> For every woman who contributed in some way to the founding of the internet, there were hundreds of men. That's just reality, and to use that fact to argue any point about the state of the technology industry today is retarded.

How is it retarded to remind readers that women made critical or at least significant (if not necessarily numerous) contributions to the evolution of the technology we have today? The work of these women has been overlooked, overshadowed, ignored and discouraged throughout history so much that there is a whole month relegated to reminding US school children of that fact. You may have heard of it.

I agree that one blundering sentence does not an endorsement or thesis make, in the case of the New York Times piece. Perhaps the intent was to satirize the "lore" that it's all about men, men, men in tech, which is why women (in this case, Pao) get so much shit for even trying. Xeni took it literally. I can see where you might see that as an overreaction, but frankly the way that opening line is written doesn't instill much hope in me that the average NYT reader will catch the knowing wink, if it is in fact buried in there somewhere.

Finally, no one's saying men shouldn't receive credit for their work because they had the misfortune of being born into a gender fraught with examples of the underqualified being showered with recognition. What is being said is that women should receive credit for their work because they had the misfortune of being born into a gender fraught with examples of the perfectly qualified being mocked, ostracized and all but forgotten. If that frustrates you, I would be curious to know why.

Edit: original comment deleted. I'm a little disappointed because it indicated the writer felt a very potent irritation with the dialog on feminism/sexism in reaction to Xeni's response and I do wish we could engage each other when those difficult feelings rear up.