"To be a woman in tech is also to always and forever be faced with skepticism that I do and feel all those things authentically enough to truly belong."
Isn't it even re-enforced by affirmative actions though? That's kind of exactly what is mentioned in this memo. Such programs hurt women/minorities since there is this suspicion that they're only in the room for a quota.
It's like a person brand new to the job - you don't know their skills yet. After a few months one's co-workers should see those skills in action enough that the suspicion disappears. And after a few years the worker will hopefully develop enough that they can demonstrate their competency to pretty much anyone.
And ultimately the person will be enjoying their career, which makes most other considerations irrelevant.
It's not as if outsiders to a job have the ability to accurately evaluate the person doing the job. A company can't be held responsible for someone else's Dunning-Kruger effect.
"It is striking to me that the manifesto author repeatedly lists race alongside gender when listing programs and preferences he thinks should be done away with, but, unlike gender, he never purports to have any scientific backing for this. The omission is telling. Would defenders of the memo still be comfortable if the author had casually summarized race and IQ studies to argue that purported biological differences — not discrimination or unequal access to education — explained Google’s shortage of African-American programmers?"
I reacted to the one mention of IQ in the memo, which seems extremely suspect:
"Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences)"
5 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 13.1 ms ] threadIsn't it even re-enforced by affirmative actions though? That's kind of exactly what is mentioned in this memo. Such programs hurt women/minorities since there is this suspicion that they're only in the room for a quota.
Point 4 is interesting.
And ultimately the person will be enjoying their career, which makes most other considerations irrelevant.
It's not as if outsiders to a job have the ability to accurately evaluate the person doing the job. A company can't be held responsible for someone else's Dunning-Kruger effect.
One note. Under point 4:
"It is striking to me that the manifesto author repeatedly lists race alongside gender when listing programs and preferences he thinks should be done away with, but, unlike gender, he never purports to have any scientific backing for this. The omission is telling. Would defenders of the memo still be comfortable if the author had casually summarized race and IQ studies to argue that purported biological differences — not discrimination or unequal access to education — explained Google’s shortage of African-American programmers?"
I reacted to the one mention of IQ in the memo, which seems extremely suspect:
"Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences)"