> Mostly, because we know that there were eras when women dominated programming, typing, debugging, documentation, etc. wasn't this the same era that women wer

> Mostly, because we know that there were eras when women dominated programming, typing, debugging, documentation, etc. wasn't this the same era that women were mostly secretaries and programming, typing, debugging, doucmentation, etc. were all seen as secondary tasks supporting the main effort instead of the main effort itself? also, during these eras, there simply weren't nearly as many programmers or money in programming, so the segment of the population that even had access to a computer, let alone knew how to program, was severly limited and not a representative sample of the potential population of programmers at that time. > So we know that there's no biological or innate reason why women are unable/unwilling/unskilled at this labor. we know no such thing and its bad science to say that we do. Perhaps you should qualify this statement to be more clear. > Instead, we conclude that it's culture. bad conclusion that ignores other factors, including availability of access to computers, proportion of the population that knows how to program, status of programming in relation to the work being done (secretary work vs primary work), etc.