> What I observe is that there is more discussion about the discussion. Maybe that's because people keep arguing about the discussion itself, instead of contri

> What I observe is that there is more discussion about the discussion. Maybe that's because people keep arguing about the discussion itself, instead of contributing opinions about the subject? 41 comments up and almost all of them focus on the tone of conversation rather than the problem at hand; the only thread so far* is the one commenting about the workaholic culture as a possible cause. To avoid contributing to that trend, I'll do my part and introduce some meat to the discussion. In the Wired story linked from the article[1], someone complained that she was redirected to a gender-specific investor specialized in funding female-founded companies. Now I think that when there's a problem of cultural bias, having support groups of similar-minded people that may work as safe havens and counter the bias is a good thing. But I agree with her that it should not be the only way to participate, and that the mainstream group should have some minimum requirements of professionalism and treat people from the targeted group in the same way as any other professional. It remains to be seen whether that can be achieved without such groups exerting pressure. [1] http://www.wired.com/2014/07/gender-gap/ http://www.wired.com/2014/07/gender-gap/ [edit] - *updated to acknowledge einhverfr's contribution above too.