> But even if you wanted to include the "application layer". Who are the women that contributed to developing it? That's not my point in that part. I was quest

> But even if you wanted to include the "application layer". Who are the women that contributed to developing it? That's not my point in that part. I was questioning the invention of the Internet as an easy to identify fact, while trying to explain that what we understand from the Internet is much much more than TCP/IP, for example HTTP, SSL, SMTP, IMAP, and many many more. And that's not even counting all the programming languages like HTML, CSS or even JavaScript. On the other end, you have all the different routing algorithms and all the hardware created to support the Internet. Where does it start being the Internet and where does it stop? That's why the list would never stop and/or be enormous. > No it doesn't. It means that women did not contribute to the invention of the Internet. Anything else you read into that is purely your imagination. I think that's clear because otherwise you wouldn't say it. It's like saying that the car's invention was a white people thing. Just look at the first paragraph: "Without men, we would never know what our friends were doing five minutes ago." We wouldn't have it if we didn't have women and if we didn't have humans and if we didn't have children. That sentence is true, but it does not do any good or adds any information more than implying than men were the only capable of creating the Internet. But that's part of the interpreting part of the article. Of course we can differ. I think, in this case, either way could be a possibility, but from the tone of the article I believe that it is implied that women could not have created the Internet.