It's a blog post. She's not "presenting evidence" or even making an accusation; she's telling a story.
Who "adequately supports" an anecdote in a blog post? You just tell your story as you saw it, and if the topic is interesting, it can be a base for good conversation.
Here's another viewpoint no one seems to be discussing: the fact that she was seeing a pattern of sexism that was serious enough for her to leave the company is not disputed. WTF happened there, eh? I venture to suggest that it wasn't all in her head, and that it's a problem worth a better discussion than "is her evidence adequate".
I suppose because of the "sensitive" topic, she should be proving that this particular story is 100% factually true, and pack those few paragraphs with footnotes to the dozens of other events that would show that her interpretation is sufficiently supported?
This is all so silly. The stilted legal-defense language exploding everywhere isn't helping anyone.
(Side note: no intention to rail on your comment in particular; this started as a one-liner).
Who "adequately supports" an anecdote in a blog post? You just tell your story as you saw it, and if the topic is interesting, it can be a base for good conversation.
Here's another viewpoint no one seems to be discussing: the fact that she was seeing a pattern of sexism that was serious enough for her to leave the company is not disputed. WTF happened there, eh? I venture to suggest that it wasn't all in her head, and that it's a problem worth a better discussion than "is her evidence adequate".
I suppose because of the "sensitive" topic, she should be proving that this particular story is 100% factually true, and pack those few paragraphs with footnotes to the dozens of other events that would show that her interpretation is sufficiently supported?
This is all so silly. The stilted legal-defense language exploding everywhere isn't helping anyone.
(Side note: no intention to rail on your comment in particular; this started as a one-liner).