Here's one of his colleagues threatening to quit "if HR does nothing in this case" : https://twitter.com/rakyll/status/893287112732291072
> here are some things that the author believes which are not true
You've left out "on average" (which is stated no less than 7 times in the document). It does seem to be all supported by research : https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/wh...
The research you linked talks about girls not women and is worryingly slanted. Here's a rebuttal based on other research:
https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/slideshow/embed_code/key/3...
What the left and feminism wants is for the same consideration to be given to women. That despite gender differences, if a woman can do the job, then there are no second guesses or carping about gender. That she's allowed to just be, just like men are. That there's a recognition that while gender differences exist, men can do jobs once considered traditionally feminine, and can do them well. And that we can recognize women can do jobs once considered tradtionally masculine, and can do them well.
Actually there are plenty of fields and jobs that are considered feminine. And where men are underrepresented and underpaid.
A study has shown that with the same qualifications, a woman is twice as likely to be picked for the same job than a man. And the longer we keep it politically incorrect to criticize feminism and the left, the larger that gap will become. Am not saying those aren't needed. But I also think it is time we have an opposing voice (like this article) to keep both in balance.
"Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing). These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas."
I have to say there could be other reasons for this. A big one is that people gravitate toward things where other people like them already are. They have a tendency to emulate. It takes unique people to break out of molds and do things that others don't expect of them. Or that aren't familiar or socially comfortable to do. Same for men.
Now it could be true this is related to an innate trait. But who cares? We're talking about 50% of the population and the differences between people are aplenty. Companies have no business in deciding what's the right thing for any group anyway. Whatever people's motivations are - biological or something they came up with yesterday ultimately isn't anyone else's business.
Sure, it has been studied to death. Here's a good summary:
http://sci-hub.cc/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x
Check out the Table 1 on page 1104, for summary of different studies. Of particular interest is the people-things orientation the parent poster mentions, with mean effect size across multiple studies so large (d = 1.18) that it almost never occurs for non-tautological research questions.
Again: do you have any citations? If this was as well as established as you're claiming they should be easy to provide.
Quit being weird and pretending males and females are the same.
Anyone can be an evolutionary psychologist!:
"Men do [thing] because they evolved to."
"Women think [this] because women who didn't did not pass on their genes."
I can't stand this bizarre trend on the Left that holds up "science" as a vanguard in one context but dismisses it in another if it's politically convenient.
> Women are not more neurotic than men
That's not the same thing, so no.
> From what I've seen it's exactly the opposite;
Finland is a case study in cultural gender equalization leading to gender gaps becoming more pronounced over time. You might want to look up Jordan Peterson, who is rather high profile, in regards to this topic. I think it's obvious that this document was formed after seeing a bit of his youtube material.
Equality is a meaningless term unless we specify what needs to be equal. In my worldview, men and women ought to be valued and respected equally because both are equally created in the image of God.
Rather than assuming those who disagree with you are shallow and hysterical (a contentious word choice, given the subject), perhaps consider why others might be outraged, you could try some empathy (though I know the article warns us against empathy).
The doc presents a point-of-view, grounded in reality. Furthermore it's not "anti-diversity", but rather anti-discrimination
I think it is explicitly anti-diversity in that it sees nothing wrong with the current order of things, if that order can be justified by failings in the weaker vessels that surround the author like empathy and neuroticism (as the author clearly thinks it can).
It does seem a remarkable coincidence that the natural order of things so neatly reflects the author's place at the top of the pyramid though, almost as if the rules had been written by people just like the author.
Since when is dialectics grounds for ostracism?
I doubt the author has faced ostracism, he certainly seems confident enough in expressing his disdain for a large number of the people he works with, without apparent fear of consequences. Since dialectics is usually taken as a search for truth, here are some things that the author believes which are not true:
Women are not more neurotic than men
Women are not less scientific than men
Women are not more interested in feelings and aesthetics than ideas (a curious dichotomy)
Women do not innately prefer jobs in social or artistic areas over say engineering