There's two things I'd like to say: 1) The media rarely characterizes the actual underlying science correctly. In this case, the journal entry [0] and an auth

There's two things I'd like to say: 1) The media rarely characterizes the actual underlying science correctly. In this case, the journal entry [0] and an author of the paper herself[1] characterize it as simply a "difference" and are careful to not concretely link it to human-observable behavioral differences (such as "Women talk more", which the media is more than happy to expand upon to clickbaity levels in order to get more ad revenue). 2) History has shown that science, which strives for impartial and unbiased results, often has its results applied by biased and partial people who have agendas. Said agendas may include justification of the current status quo. In my opinion, keeping these two points in mind is just an exercise of healthy critical thinking. When applied here, I reject your idea that this Huffington article justifies Bonderman's behavior as being unoffensive. [0] http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=128545&CultureCode=en http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=128545&Cult... [1] https://www.sfn.org/Press-Room/News-Release-Archives/2013/Language-Protein https://www.sfn.org/Press-Room/News-Release-Archives/2013/La...