For me the problem is that gozur88 "just doesn't believe" this, that the article seems "fishy" and that "experience" tells gozur that these things just-don't-ha

For me the problem is that gozur88 "just doesn't believe" this, that the article seems "fishy" and that "experience" tells gozur that these things just-don't-happen in the post 1850 world. These are all the smells of an argument driven by an intuition prioritized over and above the real experiences of women in tech. Again and again we see this. The article that quantifies the amount of speaking roles in movies by gender, or if women have been sexually assaulted at work or not, excluded some datapoint, had one poorly stated point, didn't cover x or y or z, and therefore can be discarded. The problem is that no amount of evidence seems enough to please these people, and that any amount of links or anecdotes or documented cases seems to be discarded as cherry-picked. And the conclusion drawn is that the problem is overblown, and doesn't need to be addressed. Its interesting to me that you mention Julia Evans. I've never encountered her writing, but she definitely has a belief in the truth of women's stories about harassment. See here: http://jvns.ca/blog/2016/03/06/women-only-spaces-are-a-hack/ http://jvns.ca/blog/2016/03/06/women-only-spaces-are-a-hack/ Perhaps Julia would respond better to a direct e-mail asking her if she'd share any of her experiences in tech! Might be worth a shot?