The Manifesto Mr. Damore wrote, it's implications, facts, or opinions, the hostile work environment it creates, the action of Google firing him, and the consequences of all of the above.
Or just PM a mod (Hyp, Dee or myself) if you believe there's an issue or you don't feel safe.
That's about all the pontificating on moderation we need to derail with in this thread. Anyone is welcome to PM a mod if they want to discuss further.
You have two minority women in your moderation team. You should let them moderate discussions of women's issues. You have the authority, but you lack the perspective. You are not the best person on your team to make sure these debates are inclusive and safe.
Really sorry I have derailed this thread, I have tried apologizing to a few people in private for contributing to the mess in this thread. Also sorry for any posts I have made making people feel unwelcome here or for coming off as a misogynist.
I will remove myself from the thread and avoid making any politically charged posts in the future. Im not sure if people are asking for me to be banned from the sites or forum, but if its just asking me to no longer post I am done. I just wanted to apologize before leaving. Mods wont be necessary unless people feel I need a ban I guess.
You don't get to decide who someone is. You can call out the behavior and give your reasons why, but you don't get to label the individuals here. It's an incredibly important distinction and it protects everyone.
You are tone policing right now.
Certis wrote:Or just PM a mod (Hyp, Dee or myself) if you believe there's an issue or you don't feel safe.
That's about all the pontificating on moderation we need to derail with in this thread. Anyone is welcome to PM a mod if they want to discuss further.
You have two minority women in your moderation team. You should let them moderate discussions of women's issues. You have the authority, but you lack the perspective. You are not the best person on your team to make sure these debates are inclusive and safe.
What would make me feel safe is if this weren't a debate at all. Women, trans people, people of color, etc. When you treat the subject of manginalized people's identity as worth of debate you are inherently siding with the oppressor. There isn't a middle ground here. The is just civility in oppression.
Really sorry I have derailed this thread, I have tried apologizing to a few people in private for contributing to the mess in this thread. Also sorry for any posts I have made making people feel unwelcome here or for coming off as a misogynist.
FWIW, I didn't really see it as a derail, myself... most of this has been germane to bekkilyn's earlier point.
I really like this quote from the article:
folks who feel safe at work don’t realize that what’s an interesting intellectual issue for them is sometimes quite literally life and death for women, people of color and other minorities.
Speaking only for myself (and, unavoidably, about myself) I've come around to the view where I generally think of myself as being sexist (and racist). Not intentionally. And not in a self-flagellating way, which just recenters the attention on me.1 But I know I've done stuff to hurt other people. Rather than denying that or pretending that it's easy to reach some sexism-free perfection, I'd prefer to acknowledge that there's always the risk and then work to mitigate it.
Which, for my money, is way better than putting myself in a position where me making a mistake causes cognitive dissonance and make me defensive.
Yeah, people will probably be more likely to listen if I politely point out that their actions are harmful. Labeling them will make them defensive, and they'll probably misunderstand what I mean. And I generally try to be polite and patient. But sometimes I don't want to hear them, sometimes they're talking over the people we should both be listening to.
The other thing I try to remember is that I'm talking to people. Actual flesh-and-blood people who can get hurt by my words. And not just the other people in the thread: if I write something on a public forum, there's bound to be plenty of people reading the site, many of whom don't even have an account here. I don't want to harm innocent people with careless words.2
Part of the reason this thread has been frustrating is because a lot of the things being said--about giving the memo writer a second chance, what if no one's told him he's wrong, losing a job is painful for a man--are things where I can find that exact discussion going in a ton of other places online. Why have we spent so much time talking in unoriginal ways about his feelings and not about, say, how it affected women, in their own words?
It might be valuable to unpack why something someone said is sexist, and maybe me doing it saves someone else from doing it--making a women explain 101 stuff when it's her safety and well being being threatened is bad. But even me explaining it inevitably takes away from her being able to talk about, say, the original problem.
What would make me feel safe is if this weren't a debate at all. Women, trans people, people of color, etc. When you treat the subject of manginalized people's identity as worth of debate you are inherently siding with the oppressor. There isn't a middle ground here. The is just civility in oppression.
This. Maybe this concept needs to be put in the ground rules of the thread? Something like, "This thread assumes as a premise that the safety and identity of women aren't up for debate" or something better worded than that. It's terrible that has to be spelled out.
I'm fine with using my time to explain why people are reacting badly to things, but it's not cool that we've had so many pages where the people who are most concerned with this (i.e. women) aren't a part of the discussion. Or worse, don't feel like they're safe being a part of the discussion. Maybe I should go start a Q&A thread or something.
This post has too many words about me. And some of this stuff I can do because I am in a relatively privileged position on this, and can be detached enough: no one is attacking my identity in this thread. I certainly have people I care about who were directly affected by this, though.
I'm glad some people feel like they've learned some things. I'm sad that it's been at the expense of others.
1. That way lies some really icky madness. Go watch Get Out. Then realize that many of the people in the movie are the kind of enlightened liberals who either don't think that they're racist or who beat themselves up over racism but forget that it's not about them.
2. Operative term: innocent. I'm less concerned about how I make non-innocent people like the memo writer feel, though I want to be careful other people don't get caught in the crossfire. (Obvious way: making fun of how someone looks is pretty much always out-of-bounds, which is why I try not to do it.) I don't really want to inflict pain on him either (I'm not his target anyway) but I don't want to spare his feelings or avoid telling him that he's wrong and has done bad things.
Mod:
Hey, folks.
Things have gotten a bit heated in here and a bit off the rails. I'd like to ask that we all take a little breather to calm down.
For my own part: I am a personal friend of one of the people who was in the group of doxxed Google employees from the other day--and also a personal friend of a number of other employees who are now terrified of getting the same treatment. So... this hits even closer to home for me than most discussions of marginalized people in tech do.
Moderating this kind of discussion is hard. People who understand the situation on the most personal level are those most likely to get upset and express their justifiable anger in ways that don't mesh with the CoC. That makes it much easier to moderate what they say than what they see as provocations, and that makes things feel super gross.
As moderators, its our job to try to defuse things to keep threads from blowing up into nothing but outrage, so... yeah, sometimes it's going to look like tone policing. It probably would have felt better to have things come from one of the more marginalized moderators, and we might have taken a different approach to cooling down the discourse... but with things going fast and furious it's mostly down to who's there when things start approaching criticality.
It's absolutely understandable when people get super upset and lose their cool, but things still need to be cooled down even when it's understandable.
So personally, I'd like to apologize for how this is tone-policey and ask people to calm down a bit and take a step back.
For now, the moderation team have talked and we're going to keep this thread open, because Damore's still going and this is going to continue to be current news for a while.
But we'd like to ask that discussions continue to stay away from questioning whether Damore's ideas were really all that bad. If somebody starts taking that position, go ahead and throw down a report on their post.
If anyone really wants to be educated on how marginalized folks deal with a pile of extra stresses in every day life or how the idea that marginalized people are somehow really not as good at programming as cishet white dudes is bunk, they can ask for education in the Feminism thread... but they should expect that people might be a bit slow in responding, because it's pretty exhausting, as we've seen in this thread.
Thanks,
Hypatian.
I've seen a lot of good literature in this thread about this subject. For those who are interested in more, I'd like to recommend a book I picked up four or so years ago from, I think, a recommendation I heard on a podcast (I forget which one).
It's called Whistling Vivaldi. A great deal of what the book covers deals with what one of the earlier linked articles mentioned briefly, but didn't really explain - stereotype threat.
Stereotype threat is, essentially, what lies at the core of the perception of the abilities of individuals versus the actualities - and how perceptions asserted by stereotypes can force those stereotypes to become realities (yes, I'm saying that stereotype threat, for example through saying women are worse programmers, can actually cause women to be worse programmers - which is yet another reason Google and tech companies should thoroughly stamp out this kind of tripe. It makes some employees perform worse). The book explains the details of what this means much better than I could. But it thoroughly puts the lie to the idea that literally any group is different in their abilities according to stereotypes.
If anyone here reads that book and remains unconvinced about the effect that language has on people, including the harmful language in Damore's screed, I'll send you a buck.
https://adactio.com/journal/12658
If you read the ex-Googler’s memo and thought “seems reasonable to me”, I hope you can see how you have been played like a violin. Your most virtuous traits—being even-handed and open-minded—have been used against you. I hope that you will try to use those same traits to readdress what has been done. If you read through the rebuttals linked to above and still think that the original memo was reasonable, I fear the damage is quite deep.It may seem odd that a document that appears to be so reasonable is proving to be so very divisive. But it’s that very appearance of impartiality that gives it its power. It is like an optical illusion for the mind. Some people—like me—read it and think, “this is clearly wrong and harmful.” Other people—who would never self-identify as sexist in any way—read it and think, “seems legit.”
I’m almost—almost—glad that it was written. It’s bringing a lot of buried biases into the light.
I've seen a lot of good literature in this thread about this subject. For those who are interested in more, I'd like to recommend a book I picked up four or so years ago from, I think, a recommendation I heard on a podcast (I forget which one).
Heated conversation aside (not that I wish to minimise people's valid emotions/responses) this thread has provided me with a lot of valuable insight in to other's reactions and the linked articles/reading suggested have been largely excellent.
This twitter thread is a good look at how insidious toxic masculinity can be:
Hey everyone I'm a clown and I just got back from facepainting at a picnic and here's my take on male violence in America:It starts young. And it's more than just letting boys play with guns, it's how we shame them for feeling anything that isn't anger.
A 4yo boy asked me to paint a blue butterfly on his face. Then his mom told me "no, he doesn't want that."
"Butterflies are beautiful, he said that's what he wants, shouldn't I paint what he wants?"
"No give him something for boys"She turns to dad, a big guy in a jersey, and says accusingly,
"Do you want your son to have a butterfly on his face?"
He says "No."Which, cool, let's bring your husbands masculinity into it too. Because your 4yo kid needs to know that his father would be ashamed too
I really tried you guys, but this woman was so scared of her son wanting a butterfly she made me paint a skull and crossbones on his cheek.
When I finished the skull I said to kiddo
"You want a little blue butterfly too?"
He nods.
Mom interrupts "You didn't ask me."I say in my kindest f*ck you voice
"Oh I'm sorry, I thought this was for HIM."
"I'm his MOTHER. You need to ask me." She says."SORRY." I say and wave good bye to the kid. And I am. I'm sorry that he is not allowed to love something as miraculous and beautiful as a
I'm sorry that he was shamed for wanting to share in the joy that is the miracle and wonder of nature.
I see this all the time. And I really feel for these boys, because the girls don't get it as bad. Being a tomboy is slightly more normalized
And when girls want skulls or sharks the parents shrug and laugh like "haha she's a kooky kid!" Because maleness and masculinity isn't a sin
But when a boy want to enjoy something for its beauty, they are told it's not for them. Not in this house. Not in this family.
We are teaching them that anger & violence r the only things they are allowed to experience. That to value beauty & elegance is shameful
I know that it was just facepaint, but that's sort of my point. Why in the hell are these parents shaming their boys over FACEPAINT
Honestly don't even get me started on the balloons.
So the next time you are incredulous about how the govt could shut down our national parks, or build the pipeline, or nuke the planet...
Think about what this four year old boy asked for
And what he got
That's heart-breaking. When my son was 4 years old, he wanted to be the Pink Power Ranger for Halloween. We let him be the Pink Power Ranger.
For me, this whole episode has reinforced the fact that there is more than just a passive culture keeping women down. There is an active, destructive belief among many more people than I'd ever imagined. It most certainly must be called out and actively fought back against.
I'm obliviously not going to change the language behind feminism, really I was just making a point about why that was the one quote in that article I had a problem with and why.
How does actually discussing one quote in one article all of a sudden make one a misogynist and cause one to back oneself out of a thread? This thread was a little uncivil after a couple of pages, then it got civil, then it got really really uncivil quickly. This kind of bs is why I kept out of this section.
He didn't seem to be empathetic? Do you realize empathy is not a universal constant? Not everyone has it. Not everyone has it to the same degree. Many people don't have it for people they don't know. It's just how humans are.
-
How does actually discussing one quote in one article all of a sudden make one a misogynist and cause one to back oneself out of a thread? This thread was a little uncivil after a couple of pages, then it got civil, then it got really really uncivil quickly. This kind of bs is why I kept out of this section.
Rave: Is "life and death" really the right phrase to use?
Women: Yes, and here's why.
Rave: But is it though?
Women: *sigh* Yes, and here's why.
Rave: But is it though?
After a while, it's no longer discussing a quote. It's being dismissive and victim-blamey.
Addressing interrupting people. I like MBTI. No assessments are perfect, but it seems to do fairly well in my experience.
MBTI is a really interesting system. No assessments are perfect, but MBTI has enough variety to cover a lot of bases. I wish you could get more analysis of the "borderline" types that are closer to 0 on the scales. It is really good for helping improve communication between groups. Although, it also has a tendency to puff up an ENTJ's already enormous ego and give them another reason to think that they're the best.
RolandofGilead wrote:How does actually discussing one quote in one article all of a sudden make one a misogynist and cause one to back oneself out of a thread? This thread was a little uncivil after a couple of pages, then it got civil, then it got really really uncivil quickly. This kind of bs is why I kept out of this section.
Rave: Is "life and death" really the right phrase to use?
Women: Yes, and here's why.
Rave: But is it though?
Women: *sigh* Yes, and here's why.
Rave: But is it though?After a while, it's no longer discussing a quote. It's being dismissive and victim-blamey.
I'm an INFJ, so I only have the spleen to go through this loop twice.
Mixolyde wrote:RolandofGilead wrote:How does actually discussing one quote in one article all of a sudden make one a misogynist and cause one to back oneself out of a thread? This thread was a little uncivil after a couple of pages, then it got civil, then it got really really uncivil quickly. This kind of bs is why I kept out of this section.
Rave: Is "life and death" really the right phrase to use?
Women: Yes, and here's why.
Rave: But is it though?
Women: *sigh* Yes, and here's why.
Rave: But is it though?After a while, it's no longer discussing a quote. It's being dismissive and victim-blamey.
I'm an INFJ, so I only have the spleen to go through this loop twice.
I'm an INTJ so I have to constantly remind myself that things that are completely obvious to me aren't always perceived that way by others for some reason, and then I have to remind myself to be patient because it's probably going to take them a while to figure it out, or at least come up with some reasonable argument to the contrary after they've finally gotten there. 
If I had more time I'd be willing--as someone involved but with enough privilege that I have more emotional reserves to spend--to unpack why the argument on the previous pages was upsetting...but the poster has bowed out and Mixolyde has basically covered it. Still willing to discuss it in PMs if someone is still confused about it, but I don't see any point in rehashing it here.
Getting back to the subject of the thread: note that Damore's fundraiser was run by notorious alt-right-er Chuck Johnson, whose news site was one of the major vectors for trying to accuse an innocent Michigan man of being the driver in the Charlottesville attack. He's thrown his lot in with a bad crowd.
Meanwhile, Damore got an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. (Which I haven't had time to read yet. Other news has been somewhat distracting.)
Or just read this: Here’s your point by point refutation of the google memo.
-
Gremlin wrote:Or just read this: Here’s your point by point refutation of the google memo.
Interesting that the author links to this site: https://womenintheworkplace.com/
Quote from the site:
Women and men both view sponsorship by senior leaders as essential for success. Yet women report fewer substantive interactions with senior leaders than their male counterparts do—and this gap widens as women and men advance.I can tell you anecdotally why this happens. As a senior male leader it's perfectly cool for me to spend significant 1 on 1 time both in and out of the office with a male colleague. If I do the same with a female colleague, especially if she is reasonably attractive, then the rumor mill fires up and suggests that we're having sexual relations.
Do you know what it's like to be a married male leader, as I am, and have HR and another executive flat out ask you if you're having an in office affair with an attractive coworker that you are mentoring because she's super competent at her job and should be in a leadership position? I do. And let me assure you it changes your behavior in how you approach mentoring women.
Some of it is on me for being afraid of even the appearance of impropriety. Most of it is on people of both sexes for being shitty.
You have the most amazing ability to
A) Paint yourself as the real victim
B) Make women as much to blame for workplace sexism as the institutional sexism they face on a day to day.
edit
Holy shit you edited your post in the time it took me to read and respond and made it 100% times even worse. May god have mercy on your soul.
Cowardice on the part of the dominant group does oftentimes play a part in oppression, I would agree. Still doesn't make it acceptable.
-
For someone insisting they're not trying to paint themselves as a victim, that is all you're really doing here.
Edit: To be less pithy, take a look at what you're actually saying, "This is how it harmed me, this is unfair to me, my harm here" and then "Man everyone here just wants to dismiss me because of my penis (even though other people who are equipped with the aforementioned accessories seem to be taken seriously, somehow)". Like the actual point you summed up for yourself is cogent, but it's not really what you communicated.
-
I don't think bandit is doing that. I think the issue is more nuanced than he is suggesting but I believe he is discussing in good faith.
Bandit, sexism and the patriarchy are so dangerously entranced that yes, women are also socialized to support it. That is why it is so important that we all work together to break the wheel.
The fact that you refuse to recognize that the social atmosphere in large organizations works this way is a pretty big indicator that you are not in senior leadership and have no idea what you're talking about. But hey, it's cool, ignore the point because it's much easier to twist my experience into only women being to blame and think that I'm trying to be a victim, which is laughable because I'm doing just fine, thanks.
I'm sorry I couldn't hear you over all that winning you are doing.
-
https://www.themuse.com/advice/why-m...
She may be right. A 2010 study from the Center for Talent Innovation (formerly the Center for Work-Life Policy), found that nearly two-thirds of men in senior positions pulled back from one-on-one contact with junior female employees because of fear of being suspected of having an affair. Meanwhile, half of junior women reported being nervous about one-on-one contact with senior men for the same reason.So tell me again how I'm wrong. And this time try not to take the easy way out and call me a victim/sexist.
You aren't understanding what's happening here - you're not being told you're wrong. No one above actually argued that this wasn't an issue. What people are taking exception to is you (once again, and not exclusively to you) taking a moment that is about the trouble women face in the workplace and making it into a story about how you're burdened. Don't you understand what's kinda wrong with that at all?
-
Pages