I'll play some devils advocate.

> Hiring women because "we need at least one woman on the team because of the quota". Would you like to know you have been hired because the team is forced to have a women and everybody knows it?

I'm usually the token veteran at a company. We're a protected class too, and I won't be ashamed that I got hired because of that. I let my performance speak for itself and I bet any woman worth her muster would do the same.

> Same company. I have received an email that you can "get bonus if you refer a friend that gets hired." Then a list of how much you can get depending on position. Then a note -- "if a woman, the reward is tripled".

This is admittedly bad, but is probably reflective of the overall lower pool of women they have to hire from. Especially when that pool has to make it through your hiring gates.

> Promoting women before they got enough experience. Similar to above. You have been put on a fast track for promotion but you haven't had time to get the needed experience. Everybody knows this (and discuss behind your back) but nobody is going to tell it to you. Now you have two problems.

I've fast tracked men. So far I haven't had to stand in front of a review committee and explain why, but I'd happily do so. People are going to fuck up when they get fast tracked. If someone snubs their nose because it's a woman instead of a man standing in front of that committee with me, then that's fine. They can take my title too.

> On topic of feedback, people need feedback to improve, but female developers will not get it. All-positive feedback is no feedback at all because you are nowhere closer to knowing what you are doing wrong. I have personally been doing some pretty stupid things (like taking credit for other people work) until somebody told me and I fixed it. I wonder what would I do if nobody dared to tell I am doing anything wrong, or if my salary or position in the team had nothing to do with how well I am actually doing?

This is the same subject as the article. I suspect women who mean well will read this article and will be on a war path to fix things. I know a good amount of feminists (although they're from places like Texas) and I know they wouldn't stand for people who have willed men into fear. That's not what the feminists that I know want.

> Just because guys can't be hitting on girls in the office doesn't mean it isn't there, but now it is more comical.

> Just because people aren't supposed to discriminate women doesn't mean it is not there. Male developers seem to be in large part focused on the fact the words are spoken by a female rather than their merit. I have seen concrete examples. It kinda seems it is still true you need to (at least in some cases) work twice as hard to prove anything, but now male employees got better at hiding their discrimination. I am half decided that maybe all the focus on discrimination achieved is push the discrimination underground.

> Discussions quieting down when you show up. Or tame behavior when eating lunch. Guys reminding other guys that a woman is present. Supposedly because it is not proper to behave like that (but it is fine when only guys present?) Imagine this happening every time.

I don't think many of these policies will stand long term. Remember that many of them came about when _very few_ women were in the industry. Once you have a larger percentage of women present, commonality doesn't need to be enforced by policy. There will be a larger spectrum of womens interests reflected in tech.

You can't stop the dating train. I don't date where I eat, but that's a personal decision. Women are going to get the digs for other women and men and vice versa. A corporation can try to draw lines around privileged positions but those will always be tough until they're glaringly obvious.