I am going to remove the blog post, as it seems to give rise to some profound misinterpretations. I personally (me as the person Jana Herwig, not as my employer) don’t see the sexism in what I wrote – in particular because I clarified that this “doesn’t imply that all females, whether social, cultural or biological, love lolcats, nor that they are not so super-tech-savvy.” Being a non-native, it may also be that something escapes me here – in my view it clearly says “this does not mean that all women like lolcats, etc.” I do like them, I am even a fan of Lolcats, and I specifically watched the video because the thumbnail already showed it. Where is the crime in that?

So the concern of some readers must be in using the attribute “female” at all. If that is the case, then I still don’t see quite see why that would be a problem, because I don’t think that difference is best addressed by denying difference. Would you have been more satisfied if I had used the term “feminine” instead (a difference which many languages, including German, are not able to express)?

EDIT: It’s probably more interesting to have a discussion on just one blog, so I’d like to refer you to Burningbird’s Real Tech blog. I guess my comments there are going to be approved and be visible there in a while (at least I wouldn’t know why they shouldn’t).

and yes, if we like it or not, these lines of division happen to coincide with gender.

So that would make Shelley 66% female and 66% male*, me 33% female and 66% male** and my wife 33% female and 33% male***.

I don’t think you’ve thought this through. At all.

*PC+ W2+ SW+ T+
**PC+ W2- SW+ T+
***PC+ W2- SW- T+