What are you talking about? Did you even read the OP? I was SUMMARIZING the talk (as per the request).
> The mention of Margaret Hamilton in this passage is one of maybe three instances in the entire book in which a woman appears who is not introduced as the relative or romantic interest of a man. And even in this rare instance, Levy’s framing trivializes Hamilton, her work, and her right to the facility. She was “a beginner programmer” who was “officially sanctioned” but also just “showed up.” And she “complained” about it, leading to repercussions and reprimands. Levy is all but calling her a nag.
I don't know what other way to characterize that as a focused topic (tacit misogyny). It was not further discussed. I think you (along with a bunch of other people debating some nonsense about feminism) are having some weird kneejerk because you choose to interpret that part of the talk differently. The meaning was clear to me.
> The mention of Margaret Hamilton in this passage is one of maybe three instances in the entire book in which a woman appears who is not introduced as the relative or romantic interest of a man. And even in this rare instance, Levy’s framing trivializes Hamilton, her work, and her right to the facility. She was “a beginner programmer” who was “officially sanctioned” but also just “showed up.” And she “complained” about it, leading to repercussions and reprimands. Levy is all but calling her a nag.
I don't know what other way to characterize that as a focused topic (tacit misogyny). It was not further discussed. I think you (along with a bunch of other people debating some nonsense about feminism) are having some weird kneejerk because you choose to interpret that part of the talk differently. The meaning was clear to me.