[mistermann]

> but the belief that there are some roles than women cannot do due to their differences is consistent with the rest of his essay

The only way I can think of how one could come to this conclusion is a lack of either:

- knowledge of what a statistical average is

- capacity for basic logical thought

You are mixing up your imagination with reality.

[Delmania]

Logical thoughts? "Women are X" "There are limits to how well certain positions and Google can support X".

So, what exactly am I supposed to draw from this? You're insistent I am wrong, but you're offering no explanation as to why I am wrong. I don't disagree that women are more sociable than men. I disagree this means certain roles within the company cannot support that trait.

Further down: "Women value work life balance" "Men are status achievers" "Because of that, men will appropriately be in leadership and technology roles, also women suffer anxiety more." Side note, convenient he leaves out that women are statistically able to deal with stress better than men. His conclusion is that rather than creating programs that encourage women to enter leadership positions, leave that to the men and give women access to part time roles.

If you want to say I am wrong, so be it, disagreement is fine, but you have yet to counter anything I have said with an opposing understanding, just ad hominen attacks and criticism.

[mistermann]

> You're insistent I am wrong, but you're offering no explanation as to why I am wrong.

The explanation was in my previous comment.

I will give you another hint: you are misinterpreting the meaning of "women" in your excerpted quotes.

> If you want to say I am wrong, so be it, disagreement is fine, but you have yet to counter anything I have said with an opposing understanding, just ad hominen attacks and criticism.

I don't think there's a way to reply that will satisfy you, there is a crucial part of objective perception that you are lacking.