[oconnore]

I'm sure there are plenty of existing challenges, but the author can't really fault people for being good at statistics and acting accordingly.

He is essentially asking males to ignore the current situation so that females can ignore the current situation (and the fact that women in tech are to some degree, still breaking new ground)

[seldo]

You're essentially using the existence of sexism as a justification for sexism. "There aren't many women in tech, therefore why should I treat women like they might be in tech?"

The reason you should ignore the current situation is precisely because _ignoring it will help change the situation_. That was the point of my post.

[Synthetase]

I don't think he was justifying sexism ANYWHERE in his comment. The fact is that few women are in tech. You can't fault people in good faith for making observations of their environments. But I doubt you can even claim good faith to your name.

[oconnore]

I think you are wrong about what sexism is, or what any -ism is. I can make all sorts of observations without falling into an -ism: There aren't many women in tech. I am not sexist. A majority of convicts are minorities. I am not racist. Older people are more likely to be ignorant of new technology. I am not ageist.

Ism's are not about making the observation in the first place, they are about being reluctant to drop your assumptions when you meet an exception.