Feel free to link it up with your real-world identity; I just find more generic profiles with the same user id.
> women are less INTERESTED
Yes, this is an example of your lack of historical grounding. That is the same sort of sexist nonsense that we've been seeing for generations. The argument goes: women aren't technically inferior, it's just that they're naturally not interested in bothering their pretty little heads with high-status jobs like law, medicine, and engineering. Their biology just drives them toward naturally nurturing jobs, like homemaker, paralegal, nurse, and secretary. Sure those jobs happen to be all low status, lower paying, and lacking in ability to advance to positions of authority. But it's just a coincidence that women's biological lack of interest happens to keep them subsidiary to men, just like they always have been.
It's just "women are inferior" dressed up in a dinner jacket so it fits in with polite company.
> where there are practically 0 bars for entry
This is just shockingly ignorant. Please actually read about the topic. Plenty of women in tech have stories that bely this. Plenty of research refutes it. In America, gender socialization starts early and runs deep.
> So 50/50 representation is to be expected
Sure, now. 20 years ago, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, it wouldn't have been. And somebody just like you would have been posting impassioned screeds about how women just don't want to be doctors and lawyers. How the data clearly shows that they aren't interested. How any advancement past the current status quo would have been only due to shocking discrimination against men.
As subsequent events prove, those dudes were making a self-serving, willfully ignorant argument. They were wrong. At least do yourself the service of understanding why before you post the same tired and discredited arguments in opposition to this generation's increment of progress in tearing down societal sexism.