Some of the above is bullshit.

Historically, as in over the past 100 years, there were periods when women were more encouraged to go into computer and periods where men were.

You have the obvious documented big names in early computing. I couldn't find any historical statistics before the late 60s though.

In the late 60s to 70s you get a rather wide range of (guesses?) that from 20% to 50% of IT workers were women.
There were popular magazine articles that featured the female programmer (though they seem pretty sexist, it still shows that women in computing was probably a social norm).

In the 80s something like 40% of IT workers were women (I see various statistics on this, from 37% of comp sci degrees in 1984 to 42% of developers in 1987).

It's only in the last 20 years that there has been this huge drop.
More women get bachelor's AND master's degrees than men, they're just going elsewhere and honestly that should be fine with society because that indicates to me that it's mostly a matter of personal choice.

More likely you'd see companies hiring and training gladiator teams and the companies with the best and most popular teams (read: most money) would go about decimating all competition.

And nothing changes.

Honestly, headers could be taken out of soccer and the sport wouldn't lose that much.

You may be old enough to comprehend the risks in high school but still probably not old enough to properly act on them.
Young people are stereotypically considered to think themselves invincible for a reason. And "brain damage" is a very vague and hard to appreciate threat, even to a grown adult.

Mainly though, it's traditionally thought that your brain doesn't fully develop the ability to manage risks until about the age of 25.
Source: http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familylife/tech_assistance/etraining/adolescent_brain/Development/prefrontal_cortex/

Of course brain development research is mostly correlation so who really knows.

Is this true or just trolling?

Every benchmark I've seen so far has shown performance increases and power consumption decreases at around the same price.
If your statement is true then that suggests a lot of review sites out there are spoofing their results and that's very very bad.

Sure, if you have a sandy bridge chip there isn't a whole lot of reason to upgrade because for most users anything made in the last 5 years or so can handle everything you'd want to throw at it.

Of course they wouldn't possibly lie to you about what you're helping them smuggle.

Wouldn't it be female volcano gods that you would sacrifice the male virgins to?

Or I guess gay volcano gods. But still, a volcano god that wants males is statistically more likely to be female than gay.
Says so right in my volcano god almanac.

I remember 10+ years ago/the CD era that PC games were more of a "standard" $50 at release (with console games being the more expensive $60 or even more in the cartridge period some years before that).

I honestly don't remember what they cost during the floppy years, I was too young and games magically appeared on 10 floppies.
The best way to find release prices pre-internet might be historical copies of catalogs (sears, service merchandise, etc).
I assume someone somewhere keeps those things.

I'm not really sure one can compare game programming to running a print shop.

And I mean that in the most literal sense possible.
I wouldn't try realistically comparing game development to construction work or some form of hard labor either (or working for Foxconn).