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 agree that we need to treat James as a human being who is allowed to be flawed, but there's something to be said about why he added the biology component to his argument that wasn't necessary and simply distracted from the core argument. I would simply say that if he had cut that portion out, the conversation that is happening right now might become more productive and focused on hiring practices outside of Google.

While I do agree that sometimes these new practices fail, it has done more good for organizations implementing similar practices than bad.

Speaking as a minority engineer, I don't like the fact that I have to constantly prove myself just to have people then assume that my beyond-the-norm performance is simply middling for my ethnicity; I've had to eat a lot of crow, but I take solace in the fact that others are able to come on-board because of these moments where you take the hits.

I don't known if I'm being clear, I empathize with Edith and all about having to "overcome the bias that we were hired based other factors beside our skills" and I wish there was a better way but I feel like there is some cultural requirement that we have to bear the burden for the people who come after.

> there's something to be said about why he added the biology component to his argument that wasn't necessary and simply distracted from the core argument. I would simply say that if he had cut that portion out, the conversation that is happening right now might become more productive and focused on hiring practices outside of Google.

I'm not sure I agree. First of all, the article by Scott Alexander referenced in this post makes mostly the same arguments, and the post praises its content for being better presented. I can't tell much of a difference in presentation; certainly not one that justifies praise for Alexander and crucifixion for Damore. Secondly, 99% of Damore's critics are outraged about things he never remotely said; it was only after their accusations were thoroughly debunked that they shifted their criticism to his presentation. I seriously doubt any of the outrage is sincere; it seems far more likely that Damore made a suitable target for folks projecting their insecurities or even their legitimate victim experiences.