Red herring fallacy. Women aren't constantly giving birth throughout their entire lives, so it really has no bearing on anyone's average ability to handle stress. Especially as childbirth is female-exclusive and a necessity for any species' continued existence. Obviously women are biologically equipped to handle that, otherwise the species would die off. Why not compare stressful situations that women and men actually experience?

It seems you have issues in separating individuals from averages, hence your reliance on anecdotes.

In reality, the statement "men, on average, are better at math than women" is supported by statistical evidence:
http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/2013/TotalGroup-2013.pdf

Whether you look at SAT, ACT, PISA, or any other standardized test, males do better in the math section. In the SAT data, we can see that the gap has been a little over 30 points for the past 40 years. This difference is even more pronouced at the higher ends, because females have a slightly smaller standard deviation, meaning that their scores are more concentrated around the average, with less at the very high or very low levels of performance. For example, while there are 90 males for every 100 females in the 500-590 range (slightly above average,) there are 165 males for every 100 females who scored 700 or above.

I'm not even sure why you brought up race at all, as no one was discussing that. Was that supposed to be a "Take that!" against white guys or something? In any case, your anecdotes go against the actual data which show that white males score the third highest of any group, only behind Asian males and Asian females.

The studies are only inconclusive to people who feel threatened by the conclusions.

Once again, you conflate individuals with collectives. Either you did not read the memo at all, or you did not understand its contents. Human traits occur in a bell curve distribution, so there will be significant overlap even if group averages are different. This is why people should be judged as individuals rather than as groups. Of course, the author barely even mentioned abilities at all, and merely commented on the differences in personality and interests that could lead to differing outcomes, so your nonsense about anyone being "biologically inferior" is just purposeful mischaracterization of the argument.

Pretty sure he citied things like women not being able to cope with stress and other factors. The bottom line is this ... this guy might be able to program but he's not socially the brightest bulb in the pack. 

Unless he wants to work at a gay club or plans to immigrate to Saudi Arabia, maybe it should have dawned on him that he probably would have to work alongside women, and such a memo likely wasn't going to be a big hit with the women he'd have to work with making him a corporate liability plain and simple. 

You still seem to have problems with understanding differences on the group level versus the individual level.

If Damore claims that the underrepresentation of women at Google is largely explained by the fact that women on average are being less interested in things versus people, and are less competitive and assertive than men are on average, why should women who work there feel attacked as individuals?

And are you truly so dogmatic that you refuse to believe that women could be more prone than men are to neuroticism and to certain forms of stress?

What I found most HILARIOUS about this entire Google "anti-diversity" memo hysteria.....is when all those precious, snowflake types couldn't go to work that day! The memo was "violence", so they had to avoid work. If that isn't neurotic and not being able to handle "stress" (in this case, the only person under stress was the guy who was unjustly fired, HELLO!), I don't know what is.  Absolutely priceless.

Those are pretty vague comments. I'd say the "stress" of working in a fucking office is pretty tame compared to the stress of pushing a baby out of your vagina, or having a screaming todler in your face for 18 hours a day, but that's just a wild guess. I think women can cope with stress just fine, probably moreso than men in many differing ways honestly.

But lets base it all on a study on toddlers who stared about objects for a seconds? 

There is no definitive "study" that shows one way or the other, it's more likely in my opinion that a lot of our gender roles are simply culturally based. If you had an island where you raised 50 kids and you highly incentivized work with computers for women and hair styling for men, I think women would probably domiante the computer field in that scenario. It's not neccessarily anything to do with genetics. If testoreone is the key then why do the highest testoreone men tend to avoid "nerdy" jobs like computer programming like the plague. These are mostly cultural constructs and since the culture is changing (and it always is and always will continue to do so) so too can business culture. 

In any case, this dude basically killed his career since he likely can't be hired by any high profile company in his field now without controversey and no corporation needs that bullshit. 

So you're making up stuff, huh? 

He never said that women are biologically inferior to men. He said that there's biological differences between women and men (which is very true). 

As far as women not handling stress or stressful situations as well as guys in general, didn't a bunch of women take the day off at google because they were stressed out from the working condiitions/that guys memo?

That's assuming that the women and men were under the same pressure. There is a common belief that women cannot accomplish as much as men, or that women aern't able to handle stress is well. Having to deal with that stigma, and having to worry about it, creates an extra level of stress.

Just comes to show that you didn't read his memo properly nor did you check his references with your constant strawmanning. He didn't say that women are biologically inferior. He said that there are biological differences as well as sociological differences (prioritizing work vs. prioritizing work-life balance) that may contribute to a non 50-50 representation. Women have the tendency to prefer more sociable work hence why they have higher representation in jobs that require a lot of interpersonal interaction. Men have the tendency to be more materialistic hence why they have higher representation in less sociable jobs. However, tendencies are not destinies (pardon my uninteniontal poetry), as he warned against reducing men and women to their averages:

He also proposed some solutions to minimize the gender gap in non-discrimminatory ways such as make software engineering more people oriented. But sure, he clearly believes women are biologically inferior to men...

Pressure as you put it would be more an individual issue because each person's situation is different and how they handle pressure is also different so no two are under the same pressure so to speak. That so called "extra level of stress" is not a justifiable reason to call out of work or get a pass on silly behavior. I'm sure there was guys who didn't like the memo but they didn't call out of work because it upset them. Based on what most of the haters of the memo are saying everywhere, they didn't even read the damn thing. 

 Only way to prove that a stigma is wrong is by being a walking contradiction to it, not by reinforcing it.  

Ah yes, that's easy to say when you don't have to deal with those issues.

 Every person has some of kind of issues. Having issues doesn't excuse bad behavior or acting like a stereotype you don't like about your little group(s). If these women working at google (who took the day off) read the memo, they would have realized that taking the day off because of stress would have have been a really dumb idea.