> not present in the article at all Did you find any evidence of sexism in her first example? Is it unreasonable to say she jumped to her own conclusions there

> not present in the article at all Did you find any evidence of sexism in her first example? Is it unreasonable to say she jumped to her own conclusions there? Do you think there might have been more going on in her second example than "sexism" when she got seated in a supply closet? Is it reasonable to assume no one went to lunch with her just because she was a woman? > presenting analysis of "the way men think" would be an absolute minefield, not to mention inherently reductive and problematic As opposed to her one-sided anecdotal "evidence" of a sector structurally ill-adapted to women that she somehow stuck with for 20 years anyway? The fact she stuck with it so long is indicative that there must be upsides, none of which she mentions because she wasn't interested in providing a measured or constructive account - she wanted to write about sexism. > by being very specific and factual she gives us more to chew on. That's precisely it: her account isn't factual, it's anecdotal with all the inherent biases and one-sided interpretation that go along with that. What nutritional value are you deriving? What did you find actionable or insightful? What are reasonable men to take away from her post? What are women, aside from "don't join up"?