There is overwhelming evidence that women on average are more neurotic, anyone who argues about gender diversity should be aware of this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_differences_in_suicid...
Or maybe women are more neurotic because they need to put up with this kind of shit at the workplace.
After all, even if the statistical female population does have a higher baseline for neuroticism, would that fact actually weaken the argument for gender diversity?
How would it be any different from the fact that men on average are taller?
Nobody argued against diversity, the document in question only stated that our current diversity efforts aren't really working and that we should consider measurable gender differences such as prevalence of neuroticism if we want to really move the needle.
Anyways, one study about women age 65-98 does not result in overwhelming evidence.
Furthermore, even if it was, neuroticism and high anxiety could be a result of dealing with thousands of years of being disparaged of independence and socioeconomic venues for freedom. One thing I hope we can all agree on is evolution, and I think to state that women are in general more neurotic and attributing it to their chemistry as individuals and not the way theyve been treated for thousands and thousands of years is possibly a bit of an oversight.
Furthermore, I find it funny the author of the article (the google internal document) uses averages for women to describe his experience working at Google where everyone is generally agreed to be above average, which is why not anyone can roll in and get a job working there.
Undoubtedly, as the gender ratio is still off there, and in many places including, the standards are maintained to some arguable degree, and any woman working at google is probably far above the average woman, but of course the author has no problem applying general averages to the woman of a company who is strictly comprised of top notch and in general outlier performers.
It is honestly an insult to any women regardless of their performance once they get there, who has been offered a job or worked at google to be described by general averages by a male peer and then an argument is made on their biological limitations "with averages in mind of course"
Well, with averages in mind bro, you don't have any averages at google because none of your are average, so you kind of stumped your own point there.
Finally, if men think women are neurotic, this is an average characteristic described by a male gender of which has engaged in mass murder and until less than 100 years ago RAPING and pillaging as common means of procuring land and building societies. To pass off women as simply neurotic without considering how male behavior could have contributed to elongated stress and anxiety levels in women as the majority of their existence in the human species has been one of pure objectification with barely 100 years of voting rights to show for the progression of it, in the most sought after democracy in the world, is neurotic to me. Maybe that makes me neurotic.
This is very similiar to the concept of enslaving a people when it is well known it takes any family of any ethnicity in any country an average of five generations of consistent efforts to get out of poverty, and also encompassing enough cognitive dissonance to blaming an entire ethnicity previously enslaved as being "lazy" for not having achieved the same status as the wealthy elite who enslaved them.
Is there any point where the group of people who are so convinced women are plain and simply neurotic as a form of natural brain chemistry can stop and remember the nature vs. nurture argument? Biology day two, maybe day three?
We are still trying to get basic human rights for women in countries around the world who do billions in business with the U.S. every year. All American politics aside, it is a fact that when Donald Trump was filming a tv show where apparently all women flirt with him whether they mean to or not (they are just women, they don't even know what they are thinking. It's up for me to determine their emotions, not them. That would make them independent human beings who can define their own emotions and behavior and I need control of that) Hillary declared womens rights as human rights and got China to formally acknowledge that in the UN for the first time.
This is not a joke. We live in a world where we are still trying overhaul womens rights, and thats in a relatively globalized country, not to speak of womens rights elsewhere.
To be so confident that a few studies on wikipedia with less than 1000 participants overall provides an undisputable basis for women being more neurotic and agreaeable and furthermore not enabling that characteristic more to sit their job roles as the reason for the gender gap in tech, is nothing short of a blatant inability to see the big picture, and thinking of how global politics plays into a company that has offices in countries all over the world.
I don't even disagree with this guys right to have his own opinion, or his thoughtful attempt at alternative solutions because as a female in tech, and i know many other females in tech who agree, there are some good intentions gone wrong trying to make females feel more comfortable, but none of us have ever said "its actually because were neurotic and we need more people oriented roles for us", i disagree with his noncholant attribution to the "biological differences" in women (on average of course, of which doesnt apply to any google employee, on average) as an indisputable basis for which to base alternative solutions on.