It's not a strawman, it's called argumentum ad absurdum. If we take his premise as true: > If some one is good, they will win anyway. If they are not, they can

It's not a strawman, it's called argumentum ad absurdum. If we take his premise as true: > If some one is good, they will win anyway. If they are not, they can't and won't. The conclusion from that is that the lack of women in tech is because they're not very good at it. If women were good at tech, then from his statement there would be more of them (they would "win anyway"). This is clearly absurd - hence he's wrong, or at least needs to support/make his argument a little better. Do I really need to stick </sarcasm> tags on everything?