As someone who is definitely considered "a progressive activist" I may add my 2cents:
I am not quite sure what you mean with objections? If you mean that people are not willing to talk about those things: I accept it, and stop talking about it. (Aslong as it is no direct issue like those people using the N-word, or being racist in general.)
About disagreement: It would be pretty strange if everyone would have the same opionion? I ask people about their reasons and try to understand their point of view. If they have valid arguments that I was not aware of, I am open to change my opinion.
BUT: If people come at me saying: Climate Change is a hoax, The complete media and science is controlled by the elites etc... Then i stop talking to them, as they would never consider an argument opposing to their opinion as valid.
AND: If someone considers people inferior only because of their gender, their race or their religion? Then I tell them indirectly, to go and **** themselfs.*
* At work I would try to be more diplomatic. Otherwise a whole team dynamic could be destroyed. But In my personal environment, I am as direct as possible. I do not want those people in my life.
Due to an high amount of work I have to do I was only able to skim through the memo.
It seams as if the memo was written in a good intention. What I took away from the text is that he mostly considers people different, not inferior, because of their gender. It would be dumb to completly disagree with that. I think rational and follow science, therefore I agree on some off his points. I disagree with the extend of his conclusions and imo he sometimes mixes up correlation and causality.
But those are all things one could discuss. He sounds like reasonable guy.
Rereading the memo, I definetly missed some points earlier.
Things like:
- "We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism."
- Followed by him arguing that the attemp to reduce the gender gap (Which is imo clearly a result of sexism) is discriminating the poor white man.
- On Top the strange "Woman on average" part connected to "Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination"
My view on the tone of the whole memo changed. One could interpret it, as a "white guy whining about people taking his century old priviledges away".
BUT: I would need to talk with him about it, to really know what his intention was. Again, ignoring his short reference to the IQ tests, I did not have the feeling that he was openly considering certain people inferior. I would still be open to talk to him.
If Google fired him, just for this memo and not because of a combination of other things he said and did, it would be exeggerated. And it would support at least his points on "alienating conservatives"
Objections and disagreements are pretty common (many of the things that I would like to change are not easily compatible with neoliberalism/the modern corporation). I try to use them as learning opportunities to understand other people's viewpoints and refine/revise my own. I do get frustrated as well though, sometimes things seem self-evident to me and then it's painful when that view is not shared - in some cases it's not about arguments but about the underlying value systems from which people derive their arguments (e.g. what does fair mean to a person). These things are definitely not easy to talk about and I also don't think that I always manage to find the right tone or approach, but I try to be persistent and adjust as I find out how things work.
