> Nope. There are certainly people who are jerk, but they are mostly equal-opportunity jerk. Since everyone is subjected to the same amount of 'jerkitude', it is not discriminatory.
This is not true. Again, ask the women who participate. The EC study you dislike found that 80% of women who responded had noticed sexist behavior. I.e., non-equal-opportunity jerkitude. Or, y'know, look at any of these threads.
> Claiming that women are poor soft thing that can take it, in such a drastic fashion that it explain the demographic ratio, is actually insulting to women.
Nonsense. I couldn't take half the stuff some of the women who participate have to put up with (which goes up to and including death threats). I'm not still here because I have a tougher skin, I'm still here because I don't need one.
> "talk to any woman in FOSS" And how would I know that I'm 'talking' to a woman, are you one ? Should I take your word for it ? Am I one ? Please indulge me with your expert guess.
So, uh, how is that a response? Is the claim that since you can't find any women (and obviously you've looked very hard, it's not like they have blogs and give keynotes on sexism in FOSS and maintain wikis documenting sexist behavior or anything), then what they say is irrelevant?
> The whole "watch you language, there are women around" lobbying is highly condescending. I find that kind of Dark-aged chivalry much more offensive than the occasional sexist jerk.
You're right, that's a pretty sexist way of looking at things. But you're the one who's reading that into my comments. I'm just saying that acting like sexist jerks causes harm to people and communities. "Try not to do harm" is not a particularly dark-aged value, AFAIK. YMMV.
And did you really just claim the right to judge some sorts of sexism particularly offensive, and others relatively harmless, on behalf of those women you can't find to talk to? That's very, well... chivalrous of you.