He emphasized in the article that he was talking about patterns, not individuals. So there's no way you could draw the conclusion that he meant to suggest that his female colleagues were any less capable than their male counterparts.
> A pattern, apart from the term's use to mean "template",[a] is a discernible regularity in the world or in a manmade design. As such, the elements of a pattern repeat in a predictable manner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern
So using a lot of text to depict such pattern while on the other hand indicating such pattern cannot generalize feels like wrestling with yourself. Did he try to prove himself that this 'on average' model is a bad model?
So, would "Jews tend to be greedy" or "Italians tend to be lazy" be an acceptable statement in the workplace because they target (supposed) patterns rather than individuals?
Would someone espousing those statements be reasonably assumed to give Jewish or Italian candidates a fair hearing?
After all, the memo claimed a tendency amongst women towards neuroticism.
he was basically playing roulette politics in the wrong setting.