> What it means is that you mind find more men interested in, and excelling at, particular fields compared with women, who have complementary interests and exce

> What it means is that you mind find more men interested in, and excelling at, particular fields compared with women, who have complementary interests and excellence in other fields. Men are in control of these fields. Men do not have to face the discrimination and harassment that women must face to work in these fields. There is significantly less friction for men to enter and rise at Google than there is for women. If people were truly considered equal, that friction would not be there and there would be equal representation at the very top. Making that friction go away is what Google is trying to do, and this manifesto does exactly the opposite. I doubt you'll find many women who appreciate the fact that they are considered "more neurotic" by a male engineer at Google. Engineering is not inherently male or female. Women are not worse at spatial reasoning or maths or programming. Bullshit thinking like this leads to discrimination in those fields. > Where does the manifesto author restrict anyone's rights? By writing the manifesto he advocates for a system that would. By making the assumption that biological differences account for inequality leads to the thinking that biological differences justify inequality. (I get the sense that this author believes that but is just shy of saying it.) The author has the privilege of not having faced discrimination the same way a woman would have faced in his place. By writing this manifesto blind to that privilege — and then coming to the conclusion that it's "biological differences" and that women are simply "wired differently" — for why they are paid less, and in less senior positions, simply propagates the existing discriminatory system. A system which discriminates against the rights of others. Let's lay out a ridiculous assumption made by the original author: > We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life. This implies that women are less capable of dealing with stress. Most of my searching on this suggests the opposite, that women deal better with stress than men. But then, the question of gender and stress seems incredibly complicated and the original author has used a simple and blind assumption which favours his ego and supports his position. His entire piece is written like this.