[blkhp19]

If you look at it objectively, there simply isn't enough evidence to say that her examples were purposeful sexism. As others have said, people should be mindful of how they word things.

There are plenty of articles that do provide substantial evidence showing sexism. I just fail to see that caliber of evidence in this article. Her tone honestly gives off the vibe that she thinks everyone is against her.

[ahelwer]

I would caution you against falling into the intellectual trap of believing your interpretation to be objective, especially here. Why must sexism be purposeful? Is it not a more damning implication of the culture for non-purposeful sexism to exist?

[cplease]

Indeed. Lea writes a cogent article about a pervasive problem of sexism and hostility to women in education and industry and her personal experiences with it. From a thousand yards, a few of her individual examples seem that they might be a bit overblown and unfair to the other party, perhaps based on her own assumptions from being on the receiving end of so much blatant sexism. But picking them apart one by one to debunk her experience and narrative is invalidating her experience and condoning blatant sexism and hostile workplaces. It's real and it's wrong, and even those whose intentions are harmless should pay more attention to what they are saying and doing and be fucking professionals. You don't code with your dick, so there's no need to wave it around in the workplace.

[cellularmitosis]

I'm not sure I understand how picking apart her experiences one by one in order to be critical of a few of them is condoning blatant sexism. Why am I only allowed to accept her entire article as a whole?

[orkoden]

The system and culture is against her, not necessarily the individuals.