←back to thread

Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

(blog.ycombinator.com)
1080 points cbcowans | 5 comments | 15 Aug 17 19:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.917s | source
Show context
hedgew ◴[15 Aug 17 19:57 UTC] No.15021772[source]▶
Many of the more reasonable criticisms of the memo say that it wasn't written well enough; it could've been more considerate, it should have used better language, or better presentation. In this particular link, Scott Alexander is used as an example of better writing, and he certainly is one of the best and most persuasive modern writers I've found. However, I can not imagine ever matching his talent and output, even if I practiced for years to try and catch up.

I do not think that anyone's ability to write should disbar them from discussion. We can not expect perfection from others. Instead we should try to understand them as human beings, and interpret them with generosity and kindness.

replies(31): >>15021858 #>>15021871 #>>15021893 #>>15021907 #>>15021914 #>>15021963 #>>15021998 #>>15022264 #>>15022369 #>>15022372 #>>15022389 #>>15022448 #>>15022883 #>>15022898 #>>15022932 #>>15022997 #>>15023149 #>>15023177 #>>15023435 #>>15023742 #>>15023755 #>>15023819 #>>15023909 #>>15024938 #>>15025044 #>>15025144 #>>15025251 #>>15026052 #>>15026111 #>>15027621 #>>15028052 #
ianmiers ◴[15 Aug 17 21:37 UTC] No.15022883[source]▶
It's not the quality, it's the intent. He went for an adversarial debate, not a discussion.

The memo reads as him knowingly and intentionally starting a fight. My assumption, from reading the memo, was that he was expressing an opinion he knew to be controversial, knew would upset people, but wanted to make a point of proving he was right anyway in the face of those upset people. It reads a lot like the vaguely provocative way people write about such things on twitter/reddit/here.

In a work environment, that approach can and will get you fired. It should cause you career problems even if you do it for mundane things like type theory, or memory management, or distributed systems. Do it on something controversial and cause a huge problem for the company, and of course they are going to fire you. Especially since in this context adversarial = hostile work environment.

replies(2): >>15022954 #>>15023017 #
1. jshevek ◴[15 Aug 17 21:51 UTC] No.15023017[source]▶
I don't get any of that from the memo. Neither did the woman developer who made me aware of it's existence. She marveled at the media response, saying she found nothing provocative or adversarial about the memo.
replies(2): >>15023134 #>>15028195 #
2. ianmiers ◴[15 Aug 17 22:06 UTC] No.15023134[source]▶
Many people did though.

See for example "Edith's" point in the linked article "Edith: There’s a difference between “let’s have a discussion” and “let me tell you what’s up, all you wrong people.”"

To me, it's really hard not to imagine the author being the type of person who would have a "I'm an Atheist, debate me" shirt. It's written in that style.

Beyond that I don't really know what to say. Technical discussions unfortunately frequently end up this way too, so maybe its easy to get used to it. But its counter-productive.

And note, I'm suggesting why it pissed people off at google and should have got him fired. It isn't an explanation of the media reaction per-say because in the context of a public discussion there is no precept that you are cooperating with people (unlike your co-workers) and your audience isn't going to repeatedly interact with you. So adversarial arguments are common and generally accepted. It would have been fine as an op-ed in a news paper (though IMHO doesn't make the quality bar). Its not in a discussion with co workers.

replies(1): >>15024308 #
3. rpiguy ◴[16 Aug 17 01:32 UTC] No.15024308[source]▶
Many people initially responded angrily because it was reported on by the media as an anti-diversity memo and purposely mischaracterized Damore's intentions. Also the versions initially published had all citations removed making it look like he was just pontificating.
replies(1): >>15024976 #
4. ◴[16 Aug 17 04:43 UTC] No.15024976{3}[source]▶
5. mindways ◴[16 Aug 17 15:24 UTC] No.15028195[source]▶
I don't get any of that from the memo. Neither did the woman developer who made me aware of it's existence.

If we're going with anecdote, the memo sure read as a hostile dropped-bombshell to every female Googler I've talked to on the subject.

Regardless of whether it was the author's intent to do harm, or to be antagonistic, he absolutely did - both to individuals and the company as a whole.