Sure as long as you ignore the part where he says women have a greater difficulty in leading or dealing with systemic work
Once again, never said by the author.
Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
INTEREST. Not aptitude.
And he’s not even saying that women aren’t interested in systemizing, he’s saying here that the strength of their empathizing is relatively stronger than the strength of their systemizing. That could just as easily mean that both are strong, but one is more so.
My favorite part was to say that women suffer neuroticism and are easily stressed.
Ok? Did you have something to say about that or were you just rather fond of it?
While the word neurotic itself may have some pejorative connotations in colloquial usage, can we not simply evaluate the truth of the claim instead of simply assuming that the claim’s falseness is self-evident? While not my area of expertise, there is research to support the claim.
Oh and that men have a higher drive for status.
Would you care to argue the fairly apparent notion that while men tend to be attracted to physical beauty, women tend to be attracted to power and stability? If this paradigm exists, do you not think this would motivate the male gender to strive for status?
So much of how we behave is heavily influenced by the desire for intimacy and sex. So, whether you believe that the stereotypical desires of each gender are biological or social in origin, or whether you believe they are even real in the first place, you must at least acknowledge that most people think it’s an accurate paradigm. If most people think it’s accurate, then most people will probably have their behavior influenced by it in their attempts to attract the opposite sex.
All of this thing denote an attitude that women are not capable of being successful in tech.
Not in the least bit. He even says this;
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more
What he fails to do is incorporate social aspects that drive each sex currently.
You’re right, he doesn’t address this, and one may indeed see that as a failing of his writing. However, the social aspects had no need to be addressed, because the author was writing to and in an environment that has already taken the stance that most or all gendered differences are social in nature. The social argument had already been made, and he was attempting to provide a countering idea, so he had no need to address it. He was also very clearly not jumping to the other extreme end of the biological determinism spectrum.
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.
“In part”. If the different preferences/abilities are due in part to biological causes, then by definition they are due in the other part to social causes.
Oh and any science that disagrees with him is “working for the left”.
Also false. Man, you’re on a roll here. What he actually said was we’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology that can irreparably harm Google.
“Without evidence” then this is leftist ideology. Well, if it’s without evidence it’s not science, so that non-science can’t really be “working for the left” as you claim.
