> the author of the memo is completely correct and, as others have said, his memo is drastically misrepresented in the coverage it has received. he simply point

> the author of the memo is completely correct and, as others have said, his memo is drastically misrepresented in the coverage it has received. he simply points out that women could have less desire to go into fields such as cs because of their biological makeup. I'm not sure you read the memo? The author never provided evidence for this claim - it's pure speculation. The only points he's able to support with science are the statements that there are biological differences between men and women. Quote: "Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing)" That is accompanied with citations. OK, sure, let's take that at face value. Next, he says: "These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics" No citation, no nothing here - just pure guessing on his part. If you're going to make an assertion like this, you need evidence - just, "it makes sense to me!" isn't proving anything. I find it surprising and disappointing that so many fail to read this memo critically. > men and women are not the same. The author is completely correct? No one is saying men and women are the same. Similarly, no one is providing evidence to back up your and the author's assertions.