While not required, engaging with the manifesto's author openly might help convince others like him. He is certainly not alone in this mindset, and if it's easy to point out the faults in this line of reasoning, we should be able to correct this once and for all.
2. A sweeping variety of claims about the personality differences of coworkers at his own company and why these differences make it okay for him to discriminate.
Debunked here: https://www.fastcompany.com/40449759/according-to-employee-p...
3. A claim that there is "a bar" which is "lowered" for diversity candidates
Rather, diverse teams are demonstrably more effective than homogeneous teams: https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter, so even if by the author's chosen metrics "the bar" is "lowered", those are not good metrics. There is no single bar, when developing a cooperative group.
4. Various claims about unconscious biases not being the reason for the gender gap It is demonstrable that competence is evaluated with bias: https://www.theladders.com/p/22203/brunette-blonde-women-lea... (links to studies)
It is demonstrable that social factors hold women back more than men: http://www.aauw.org/research/why-so-few/
There's lots of other false claims, but I don't really want to do the digging. I've already engaged with this more than I think to be generally productive. And that's kind of the point: from a comfortable position where the author is not affected by the policies he argues, those who are must defend. For the author, it is a hypothetical. For the attacked, it is not. There is a fundamental asymmetry in any discourse here.
If they were so obviously true why aren't societies' and biologies' natural optimization mechanisms making them unmistakably and obviously true?
If it's really the case that women will do equal work for %X less money than men, why hasn't any organization capitalized on this by hiring only women and drastically reduced their costs?
But if word got out on this strategy thanks to you and your comrades tireless efforts then demand for this cheaper labor would go up and thus it's price would rise.
hmm... this claim seems counter to what we know about market economics.
If it's really the case that "diverse" teams(what's the definition of "diverse"?) are so superior to other configurations, then why aren't the Snaps, Bings, and HTCs of the world making it their number one priority to "diversify" and then demonstrating the shining obviousness of the "diverse" claim by successfully taking on the big bad "undiverse" market leaders.
Why do you think it is the purview of SJW brigades to bring these truths on the world when nature otherwise does a pretty good job of revealing her truths.
Maybe they aren't true.
There are plenty of reasons for your questions with answers ranging from historical oppression, lack of early education in STEM for minorities, class differences, and more. Not to mention that not all that is true is obvious. You also seem to be ignoring a lot of people in various communities who are trying to communicate all this, writing them off as having an agenda against yours.
"Well maybe its wrong because it's not how the world is currently" is a terrible argument. Go back in time X years and say this about things the way they were. It's not going to sound good.
You then assert that women will do equal work for less money than men and then make a bunch of inferences based on this, ignoring multiple faulty aspects of the assertion in the first place.
The fundamental disagreement we're having is whether society is biased in the first place. You are making a bunch of analyses and logical inferences about social behaviors of people, but all of the things you are analyzing are fundamentally embedded in a biased culture. By contrast, the people you're arguing against are trying to change the culture that you are making analyses in such that we can actually use analyses like yours effectively. We claim that right now, we cannot.
The evidence suggests that "there are fundamental social biases against certain groups resulting in their disadvantage" is an explanation that better reflects reality than biological pseudoscientific assertions. See several of my links above, for instance citing studies that indicate that men judge women's competence based on appearance.
Thus, seeking to eliminate those biases is a goal which will result in value.
Also, for goodness sake, stop saying "SJW." Whether you're trying to win hearts and minds or just trololol, it doesn't matter; you'll do better without it. Because when I read it, I just feel a little sad and embarrassed for the person writing it.
1). The original claim was:
>"On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because: - They’re universal across human cultures
- They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
- Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
- The underlying traits are highly heritable
- They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective" (pg 3)
The claim is not that differences in each gender are universal across all cultures, only that, on average, there are biological differences that can be accounted for, without including social construction
The paper you linked also does not refute universal differences across human cultures, but suggest nurture may influence the behaviour of different genders. I believe the following:
"The underlying cultural differences between the Khasi and the Maasai offer room for speculation on environmental factors." (pg. 1656)
sums up the paper well.
2). There were three claims. You're going to need to quote the specific points where you believe he implied or directly said it was okay to discriminate on gender.
Here was the short section on it:
"Women, on average, have more : - 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. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
- Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
- This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
- Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs." (pg. 4)
That source is also not credible. It cites itself here: https://www.fastcompany.com/40448511/this-is-how-gender-diff..., and also states that there are personality differences between men and women in all the companies surveyed, except for google.
Here they are:
"- Male Facebook employees are 40% more likely to have an inflated sense of superiority compared to female employees.
- Female employees at Apple and Microsoft are 23% more prone to anxiety than their male counterparts.
- Men at Microsoft are 35% more ambitious and 34% more calculating than females.
- Male Uber employees are 32% more socially assertive than female employees.
- Google’s workforce displayed no major differences between male and female employees."
These align with the author's points. However, we don't have access to the data and it should not be taken as evidence. I'd also like to note that the only reference outside of the website itself, is a plug for a job board. There are eight links citing itself and one for Good&Co.
3). This is not addressing the point that the bar is lowered. You're arguing that diversity is more efficient, which is not the focus.
I will humor the first source, which happens to be lying terribly with statistics.
"In a global analysis of 2,400 companies conducted by Credit Suisse, organizations with at least one female board member yielded higher return on equity and higher net income growth than those that did not have any women on the board." https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter
What they don't say is that the difference of 4% (from 12% and 16%) and spread over 6 years. That's 6 basis points (.6% or .006) per year, a very negligible amount. I'd like to also note that ROE is only a measure of stockholder value, by itself.
"Net income growth for companies with women on the board has averaged 14% over the past six years compared to 10% for those with no female board representation."
Again, 4% spread over 6 years, 6 basis points. This also is another measure of stockholder value. I'll diverge from the facts in saying that this also aligns with the author's point that women have a stronger interest in feelings and people, than money.
"Large-cap companies with at least one woman on the board have outperformed their peer group with no women on the-board by 26% over the last six years, according to a report by Credit Suisse Research Institute"
Also, that 26%? It comes from adding up all of the negligible differences from 6 different measurements, across years.
4). This is misrepresentation. What was actually stated:
"At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story." (pg 3)
If anyone would like the full source memo with references, you may find it here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...