There's plenty of kinds of jobs Women don't apply for at nearly the rate men do.
Yes, but that's not germane to the discussion.
...also not germane to the present discussion, though it perhaps is relevant to some post far uphtread or off to the side somewhere.
A company adopting a policy of hiring only women for technical positions is a bright line violation of federal (and, in California, also state) employment law. The fact a number of industries that aren't tech are nearly exclusively female (largely because of applicant patterns) does not change this. The fact that some industries are male dominated, in part for similar reasons, really has nothing at all do with this one way or the other. The nature of feminist argument patterns is even more completely irrelevant.
Yes, there's plenty of kinds of jobs men don't apply for at nearly the rate women do. That's certainly not the case for programming jobs.
> In any case I doubnt this would be illegal in every legislation. In the US men are not a "protected group"
This is simply factually incorrect; in employment, sex—not just one sex—is a protected class, federally [0] and separately under most state laws, as well. About the only assymetric protected class in employment is age, where discrimination is only protected against when it is against those over 40.
[0] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm