Ask a Female Engineer: Thoughts on the Google Memo

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.

I'd actually say just the opposite - the memo seemed to be written as well and in as conciliatory manner as it could be written and the memo made good (or at least plausible) point and bad points. But the bad points were so bad that it was appropriate and necessary to fire Damore.

Essentially, as analogy, there's no way for a person to say "Black people are inferior and shouldn't be hired", as a message broadcast through their entire workplace, and not have that person be creating a hostile work environment for African Americans. If that person says "I don't mean in general, I mean inferior just for this occupation, I don't mean inferior, just 'differently talented, they've got great rhythm'", it doesn't matter, if that person says "here's a study which says this, we should consider this in an open minded fashion" it doesn't matter. The message is unacceptable. That person is done, that person should be done.

"Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems."

This is conciliatory to you? Implying that the opposing side is blind to the truth and such blindness is preventing them from actually solving problems? Because to me this comes across as hostile and condescending.

So, you're saying that all differences are either "socially constructed or due to discrimination?"

No. Note that my post makes no argument as to whether the claim "all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination" is accurate or not. I could have left that part out, but didn't want to only quote half a sentence.

My only point was that the sentence, as written, was hostile and condescending and does not represent a conciliatory approach to conversation.

you were opposing "not all ..." as a construct that was hostile and condescending.

I don't think that cherry picking one line out of a 10 page document with significant number of disclaimers, and which was originally presented in a way and desire to evolve and gather opinions represents the overall intent and tone of the document.

You might view it as cherry picking (even though it's not the only line in the memo written with a condescending tone), but to me it is a big clue that the memo was not written in good faith to solicit discussion, but rather to push a pre-conceived agenda. As one of the interviewees says in the original article:

There’s a difference between “let’s have a discussion” and “let me tell you what’s up, all you wrong people.”

there are plenty of left-leaning memos and examples that show similar tone towards right-leaning and/or conservative or libertarian thinking. That doesn't imply not being open to discussion so much as showing one's bias. There's definitely a matter of levels to one's opinion, experience and yes, some level of conflict.

When going into a situation where you've been at the back hand of such bias, specifically in a workplace, it's often hard not to show at least some condescension. Look at any number of public feminist actions and statements, for example.