No matter whether you think he's a monster or a martyr, posting anything that even suggests a different capability of your female colleagues at your place of work is begging to be fired. I'd have a lot more sympathy if he was sharing his thoughts at a bar and was overheard, or if he posted this on his own non-work blog, but seriously, shouldn't the outcome have been pretty obvious to him?
edit: grammar
he was basically playing roulette politics in the wrong setting.
> A pattern, apart from the term's use to mean "template",[a] is a discernible regularity in the world or in a manmade design. As such, the elements of a pattern repeat in a predictable manner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern
So using a lot of text to depict such pattern while on the other hand indicating such pattern cannot generalize feels like wrestling with yourself. Did he try to prove himself that this 'on average' model is a bad model?
So, would "Jews tend to be greedy" or "Italians tend to be lazy" be an acceptable statement in the workplace because they target (supposed) patterns rather than individuals?
Would someone espousing those statements be reasonably assumed to give Jewish or Italian candidates a fair hearing?
After all, the memo claimed a tendency amongst women towards neuroticism.