They demonstrate that genders approach problems differently. Assuming your gender is going to influence your career choices is not an evidenced based approach. I did link you to just a few of the many studies which explore socialization and gender and career which goes across cultures.

Quote me the part of either study that refers to how brain chemistry affects career choices…particularly when placed against social influences. I'll wait.

I have mentioned studies elsewhere in this forum. If you are telling other people to go find studies then I suggest you find my post where I outlined the research findings of many studies. I didn't link to the source because this is something I know well. However, finding the studies where I got the evidence shouldn't…

Refute them? I don't refute those articles at all. Why would I show anything to refute them.

It's super bad. As an history teacher maybe you can appreciate my disdain for STEM…er, STEAM…..so now, basically you have everything EXCEPT history…(SHTEAM is a shit acronym and that's the way we make decisions now, I guess)..So let's just teach everything but remove all context from it and see where it gets us. Great…

This is why, btw, I asked you to be specific in your claim before showing examples of research. I was specific in my claim and you just gave me a bunch of links that didn't address my claim at all… in fact, they strengthened it.

See. This is the problem. Neither of those are studies addressing what I said doesn't exist.

It's the wrong argument. Socialization- not biology- is the driving force behind whether or not minorities pursue CS jobs. Google itself realizes this and funds 'down stream' initiatives like mine to battle the socialization process, for lack of a better word.

Like I said….those are generally misunderstood. Studies that show matriarchal vs. patriarchal societies show the inverse affects.

I feel like you're missing the point. They don't believe him when he says he's anti-discrimination because he contradicts this statement in other places of the memo. This is a perfect example of saying what you want but the audience gets to judge your sincerity and validity of the total argument.

Again. There's not. I look at this for a living. It's what I do. The only link anyone put in this forum was wrong. The stuff pulled directly from the memo was wrong.

Everything ya'll are discussing is more personality traits and less about gender -although it's arguable (I guess) that some genders learn towards certain personality traits. Still, have 12 personality types to argue about in a conversation is a better, less divisive framework than gender. This is what was so…

I thought she was a flat earth person. is she both?

hahahahahahaa. Shit, that's a nice example.

"Super Racist Slut" porn is my go to when the wife's away. Interracial relationships are a drag.

Dude, I'm a conservative and totally open about it here…and I disagree with your entire premise as well as the content of the memo…..I've not been smeared here by anyway. I think I have, like, two people blocked on the entire site.

I've followed some of the links in both the memo (guesswork there) and provided here. None of them seem to state what the poster thinks and some are the exact opposite. For example, girls actually DON'T have a preference for the toys they play with, although boys do. The differences on the "5 Factor Model Personality…

Well, I voted for John Kasich and I'm offended by this article. It's slightly ironic that myself and a couple of the more conservative posters here seem to me more mystified by this memo than some of the "liberal" types here. It's weird. Oh well.

The main takeaway is simply not being a dick- something both sides are guilty of doing.

No, there's not a lot of research. For example, the research on neuroticism in women states that there is a predisposition to the gender, but never divorces the increased levels of neuroticism from the influences of socialization.