> I've worked for multiple very successful computer scientist women.
To make sure I read it right: I don't think you're suggesting that there are proportionally many non-male computer scientists, just that you've known a few.
> They have no tolerance for folks who sit around and complain about the unfairness. It's clear their confidence, ego, and drive, allowed them to succeed.
Isn't that a baseless insult? People can point out problems without 'sitting around', and they can 'sit around' without pointing out problems, and in fact the latter seems more likely to me: people who want to 'sit around' don't act in ways that create more emotional stress and work for themselves, and that threaten their employment. It's also a common response to shut down people who have legitimate concerns: Attack them, change the subject to them.
Accepting your characterization of these women you worked for, perhaps they are selected for those characteristics, because others could not survive. Many women have quietly endured discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual assault as the only way to survive in their careers; look at the movie industry, for example. If your industry is selecting for 'success' like that, then there is something morally wrong (and you are losing a lot of talent). Discrimination, harassment, and assault should be stopped, and if someone points out that it's happening, that helps.
Also, many men succeed in tech without exceptional confidence, ego, and drive. The standard should be the same for non-men (just imagine being non-binary in tech).
> I think this is an overly negative attitude.
Why don't we see what women in tech think? Why talk about them in the third person? Probably because there are very few here on HN. Is that coincidence?
EDIT: Slight rewording, to minimize inflammation