| > To me, that's a pretty extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary proof. The extraordinary claim here is that there are less women in tech due to sexism from men and we have yet to see the extraordinary evidence. > So do women fair better on some emotional tests because of some innate biology or because we've emphasized that kind of thing literally since they could talk? Evolution probably favoured caring mothers, you can observe this in animals as well. > And it's so hard because those differences are tiny. If we assumed those differences really are 100% biological (again, a big assumption), it might explain why Computer Science would be 55% men, and 45% women. It wouldn't explain the huge disparity we see today. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_... "Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds" 4% doesn't really explain why we are totally different form chimps. Not everything scales linear manner. > Historically, the field of computing had lots of women. That's both true and not, computing used to be radically different historically then it is right now. > Why? The "it's biology and girl brains are different" argument can't account for that. Biology didn't change. What if CS changed or what you do with your CS degree changed? > that talks about how early home computers were marketed as a toy to buy for boys. I can debunk that for you: look at countries where computers weren't marketed and have the still ratios. > It's like we as a society decided that computers fell into the "boy stuff" category with GI Joe and baseball, not the "girl stuff" category like Barbie and softball. So all companies ignored half of their potential market? It's possible, however, it's hard to explain though why would every single company would throw away half of their market. > I think it all adds up to a pretty convincing argument that biology has nothing (or very, very little) to do with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias |