I'm confused. The author seems to advocate for civil, rational, open-minded discussion, and follows it by advocating that the industry effectively exile someone whose views he disagrees with.<p>The included quote is not a personal attack on any individual. Yes, its strongly worded - more than I would personally like. But its not a wild rant saying women are an inferior race. The quote doesn't even suggest women <i>shouldn't</i> be in tech - it simply suggests an explanation for the gender imbalance (however accurate that explanation may be).<p>Why not attack that explanation instead? Leave no doubt in anyone's mind that he is painfully wrong - not by public shaming and ostracizing, but through the rational argument the author seems to so eagerly want.
Okay, how do I put this?<p>1. Mike is a big fat jerk.
2. "everyone who ever published his words about any subject in any capacity should disavow him and ostracize him for his thoughtcrime, and everyone who doesn't is bad people" is stupid.<p>In conclusion, everybody sucks.
Ah, political correctness... While I don't subscribe to the theory that women's brains are primed towards different things, I don't think it is really established that (on average) they aren't either. Therefore, to be honest, I think it should still be possible to entertain that notion so that appropriate research can be conducted.
I know it's easy to suspect that Zach sees the irony in what he's saying, but he doesn't. I know he doesn't. I've stumbled across far too many people like him at my university to believe that he is merely using satire.<p>He really does believe that he welcomes an open discussion, despite (in the same breath) calling for all of us to exhile and ruin the professional life of anyone who dares to disagree with him.<p>These are the same types of people who salivate at the thought of burning "counter-revolutionaries" alive.<p>I hope you grow up, Zach, And I say that as someone younger than you.