Remember that HN isn't representative of tech, and commenters aren't representative of readers. It's great that you speak up, and that you do it reasonably and respectfully.

I'm trying to make sense of this. From the content I'm going to presume you're male, otherwise you'd be discussing from a female perspective instead of speaking for a select few based upon your understanding of their world.

In either case, whether or not their perspective is to want to make room for others doesn't mean that all women feel that way. I've had quite a few talk about this exact kind of experience including former mentors and managers of mine (I've also been lucky to work for some kick ass women). They tell me that they have to prove even more, dress/act more masculine, etc to be taken seriously. This isn't just one woman who has told me this either. This is quite a few over a 15 year period.

Staying gender neutral is an easy way to create room and make it feel less skewed, especially when the context is a senior leader (aka glass ceiling). I know you did with your original they, so I'm talking more generally here rather than this specific instance. The last year has had an outpouring of people's experiences being different in all these respects, and stories in business are easy to find. This week is also the Society of Women Engineer's conference where there's talks on navigating these kinds of environments. Perhaps you might find it interesting to attend and hear. It's available virtually.

I'm not making this out to be dire.. it's quite minor. But that doesn't mean minor things don't add up when you're an outsider. Being a gay man, I've seen that change in language over time to be less presumptive. I don't get offended when people ask about my wife (they'd be right the majority of the time!), but it is nice when people make room for my spouse to not be female.

> 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

"Successful women in computer science are universally thick skinned, confident and driven, and would not have succeeded if it were not for those qualities."

This appears to me to make the opposite point that you think it does.