They aren't only misrepresenting Reges in these essays. Some of the things these women finger as "holding them back" are actually (fairly predictable) problems with their own behaviour. I see no rational argument for why men should take the blame.

Consider this passage from the second essay, which seeks to school men on how to avoid discouraging women:

In my case, my college adviser assumed I’d be going to medical school and did not guide me toward the courses I’d need in computer science. During my senior year, when he discovered his assumption was wrong, there was little time left to fill in the blanks in my education. It is easy to assume the wrong thing about someone, and this is where implicit bias can creep in. It is far better simply to ask.

The implicit assumption in this paragraph is eye watering: she appears to believe it was up to her advisor to telepathically figure out that she was not in fact interested in medical school, and would prefer computer science, without her ever telling him that. In Mankoff's world view it wasn't up to her say, actually I want to do computing, could you steer me towards courses I'll need for that that please? Rather it was up to him to "discover" that his "assumption" was wrong.

But she took the courses the advisor recommended, so, apparently his assumptions weren't so wrong. She agreed with his advice after all. There's clearly some misrepresentation of the poor advisor going on here: he didn't pull medical school out of thin air, she must have indicated a bit of interest, then she changed her mind and has re-interpreted her own life story to make her own indecisiveness the man's fault instead of her own.

A "blame men" attitude seems rampant in such stories. There are two anecdotes about someone else trying to take credit for their work. Instead of blaming human nature and recognising everyone suffers this they make it about men vs women. Pratt says men interrupt her in meetings. Guess what, men interrupt each other in meetings all the time. That isn't sexism. It's how men talk sometimes. Interrupt them back, perhaps.

The third essay is pure ad hominem insults and trash - anyone who disagrees with Julie Letchner is a "mole" who needs "whacking", by which she means Reges should lose his job. It's deeply unfortunate that women like Letchner claim to speak on behalf of all women and apparently meet no resistance. Where are all the women standing up for Reges and his right to explore these issues? Not a single essay is supportive of him. Perhaps that's deliberate by the Seattle Times.

The essay by Pratt reveals she's got another problem that she probably can't recognise:

Last year, I asked my students to describe why they think women are underrepresented in STEM fields.

Isn't she supposed to be teaching computer science? This question is asking the student's opinions. There is no right answer to such a question. But she doesn't see that ...

I was dumbfounded that students would put their names on such statements and submit them to me — a woman grading their responses.

... and we can assume proceeded to downgrade everyone who submitted the "wrong" i.e. non feminist answers, whilst marvelling at their stupidity in assuming their female professor might actually be neutral or fair. Yes, how foolish of those students to submit their real opinions instead of flattering their professor's political biases. If she's spending her time on this sort of "teaching" it might explain why she gets paid less than her male peers, who presumably don't.