Most women wear makeup and if men knew acting a certain way would increase their chances with women, most would probably do it. Do we really need to add caveats for every special case in every situation?
Women wear makeup to simulate beauty and men act "alpha" to simulate success. If we accept one we should be willing to accept the other. The undercurrent of bitterness and negativity prevalent in the online pickup community is a consequence of the fact that most of these men lived most of their lives with little sexual success and harboring an idealistic view of women. When the bubble breaks they're prone to going too far the other way.
What does "treated like everyone else" mean and how do you know when it's been achieved? This kind of standard ranges from the most minimal legal equality of opportunity to full on equality of outcome.
Anything that doesn't directly call for violence. If you're presenting a position that others are free to evaluate on the merits, then free speech covers it. The point of allowing free speech is to be open to the truth. That doesn't mean that the truth is never ugly or in disharmony with fashionable opinion.
What is free speech for if not to protect "extremist" speech? Under your rubric, we'll just call whatever we don't like "extremism" and suppress it and that would be allowing free speech.
I'm not sure what Damore is referring to in that specific quote, but there is evidence of relevant differences, especially if you're talking about recruitment numbers for a company like Google:
"A 2005 study by Ian Deary, Paul Irwing, Geoff Der, and Timothy Bates, focusing on the ASVAB showed a significantly higher variance in male scores, resulting in more than twice as many men as women scoring in the top 2%"
..."the study indicated that, while boys and girls performed similarly on average, boys were over-represented among the very best performers as well as among the very worst."
>men would make better programmers than women because of something at the biological or genetic level, which is really the contention around Damore's memo.
Where does he say this?
As for the interviewers, so what? Either the claims are supported by the facts or not, who's agenda is served by those facts is an entirely separate issue.
What's funny about that link is that when she refers to the scientific claims she mostly seems to agree that they are well founded. Apart from that she seems to reading a lot of stuff into the memo that Damore probably wouldn't agree is there, and getting offended. I.e. he is a racist/sexist/alt-right bigot.
>The responsible thing to do for your job is to fix the problem that is immediately threatening the company.
The problem is double talk. They pretend that they want open discussion and provide an internal forum for it, but when someone like Damore takes them up on it they see it as a problem. If you don't want controversy don't pretend that you do.
> it was overwhelmed by the senseless repetition of long-debunked stereotypical nonsense.
This is why what Damore did is important and why having the discussion is important. People like you either mistakenly believe this or are being deliberately manipulative and misleading by claiming the science is settled. In fact, the science is not settled, and if anything it is leaning in Damore's favor. That you and people like you want to believe one thing very much is not a substitute for the actual truth to the rest of us, and never will be.
Most women wear makeup and if men knew acting a certain way would increase their chances with women, most would probably do it. Do we really need to add caveats for every special case in every situation?