buwish :
I'm a "social scientist" by education, so I tend to look at people as essentially the same. Obviously, men and women are different, even when it comes to which parts of the brain control for certain functions, emotions, etc... But keeping that in mind, I've always been a firm believer that we become what we are socialized to become. You raise a girl to like tech related items, she'll be a woman that likes tech related things. You raise a boy to fashion or some god awful thing, he'll be a man that likes fashion related things.
On one hand you say men and women are different. On the other hand, you seem to say they can be socialized to be the same. Since its not possible to simultaneously hold both views, I'll assume you accept there are limits to what socialization can achieve.
Otherwise it might lead to quite a lively discussion of gay vs. heterosexual life-styles lol. But not goin' there . . . instead consider:
Socialization is very effective at adjusting values and attitudes, but not abilities. The notion that I can hit a major league curve ball . . . or become a world-class composer or concert pianist . . . by spending the infamous "10,000 hours" (eg, "Outliers") in practice is simply ludicrous.
Which may well be why many woman *do* begin careers in (eg) math, and almost none reach its highest levels.
Interesting how Larry Summers was castigated for saying the notion of inate ability should be considered/studied in this and other cases. Noooo, can't do that lol! Can't even suggest it. Let's just assume that everyone can do anything well - its "settled science" - and move on.
Ludicrous.