I grew up really believing that white people were superior because of their genetics. I’m sure with some studies you can scientifically prove that too.
There are some women who were unable to sleep thinking what their peers would think about them after reading the manifesto.
You may think it was totally okay but may be you didn’t grow up with the biases enforced into you from a young age.
I am not a woman, but I know it’s hard to be taken seriously when someone can just label your behavior as “it’s biological”.
We need to fight this just as hard as we fought to end slavery around the world.
No matter your color, gender, sexual orientation, age, you will be treated equally.
But that is exactly his point: by applying a bias while recruiting you are not treating people equally. Quite the opposite.
He makes the (valid?) point that perhaps you should fix the core issue of the innate job selection bias rather than trying to implement your own selection bias while recruiting.
I thought it was an OK read and made some sense, and couldn't understand the big fuss. Did anyone else feel this way, or am I misunderstanding it? Please correct me if so, it's open to interpretation but I think the tagline "due to biological differences in women" is a bit disingenuous.
I also thought firing him was a bit extreme and kind of proved some of his points.