Just because the author cites studies doesn't mean those studies are not biased, or that their limited scope is not distorting our ideas of people's motivations or actions in the real world. Psychological and sociological studies try to put people in situations that are meant to be "representative" of how they react on a large scale in the real world, but the situations themselves are small-scale, simple, and usually involved test subjects who are educated, middle-to-upper class, white college students.

The entire section about men being competitive and how boys act on the playground just demonstrates how little the author understands about social dynamics between women. Women try to do pro-social actions because egotistical actions get them ostracized very, very quickly. If a woman was so transparently cocky, she would have absolutely no friends and an endless gossip mill from jealous and/or insecure peers. We're also in a society where women who are 20 years old or older have still grown up in a society where-- as much as they were told they could do any job a man could-- they still mostly wanted to marry a guy who made more money than them, and knew that their success was not as critical to their social status as their beauty, kindness, or ability to do traditionally female activities well. Personally, as much as I have loved math all of my life and programming for the past few years, I have also been keenly aware that having a good sense of style, being able to cook, being good at dance and art, and being friendly and outgoing have been extremely helpful in my socialization as a female. Could I have neglected all of those things to be even better at math and programming? Of course. Would I have as much social status or friends? Definitely not. Additionally, male success attracts attractive women, while female success does not do the same. You have to be in a city or career or educational environment with "the right kinds of guys" in order for them to respect you MORE because of your intellect and accomplishments, not less. But for a man, being successful will aid him in attracting women who he finds "up to par" even if he is not in an environment full of other smart & accomplished people. The easiest way to see an example of this is by comparing the romantic and sexual experiences of smart males vs. smart females in high school. The boys have gone on more dates and had more sexual experiences, while many girls-- even pretty ones-- have not had such experiences.

Girls are fine interacting with machines, but please take a look at all the bazillions of articles written about Goldie Blox, and that great comic- http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1883#comic -you can't just say "well there are toys for kids made to be unisex" because most things that are unisex (ask a woman how awkward and uncomfortable "unisex" t-shirts are) are really just made for guys. I loved design as a kid. I thought it was arts & crafts, because that's what everyone calls it when you're a young girl, but it was really design. If I had toys that encouraged me to design webpages and programs, there's no doubt in my mind that I would have loved them, but boys toys involved rudimentary programming and engineering, while girl's toys were all about playing house, hosting tea parties, and dressing up dolls. The most mechanical they got were dolls who peed or said stupid phrases.

Business is very people-oriented! You are making products for PEOPLE. There is no way the author can argue that business in general, and tech businesses in particular, do not have aspects that appeal to both kinds of stereotypical interests from each gender. Tech businesses are creative and involve selling and designing things. Would this sexist author say that talking to a lot of people and designing something beautiful are traditionally male functions?

Isolation and lack of self-confidence are EXTREMELY societal. How can isolation be the fault of an individual? I DO feel very uncomfortable when I'm the only woman in a room full of men. Who wouldn't feel uncomfortable walking into a room and being the "only" of anything, especially anything REALLY obvious-- like gender or race, which you display on your body and can't hide.

These caveman arguments are also stupid. Who is to say that the women who would have to keep track of complex timing schedules for feeding their children, who had to ensure that they had enough food to feed everyone in their family or community, who counted and kept track of the objects stored at home, etc. did not also develop mathematical skills in an evolutionary manner? The author's reasoning is stupid.

Ever think those "sex" differences in spatial and mechanical thinking are because boys are building little cars and rockets or tossing around a football as a toddler, but girls are drawing and imagining and telling stories? Even if kids gravitate towards those and it's not entirely the fault of toy companies and clueless parents/educators, surely these years of practice can not be discounted or called "natural".

In conclusion, I went into this with a semi-open mind because I'm always waiting for an argument I will actually respect. But I was disappointed yet again. http://xkcd.com/385/