* public humiliation - check (casting doubt on the engineering skills of the individual).

* threat of violence - check ("a good number of the people you might have to work with may simply punch you in the face").

* retribution through firing - check

* speaking as a champion of all that is good, castigating the evil "outlier"

Basically trying to completely destroy the career of someone whose opinions are for different reasons unpalatable.

The author should go to a psychologist to have their anger managemnt issues threated. They think they've taken a stand, but instead they've just shown they're unfit to be in any leadership position, can't control their emotions properly and can't even make a cogent argument.

I have trouble getting past the blatant lie in the first paragraph. And then the case he presents to support his first objection is to... not present a case at all.

By the time he gets to the digression where he advances a new and peculiar hypothesis about what engineering is all about (and where he seems to redefine empathy to mean something different from what the google memo meant), the negative impression was rather solidified.

Edit: Here is the lie:

... the manifesto a Googler ... published internally about .. how women and men are intrinsically different and we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers, it’s just not worth it.

(1) to imply that it is not possible for women to become engineers is an absurd claim on the face of it.

(2) Even with a less preposterous reading of what Zunger meant by "make it possible for..." the Googler did not assert anything like that in the manifesto.

Can you help me understand how you reached that conclusion? Here is the relevant section of the original:

> De-emphasise empathy.

> I've heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy — feeling another's pain — causes us to focus on anecdotes, favour individuals similar to us, and harbour other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

This is wrong. Emotions - feeling - are part of what makes teams work together well and make products work with people.

The reply linked on this post says it well:

Engineering is not the art of building devices; it’s the art of fixing problems. Devices are a means, not an end. Fixing problems means first of all understanding them — and since the whole purpose of the things we do is to fix problems in the outside world, problems involving people, that means that understanding people, and the ways in which they will interact with your system, is fundamental to every step of building a system. (This is so key that we have a bunch of entire job ladders — PM’s and UX’ers and so on — who have done nothing but specialize in those problems. But the presence of specialists doesn’t mean engineers are off the hook; far from it. Engineering leaders absolutely need to understand product deeply; it’s a core job requirement.)

Note the part I quoted above. I didn't quote this part: relying on affective empathy — feeling another's pain — causes us to focus on anecdotes, favour individuals similar to us, and harbour other irrational and dangerous biases is completely wrong. I struggle to think of a more wrong way of explaining empathy - I think it is fair to say that the author's idea of what empathy feels like is completely different to what the rest of the world thinks. For the fact biased amongst us (which I am) I'd note that there is no citation given.

I have never seen any group of people work together better because of emotions. Many times have I seen emotions tear groups of people apart.

I would also point out that emphasizing "empathy" as a vital skill, in and of itself, creates a hostile and discriminatory work environment. Many highly productive and valuable engineers are on the spectrum and it doesn't seem to inhibit their ability to do their jobs.

I think you misunderstand what he is getting at. Yale researcher Paul Bloom wrote a whole book about this concept of empathy as a bad thing, and I think that is what the manifesto is getting at (I'd almost argue quoting): https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compass... TL;DR is this:

> We often think of our capacity to experience the suffering of others as the ultimate source of goodness. Many of our wisest policy-makers, activists, scientists, and philosophers agree that the only problem with empathy is that we don’t have enough of it.

> Nothing could be further from the truth, argues Yale researcher Paul Bloom. In AGAINST EMPATHY, Bloom reveals empathy to be one of the leading motivators of inequality and immorality in society. Far from helping us to improve the lives of others, empathy is a capricious and irrational emotion that appeals to our narrow prejudices. It muddles our judgment and, ironically, often leads to cruelty. We are at our best when we are smart enough not to rely on it, but to draw instead upon a more distanced compassion.

This is how that manifesto is being so miscategorised. It says - DIRECT QUOTE - "relying on affective empathy — feeling another's pain — causes us to focus on anecdotes, favour individuals similar to us, and harbour other irrational and dangerous biases". Not empathy is not required. Not empathy is useless, but a specific, nuanced usage of empathy. It is understandable this miscategorisation given how most people see empathy, but it is still borderline strawmanning to impose a definition here that was not intended.

I am staunchly with Bloom here: it is undoubtedly a valuable gift, but only provided it is fortified by a prior rational moral position and appropriately judged action. And there are many arguably moral actions that have nothing to do with empathy or even sympathy – paying one’s taxes, or picking up litter are not glamorous activities but they stem from a rational perception of what is for the general good.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/feb/06/against-empath...

That's the entire point. That you don't get that is telling. Engineering is not some magic meritocratic endeavour where we all succeed by writing the very best code we can. It's messy, and it involves working with people just as much as it does a text editor. Hence this whole assertion of women being ill suited for the job is complete nonsense according to the logic presented in the manifesto itself.

I've updated the end to reflect that I'm talking about the inconsistency in the manifesto itself.

Life involves working with people. Empathy is a life skill. Logical reasoning is also a life skill, but some jobs require more of it than others.

> Hence this whole assertion of women being ill suited for the job is complete nonsense according to the logic presented in the manifesto itself.

Well, good thing that's not what the manifesto was asserting, then.

Perhaps I'm misreading this, but if not: personal attacks will get you banned on HN. Please don't do this again.

If that's how you read it then I feel like you missed the entire point.

> This is a non-statement. Replace 'engineering' with science, medicine, finance, customer service, politics, retail, programming etc., and it will sound as correct.

Again, I'm feeling like you missed the point.