[psgbg]

Yeah. I believe in the free speech argument and all, but considering that:

1) in the technology in general but also in astronomy the women are a minority.

2) in almost every field the women are paid less for the same job.

3) He was representing the elite in the world of science.

So I think that you might be right that today we are haunted by the hater speech so "Everyone offended with everything" might be true and I probably agree to a certain point but is an over simplification.

If someone is offended is in his/her right claim an apology. If he is a good man with good will and made a mistake say sorry is a great gesture.

Now. I'm particularly worried that there are people offended by certain facts and do not care by some aspect of the reality.

[custardcream]

1. Have you asked any women who aren't in these specialist areas why they aren't or have you read the arguments by the politicians and (I hate using the word) extremists? I have listened to both sides. Women aren't in tech because as a general rule, it's not interesting to them. Both sexes have different motivations. It doesn't mean they cant do it.

2. Yes you're probably right. All out engineers bar two are male. All our QA team bar two are female. QA get paid less than engineering because the role demands less, not because they are women. I'll say that the women have a better memory and attention to detail and the programmers have more patience and work better together.

3. No he wasn't. He was representing himself.

Fed up of this argument. Its horse shit propagated by a few people.

Throwing some science into it, if we weren't specialised into genders we would be hermaphrodites. We're not equal and that's why the majority of us form couples and step forward together.

[psgbg]

1)I didn't discus with many girls/women why/why not choose a scientific or IT career. In fact I didn't discuss that with many men/boys.

I'm studying Computing Engineering and as far I know there are between 2 women for 8 men or 3/7 at best (usually, it could be better or in some classes there are none).

Assume that "is that way because it is" it's strange. Considering how many women I know use technology and are gamers this turns to be strange because the penetration of technology is almost equal in both genders. Yeah I know more techno savvy boys than girls but why.

I could argue about mechanics/electricity engineering that there is something there. For example I don't know many women that love cars or planes but I (and probably my bias, I) know many guys whom are into that.

Then it's strange that boys like technology better, but we are exposed equally...

When Kid I played CS tournaments and girls where pretty rare (I don't remember a single one). I was surprised recently by the number of women playing games as Lineage, it turns they are more than when I played CS, but there are scarce yet.

In the other hand, there are many girls I know whom play Sims, pokemon, Sim City, PES, and Guitar Hero... (not mentioning games as Farm ville).

So they might play different games, but they play games as frequently as men. So this puzzle me.

2)Rationalization does not help. Sometimes that turns into an excuse that keeps justifying a bad habit. It is a reality.

3)I have the opposite though. The whole team didn't receive the same exposure, if that was the case I would totally agree, but he was representing people whom wasn't there.

For the last part I know we are different. I'm not saying we must be equal. That's not the point. If you are saying that there are less women in technology because they are not into for unspecified reasons then I don't know what to say.

And please don't claim because science when neither me nor you gave any scientific reason for our postures.