> Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Neuroticism is a precisely defined term in psychology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

The author cited many sources from scientific studies which have consistently found that on average, women score higher on that scale than men. The wording of your juvenile mocking of that statement seems to imply that you didn't comprehend the most fundamental point the author made through his entire essay; he is not saying that "women are neurotic", he's saying that out of a large sample of women, we'd statistically expect more of them to be above some arbitrary neurotic "threshold" than out of an equivalent sample of men. If tendency to be relatively more neurotic is negatively correlated with pursuing a career in tech, we'd expect more men than women to want to pursue careers in tech. Please explain what is sexist about that observation.

> We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

The commentary you provided here is coming entirely from you, not the author. You've assigned the author biases that you believe he holds, and are assuming motivations behind his statements that are not there, and there is no reason to think they're there. If you don't believe this statement is true, please provide a citation indicating that women are equally willing as men to work long hours and endure stress in the workplace. The author provides several indicating otherwise, do you have anything to disprove him with?

> Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things > We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration...

Your interpretation of this is very baffling to me. This struck me as a fantastic idea! Without even considering whether it appeals to women in particular, this seems a wonderful way to try to make software engineering more appealing to those who like working actively and in close proximity with other people. Imagine if it was an industry norm for software engineers to have "partners" who they frequently/consistently worked with, pair programming style. Personally that does not appeal to me at all, but I can easily imagine people who never would consider software engineering as a career reconsidering it if that was an aspect of it. Having a programming "partner" who you work as closely with, and could potentially form as much of a bond with as police partners could potentially draw people into our field who currently don't think they would like it. These are the kind of interesting ideas that are worth discussion, but that discussion is being shut down by outrage.

> As I said, this is the poster child for "Computers are for boys, talking to people is for girls," mixed with some suggestions. Have you read the essay?

To be frank, this summary of the essay is so wildly inaccurate that you are either lying about having read it, your reading comprehension is shockingly poor, or (and I think this is the most likely) you have strongly held beliefs related to the topic at hand, and are reacting violently in the face of a decently well reasoned argument that challenges those beliefs. It's not the greatest essay ever written, everything in it isn't gospel truth, and in some places where the author veers away from relaying scientific stuides to offering his personal interpretations/opinions, I don't agree with him. But to dismiss it as you did is a poor reflection on your ability to engage with those you disagree with and have a constructive conversation.