Mmm... you are correct that the memo is subtler than the media hysteria. However, not all of the memo's referenced material was top notch. Worst was, um, a "no

Mmm... you are correct that the memo is subtler than the media hysteria. However, not all of the memo's referenced material was top notch. Worst was, um, a "non-feminist" Wordpress blog to support his claim of men being labeled as "misogynist and whiners" when men complain about gender issues. (https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/ https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/) I can't even find who the author is here. In fact, I would've preferred all the op-ed / journalism to have been cut out and more scientific links used if they exist. EG: In a more science-oriented analysis, the links to the Atlantic, The Wall Street Journal, Boston Review, and the Chicago Reader (while quality media outlets as far as I know) would not be the best choice to lean on. Same for the City Journal, which is a publication of the conservative think tank Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. The link to the New York Post (a populist tabloid) to support his assertion of liberal campus bias was the worst sourcing of this type. Other links are more subtle, but problematic if your goal is convincing the other side of your opinion. I'd put, for instance, the link to Warren Farrell (for women having salaries lower than men) in that department. These days he is strongly aligned with the "men's rights activist" movement. This isn't a "bad" link like the Wordpress blog, Warren Farrell has made some interesting points in the past. But Warren Farrell is strongly attached on one side of politics. Unless this is balanced with equal reference from the other political side, it just makes it easier for people to blindly toss this paper into the "MRA" bin and be done, like many ended up doing.