Please don't violate the guidelines by calling names like this. It's pure inflammation and doesn't the serve the kinds of discussions we're trying to have here.
See slide 20 and 21 for the citation. Perhaps you feel this is the product of 'an insane ideology', personally I find it more convincing than the huge jumps in your argument and the original one, which jump from the assertion that men and women are different (I think most agree), to there are less women than men in IT, ergo there are far less women who enjoy or are capable of engineering.
In academic studies even tiny variations between genders are interesting, in real life not so much, the gap between genders would have to be very large to matter given the variation in individuals and experience levels.
In case you're not feeling convinced here is a graph which I find hard to square with a biological difference incapacitating women when near technology:
Early computing science had a lot of women; a woman helped land men on the moon, but the declined dranaticallly till recently over just a few decades. I find your argument that women just don't like tech for biological reasons unconvincing.
> But the truth is that there are far less women than men who are like that, and that this will never change because of biological factors.
What about all the women through the 40s up until the 80s who worked as computer programmers? For a while it was a seriously female dominated field. A woman wrote the first compiler. A woman wrote the code to help get us to the moon. A woman taught my CS courses in high school and i had two female CS professors in college (and just about half my graduating class in that major was female).
Did biology change? Where's the science that says women as a whole don't enjoy IT as much? You crow on and on about science but provide no citations, no logical coherent argument.
When I see posts like this on HN, it makes me think you haven't worked closely with women. Or even know any lol
