> If we take a random, representative sample of people, we're going to see women make up approximately 50.8% of that sample. Sure. If we take a random, repres

> If we take a random, representative sample of people, we're going to see women make up approximately 50.8% of that sample. Sure. If we take a random, representative sample of people. But you weren't talking about people in general. You were talking about a meritocracy. Which is very, very, different. You also ignored my point about men obsessing about science and tech, and women not. Which says to me you don't have an argument against it. People complain that men obsess about their work. That they're work-aholics. And who is more likely to be CEO? Someone who works 16 hours a day, or someone who goes home to spend time with the kids? Your statement insinuates that the distribution of people in the general population should be the same as the distribution of people in any sub-set of that population. That is naive at best. The top weightlifters? All men. Child-bearers? All women. These differences aren't trivial. It is a fundamental denial of reality to wave them away.