2 unclear articles. Antirez's philosophy seems to be: In general if there is a problem at the work place between individual A and B, I think it is always an er

2 unclear articles. Antirez's philosophy seems to be: In general if there is a problem at the work place between individual A and B, I think it is always an error to talk about sexism, even when the root cause is some asshole not respecting you because you are a woman. Instead the problem should be addressed in a sexual agnostic way. Shanley's rebuttal to this is: Oh, OK, Salvatore. Let’s definitely not talk about sexism in the workplace, even if THAT’S THE fing ROOT CAUSE OF A PROBLEM. * ... * even though sexism is BY ITS fing NATURE a systemic force, especially in the workplace where issues around gender inequality are created and enforced on a cultural and institutional level. And goes on to say What you are proposing is not a viable solution in any way (apologies if censoring swearwords offends.) Shanley's point seems to be that that sexism isn't just/merely an interaction between individuals and any simplistic solution that tells person A to act identically to person B regardless of any attribute of B except for skill in performing their job is naive. If my summary is correct then I agree with S that this is not a problem that can be solved simply. And I think that A has not looked at all aspects of sexism in the workplace in his original article.