Hypothesis: As long as "technology" is considered playing with "in-animate" objects, you won't eliminate the gender gap. Women are empirically more interested/

Hypothesis: As long as "technology" is considered playing with "in-animate" objects, you won't eliminate the gender gap. Women are empirically more interested/specialized in "animated" objects (ie, living things and social relatinships), due to human physiology/biology and social operant conditioning. The premise that such a (non-uniform) distribution is unethical, unproductive, or un-natural lacks evidentiary data to support it. It may very well make (biological or evolutinary) sense; condider a port-folio effect from social-pair bonds (m,f) with reproductive potency. In plain english, a team of two specialists may be more powerful than an aggregation of individuals as "jack of all trades". These are not easily or trivially dismissed complications. Also, notice this dimensionalization is not along the axis of a "social problem", in the game-theoretic sense, like the prisoner's dilemma. The only assumptions are two: non-uniform preferences, and non-linear returns to scale from learning-by-doing. neither of these seem overly controversial.