What excuse exactly are you talking about? That most tech startups are run by men? That's not really an excuse but a fact and I think people are right to demand more participation of women in the tech world in general.
This is the United States of America in 2010. It's not ancient Egypt. It's not feudal England. It's not even the U.S. in 1950. You can do whatever you want to do and be whoever you want to be. Nobody is stopping you but yourself. Might your climb to the top be steeper than mine? Sure. But realize that nobody who's ever made it to the top of their mountain complained about how steep it was. They just climbed. If you want to be the best, whatever that means to you, you have to go Jackie Robinson that shit. No matter what the douchebags throw at you along the way, you have to just smile back and hit home runs.
Many women feel that tech is male dominated and that it would be nice if there were more women in tech.
Tell me WHY it's male-dominated. Tell me what barrier is keeping women out. Give me a cause.
"The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal."
Perhaps different people, have different interests?
I believe the number of men and women who want equal treatment under the law is more even than the numbers of men and women who are attracted to (or tolerant of) the realities of working in tech. Therefore I do not think it is fair to compare this disparity to the civil rights or suffrage movements.
Perhaps evolutionary biology has something to say about why there aren't more women techies, entrepreneurs, prisoners, or homeless. If you missed it a few days ago, here is the link again: http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm Even if you don't agree with it, I think it is safe to say it is an idea worth considering and seems pertinent to this debate.
Artificially injecting a demographic into an area in which they are underrepresented doesn't guarantee you anything. You can't assume that because of a person's race, gender or background that they think in a particularly different and/or novel way. Superficial differences should not result in mandatory quotas to be filled.
Part of my problem with this line of thinking is that there is this implicit idea that being in "tech" (whatever that means) is A Good Thing. Being a programmer is NO better and NO worse than being a carpenter, or a interior decorator or the President. But yet, when was the last time someone wrote an article about how there were not enough female garbage collectors?
Civil Engineering should have balanced representation from across the IQ scale. Medicine should have balanced representation from scientists and various major religions.
Technology is such a field and I don't understand why everyone is being so defensive about the subject of including more women in technology.
Besides "balanced representation" being a crock, how do you "include" someone who from all appearances doesn't want to be included?
What if the women don't listen to my demands?