> I have a lot of respect for women who like the idea of building novel applications but don't want to get their hands dirty with the programming/computer scien

> I have a lot of respect for women who like the idea of building novel applications but don't want to get their hands dirty with the programming/computer science involved. It seems to me that you were making an assumption that didn't fit the parent poster's actual circumstances. (Not entirely fair, since I have the benefit of hindsight and having read her reply. ;-) I have a lot of respect for people, regardless of gender, who actually know how to do things, so perhaps my bias is showing. (Don't worry: the "big picture" ideas guy, and the fluff-spinning Ph.D. who can't code to save his life, both earn an equal share of contempt. Partly because they're basically the same person. :) But I really couldn't bring myself kowtow to either of them even if they happened to be female, which, frankly, is partly why reading your post leaves me feeling a bit repulsed. (Sorry, I know this sounds awful, but I can't think of a gentler way to accurately phrase it). > This is kind of like architects who want to design buildings but would rather leave implementation details to engineers. > That's the way it should be. All the really interesting architecture of recent decades has been done by architects who could think like artists and engineers. Your ideal architect reminds me of the stupid king in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, who disregards the "implementation details" and builds his castle on a swamp. Definitely not the way it should be.