"In 2016, Crikey ran a series on women in the tech industry and the factors that had led to women making up just 23% of the industry workforce: a lack of girls studying STEM subjects, long hours and an emphasis on hours worked rather than outcomes achieved, [...] drink-spiking and rape at industry events, and boozy bro cultures where strip clubs were seen as good places for work functions."

None of these have anything to do with sexism. Turns out that girls are less interested than boys in STEM subjects - surprise surprise. As for 'long hours and emphasis on hours worked' - what sort of nonsensical word salad is this? Men also work long hours and get paid for the hours worked, unless they are on a salary (no different to women that work on a salary). Is Crikey suggesting that women want to work less hours than men? If yes, then no wonder women aren't hired as often relative to men who are (by this logic) willing to work longer and more hours.

As for drinks being spiked at a bar or club, that has literally nothing to do with work - that is a criminal matter, and an issue for venues that serve alcohol. This article is the first I've ever heard of there being some kind of 'STEM industry-wide' epidemic of drink spiking, and based on the piece overall I can only assume it's hyperbole in line with the rest of the article. I'm happy to see evidence, though, of there being so much drink spiking specifically at 'industry events' that women quite literally make a conscious career-path decision based on it. I'll wait.

Obviously a workplace should never be sponsoring a trip to a brothel or a strip club, but if work colleagues want to go to a strip club after work, that's just friends hanging out and quite literally has nothing to do with work. Is Crikey suggesting that an employer should attempt to control what his employees do in their personal lives outside of and away from work? Good luck with that. Inserting a clause into your PhD skilled worker's employment contract that says he can't go to a strip club or a bar on his own time seems like a pretty straightforward way to get your PhD skilled worker to quit and go somewhere that doesn't have such draconian, paternalistic rules. And, given that he's a PhD skilled worker, he's likely to have that option.

Obligatory 'sex differences are innate and have nothing to do with socialisation' study:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2755553/

None of this is to excuse or minimise ACTUAL sexual harassment or workplace bullying, but - much like how 'genocide' and 'fascism' get bandied about constantly where they don't actually apply - a boy who cries wolf situation is created when attempts to manufacture outrage aren't justified by the facts of a particular case.

EDIT: "34.6 per cent of respondents said they were seen as less professional because they could not work long hours."

In other words, women aren't hired as much, aren't promoted as much, and don't get paid as much because they don't work as much as men. Seems like the system is working as intended.

Or are you guys wanting to pay women MORE than men for working the same amount of time? Of course another way of saying this is: do you want to pay men less than women for every hour worked? Unlike what's happening now, THAT would actually be sexist.

https://members.professionalsaustralia.org.au/documents/Gend...