Now that I actually have time to read this thing, I see that it's pretty much exactly what I had said
earlier in the thread, when I was mentioning the centuries of fallacious 'science' employed to rationalize discriminatory behavior. Just because it speaks scientifically, doesn't rage with hate, and cites sources, does not mean it is an accurate representation of anything.
For starters, he provides sources for trivial information - such as the differences in values of genders - but then comes to a conclusion for which he provides no data to support. More criminally, he follows these trivial bits each and every time with much more important assertions (the actual workings of the female mind, as well as neuroticism), but provides
no source at all while again providing a conclusion that is now doubly-damned by both a lack of source for his claim and a lack of supporting evidence for that conclusion.
I'm not even going to touch that a significant number of his sources are Wikipedia, that at least two sources that I checked were opinion articles, that another two came from deeply conservative news outlets that severely misrepresented their headlined claim, or even that one did not appear to have anything to do with the paragraph he introduced it in other than to deceptively suggest he has a supported and valid point (alright, I suppose this technically counts as touching on these things).
Does any of this mean he's wrong? Not necessarily. I
would suggest that, just from my own research that I've had to do in the past, the paragraphs where he is suspiciously lacking a cited source for very large leaps are likely lacking because evidence directly refutes his claims - for example, as it's still on hand from another post where I mentioned it,
Harvard researchers found that women don't negotiate not because of some sociological need to be "agreeable" or "gregarious," but because they are actually punished by male superiors for doing so at a significantly higher rate than men.
What it does mean is that yeah, while the left has perhaps demonized the document a bit more than it deserved, the right has praised it far, far,
far more than it deserves as well. It's an opinion piece trying hard to present itself as more. This would've gotten a C at best in a college foundational writing class based on his source work; it would've utterly failed if it was presented as an argumentative term paper.