Men and women are socialized different. Obviously a guy being told to play in the mud, get rowdy, and that he "can't cry" is going to have one hell of a different experience growing up than a girl told to sit "ladylike", told to not go out at night and watch her drinks, and to play with dolls not trucks.
The question isn't "do men and women process things differently" - of course they do - the question then becomes why. Would a little boy and little girl growing up completely isolated from society and culture (think a locked room or the wilderness or something) still process things differently? Can we separate socialization from the person? Does it vary between cultures?
It's part nature and part nurture. People don't like thinking about the nurture part because it means that, on some level, how they perceive others isn't entirely an intrinsic fault to them, it is something they were groomed into behaving like.
It requires only casual observation of families/schools that raise kids gender neutral to discover that socialisation has a far smaller and possibly almost negligible effect.
It's not that women can't code. It's not that women can't math. Think deep thoughts. Or even fight in war.
It's that doing any of it burns them out. Their bodies, their minds. The act of doing anything worth doing at a constant pace melts them like a hot knife through butter. Their entire existence as part of our species is not conducive to them having sustained interaction with anything, much less themselves. "Haha, raising babies--" Fuck off. My infant can be a right pain in the ass sometimes. But she's never a constant pain in the ass. You figure out the problem and she's happy. She's an infant, there are only 7 possible problems: hungry, dirty diaper, pulling own hair, has to fart but doesn't know how, sick, someone dropped something on her (my wife and her phone...), she's overstimulated. Even if you randomly pick one at a time, you're done in a couple minutes depending on the problem. My wife can't get through a 10-minute feeding without getting bored while I'm figuring out optimal feeding angles to prevent prolonged burping sessions.
I can sit here and code or write for ten hours without blinking. Similarly, I go out with my buds and we sit up in trees for a similar amount of time hunting for deer. Just sitting. Waiting. Staring. My wife, nor any woman I've ever met, could go fifteen minutes without needing a break. Just to spice the mood. Every single woman I've ever known has gotten bored of being bored at some point. They get bored and instead of doing something about it, sit there until they get bored of being bored. It's not a competency thing. It's not a laziness thing. It's a basic principle of their biology. They are waiting to be told what to do. Until finally their adult brain kicks in and does the telling for them. If you're banking your project, product, or government on women having to tell themselves what to do, you're fucked.
Yes, the percentage of female programmers is lowest in countries like sweden, and highest in countries like India. Women will code to get out of poverty, but not do so in a country where there are some vocational options and it doesn't offer security.
The interest is an important distinction. They've done studies with newborns where they boys and girls already respond differently to both people and toys. This same difference is observed in young male and female chimps.
Besides interest there is also a difference in ability.
---
Now both men and women can seem to surpass their inclinations when sufficiently intelligent and driven, but I'll leave that out of it. The fact that one needs extra effort and reasoning to get there shows that there are differences in the base qualities one starts with.
As for do men and women think differently, fucking of course. Under what rock does one live to think otherwise?
The best way to examine the differences is the brains. Men have larger brains than women, more grey matter and women have more white matter.
It is a bit of an oversimplification and we don't even know all the rammifications of this, but in short it means that men are better at the deep type of thinking including thinking of new solutions and ideas, whereas women are better at getting quickly to the right prestored knowledge and selecting the best solution that is already known. This is what makes women so much better at dealing with social situations, they know much quicker when someone is being a retard in someway about something.
They process the information of how someone is presenting quicker and have a quicker grasp of how reliable the person presenting what they're saying is. This means they're better at quickly judging who is lying/being weird.
However when someone is a really good liar, like quality politicians (good at being politician, not good at being virtuous or honest), women get deceived much more easily because they depend on the cue's the person themselves give that they're lying. They have a much shallower refference to judging whether what the person is saying or promising is reasonable.
Women test people, men test ideas is another way to look at that.
---
Another way to easily tell is to look at survival shows like bear grylls or survival island shows. Women are absolutely laughably bad at surviving every time it's been tested.
Yet look at something like the dutch show "who is the mole?" and women typically thrive, while only about one men in a dozen seems to thrive. What is going on there?
Well women are bad at dealing with practical reality itself, and that is all you have in a survival situation. But they are virtuoso's in getting ahead in a social situation, even competitive social situation like a "who is the mole" competitive work environment where people try to deceive others all the time.
Here's what these survival shows never tested: individual thriving in mixed environments. You have mixed survival situations, meaning enough men to make sure survival happens, then the women are typically in a pretty good spot at doing well for themselves even if they're fairly useless for the survival.
That really is the divine comedy of this feminist age, that a highly privileged group, that you can't criticize is wholly dependant on the socalled opressors and it mostly works because we're a very pro-women species so men don't typically air the truth in regards to this. It typically requires more than tenure to get away with that.
Internet anonymity does the job pretty well, but how long will we have that?
