Let me offer what could be a controversial opinion, but one based on faacts neverteless.

When there is a war to fight, men are drafted far more than women (if any are drafted at all). This is true in pretty much every country. Risky construction jobs are mostly filled by men. The homeless and incarcerated are mostly men.

Obviously, survival and risk to life and working conditions and homelessness are major topics. So why isn't society talking as much about balancing men and women in these areas?

For example, in the USA, men are incarcerated 10x more often than women, despite making up something like 50% of the population. Why doesn't anyone claim this is prima facie evidence of systemic sexism? When it comes to race, such claims are in fact made, but not when it comes to sex. I believe the reason is that people really do believe that men are more prone to violence and the "population-level differences in biology" (to put it in the Google Guy's terms) are a totally socially acceptable answer. One that even liberals and progresives give.

Or take another example of where sex-based discrimination against men is not just tolerated but shrugged off, while the same would cause outrage if it was based on sex: clubs in the city. Men have to pay a cover and stand in line, ladies are ushered in. Men may come in if they have 2-3 good looking ladies with them. Imagine the same business model with white/black people. It wouldn't last.

So why is this happening? Because we all believe there are differences between men and women that come down to biology (whether it is "really" true or not). Our society contains many places where men are discriminated against, but they don't make a very good cause for an activist (well, there are men's rights activists, but not many).

Now here is what I think about the whole "women in tech" thing: it is too corporation-centric. People's lives consist of more than working in a corporation. A major part of life, for example, is raising children.

If you look at this aspect of life, we see women are favored in every society to be the primary caretakers of children. Most of this is explained by - wait for it - biological differences that supposedly make women better nurturers. States often say it is in the the best interests of the child for the mother to get primary custody of a child in a divorce.

The consequences are plainly laid out in the statistics. Women are much more likely to be the ones to devote their time and energy to raising children. This is basically another job which the men are not expected, by society, to have to do. Certainly, many do, but it is fr more optional for a man. These days, women are graduating college at higher rates than men, and make more than men out of the gate. But when women start having children, that's when the gender pay gap appears. This seems to be the largest factor that explains the gender gap

Someone has to raise the children, though. And this is why I say the argument is too corporation-centric: it assumes the goal for women and men is to earn a money in a large, hierarchical corporation. One can phrase it the other way: women are actually ahead of men in the work-life balance department, and we should try to help everyone achieve more of THAT goal.

This is bigger than men and women. How many families today have both parents working, or a single parent, sticking the kids into public school as a daycare center? (Read what pg wrote about high school as a prison.) How about putting parents in nursing homes? All for what?

So people can commute many miles (burning tons of fuel) to corporate jobs and sit on their butt doing something someone else wants them to do? Why is that considered the goal, when corporate world is only 150 years old and on its way out when automation hits? Work-life balance is way better. Small teams and self employment - that is what I want for more people, women and men alike!