And if you are (p.s. they're not), then what relevance does it have to this topic?
Should the original author not have taken offence the 'joke' she heard during a work conference because at various points history an unspecified number of women laughed at the shirt you were wearing?
As an aside, would you be cool with this sort of advertising in 2011: http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles2/a96674_ifyourhusb...
http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles2/a96674_Blowher.jp...
Or do you accept that the world has moved on from these sort of visuals in advertising, and thus it is not unreasonable to expect the same to apply to the telling of [____]ist jokes in professional/work settings?
He wasn't slighting the general intellect of women, he was slighting their intellect in regards to java best practices. Saying a gender isn't knowledgeable about java best practices seems equitable to saying a gender isn't knowledgeable about color/design complements. Please explain how they are not so.
Anyway, my main point was that introducing the existence of another perceived injustice is completely irrelevant to whether a wrong was perpetuated in this case.
Or are you suggesting that the underlying premise of the initial comment was not: "man up love, you lot are just as bad"?