Also, your suggestion about presenting analysis of "the way men think" would be an absolute minefield, not to mention inherently reductive and problematic. The insidious thing about experiencing prejudice is that it can be very difficult for a reasonable person to be sure whether it's real or whether it's in their head—by being very specific and factual she gives us more to chew on.
Did you find any evidence of sexism in her first example? Is it unreasonable to say she jumped to her own conclusions there?
Do you think there might have been more going on in her second example than "sexism" when she got seated in a supply closet? Is it reasonable to assume no one went to lunch with her just because she was a woman?
> presenting analysis of "the way men think" would be an absolute minefield, not to mention inherently reductive and problematic
As opposed to her one-sided anecdotal "evidence" of a sector structurally ill-adapted to women that she somehow stuck with for 20 years anyway? The fact she stuck with it so long is indicative that there must be upsides, none of which she mentions because she wasn't interested in providing a measured or constructive account - she wanted to write about sexism.
> by being very specific and factual she gives us more to chew on.
That's precisely it: her account isn't factual, it's anecdotal with all the inherent biases and one-sided interpretation that go along with that.
What nutritional value are you deriving? What did you find actionable or insightful? What are reasonable men to take away from her post? What are women, aside from "don't join up"?
I would have preferred to see some analysis of how she has had to and did adjust to the way men think, some tips for colleagues welcoming women, something she appreciated in working with men, some area she uniquely shone because she was a woman in a male environment, etc.
What we got was a thinly veiled foregone conclusion of "anything I don't like is discrimination because I'm a woman" and "the problem is men". As usual, she is merely the victim, has no agency and no interest in a non-gynocentric perspective. As it stands, there is little to be gained from her post besides discouraging women from joining up and demonising men.