News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Outraged about the Google diversity memo? by TheOtherHobbes on Thursday August 10, 2017 @05:07AM (#14977839)
The "different = inferior argument" is strongly implied.

If you accept the premise that there's such a thing as a male-dominated work culture with stereotypically male values, then attitudes and actions that match those values are considered better ("normative") by default.

Anyone who has different requirements or interests will always be considered an outsider who will to have allowances made for them while receiving special treatment.

This would also be true of hypothetical female-dominated cultures with stereotypical female values where men would be considered the inferior outsiders who need special treatment. (Do such cultures exist? At work - sometimes, but not often. Outside of work - perhaps.)

The topic is an unholy mess because there are so many implications and assumptions on both sides, and so much outright ranting and bullying too, that useful debate is practically impossible.

My view is that corporate culture isn't stereotypically "male" so much as stereotypically totalitarian. More women won't change that. It might rein in some of the more obvious abuses, while running the risk of replacing them with some new ones.

But real economic and political freedom could only come from equal opportunity at a scale that most (tacitly neoliberal) feminists seem uninterested in.

Re:Outraged about the Google diversity memo? by sheepmullet on Thursday August 10, 2017 @06:50AM (#14978369)
> The "different = inferior argument" is strongly implied.

Is it?

For the average person working at a big company it is much more important to have a good fun team than a productive team.

After all a fun happy team benefits me on a day to day level whereas if company profit jumps 20% I'm unlikely to see any benefit.

The exceptions are a few tech giants who hand out lots of stock.

Re:Outraged about the Google diversity memo? by xapata on Thursday August 10, 2017 @07:41AM (#14978662)
> Is it?

Yes. In the memo, at least.

Re:Outraged about the Google diversity memo? by throwanem on Thursday August 10, 2017 @08:57AM (#14979130)
Where? How? In what words?
Re:Outraged about the Google diversity memo? by xapata on Thursday August 10, 2017 @10:42AM (#14980179)
Implication means not explicit. Thus it's up to your interpretation. The context also can affect the implications, including the author's actions after the publication (his interviews on YouTube).
Re:Outraged about the Google diversity memo? by throwanem on Thursday August 10, 2017 @11:19AM (#14980573)
So I should prefer your interpretation over my own because...?
Re:Outraged about the Google diversity memo? by xapata on Thursday August 10, 2017 @07:43PM (#14985410)
I wouldn't expect you to. Inference of tone and context is often quite subjective. I won't bother arguing it beyond pointing out that there can be reasonable differences if opinion.
Re:Outraged about the Google diversity memo? by Veedrac on Thursday August 10, 2017 @09:55AM (#14979650)
> If you accept the premise that there's such a thing as a male-dominated work culture with stereotypically male values, then attitudes and actions that match those values are considered better ("normative") by default.

You've just said that if you accept male-dominated work culture exists, males are considered better by default.

Ergo either males are considered better by default or such a culture doesn't exist. You deny the latter, so clearly you are claiming the former.

You just made that claim, not the guy who was fired.