Weirdly enough, women were quite well represented in technology before the 80s. Clearly there was an interest - so what's changed?

Women in other countries are somewhat more well represented in technology and more likely to go into STEM fields - so what are those other countries doing differently?

There are a number of things that make a strong case for the reasons women aren't well represented in tech being related to artificial issues rather than natural tendencies.

Tech isn't singled out as the one and only important field, by the way. I'm not sure where you get that idea from, but if you look at most any field with a lopsided gender ratio you'll see concern about the gender imbalance and efforts to remedy it. Nursing programs will aggressively pursue male candidates, same for elementary teaching, for example.

In any case, my guess as to why tech is singled out is not that tech is singled out, but that you're probably primarily reading tech sites where this gets discussed, so it just seems that way.

A willingness to give partial credit for work shown, even if the ultimate answer was wrong, and other things like that. They may be more willing, in this case, to assume that the boy with the wrong answer was on the right track, while the girl with the wrong answer was just flailing around and guessing, even when the provided answers and work were the same.

I see, it's not just ignorance - it's willful ignorance that forms the basis for your factually incorrect opinions, and when challenged on your ignorance, you lash out incoherently.

I'm sure you imagine you have a point - given that your stated opinions have no basis in fact, you probably imagine all kinds of crazy things are true. Please also feel free to imagine that you've put me in my place, if you like. I certainly don't see any point to continuing this discussion; I won't try to reason with someone clearly lacking it.

Except that there is a push to get more men into elementary teaching. And there is a push to get more men in to other industries dominated by women, like nursing.

You seem to have a very strongly held opinion (at least one that's strong enough to comment about and bash "SJW"s) that is clearly based at least in part on ignorance. I'd suggest learning more - not only will it help you avoid embarrassing yourself by displaying your ignorance, but it might even help you revise your opinions.

Also, side note, one of the reasons nobody gives much of a shit about there not being enough white players on pro basketball teams is because, statistically speaking, it isn't remotely relevant. How many pro NBA players are there? Now compare that to fields like software development or IT. Which one of those groups is more relevant for the average person who wishes to achieve upward mobility and has better odds?

Additionally, you're also ignoring the fact that white people were not, historically speaking, forbidden from playing in professional sports leagues and were not harassed and threatened (at least not for their race) when they joining the leagues. The fact that you so blithely ignore historical fact, once again, says to me that you form your opinions out of ignorance. Again, I suggest learning more so that you don't embarrass yourself by spouting off your uninformed nonsense.

Testosterone supplementation in men with low T levels appears to have the unfortunate side effect of death.

There is a growing literature on the potential dangers of testosterone supplementation. Not enough yet to say it's as clearly a bad idea as female HRT, but for sure it isn't something men should run out and do without a careful and personalized discussion with a knowledgeable (actual) doctor.

In general I think it's safe to say that the "take extra of the hormones that go down with age in some people" theory of fighting aging is pretty thoroughly discredited by now. Thyroid hormone, growth hormone, testosterone, estrogen, etc. - the science is clear this is not how you fight aging. In general, more likely to hasten death than prevent it.

...Someone from the back row shouts out "Because our AdSense profile has determined you were visiting websites about cigarettes recently, your health insurance premium has gone up by 5% and you will probably die slightly sooner. Remember, [i]f you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place!"

Is it cynicism if you're just using a Markov chain to predict what other Slashdotters will say?

(Although obviously this is auto insurance, so I'm sure someone can translate the threat appropriately.)

Exactly that.

The extra information is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that his idiot identified as a feminist, and it didn't matter that the creep I described identified as a men's right's activist. They are an idiot and a creep, respectively, and it says absolutely nothing about other people who may have some label in common.

Given that I didn't say whatever it is you think I said, I'm not entirely sure why you seem so miffed.

I said that by changing the way they presented the company they were able to appeal to a segment of the workforce that previously had not been applying. I said nothing about what men value or that men stopped applying, just that more women began applying after they emphasized certain existing benefits.

In fact, given that I described the company's engineering group as mostly married men with children, and those benefits were already existing, one could infer that men can (and do) value child care and work/life balance.

You need to socialize with real human beings more if you think a minor disagreement with you on an internet forum is enough to ruin someone's day, princess.

Thank you for demonstrating my point perfectly.

You have zero problem saying feminists as a group (a group you don't belong to) are stupid/crazy fucks, yet you get your panties in a twist because someone does a similar thing about men's rights activists (a group you pretty clearly belong to).

The thing is - when I see your stupid/crazy stuff, I just dismiss YOU as being a stupid/crazy person. I don't dismiss all men or all men who are in the men's rights activist movement.

My entire point with my anecdote was that by putting in the (completely irrelevant, in my opinion) fact that the perv in question was in the men's rights movement is a painfully obvious attempt to paint an entire group of people as being fucked up by association, and that's pretty fucked up. Thank you for being a lovely demonstration of how easy it is to manipulate people.

So, no intellectual honesty then. I'll help you out:

Had you simply described her as a "person" rather than a "feminist" would it have changed anything meaningful about the anecdote? If so, what would have changed?

Do you feel that her identifying as a "feminist" somehow contributes to the absurdity of her actions in this case or provides insight? If so, why?