I think to understand gender discrimination we need to understand what hazing is all about. A basic definition may be "An unpleasant experience to gate access". At first, I thought it was about building bonds but what I believe hazing actually does is solidify the boundary between in-group and out-group via a specific and unique obstacle.

The enphasis of this boundary creates a space for privileged information amongst the network. those internal to the network have access to resources others do not, most often in the form of people and the information in their head. The actual quality of information amongst groups is probably roughly the same, but with in-network information, there is more willingness to be open about this information. This is because information can be infinitely duplicated. Giving out information reduces your competitive advantage just as teaching someone everything you know would as well.

Take away the concept of groups and you remove overt hazing. However, individuals exist along with their gated information. This information includes their deepest secrets and fears, their de-facto model of the organization, as well as the secrets to their strengths. Regarding this last one, if you have a high enough gated privilege, he may just give you a link to the resource he used. If you don't, he may just try and explain it himself. And if you have low privilege, he'll be too busy.

Most organizational skills are NOT generic skills learned in school. They are often tips about organizational management, who to ask about what as well as the hidden mental models that keep the legacy code running.

Take this potential acenario: If a women asks a man how the fuck the shitty legacy code works, there is a threat. The woman who is fresh from school has some ivory tower ideas and the man is threatened because he knew he took some shortcuts. This manifests itself as arrogance when explaining, perhaps even just telling the woman to just figure it out as some sort of hazing test. One she is jaded enough by organizational existence will no longer be a threat.

So there is a constant dynamic of men needing to orove themselves to other men and women. When women are involved, the need is higher, creating more arrogance and a higher power distance. Many woman know this, which is why they are more likely to say: "I heard you were the expert in this area, could you give me a few pointers? I'm SOOO bad at this stuff. " while other men might "What the fuck is this shit?!"

Men basically have 2 choices to extract information. Playing the mentee, or playing a high status individual that the other person has to prove themselves to. Women often only have the first because culturally they are socially punished for aggressive behavior.

One root cultural stem is that a man mist be in some eay superior to a woman to "deserve" her. Gender roles have the man playing the hero. This imperative prevents men seeking help from women but also systematically prevents women from reaching high status without overt and obvious superiority in an aspect.

This last part is very important. The issue is NOT about actual skill. Out society is set up fairly well in that it is still mostly a meritocracy. The best rise to the top, and this includes women.

The issue is that your ability is determined by your access to experience and attitudes. (No longer knowledge, e.g. Blacks being banned from libraries or similar) This can create a headwind or tailwind for you in different directions.

Also, in places where measuring skill is flawed and has huge variance, women often have to doubly prove themselves because their "scores" are artificially deflated while an extroverted tall white males might be inflated. From an organizational standpoint this is in some ways even "good" because the org may bot be sexist, but it sure as hell wants its ICs to fall in line. That entails a manager or leader that can utilize aggression and status.

So, to sum up, culturally women are often forced to play a low status role, and men are forced into high status and often more high pressure roles. From a romantic but somewhat chauvanistic view, this is "protecting our daughters and wives". In reality, you fake it till you make it. Men have the paths to power opened for them while women are stuck having to out on fake smiles. (Though often self imposed due to fear. But then again, that fear is another cultural manifestation of boys being taught to face their fears to protect the girls who aren't expected to do anythinf)