[repolfx]

there are historical and sociological reasons for why they're over-represented.

This appears to be a strong assumption of the sort I asked to avoid. How do you know the reasons are historical and sociological and not simply that men like computers more?

You're ignoring privileges that a man would have over a woman in getting investments

But again, I asked for concrete discriminations not hypothetical "privileges" based on working backwards from unequal outcomes. You're speculating that "connections made through school" are important for men and not women, but that's nothing concrete and doesn't even make much sense - startup founders typically find VCs or the other way around the time they create a company and need money, and men and women are not segregated at universities. It's not like investors pick companies on the basis of being at the same college together. See the article yesterday about the flood of money from Softbank who have more or less single handedly killed any talk of a bubble pop.

Statistically differing outcomes might make sense if we were talking about smaller differences, but--when 11% of executives are women, women are earning 1/4 of computer science degrees, and the declining rate of women working in tech has fallen--you notice a pattern of exclusion across the entire spectrum of experience levels.

No. This is exactly the kind of argument I asked people to avoid - you are observing statistical trends and then assuming it must be caused by invisible discrimination. You can't point to any actual examples of companies stating they won't hire women or investors saying they won't invest in women, whereas I can do both these things for men. Instead you resort to strong assumptions of invisible discrimination you can't actually point to, based on observation of disparate outcomes.

Oh, and you can explain 11% of executives being women and women not going into tech very easily using ordinary and undisputed biology/psychology - men take more risks and women prefer working with people. These aren't even controversial aspects of biology: no "pattern of exclusion" required.

[ianleeclark]

You're asking for a hard-science demonstration of a soft-science problem and this is causing you to refuse understanding a deeply rooted systemic problem if it can't be immediately displayed.

Ahh, your post history is illuminating and an interesting walk through the reactionary mind:

> Historically speaking fascists were hard left

> You know what Nazi stands for, don't you?

> Implying someone is racist when they've not said anything racist is unacceptable ad-hominem.

I don't think you're equipped to have this conversation.

[repolfx]

Your post is heavily downvoted because you are simply engaging in ad-hominem - presumably you ran out of arguments and know you can't win this one?

There is no such thing as a "soft science problem" for which "hard-science demonstrations" are invalid. That's a separation you've made up on the spot.

What I'm asking for isn't even science, I'm not even asking for data. I'm asking for anecdotes! That should be easy! Just show a bunch of cases of companies explicitly refusing to hire women or refusing to promote women because of their gender. You don't even have to show that amounts to the entire cause of the disparity. That's an absurdly low bar.