[lern_too_spel]

If you think this is not a big deal, you should become familiar with the Petrie multiplier. Women shouldn't need thicker skin than men to work in science, but that won't get fixed as long as we keep ignoring the problem, limiting the speed of scientific advancement by limiting the population of scientists. http://iangent.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-petrie-multiplier-wh...

[exstudent]

This wasn't an attack on "men" it was an attack on a specific man and yes, it was totally outrageous.

Women don't need thicker skin. No man or woman should be criticized for how they dress.

[lern_too_spel]

You didn't even read what the Petrie multiplier is, making your whole post a straw man attack.

[trhway]

man, 'vei just read what the Petrie multiplier is. It clearly explains why, given equal sexism by men and women, women's experience is worst. Thus to equalize experience, according to the Petrie multiplier, men should decrease their sexism way below women's. Forcing men to decrease their sexism way below women's is an attack on men by definition, and the Petrie multiplier provides mathematical foundation for it.

[lern_too_spel]

Is it really that much of a burden not to be sexist or racist? The obliviousness I see in this supposedly enlightened industry astounds me.

[trhway]

you probably didn't read what Petrie multiplier is - it clearly explains why heavily disbalanced industry like hi-tech consisting of practically non-sexist/non-racist Jesus-es would feel like sexist and racist environment by the corresponding minorities. Onus is on you to show that people in the industry are actually sexist and racist - according to Petrie multiplier, minorities feeling bad isn't enough to conclude that the majority consists of sexist and racist people.

[lern_too_spel]

You misunderstood what the Petrie multiplier is. It assumes equal non-zero racism/sexism/minorityism. It doesn't matter whether it is a majority. I posit to you that there is no reason why it shouldn't be zero.