> you sound like the typical guy women don't want to work with
You don't substantiate this claim with respect to why they "sounds like" this, what a "typical guy women don't want to work with" is, or why it matters in context to this thread - but decide to air this unflattering view anyway.
I didn't ask you. So I am not sure you are telling me the correct answer.
But I want to ask you something. How "That is not why women earn 20% less than men. It is because men work longer hours over longer periods of time than women do." is not disrespectful and how it was backed? Sorry but I cannot stand without doing anything with such claims, and it pisses me off that the mods here think my comment is a personal attack and the said claim (that is not supported by any reference and it is also false) can pass without problems.
I can only offer a guess at what dang thought was a personal attack, but I can opine on what is a personal attack independently.
There are different contexts in which different levels of evidence or backing might be supplied, but the first thing I noted is that you don't explain why the things you mention are relevant. "That is not why women earn 20% less than men", regardless of if it is true or false is clearly relevant to the discussion, but why is what someone "sounds like" relevant?
Also, there is enough information in the above claim to search on it - or at least the claim can be refuted and thus begin an exchange of evidence. But your claim is about the character of the anonymous person you are talking to. Claims about a population of people, brought up in a relevant context is not disrespectful (possibly, depending on the legitimacy of the claims, but that is yet to be decided); Making remarks out of context about an individual is entirely different.
> that is not supported by any reference and it is also false
Who says it's false? Just say you don't believe the claim, and ask for evidence, or make a counter-claim of your own.
Because we live in a world where women are treated as less important/intelligent than men. And we must try not to promote that stereotype with lies.
> Claims about a population of people, brought up in a relevant context is not disrespectful
So things like "people is stupid", "most people here are male chauvinist", are ok to say? The context is that the author of the article makes some claim about how women are treated worse than men in tech.
> Who says it's false?
All the articles posted in HN about salaries. Every year stackoverflow makes a survey for developers where they analyze among other things the salaries (for example: https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2016#salary-gender) There is almost no gap in salary by gender with same years of expertise, the gap only happens with age, >35, where the position is important (it means less women in top positions). But this topic has been brought here over and over, it doesn't need to cite it all the time.
I repeat the question again: How "That is not why women earn 20% less than men. It is because men work longer hours over longer periods of time than women do." is not disrespectful and how it was backed?
We live in a world consisting of different, distinct societies and community groups. In some of those groups "women are treated as less important/intelligent than me"; But this is not true of all groups - so whose norms do we assume in online conversation?
> we must try not to promote that stereotype with lies
There is a difference between "sounds like" and "is". If you believe a lie is being told, refute it rather than attack a persons' character.
> So things like .. are ok to say?
In relevant context, if it exists, yes. Neither of those things seem like they would be relevant to this thread.
> All the articles posted in HN about salaries..
That's still something you had to provide evidence for, and couldn't just be assumed. So long as it's an objective subject, the personal attack is not justified.
Plus, there are HN articles that "debunk" the gender pay/wage gap too.
> the gap only happens with age, >35, where the position is important (it means less women in top positions)
Who says that's what it means. "over 35" means exactly just "over 35". Your interpretation that it's "top positions" as the relevant factor is just one explanation. "men work longer hours over longer periods of time" is another explanation, that is not refuted by your example.
The question wasn't backed, but neither was your own until just now (after the PA).
There is no way to definitively answer "How [the claim] is not disrespectful" since "disrespect" is subjective. It seems uncommon to treat something that is true or plausible as disrespectful though, so let's focus on plausibility instead.
> you sound like the typical guy women don't want to work with
You don't substantiate this claim with respect to why they "sounds like" this, what a "typical guy women don't want to work with" is, or why it matters in context to this thread - but decide to air this unflattering view anyway.