[glaak]

Anecdotally it may exist; statistically, however, it does not.

Let's think about your "female friend" who has lousy technical chops and a 2.5 gpa at a mediocre state university. Is every woman with a 2.5 GPA at a lousy state university getting an interview at all three companies? No? Hmm. I suspect there's something much more to her resume than what you're telling her. These companies are not all simultaneously saying, hey, let's go interview this one woman who happens to have a 2.5 gpa at a crappy school. You're just seeing it that way because you think reverse discrimination is an issue.

Fortunately, this has been studied. And guess what? Equally qualified women have a harder time having their resume selected for technical positions. A similar study was done for black people vs. white people (or, technically, black-sounding names vs. white-sounding names).

It turns out that the conscious thought people have of wanting to hire more women is secondary to their more subconscious bias.

[esrauch]

Regarding the overall statistics; I agree, hence what I wrote about there being real discrimination against them. What I intended to claim (but perhaps could have been more clear about) is that women have these out-in-the-open advantages and even more hidden-behind-closed-doors disadvantages.

You seem to be attaching an argument to my statement that I did not intend to convey; I don't think that reverse discrimination is an issue. I think it is extremely visible, and gives you really lousy visible situations like the ones I mentioned that are obvious errors, that doesn't mean that it is a bad idea.