...
I know your response already: "But but but in PERCENTAGE women had much less impact/total Nobel prizes/etc". Well, yes, dear clown. Of course they did... Until <100 years ago, they weren't allowed to get university level degrees in most countries. We'll have this discussion again in 50 to 60 years, when a few more generations of women in the developed world had unconditional access to higher education. Not that it matters to you, of course: retard stays retard, no matter what dangles (or doesn't dangle) between your legs.
But why weren't women allowed? And who didn't allow them? Is there something in nature that keeps women down? Or is it the physical strength of the men? Perhaps it is women, themselves.
Here's the point about this issue. Women only want, by nature, things like "impact/total Nobel prizes/etc" as a secondary thing. Why? Because women have something built into them that makes them disregard all else. That thing is machinery to make babies.
ALL (100%) of the women want children. Some want more security, first. But if the security were there, women wouldn't care much about the Internet or Bitcoin. All they would care about is having children. Again, why? Because they have the machinery built right into them, and it drives them in a powerful way.
Men have some small percent of such machinery. But it is way smaller in men than it is in women. Because of this, men aren't going to be distracted by it as much. Men will be able to focus on pure innovation much more easily. The practicality that women have exists because they are (deep down, in a basic way) securing what it takes to have and raise children safely and securely. Security usually doesn't involve innovation. It involves correct use of what exists already.
