> If you are unwilling to accept that women's lack of interest in computing is genetically predetermined (and I hope you aren't willing to accept it), you need

> If you are unwilling to accept that women's lack of interest in computing is genetically predetermined (and I hope you aren't willing to accept it), you need to start exploring what environmental causes are involved. I am not willing to accept that women's lack of interest in computing is genetically predetermined (because it lacks evidence). But I'm also not willing to accept your assumption that it isn't genetically predetermined (for the same reason). This statement leads into the next statement: > A more explicit version of this theory is that "Women aren't as smart as men," or any of the usual corollaries--women aren't as good at some skill as men are, usually mathematics, spatial reasoning, or logic. "Women aren't as smart as men," is NOT a more explicit way of saying "Women are genetically predetermined to be less interested in computing on average." Those are drastically different statements with different meanings. Interest and capability are entirely different qualities of a person. Part of the problem with the public discussion on this topic is that someone like me, who has a nuanced opinion and thinks that maybe there might be a genetic aspect to career preference, is equated with someone who thinks women are less intelligent with men. This isn't a polar issue: we should be investigating all possibilities. But when you equate my scientifically valid ideas with bigoted, easily disproven ideas, you're polarizing the field, making it so I can't be your ally even if I wanted to. I'd love to work with people on figuring out why there are so few women in computing, but I refuse to work with people who start with a bunch of assumptions and then vilify anyone who disagrees with those assumptions. To be clear: not all feminists are doing this, but this article certainly is.