Think women in tech is just a pipeline problem?

I don't know about other departments coming in to ask for an engineer, but when it's an engineer looking for another engineer on a different team, it usually takes the form of asking openly in that teams hipchat/slack/irc room (as gender neutral as it gets) or specifically addressing one particular engineer (usually because that engineer is known for being great at providing advice or technical details on the issue at hand)

I've never once witnessed that second one and would be shocked if I did witness that. I've been around long enough that if that were still a problem, I would expect to have witnessed it firsthand.

I know the third happens (my sister is in sales and has been subjected to it).

How do they make a living if they aren't working at all?

That seems like a shockingly high figure of people who have the means to avoid any sort of labor productivity. I can only conclude that "are not working today" is loosely defined or that these people were unfit for working at all, since someone that has the means to quit work and not have to look for other work elsewhere probably hasn't lead a very rigorous labor existence.

Also, this appears to be study of only the ones that left. I'm certain I could find 716 men that left the tech industry too, and come up with a set of reasons why they left. Looks like a classic case of selection bias. There doesn't appear to be one women who stayed in the industry in that study. Does that mean I should conclude from this study that 100% of women leave tech? Simply put, you need to survey more than just those that left.

That study comes across as far more biased than the biases it's trying to combat.

It's far more interesting to discuss base rates. Start with a sample of women in tech, follow them over n-years (you can get a good representative sample by choosing different cohorts like those that are recent grads to those with 5-10 years industry experience) and do the same with men. After 2-3 years check out how many from from each gender from that sample have left the industry. Interview them to find out why.

My ex was a documentary filmmaker interested in social causes and whatnot and I've seen how the sausage is made firsthand and know how data and statistics are twisted to support an agenda. Good statistics that strive to be impartial almost never produces numbers as "story-worthy" as the ones from that study, which means you need to question the numbers presented and also ask which figures were conveniently omitted.

Strangely, I'm not terribly bothered by your story because an attitude like that strongly held means there is little to no chance I'd end up in such a toxic environment for me. This big upside is that it saves the time and energy possibly I would have invested in a place that is going to suck.

As I grow older I've learned it's not merely enough to know where you want to want. You also need to know where you don't want to work. Extreme overtly environments like that make that choice really simple.

There will always be people workplaces where such bigotry thrives. We should minimize how common such workplaces are. At the same time, there is a benefit of have a few workplaces here and there that attract and retains such people because it keeps those people from entering the labor market and being employed at a company with men and women who would rather not deal with such bigoted bullshit.

They claim to be technical skill/programming meritocracies.

So I noticed that maternity leave is cited often, but that strikes me as a lesser problem in tech relative to the cost of housing. Raising a family in San Francisco is not a cheap proposition. Rent keeps rising in the Bay Area.

Let's do a thought experiment.

Lets say a man and a women in tech both moved here 5 years ago and each got small rent-controlled studio apartments for about $1000/month. Let's say they met and started dating two years ago. They decide they want to move in together. They can forego one dwelling and share a studio apartment, or they can look on the market. They look around for a one-bedroom. Two years ago, a one bedroom is probably going for $2500 a month. Fast forward to today and they decide to have a kid. Everything is great for the first 1-2 years, but by 2017, they feel like they need a 2-bedroom. They start looking around and see that the only options cost about $5000 to $6000 month. That's a huge cost of living increase before the cost of child-rearing and is far more likely to drive people (men and women) out of the industry than unfavorable maternity leave policies.

In the thought experiment above, both a man and a woman both leave tech in SF together once they are forced out of the area by the conflict between housing prices and raising a family. The different is that the age distribution for men is likely to much broader than for women because of the biological clock. A man marrying and having a kid could likely be anywhere from 27 or so to past 40, where the range for women is likely to have approximately the same lower bound, but a much lower higher bound. I suspect 33 or so. This would suggest that housing prices are more likely to prematurely end the careers of women in tech in San Francisco.