That's the problem with marketing. A mass of soulless ghouls chasing little bits of paper and completely incapable of imagining a universe where every tangible object and intangible concept isn't stamped with a little yellow price tag.
Hold on right there mister!
We are not just talking about bean-counting here, we are talking about the workings of society. The fact that you mistake the study of enterprise and economy for advertising and accounting only speaks of you.
The very fact that you produce stuff independently that serves other people's needs makes you an entrepreneur by definition, even if you don't seek to maximize profits, or profits at all.
Perhaps you should look a bit more into it before flamin' away in teh intertubes, for right now you are in the unenviable position of being corrected by a lame CS undergrad.
Oh, yes, indeed the differing participation in Computer Science of women may be of a mostly biological origin. The point is, that we don't know if it actually is. We know that there are very good (and obvious) reasons why a job involving heavy lifting might be dominated by men.
Claiming to know that physiological differences are the origin of the vastly different enrollment rates in CS schools of men and women is an ass pull.
And why aren't they interested? What you're saying is like decrying the study of gravity because you already know that things fall.
We know the what: that girls aren't interested in studying CS today in the US. In fact, their interest in pursuing a CS carer in contrast to men has sharply decreased over time since the nineties. What we don't really know is the why. And finding out the 'why' is, ahem, SCIENCE!
And you actually know why are the different sexes attracted to different professions? PROTIP: elementary school biology doesn't cut it.
We don't know to what extent this is a product of culture or a product of biology.
Your mode of life will be changed to ASCII.