I almost wrote yet another in a long series of posts bringing the evidence I encountered on the flip side to this discussion. I thought, once again, that doing so might have enabled a few more people to release that it's just too darned hard to disentangle cultural effects from innate attributes, talent and motivation, confidence and skill. I thought that I could detach the certainty from the minds of those who wished to propound stereotypic ordinals as if they were biological, scientific fact, and perhaps get parents to question what sort of encouragement -- in any sense -- their children get when their first experience upon birth is a pronouncement of their gender.
And then I realized that I tried that before, and it went nowhere. Not gonna fan these flames.
Evidence is always welcome by some people, even if you happen to get downvotes and indignant replies.
A hacker would probably view sexism institutionally. Institutions generally have gatekeepers. When the gatekeepers believe that your race/gender is inferior or unsuited to their workplace, then it's even harder to enter the institution, through no fault of your own.
(For example, if you're female, they may scrutinize you extra closely to find masculine traits like aggressiveness. Their reasoning may be that a certain "assertiveness" is important to survive in their masculine workplace.)
This sets up a feedback loop: your teachers may be more active in dissuading you from studying technical subjects, because they predict that gatekeepers will require you to jump a higher bar of skill and attitudes. Even when many of the gatekeepers relax, the news of this doesn't propagate instantly through the system -- there may be a lag before other parts of the system catch up.
I think this means there needs to be outreach to the public about how workplaces are wanting to improve. (If they are.)
And then I realized that I tried that before, and it went nowhere. Not gonna fan these flames.