It's a forced metaphor, trying to gain sympathy for a cause without an iota of the merit the original cause had.
> There is no "reduction", just misrepresentation
Please, explain how it is misrepresentation? I hear this a lot: "oh, you are just misrepresenting!" or "you are putting words in his mouth", so far not a single person has actually clarified how, exactly, I am misrepresenting Damore's words.
> "massive whiner" is the kind of insulting hurling that is getting you downvotes
If I gave a crap about downvotes, I wouldn't be on this forum calling out people who want to paint themselves as victims of an "unfair system", when they clearly have had the upper hand since the beginning.
> Yes you can, and Damore did, with nuance, in the memo - which you haven't responded to in either specific or accurate term yet.
Yeah, I've only stated 100 times before that his argument is incredibly weak, because he tries to build a case for "discrimination" based on "the facts" that women are not interested, and hence trying to reach out to them is "discriminating men." Weird thing is: he doesn't quantify anything, he just states - as a matter of fact - that biological differences are probably a huge driver in difference in interest in the field.
So, let me ask you: how much difference do the supposed biological "handicap" women have account for? 10%? 20%? 50%? You know the answer? No? I mean, you seem to have all the answers and have a solid grasp of the "science" behind the argument, so please, quantify it for me and make a solid argument of why outreach is wrong considering the massive disparity that exists nowadays.
I'll sit here and wait.