The posters didn't say (as you did) nothing in the story seems to indicate sexism to me. They said a whole load of other stuff for which there was no evidence.
As part of your hit-parade, you specifically quoted me, where I said:
Whether or not this incident was motivated by sexism, there's absolutely no indication, based on the facts presented, that it was.
...which was the premise on which I based my comment (quoted) that she was overreacting, and my other comment (also quoted) that perhaps she was, in fact, overly sensitive, if she chose to interpret such a neutral act as overtly sexist.
If you disagree, and think that the author did, in fact, make a semi-plausible case that she experienced sexism at her job, then please say so and try to defend that case, but realize that the rest of us that you quoted have (quite reasonably, IMO) taken it as an obviously verifiable given that she hasn't, and our comments have been made based on that assumption.
That doesn't make us sexists, it just makes us literate.
So Rachel is required to give evidence - but the people attacking her are allowed to allege anything they like with no evidence what so ever
Let me quote you:
> Quite frankly, the fact that she's raging over and reading so much into a statement that is, by normal standards, extremely neutral, leads me to believe that even if she has been directly accused of being too emotional in the past, then maybe there's something to the accusations. Some people really are overly sensitive to perceived slights, and the fact that they're women doesn't necessarily mean the criticism is unfair...
You have whipped up a fair confection here from precisely no evidence.
As part of your hit-parade, you specifically quoted me, where I said:
Whether or not this incident was motivated by sexism, there's absolutely no indication, based on the facts presented, that it was.
...which was the premise on which I based my comment (quoted) that she was overreacting, and my other comment (also quoted) that perhaps she was, in fact, overly sensitive, if she chose to interpret such a neutral act as overtly sexist.
If you disagree, and think that the author did, in fact, make a semi-plausible case that she experienced sexism at her job, then please say so and try to defend that case, but realize that the rest of us that you quoted have (quite reasonably, IMO) taken it as an obviously verifiable given that she hasn't, and our comments have been made based on that assumption.
That doesn't make us sexists, it just makes us literate.