The problem with brain chemistry and other "hard facts" is that they are always cherry-picked to justify one's position post factum.
Example: where I grew up, girls were considered to be better at technical disciplines because in class, girls sit still and pay attention while boys clown around and pick fights.
On a larger note, please don't add to the fire saying that women are less interested in any kind of intellectual pursuits, be it aspects of programming or else. This is exactly the kind of dickery that needs to go away.
"The problem with brain chemistry and other "hard facts" is that they are always cherry-picked to justify one's position post factum"
And therefore, brain chemistry plays no role whatsoever?
"On a larger note, please don't add to the fire saying that women are less interested in any kind of intellectual pursuits"
Why not, if it is true? Is it wrong to say that men are less interested in knitting than women? I'd like to know making true statements about a population is "dickery".
Brain chemistry most likely plays some type of role, but if you are not in a position to quantify and explain to what degree and under what circumstance in a given situation, phrases like that lend themselves to lazy, armchair-scientist type sentiment that do nothing to raise the level of conversation.
Example: where I grew up, girls were considered to be better at technical disciplines because in class, girls sit still and pay attention while boys clown around and pick fights.
On a larger note, please don't add to the fire saying that women are less interested in any kind of intellectual pursuits, be it aspects of programming or else. This is exactly the kind of dickery that needs to go away.