I think compared to, say, the Warhol Superstars, he was pretty mediocre. I also thin that by the time he came along, it was fairly safe to do what he did, and there was little transgressive about it.

Yes you tell me, which somehow I'm supposed to accept as the only/accurate studies, despite the studies cited by people who hold a different position than you and an entire field of research called Evolutionary Psych.

Funny, I see hypocrisy in you at this point. Go figure.

You are stating what some of the research says. You're ignoring/dismissing the research that exists which says the opposite.

Yeah, I responded to those. They don't demonstrate what you claim they do.

It's not my hobby horse. I linked articles others have listed here. I trust you have access to an internet search engine and/or Amazon book search. I mean, you know this stuff is out there. You reject it and then decide rejecting it causes it not to exist.

I said from the first his position was debatable. That you cite articles that support your contention does not prove there aren't (many) articles that support the opposite. You're saying you trust the findings of experts who endorse your opinion rather than those who don't. I get why you'd do that, but it doesn't make…

Your first link does not support your argument and actually argues for hard-wired differences between the sexes rather than environment being the overriding factor. Your second link does what you argue my link does: never specifically demonstrates career choices in the tech field are related to environment (they have…

One shows the relationship between gender and behavior. Career choice having a relationship to behavior, it is logical to conclude, gender would relate to career path.

They demonstrate a connection between human choices and gender. Somehow you think this would have no influence on career choices. Why it wouldn't, you do not explain.

Funny, you provide no studies to support your assertion.

Funny, you made that assertion without citing studies.

Uh, no. But go ahead and dismiss them. Makes deciding these issues so much easier. And anytime you want to produce studies that refute them, feel free.

You're the one sure you can formulate a person's interior and exterior life based on one thing.

People have. Here are a couple.

He makes the argument that the company has gone overboard trying to make a place for and recruit people who may not be predisposed to join the field. He never claims no one in these groups has the ability to do or interest in the work, nor does he claim they should be prevented/discouraged from pursuing a career or…

There is. Studies in how the brain is differently formed, studies in how males and females behave from birth, across cultures and even species. I don't know what career you are in, but yes certainly these studies exist. I mean, heck, pick up a science magazine one in a while. Read psychology textbooks. Search Google.

I definitely think not being a dick is a good motto. The trouble is, you've got people who define expressing a contrary opinion as "being a dick." That's happening to the email author despite his going out of his way to support anti-discrimination. People just reduce it to "I'm not a racist, but…/Some of my best…

There is tons of research. You may not accept the findings, but the research exists. It isn't all anecdotal.

Kinda like "social justice warrior" and "femenazi" right? Why accurately characterize someone when you can just make up a label to smear them, amirite?