The original article may have been wrong, but I agree with the last paragraph, that says we should focus on individual discrimination rather than ratio of men a

The original article may have been wrong, but I agree with the last paragraph, that says we should focus on individual discrimination rather than ratio of men and women in particular area. I think that the position, that men and women are on average completely mentally equal, is untenable. People are not blank slates, and since there are obvious biological differences in physical appearance, I find it very improbable that there are no differences in thinking as well. And there are actual studies to prove that, I believe. That's my main gripe with the argument by ratios, because it implicitly relies on something biologically factual, that may not even be true. But in my view, equality (of opportunities) and non-discrimination is moral regardless whether or not men and women (or other groups, for that matter) are actually on average different or not. And in my view, by depending on biological facts, rather than arguing from moral standpoint, the equality proponents may shoot themselves to the foot. But even if they were equal, there can still be perfectly valid cultural reasons for the gap, and no discrimination is necessary to explain those (it's an argument from dynamical systems which I already explained elsewhere). So while percentages can indicate discrimination, and in many cases do, they are not a sufficient condition for that. I also have to say, although it will sound harsh, that while there is lot of discussion about women in IT and on the company boards, there isn't much discussion about more women in military or plumbing or construction. I think the money and prestige aspect (that the former jobs are better paid) plays a role in this as well. So maybe if the prestige difference between those jobs would be less, the people would be freer to pursue their interests, without ratios or money dictating them otherwise. In other words, what is the purpose of having equal number of men and women in some field? Is this a complaint about money and prestige, or individual satisfaction with the selected job? Each case should be addressed differently, and I can think of better solutions for either of them than trying to impose equal ratios. (That said, just for the record, I think that positive discrimination is in many cases helpful.)