jee_accnt
Women being underrepresented in tech is usually cited as an example of sexism in the system. The implication is that there needs to be equal representation for there to be no bias.
How about this. Doctors are more interested in people. Engineers are more interested in machines.
Of course, as one becomes a manager, they deal with people more. But am just stating the initial interest that gets one into the field.
His entire argument seems to be that we should stop denying biological differences exist too. And a non 50% representation is not conclusive proof of sexism in society.
Actually there are plenty of fields and jobs that are considered feminine. And where men are underrepresented and underpaid.
A study has shown that with the same qualifications, a woman is twice as likely to be picked for the same job than a man. And the longer we keep it politically incorrect to criticize feminism and the left, the larger that gap will become. Am not saying those aren't needed. But I also think it is time we have an opposing voice (like this article) to keep both in balance.
It is not about being difficult. Biology and medicine require a vastly different kind of intelligence than Physics and Math (and computer science). Also, doctors work with people, while engineers work with machines. And the author argues that women, on average, prefer working with people. This can pretty simply be explained by the difference in estrogen and testosterone.
So no, it's not fair to say that there is no evidence that the whizzer spins right. And the author never denied that there are cultural factors. He is saying that there are biological factors too, which should not be ignored.
You could argue that its unprofessional, but then so is wearing t-shirt and shorts to work. Tech culture quite proudly does not care much about appearances.
Also, there is nothing wrong with a Java/Swing backend. Its not cool, but any company handling that amount of sensitive data will not use a 'cool' stack.