Personally, my evidence of institutional sexism (racism, etc) comes from glancing at rooms full of software developers, knowing a bit about the world (what gender have all the US presidents "coincidentally" been?), and simply asking female-bodied people. Not to mention probing my ideologies, and those of my fellow men.

Learning is an active process. You probably wouldn't be impressed by someone who demands that each Erlang blogger (in each random post) convinces them of Erlang's merits. Instead, they earn an informed opinion by actively exploring it and confronting their own prejudices.

You mention, "Nobody wants to believe there's sexism in their industry." If true, we're irrational men whose emotional wants strongly determine our beliefs.

A more rational approach is to want to believe the truth. I believe every society I know is fundamentally sexist, and the guys in them (including me) are sexist, growing up benefitting from our gender's privileges and being led to act in strange ways.

When I read this article, I can't demand that it convince me. (It's not her burden to convince sexist men of their sexism. Instead, it is up to ethical men to dismantle their privilege.) Rather, it has helpful nuggets on What Not to Do.)

You make good points. But...

  You mention, "Nobody wants to believe there's sexism in
  their industry." If true, we're irrational men whose
  emotional wants strongly determine our beliefs.

That's probably true to an extent. Most people are irrational at least in some areast. In this case, I don't think they're letting their desires determine their beliefs, just demanding better evidence in this case before they allow themselves to believe the unpleasant thought, in particular, before they accept the author's claim of being wronged. Perhaps I, too, am being too generous.

... and, in the method of disbelief they choose to employ, they provide the very evidence they are demanding.

Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing, and leads to fantastic piles of irony. Humans are all irrational; anyone who claims to be rational is, in fact, irrationally rejecting the overwhelming preponderance of evidence.

The best we can do is be aware of our irrationality and attempt to compensate with tools like checklists, blind resume screening, empirical data, and awareness of biases to inform cultural and personal behavioral modifications to minimize the harm that irrationality can do to our field, our businesses and people around us.

For example, any time a human has a defensive reaction to something and lashes out with an attempt to dismiss or discredit the speaker rather than the argument it is probably because they interpreted the statement as a personal attack on their identity. That is, if someone says "bicyclists who run red lights endanger their own lives and the lives of people around them" the people who respond angrily probably went through this unconscious thought process: "Endangering lives is bad! People who do so are bad people!" "I run red lights on my bike, so the speaker is accusing me of being a bad person!" "Well, they probably aren't even a bicyclist/don't know my specific commute/don't understand how hard it is to cycle to work every day, so what would they know?" "Whew, I'm not a bad person after all!"

And then they will probably feel superior because they rejected a poorly supported argument, or an insufficiently supported argument, no matter how much evidence is presented. What should have been evidence against their behavior instead strengthened their commitment to it. I recommend the recent book "Thinking, Fast and Slow" for a more complete explanation of this process and the relevant citations.

The practical implication of this is that whenever one's first reaction is defensive dismissal of someone's report of their personal, first-person experience of the world, it isn't because they are wrong: it is because their experience being true threatens one's own self-image. That they may be wrong or purposefully lying are merely post-hock justifications for an initial emotional response.

With all due respect there is precisely no evidence in any of her voluminous writing that (and I quote):

* she is overreacting

* she really is too touchy

* she's raging

* playing the sexism card every time you run into a bad manager

* overly paranoid

* a bit of a jerk

* [has] a chip on your shoulder in re sexism

* [has] license to be as emotional as one likes

* she's frustrated

* too much drama

* emotions are out of control

> can you point to compelling evidence that it was motivated by sexism

I haven't mentioned sexism - I have only mentioned the unbelievable response to her blog post. All her other blog posts are credible - why isn't this one?

Her other blog posts are perfectly credible, and she comes across as a somewhat harsh, and typically cynical sysadmin...

...from which most of the things you've quoted follow pretty naturally, whether the author is male or female.

You're right, you don't need to mention sexism to make any judgements. So why should we assume that sexism is to blame when people dislike her? I've disliked most sysadmins that I've interacted with, regardless of sex, and that includes myself, when I've been forced into that role...it's a shitty job, and while somebody's got to do it, we never like the "assholes" that end up complaining to us about how our dev practices affect ops people. But the rest of us don't try to pin that on X-ism, we just accept that it's an unpopular position within any company...

Shocked? No. Willing to quietly sit by while the "vehement criticism" (actually rampent, foul sexism that would never be directed at a male tech blogger) is condoned and defended and is accorded more respect than the original article from a respected blogger? Also no. The latter is happening in public in a documented form so there is more than enough evidence to "prove" it happened.