Thanks for the article, but it is far from a substantive rebuttal, at best I would call it an opinion piece, with its "proof" based on logical errors and assumptions.
> There's a "chicken or the egg" question that needs to come with every assessment of behaviors of groups vs societal expectations and pressures on those groups. People in power, like yourself presumably (despite your insistence of having "no particular horse in the race) will always pretend that things are the way they are because of divine or otherwise pre-determined reasons. It's silly that people who consider themselves so rational are unable to comprehend how obvious this is.
You are mistaking your imagination for reality. You cannot read my mind. Regardless, you are the one advocating social engineering, not me, the onus is (or should be) on you to prove sexism is the cause of gender imbalances at companies. If sexism is so rampant, why is it so difficult to produce any evidence, and why is the "evidence" so commonly produced the equivalent of "bro-culture" conspiracy theories. That this is considered "evidence" only further illustrates how differently the human mind can perceive reality.
> Also lol @ programs for underrepresented groups “increase race and gender tensions”. Get fucked, dude.
What does this refer to? And please refrain from profanity and personal insults. If you have the moral high ground, as you seem to believe, no need to use filthy words and personal insults, your superior ideas should suffice, no?
> edit: came across one of the ones I read before from a recently ex-Google employee: https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/so-about-this-googlers-man... super good and worth a read
It opens with an outright lie: "You have probably heard about the manifesto a Googler (not someone senior) published internally about, essentially, how women and men are intrinsically different and we should stop trying to make it possible for women to be engineers, it’s just not worth it."
Absolutely fascinating.
EDIT: After reading that, my conclusion of how you find these sorts of articles compelling is that they are rebutting a twisted strawman of the original manifesto, where the author is imagined to be making a whole bunch of assertions that he really isn't. I think that explains quite nicely the breathtaking difference of perception.
For what it is though, it is absolutely brilliant, extremely well done, and I mean that completely seriously. I'd bet big money that person will absolutely dominate in the corporate world.