The author of the document was not questioning the ability of women to do IT work. He was questioning why women are underrepresented in IT. Those are two completely different questions and the people who have assassinated his character have chosen to misinterpret his argument because it’s easier to dismiss a Misogynist than it is to dismiss someone who might have made a few valid points.
And for what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s bad to be single or not getting laid (I mean, obviously, as it applies to me also.) However, I do think being single and not getting laid often makes men more likely to be sexist toward women.
You say men can’t understand stereotype threat. I don’t agree, but I’ll cede that point to you. You, similarly, can’t understand the affect lines like “single and not getting laid” have on men.
It’s also telling that you’re willing to entertain politically incorrect arguments at women’s expense, but get upset when a woman makes politically incorrect arguments at men’s expense.
There is no such thing as a politically incorrect joke at men’s expense (unless it’s homophobic). It is absolutely socially acceptable to mock men who are “single and not getting laid”. In entertainment, if you want to depict a male as a “loser” or “worthless”, you depict him as “single and not getting laid”, unemployed, or both. That’s pretty much universal.
Google’s the place that actually fired the guy. I already said I wouldn’t have.
I would have fired him, but not because he expressed an opinion I personally agree or disagree with. Google is about to be sued for gender-based wage discrimination and keeping someone who expressed an opinion that has been labeled as sexist/racist/etc on staff could damage Google’s standing in that lawsuit. Google has a fiduciary responsibility to pursue profit above all else. If kicking people who express unpopular opinions to the curb can improve Google’s earnings, then that’s what you’ve got to do.