similar stories on that thread.
Of course that's not a coincidence, hence the ellipses of omission. I left out the bits that weren't factual. Even then your "Asking female coworkers to lay down topless on a mattress in his office" comes out of nowhere.
"He kept the door open to proudly showcase" could have easily been "He kept to door shut to hide his actions", that is: both cases would be equally damning from the writer's perspective, and hinges only on their "implications that went with it" which are their invention alone.
Facts remaining, he had a mattress in his office. He left his door open. Sometimes people were sitting on the bed.
> "it happened long ago, so it isn't true"
No. It happened a long time ago. People, over time, remember the emotional impact of something on them, but no longer the precise wording. She remembers the gist of someone talking about suicide, because that's what she thought he meant. Without the exact wording and cirumstances, it can be very difficult to figure out what transpired. So it's not "it isn't true" or "she must be lying", but the account is unsubstantiated, likely irretrievably so, because "it happened a long time ago."
> completely disregarding the fact
I don't disregard them, I check them one by one, and so far I found them lacking.
Why are you angry at me for reading what other people said before believing them at face value?
> that all these accusations have been corroborated by witnesses, ranging from people interviewed on several media and dozens of reports and online comments from people who claim to have worked with him over the years, let alone the several unrelated victims of his "urban legends", and most of all, the fact that people repeatedly let him know about his attitude and he didn't give a damn.
Please provide links outside of twitter. So far most accusations lead back to the initial article on medium by Salem G.
> In short, yet another big, somehow coordinated witch hunt by overly sensitive SJWs.
I don't know, and frankly, I don't care. I read the allegations, try to find the various sources, and try to put them into a logical context. I guess I'm simply a Knight for Justice (also: old weirdos)
>You are part of the same system that vilifies assault / harassment victims
"I'm out of arguments, so you're just a ..."
Please don't do that.
>by saying accusations are "too old" / "he / she isn't remembering correctly".
It's been nearly a week now. That's a long time for people to come forward with police reports, official complaints, etc. So far there is "Knight for Justice (also: hot ladies)", and, "I hear people have spider plants in their offices to keep him away."
>You have the gall to call anyone who does care SJWs,
I do? Feel free to quote my stuff back at me. I know you won't, because you can't, so you resort to making stuff up about things you hope I would have said.
Please don't make stuff up, it's all there for you to read.
>I guess I didn't expect anything more from you.
I'm sorry if I disappointed you. But I can only start caring the moment someone presents me with something substantial to care about.
You are aware that the St. IGNUcius bit is a spoof on dogmatic religion, right?
Maybe that offends you as a religious person, but it's hardly fair to hold that against Stallman whose audiences are usually mainly fellow atheists, or religious people who can tolerate being the subject of a bit of light satire.
You both have been breaking the site guidelines. Please stop, and please avoid this sort of spat on HN in the future, regardless of how right you are or feel, or how wrong the other person is.
You both have been breaking the site guidelines. Please stop, and please avoid this sort of spat on HN in the future, regardless of how right you are or feel, or how wrong the other person is.
Again, please read what I wrote. I'm starting to doubt you are providing an argument in good faith here as you are constantly generalising.
If some religious members of an audience, who are very serious about their faith, go to see a known outspoken atheist, maybe that wasn't the best idea. As far as I know the St. IGNUcius skit is fairly well received in general.
I don't care about religion. I care about alienating women. The 'virgin girl' bit is clearly gratuitous and peddles gender stereotypes about men in CS.
> You get to decide how much time is enough to exonerate someone of all accusations i.e. 1 week
Not at all. Again, something I didn't say or imply. Please make an effort to read what I write, not what you think I wrote (e.g. "That's a long time", empatically not: "That's enough time"). If something substantial comes up at a later time, I will make sure to critically read it.
> You say that other accusations are "too old"
I said that one specific accusation is probably too old to retrieve the exact words and circumstances, and as such can be considered unsubstantiated.
> this is precisely why victims are afraid to come forward in every such case.
What case(s) are you referring to? To put it differently: what, exactly, do you think Stallman is "getting away" with here? And why do you think he's getting away with it?
> No one takes them seriously and in fact vilifies them more than the alleged perpetrator.
That is of course very regrettable, but again, how does Stallman fit in here? You can't just take a person you obviously dislike, ascribe various characteristics and motivations to them, and then rile against that.
> Have fun being a "Knight of RMS", defend him on his most egregious qualities.
I'm not having "fun", and I don't see why you would assume that. I find the whole situation very regrettable.
Can you explain, in general, how armies and war are ethically relevant to Richard Stallman threatening coworkers to kill himself if they don't go on dates with him, or asking them to lay down topless on a mattress in his office?
> Where is the crime here?
The analogy is between a good thing not cancelling out a bad thing. The police are not involved. There isn't a crime. He has been pressured for making people very uncomfortable in pursuit of his sexual interests, which is a perfectly good reason to reprieve someone.
He has been accused, by several independent parties, of, among other things:
-Asking female coworkers to lay down topless on a mattress in his office.
-Threatening a colleague to kill himself if he/she didn't go on a date with him.
-Posting up signs in his workplace along the lines of "Knight for Justice (Also: Hot Ladies)".
> He has been accused, by several independent parties, of, among other things:
Who, exactly?
> -Asking female coworkers to lay down topless on a mattress in his office.
> -Threatening a colleague to kill himself if he/she didn't go on a date with him.
Sooooo, your entire analysis is based on legends circulating since the 90s about a weird man who was even told to be scared by plants?
For reference, Thomas Lord, creator of GNU arch (think about Git before Git), who worked for FSF for a long time said
One remarkable thing about the FSF at that time, when we worked out of dinky spare offices on the campus of MIT, was the degree of participation by women. In the tiny society that was then the FSF, women were more prominent than I had seen in Silicon Valley, or acadamia prior.
p.s.: In the closet-sized "office" Bushnell, McGrath, and I shared for a time we did have some spider plants as part of a running silly joke. They did not actually scare RMS away **OF COURSE** and he usually had helpful criticism and advice of our efforts, from my point of view.
> -Posting up signs in his workplace along the lines of "Knight for Justice (Also: Hot Ladies)".
Can you tell an inside joke when you see one?
p.s. all of us have being young and done some innocent stupid shit, the kinds young people do, like having stupid signs on the door. It doesn't make any of us a criminal.
> your narrative of sexism in the software industry being a mostly made-up issue
Is this what this is all about? Stallman has approximately 0 sway in the "software industry".
I'm sure it is a real problem, but Stallman is neither the cause nor the solution to it. I would look into how paying high salaries for unethical work would attract abusive people, and one shouldn't want to work in those industries in the first place.
Do you mean to say that your analogy is relevant to the claims against RMS being partly or completely dismissed as a "necessary evil" comparable to shooting a person who's on a killing spree, when weighted against his contributions?
I'm just asking. I got that feeling reading your comment. I get that feeling reading a lot of comments here. I could be wrong.
As a reminder, he has been accused, by several independent parties, of, among other things:
-Asking female coworkers to lay down topless on a mattress in his office.
-Threatening a colleague to kill himself if he/she didn't go on a date with him.
-Posting up signs in his workplace along the lines of "Knight for Justice (Also: Hot Ladies)".
Not to be picky, because to be honest I completely believe that what you say is plausible, but that's a lot of outrageous claims with very little in the way of examples or evidence.
I second your statement about Google Docs. I find it amazing that they don't put a bigger focus on performance. We're talking about tools that are essentially about being productive!
Any Google Docs product feels incredibly sluggish, and I feel this trend lately even in Gmail or Google Keep. It just constantly feels like those old-school fat clients constantly hiccupping because of a slow server.
>Damore said that those differences include women generally having a stronger interest in people rather than things, and tending to be more social, artistic, and prone to neuroticism (a higher-order personality trait)
Imagine thinking that you can literally publish and circulate several revisions of an internal company memo telling 50% of your coworkers that they should be paid less because they're genetically inferior to you in regards to the job and then when people tell you that you're kind of a dick and they want nothing to do with you, getting outraged and making a grandstand about being unfairly and terribly oppressed, while bemoaning of course that people nowadays are "too sensitive".
Sadly, you can find many examples of this amazing exercise in woke coherence right here on HN.
#Edit, since I've been accused of "being ignorant" and not having read the memo by people who clearly haven't read the thing themselves. In a section titled "Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech", wholly dedicated to justifying, among other phenomena, gender pay gap for reasons other than sexist bias, in James Damore's own words:
> Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.
>Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
>Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from 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.
I've not cherry-picked these quotes. There are no omissions, they're whole, untouched paragraphs.