Which differences. There is the genitalia that nobody argues with. Likewise testosterone differences.
Pretty much everything else isn't as clear cut. We know that more men than women go into STEM - but we don't know if it is because men fundamentally like those jobs better, or if it is because our culture makes it less acceptable for women to go into STEM. Often culture things are subtle and people will say things that do not match their actions.
That's not true. We know from history that a much larger percentage of programmers in the US were women before it became a lucrative career.
> Between 30 and 50 percent of programmers were women in the 1950s, and it was seen as a natural career for them, as evidenced by a 1967 Cosmopolitan feature about “Computer Girls.” [1]
In the 1950s male culture saw computer as a boring career worth of only women. Note literally computer, sitting down with a piece of paper and calculating some figure by hand - a human spreadsheet if it were. Computer morphed into computer programmer with the advent of electronic computers, and soon afterwards men got involved.
Feminists made big advances at the same time and so it is hard to separate which factor (or something I can't think of) is important and which an irrelevant coincidence.
That’s my point. When the dominant cultural view of programming was that it was a boring career for women, women flourished as programmers. It’s strong evidence that the current overrepresentation of men is because of cultural norms, not inherent capabilities.
AFAICT men started to get involved when men started to notice that you could hit the jackpot and become a billionaire, or at least have a decent shot at becoming a millionaire.
What bullshit. Virtually all successful programmers fell in love with the machine when they were young and would program for free. And surely you noticed this.
That's not been my experience at all. That's so far outside of my experience that I sincerely wonder if you're having me on. I assume you're not, but I apologize for the subsequent wall of text if you were just joking.
I won't be so uncivil as to suggest that your perspective is "bullshit". I suppose the 'successful' qualification is sufficiently ill-defined to give a lot of wiggle room, but if I take that to mean financially successful, a minority of the programmers I know would describe themselves as lifelong machine lovers. Certainly some do, but I'd say more are the sort to get cross with you if you try to "talk shop" outside of work; they have interests and hobbies unrelated to computers and use work with computers to fund those interests and hobbies. And those that do have programming as a hobby rarely work on hobby projects that resemble the work they're paid for.
As an aside, if the industry really were filled with technophiles as you suggest, I think I'd enjoy it a lot more. As it stands, relatively few around me seem to share my interests. I've found the best way to find people who share my technophile inclinations is to look for groups and clubs that form around technical hobbies. And what I've found in doing so is that many lifelong technophiles don't work in tech at all, and of those that do work in tech, most don't get paid to work on the sort of tech they're actually passionate about.
I apologize for the incivility, it was uncalled for. By successful I mean people who are really good at programming. The overall point I was trying to make was that good programmers are drawn to the machine at young age, out of love not out of the desire to make money. So, no, I do not think men started to be drawn into the field when they " started to notice that you could hit the jackpot and become a billionaire,". There is a certain kind of mind that is drawn to tinkering with computers and typically, but not always, that mind lives in a male body.
I tend to believe it is so. However I'm honest enough to admit it is a belief that might be wrong. I'm also honest enough to admit in most cases the difference (whatever it is) isn't significant to the situation at hand.
