> Yep. It's not incompatible. Maybe most women don't want to spend their life in front of a computer. Maybe, as Margeritte Yourcenar used to mention, being a he

> Yep. It's not incompatible. Maybe most women don't want to spend their life in front of a computer. Maybe, as Margeritte Yourcenar used to mention, being a head of IT is a shit life and women are more clever than men in not trying to get so high. Maybe women want to be at the bottom of the workplace totem poll? Are you seriously going to begin your hypothesizing there? Every single racist from the past said, "I've met plenty of coloreds and they're happy being slaves/segregated/living in ghettos!" It is absolutely ridiculous to begin there while discrimination is still looming large. > Maybe if you start with an all-male community and overpromote women, then 10 years is still not enough to become head of IT. Those numbers are little proof of discrimination. We need to know the mean-time-to-promotion. I never claimed these numbers alone are proof of discrimination. The discrimination has been proven in other ways, and these numbers simply highlight how effective it's been. > Thank you for the insult, which tells a lot about the soundness of your personality. My evidence is: Readers, note that I attacked his evidence, and his response is to attack my personality. > - Around me, I see women be promoted, it's a pretty strong fact, Strong fact? Your anecdotal evidence is worth zero. Around me I see <1% Trump voters. Doesn't change the fact that he has 43% of the nation's vote. > - OP's study says women are promoted faster than men, so it corroborates my supposedly "magnified own problems" (If men aren't allowed to have problems, wtf), Numerous people in this thread (and elsewhere, e.g. pg) have produced competing hypotheses for why women might be getting promoted faster. If you want to bury your head in the sand and ignore their reasoning, I suppose I can't stop you. It makes you look sexist, though, and it's why I and many others were embarrassed to see your comment. > My position is very well documented because of people like you, and you're welcome if you want to discuss facts. On the other hand, if a rational reasoning triggers so much of your emotions, then it means you're associating my position with macho personalities like Trump, fascists or racists, and that means you're making a generalization about me. Did you know that generalizations trump the acurate perception? I'm much more in favour of women's rights than you think – I just can't stand the men-disparaging that we repeat over and over. Rational reasoning? I'm not the one who needs to resort to ridiculous hyperboles to make my point. You speak of a generation of men being sacrificed, but there's no solid evidence to show that we're doing worse than women (quite the opposite). You speak of sexism being dead, but evidence shows women are still discriminated against in the workplace. You've completely failed to defend either of the claims I attacked.