Stripe for female founders has invited you to join Stripe Atlas

From your links:

[1] she saw firsthand the importance of fostering leadership skills and self-confidence for young women at an early age.

[0] We built Stripe Atlas to help entrepreneurs from all over the globe start and run an internet business, no matter which industry they're in, where they're based, or their gender or ethnicity. However, women are still not starting companies or raising money at nearly the same rate as men—women made up only 7% of founders whose companies received more than $20M in VC funding between 2009 and 2015.

Which fits with my description of recognizing a need to actively reach out to women because (reasons).

That in no way questions her genuine passion, etc.

1) Children, particularly much younger ones, will remember less of the experience specifically. They're certainly likely to have an overall positive memory of the experience though.

2) If you're a family of 5 that's a lot of tickets. Making the children's tickets cheaper and the toddler's ticket free makes it much easier to go to the zoo on a budget. Children aren't going to the zoo by themselves but the zoo is likely not losing any revenue by discounting child tickets because they're able to get so many more families to come in the first place.

This appears to be a strong assumption of the sort I asked to avoid. How do you know the reasons are historical and sociological and not simply that men like computers more?

You're ignoring privileges that a man would have over a woman in getting investments

But again, I asked for concrete discriminations not hypothetical "privileges" based on working backwards from unequal outcomes. You're speculating that "connections made through school" are important for men and not women, but that's nothing concrete and doesn't even make much sense - startup founders typically find VCs or the other way around the time they create a company and need money, and men and women are not segregated at universities. It's not like investors pick companies on the basis of being at the same college together. See the article yesterday about the flood of money from Softbank who have more or less single handedly killed any talk of a bubble pop.

Statistically differing outcomes might make sense if we were talking about smaller differences, but--when 11% of executives are women, women are earning 1/4 of computer science degrees, and the declining rate of women working in tech has fallen--you notice a pattern of exclusion across the entire spectrum of experience levels.

No. This is exactly the kind of argument I asked people to avoid - you are observing statistical trends and then assuming it must be caused by invisible discrimination. You can't point to any actual examples of companies stating they won't hire women or investors saying they won't invest in women, whereas I can do both these things for men. Instead you resort to strong assumptions of invisible discrimination you can't actually point to, based on observation of disparate outcomes.

Oh, and you can explain 11% of executives being women and women not going into tech very easily using ordinary and undisputed biology/psychology - men take more risks and women prefer working with people. These aren't even controversial aspects of biology: no "pattern of exclusion" required.

For example, there are few events targeted at recruiting more boys to college, even though only 40% of college students are male; and few programs specifically targeted at helping homeless men even though most homeless people are adult men.

Contrast that to the PR value of program like this that's targeted at helping women.

But in other fields sometimes such events are organised, to encourage men into female-dominated jobs. Guess who comes out of the woodwork to attack them:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydne...

The University of Sydney is under fire for a new scholarship of nearly $30,000 that gives preference to male applicants, with the head of the scholarships office likening it to grants that “discriminate” against students who are not Aboriginal.

...

“The way I think about it, affirmative action should only apply to people who have structural barriers to receiving an education – that’s what the exemption in discrimination law is about, so you can procure particular benefits for women in Stem [science, technology, engineering and mathematics], Aboriginal students and so on,” Grant said. “It’s not for further advantaging men. It’s really quite bizarre.”

some people and groups just want special treatment