You don't believe that gender bears any kind of fundamental impact on emotional and intellectual development? I think that the things mentioned in this thread are proof enough. There is no reason why there wouldn't be more women in tech except that women (generally speaking, of course) don't find tech that desirable, just as men don't find working in a daycare center very desirable.
In the whirlwind of 20th century liberation movements, people seem to forget that there really _are_ fundamental differences between certain types of people. Not differences like "women are only good at cleaning and men only think about sex", but differences like "women are generally more often disposed to child-rearing and men are generally more often disposed to computer programming".
I don't see what good there is in ignoring these differences. Yes, some people took it too far and decided women shouldn't vote and blacks and whites couldn't intermingle, but that doesn't mean we go to the other extreme and plug our ears and refuse to believe that any one type of person is predisposed to a behavior, belief, or emotional status.
Gender and sex are different things for once. I think many people who are against the usual "men and women are different" idea think that that most differences are a consequence of the culture more than genetic predisposition. Pushed to the extreme, the idea that men and women are the same is indeed ridiculous - but I think the idea that men are more often disposed to computer programming as ridiculous myself. To give some (anecdotical) evidence: I have been to open source conferences in the US, Europe and India. In both US and Europe, the proportion is mostly young men (+ older men for people in academia), as you would expect. In India, I would say a good third were women, up to 60 year old women.
Certainly, there is little data to back the natural difference up AFAIK, and again correlation is not causation. For example, how much is due to the fact that women willing to have a child need to have them in a period which is generally considered crucial for your job ? For law and medical related jobs, the mandatory length for studies is much longer than for tech - is this a factor ? I can think of many other reasons to explain the current situation which has nothing to do with "how our brain are different" and other platitudes. It may be true, but it is so close to the usual cliches that people will legitimately consider them as such unless you have strong evidence to argue it.
You have to take into account that these perceived fundamental differences are increasingly challenged in studies today, and it's becoming increasingly accepted that most of these differences are social.
As culture becomes more homogenous, the differences are becoming less evident. I'm don't think people are proposing an extreme "plugging ears" situation, but a "hey let's push them a little further and see what they can do" often with astounding success. I think this mostly depends if you view the impacts of women on the technical fields so far as positive or negative. I personally believe they have had a positive impact (look at my other posts) so I am more inclined to push women past their societal boundaries, hopefully not past their 'fundamental female' boundaries.
The issue I have with what you and mkramlich say is that you're jumping from an observation to a conclusion about causality. I'm just asking, what is the basis for your assumptions about causality?
You say that people took it too far in the past. Why was that? I think that they didn't just take it too far, they made a categorical and methodical mistake. They did not question the basis on which to make such assumptions. In that sense, you're making the same mistake today.
[Edit] And don't forget that we're talking about something - web startups and entrepreneurship - that takes an incredibly broad range of capabilities that have nothing to do with having babies. It's not like we're talking about interest and talent for breast feeding. And by the way, I totally agree with Arrington. He doesn't say anything about why we see what we see though.
In the whirlwind of 20th century liberation movements, people seem to forget that there really _are_ fundamental differences between certain types of people. Not differences like "women are only good at cleaning and men only think about sex", but differences like "women are generally more often disposed to child-rearing and men are generally more often disposed to computer programming".
I don't see what good there is in ignoring these differences. Yes, some people took it too far and decided women shouldn't vote and blacks and whites couldn't intermingle, but that doesn't mean we go to the other extreme and plug our ears and refuse to believe that any one type of person is predisposed to a behavior, belief, or emotional status.