[CydeWeys]

That's also not making sense to me. Women clearly are capable of being scientists, so what's wrong with criticizing magazines that only talk about beauty tips? And why would that necessarily lead to "failing in your own life"? It obviously doesn't. Look at, e.g., Sheryl Sandberg.

[Diamons]

And for every Sheryl Sandberg there's 10 men. Being the exception != being the norm.

[CydeWeys]

That's not the ratio of men to women in the tech industry, and said ratio is not caused by competency discrepancies. It's actually partially caused by exactly this kind of sexist drivel that you're spouting; who would want to enter an industry that is so unwelcoming?

Why is there so much sexist trash in the HN comments today?

[Diamons]

Just because you disagree with an opinion does not make it sexism. If anything it exaggerates your own self prescribed ignorance.

[krastanov]

Theirs is not just an opinion when you have a few decades of sociological research to back it up. If you want to see research supporting the claim that you are wrong a good starting point would be Project Implicit's webpage.

Indeed, the person that responded to you could have been less inflammatory, but it is pretty hard to keep it cool when you are surrounded by people that dismiss an entire group of people based on gender, sexual orientation or skin color.

[CydeWeys]

FYI, the definition of sexism I'm using is the dictionary one, not "things I disagree with". I called your opinion sexist because it is sexist. Here's the definition:

     1. prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially discrimination against women.
     2. behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

If you want to argue, instead of going all ad hominem and somehow trying to make it be about my supported ignorance or inability to handle disagreement, let's actually stick to the issues.