Experts point out that while companies might encourage open dialogue among their employees, the workplace is not necessarily a free-speech zone and that a company’s code of conduct is up for interpretation. It’s one thing to express concern over work-related issues like aggressive production quotas or the quality of the coffee in the break room; it’s another to accuse women or minorities of being inherently deficient for certain tasks, especially in an industry confronting diversity problems — and then complain about being persecuted for expressing those views.

Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety, This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.”

"Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men".

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group

We strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. ... To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.

People who haven’t done engineering, or people who have done just the basics, sometimes think that what engineering looks like is sitting at your computer and hyper-optimizing an inner loop, or cleaning up a class API. We’ve all done this kind of thing, and for many of us (including me) it’s tremendous fun. And when you’re at the novice stages of engineering, this is the large bulk of your work: something straightforward and bounded which can be done right or wrong, and where you can hone your basic skills.

Essentially, engineering is all about cooperation, collaboration, and empathy for both your colleagues and your customers. If someone told you that engineering was a field where you could get away with not dealing with people or feelings, then I'm very sorry to tell you that you have been lied to... It's true that women are socialized to be better at paying attention to people's emotional needs and so on – this is something that makes them better engineers, not worse ones...

Scott Alexander, as usual, addresses things interestingly and sanely. And he disagrees with you. Worth reading:

https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on...

By graduating elementary school?

I think that much more likely plan-Bs (certainly career-wise) include studying informatics, information-system, industrial engineering, or simply computer-science in a less prestigious college. I doubt there are many who study math for any other reason than the love of it (at least not for their first degree).

Besides, girls do as-good (if not better) than boys in school, aren't they? So how can grades be an explanatory factor to begin with?

What's the big difference between 1700-hours long training, to (at least) 1400-hours long training? It's a similar entry barrier.

ASAIK, basic training is several months there after they get their first assignments. You don't imply that it takes some 3 years training before IDF starts to get its money worth?

The most basic program (least prestigious, minimal prerequisites) indeed extends over just 6 months. But those are dense and intensive 6 months, that in terms of academic-hours worth over 80% of 3 years of college (~1400 hours vs. ~1700 hours). Soldiers in this program are required to serve 6 years, exactly because this training is hardly enough, and in practice it takes another 1-2 years of OJT and further courses before they become reasonably qualified.

First part of your response is qed.

I thought we were talking about entry-barriers and qualification requirements.

Precisely. The current discussion opened by comparing veterinary to programming. The former requires 7 years plus to qualify, the latter, as you've aptly pointed out, can be accomplished with several months of training.