Thank you all for the response, but I want to clarify two points that I’m not sure I communicated well in the original post.

First of all, I want to give SANS a big kudos for actually posting a piece that is gender based, this was a risk, and I’m glad they took it. Many more organizations would benefit from helping broaden the horizons of gender awareness in the technical fields. Conferences have been very apprehensive in accepting a round-table panel composed of industry professionals (not marketing women) to discuss the state of the industry in regards to gender. Currently, the panel is being held at SecurityBsides events and there will be some perspective European conferences this year that are opening up to the conversation. There are also many women that do not feel comfortable speaking out or helping other women gain entry to the field, this is a definite gender issue, but one we need to address on a different plane, and more in another post.

The second point in the original post was that of the review itself, the content of the research for the paper itself was fine, where I felt there was a deficiency was when it took a turn away from fair representation. Perhaps the advisor could have proofed the paper and suggested some edits to keep it broad enough as to not be easily identified as personal rhetoric, thus reinforcing the research points. I am fortunate enough that the author of the piece HAS agreed to speak on the Gender panel at BSidesSF that will occur during the week of the RSA Conference in San Francisco.

Again, for any women that may be reading this, here is a list of some great sites on the internet that discuss current gender issues.

The Geek Feminism Wiki

Executive Women’s Forum

Signed,