2010/03/27 Alberto G. Corona
To say this in scientific headline jargon, it's a matter of division of work, time, and dimorphic fixation of abilities in the brain by natural selection trough dimorphic development of the brain of men and women by different genetic sequences. I don't know any kind of tool more flexible and powerful than a computer language. Men are good at making tools and using them. They invested more in engineering because this activity were more critical for their success than in the case of women. Sociological or cultural explanations don't explain the universal tendencies and habilities across cultures and time.
In this passage, you seem to attribute to men a relatively great adaptation for making & using tools, relative to women. You suggest this applies to computer languages -- excellent tools -- and this explains the relative absence of women in computing. It's hard to take your remarks seriously; consider: . There is no single adaptation for "tool using". Men differ greatly in their aptitude for working with different kinds of tools. . The relevance of tools in women's lives is well known; there are few cultures that have not allocated some essential domain of work -- fabric arts, tanning, cooking, picking certain plants -- to women. It's hard to see any support for the notion that tools are more (or less) critical for the evolutionary success of men. Though this may be your "honest theory", you don't offer much support for it. When offering a theory as to the relative success of one movie over another, I suppose there is not a great burden of proof; but carelessness in the matter of which kind of person can do which kind of work has hurt too many people for too long. -- Jason Dusek