OK, so I’m going to be a disagreeing voice. But not on the premise of allowing varied, rational opinion. Disclosure: I am categorically a punch a Nazi sort of guy. Wouldn’t even think twice about it. Article 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights will explain that one. If you wish to address that point, I’m happy as long as you read and understand that principle and why it was created.
However, I want to be clear why I disagree and it’s because I did indeed, do a point by point dissection of his manifesto, spread across 3 parts (you can find it in my stories if you have hhe time) . The science simply doesn’t back up his position. Doesn’t even come close to any biologic factors associated with it and the manifesto’s logic is shockingly bad! For a Google employee of all people!
What I don’t take any notice of, really, is words. It’s the concept communicated by them, in the context in which they are made, that matter. Here, Damore was chronically stupid. I cannot find a single justification for his conclusions within the manifesto in science, especially without an educational or self-exclusion covariate. There is certainly no reference that justifies any position from a biological standpoint. Not one. Indeed, go back nearly 70 years and the dominant gender in data processing was female. Some 80% female.
Also, I want to be clear on the diversity training. Correct me if I’m wrong, but your article seems to indicate a frustration and arguably a sense of being patronised by such training. Tbh, this standpoint isn’t new. The UK has had such training for 35 years, which has felt to some like punishment handed out by HR. This is resented purely because it makes racial and gender diversity “an issue”. Constraining opinion by saying you can and can’t say X or Y. It sends such non-PC commentary underground. Personally, I’ve never been a fan of it. It can easily lead to worse situations for everyone (even those it intends to help). Make no mistake, I know that better than most as I turned down Oxford Uni in the 90’s precisely because of it and even 22 years later, its perception is still just as bad as it was then.
If this was the standpoint Damore took (not at all convinced that it was. Read my dissection for the full reason why), then his context should have been limited to that, but it wasn’t. As soon as he pulled in biology, it became about all women, regardless of what he headlined with. Chronically bad judgement at best, Social Darwinism at worst.