>We really should try harder to not psychoanalyze people we don't know based on their blog posts. Clearly she was in a frustrating situation, and that situation culminated in this particular event, which she felt was unfair. I'd be inclined to leave it at that at this point -- sort of an Occam's Razor Of Psychology.
But you're claiming we should "leave it at" the point where she's assumed to be correct, and telling it as it is, assuming that her anecdote was, in fact, an instance of gross sexism, indicative of a problem within the IT community.
Personally, I consider "leaving it" via Occam's Razor to mean assuming nothing new, which in this case would mean discarding her anecdote. Hell, I'm even willing to accept her anecdote as true, I merely reject the consequent, the conclusion that because some guy thought she was being harsh to a co-worker that means that the guy was sexist. Fine, she was upset, but I see no reason to assume that anything here had any relation to her being female rather than male, certainly nothing she related would support that fact.
But you're claiming we should "leave it at" the point where she's assumed to be correct, and telling it as it is, assuming that her anecdote was, in fact, an instance of gross sexism, indicative of a problem within the IT community.
Personally, I consider "leaving it" via Occam's Razor to mean assuming nothing new, which in this case would mean discarding her anecdote. Hell, I'm even willing to accept her anecdote as true, I merely reject the consequent, the conclusion that because some guy thought she was being harsh to a co-worker that means that the guy was sexist. Fine, she was upset, but I see no reason to assume that anything here had any relation to her being female rather than male, certainly nothing she related would support that fact.
Really, do you think that's so unreasonable?