vlad tepes
Aug 8, 2017 · 2 min read

The author apparently didn’t read the manifest, or he is purposely misleading the public about it, as most of the media did.

If one actually reads the manifest, he will never infer ideas such as:

  1. women “are at root not good enough to do their jobs, and that they’re only being kept in their jobs because of some political ideas.”
  2. “one-third of my colleagues are either biologically unsuited to do their jobs, or if not are exceptions and should be suspected of such until they can prove otherwise”

Not at all. The manifest explicitly states:

“ I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.”

Yes, if you try very hard you might infer point 2, but I don’t think that’s what he meant or the most accurate conclusion of this section.

What he meant was simply that the gender misrepresentation is not because of patriarchy or discrimination.

His ideas for improvement are actually very decent: instead of imposing quotas of protected minorities and establishing exclusive conferences and programs that block males, use inclusive solutions that will help every person that needs them, but might as well increase women representation:
promote work-life balance, support families and decide to be inclusive of shy and timid people, not just some selected minorities.