Was going to mod you insightful, but thought you may like a link to Channel 4's "Utopia" if you haven't heard of it, or watched it..

My diet is vegetarian. I only eat vegetarians. Mmmm.. Steak.

Ok, so they chose women who'd left the field completely. That means getting out full stop. You don't do that for career progression, you don't usually do that for more salary. You get out because it's not for you.
Now, if they'd gone and surveyed an equal number of women who chose to stay in the field as well, and an equal number of men who had left the field entirely and also ones who chose to stay, they'd at least be showing an attempt to remove bias. But no. They chose to skew the numbers completely and then write that it's all the fault of men (again).
I nearly got out of the field because the women in management above me didn't really understand how to run an enterprise class department, which did nasty things to my health.
I'm pretty sure that if you choose men who leave the field with women management as a bias adjuster you'd find a lot that just say "management often sucks". Gender isn't necessarily the decider. Hell, where I work, the women are often far more lewd and crude than us men (for the simple reason they can; if we crack those jokes, we stand a very big risk of being had up for sexual harrassment if the gal in question is having a bad day). Politics these days are hideously misandrist, yet nobody seems to give a damn about that.

A Utilite Pro which gives me all the grunt I need for an always on server, coupled to an external old DroboPro with 10TB of storage.

There's a reason I don't buy Gigabyte. Out of all the boards I've bought and systems I've built, Gigabyte have had the greatest chance of just plain not working, working poorly, or having some other annoyance that gets in the way.

In a discussion, the aim, for a debate on a subject, is to reach an objective approximation.
There's a world of difference between actually striving to get to the crux of a matter and saying "You suck.. So I'm not listening to what you say, because I'm right because I say I am, and you're all idiots for just believing me.".
Philosophy is the attempt to achieve rational objective approximations, and is at the heart of striving to get things better. Saying that nobody has the requirement to attempt to be better while discussing is merely an excuse for laziness and trolling. I know you don't mean it as that, and it's no slight, but that's the way it ends up.
Really, I thoroughly enjoy a discussion with someone who has a different viewpoint to me on something. It's rare I don't learn something from that. But these days, there's an awful lot of ad hominem attacks used in place of actually having an argument or point of view.
You may still wish to perceive something a particular way, but it helps to have your view widened by actually having someone else's well rationalised view on it as well..

Actually, men are expected to have thick skin, and work themselves to the bone with no complaint. We're supposed to be the "breadwinners" and go out and bring the cash back to a family.
That means having to talk nice to others, take the hits, and bear with it. There is all kinds of abuse levelled at men in the workplace, but it's all socially acceptable, because it's considered a tough and hungry workplace.
When you post on a prominent blog, guys get all kinds of threats too. Death being the usual one, threats to family, abuse of all kinds.. MAke the wrong sound on some, and poof, there goes your job.
Now, it seems from this that women should have the right to post whatever they want, wherever they want, and have it all nice and fluffy. Honestly, yes, they should. But so should men. But nobody makes a big noise and says "men should be protected from this too". Now, if the article had said "people suffer abuse, and this should stop", I'd say hurrah, and be benind it. However, saying "women need these protections, and we honestly don't care about the men.. In fact, we blame it all on the men because they're the largest population in the segment" is horrendously sexist.

Well, space was considered "the realm of god" in those days. It's where the gods lived.. Highest mountains etc. It's not far stretch to say, actually, they were from the skies, and had technology that looked like magic. So that still fits.
Speaking English is no great shakes.. Asgard is still full of Nordic runes that they seem quite happy with. That basically says they're multi lingual (or have translator devices).. What's so great about that? Still 100% fit with the nordic pantheon.
Other deep details may have changed.. But it still follows the basic story. Thor is "the son of Odin". Since when did "son of" mean a female?
I'd have no problem with Thor buggering off for a while, and a female taking up the hammer. Some new name, or one of the females of the pantheon. What completely doesn't make sense is having a female character _become_ Thor, just because she takes up a weapon used by Thor.
That's like you using your computer at work all day, and moving on to the next job (or being fired), and just because people are way too lazy, they simply force the next person in of an opposing gender to take your name and identity because they can't be assed to do anything new. It's lazy pandering.
A complete gender change while keeping the name is just stupid. Adds nothing. If you feel differently, just name your daughters to Brian and Kevin. That's about the same kind of thing.

Well:

1) Some girls choose to be sex objects. Feminists tell them they can't be. Most females are not sex objects (though in interpersonal relationships there are aspects of that, the same way a man has an aspect of sex object to females). So, to be roughly correct, most females aren't exclusively sex objects at all times, though most probably choose to be at times in certain circumstances.
2) That's definitely true. But if everyone held to that correct notion, it would deprive many a pretty gal (or handsome guy) of one of their very potent weapons.. Smart and pretty is a very, very potent mix. If you underestimate that, do so at your own peril, as you'll likely be facing them looking down at you on the corporate ladder from quite a height in the future. Knowing it and being fooled by it are two different things.
3) Again, true.

The majority of people already know all that though. There's nothing new in there at all.

Illegal in many places due to Necrophilia, Beastiality and Sadism laws?

If you're in the Western world, in the Global Economy, you're not worth what you're paid.

Back in the "old days" (medieval), Beer was preserved by adding Lant, to give Lanted Ale.
Lant is stale urine, and it acted as a marvelous preservative. So, adding urine in this fashion to that volume won't be a problem. It's just one of perception..

Nice when you get the time to develop every system from scratch, and don't have multiple departments saying "We need this now". And actually meaning it.
Then having to ensure that what you've put in place stays up with a 24x7x365 uptime requirement, and recoverability to the last transaction.
Oh, and hey, this thing that some department has purchased because they couldn't wait for the system to created, it only runs on another version of Linux (or on Windows with SQL Server!).. They need that put in there too.. You say no? The execs say yes, as they're already bought into it.
And the regular programming load while you're setting this in? Not getting any lighter.
Building things back to initial point in time is simple; any full fledged config management system can do that at the press of a button. Keeping it running, tuned, and error free.. That's the interesting bit.

A working DevOps group should be an amalgamation of the Dev team and Ops teams.
Trying to forge one team where everyone knows everything simply sets a level of mediocrity; you can research so far down an avenue in a given time, and get only so good at it.
I've learned from the ground up (i.e. electronics, basics of VLSI, board design, basic OS design, all layers of the stack programming), and went from there on to system admin. Then did a stint as a developer using the knowledge that I had from my earlier history, and found that the sysop area of my knowledge atrophied in the detail (and the devil is _always_ in the detail) the more I concentrated on being a better dev.
Went back to more of the operator/business side of things, and lo and behold, the more I go into systems and how to put together a proper reliable, recoverable infrastructure, the more my dev is atrophying. I'm half management these days, which means the ops side _and_ the dev side are both atrophying. The guys that do it in a dedicated fashion are more familiar with the latest tech than I am..

You can be a jack of all trades.. But I seriously hope a company doesn't rely on you to get them out of trouble when the fecal matter hits the fan.. If you've been spending most of your time developing, with the nod to tuning the servers so your app runs better, you're not likely to have been able to put the time in to develop the wider infrastructure to support things going fubar, or had the time and concentration to really work out what is likely to get you.

Having a few people marked as DevOps would be useful when you need to populate a middle ground.. They can work with both dedicated ops, and dedicated dev to ensure that scalability is baked in, and resilience is baked in to the apps. When it comes to ensuring the boxes are kept in tidy order for everyone, and get to be able to recover from the smoking ruins.. That's where the dedicated ops shine. When you really want that app to do something really slick, that's when a dedicated dev shines.

Small scale, a DevOps person would work. The larger you scale, the less appropriate it becomes (as the only solution; a big company with the techs being solely a DevOps team would scare me).

True, but if you really disagreed with it sufficiently, then you'd certainly not be donating money to them. At most, it would be an irrelevance. Except, of course, if you can use it against someone else to your advantage..