It's good to see atleast someone finally understood my point.

I agree it is not possible for the company to hire from all the colleges, but the disadvantage in placements faced by the more meritorious general category students can be resolved by removing reservation on the basis of birth from India.

Anyways, it never feels good to see a friend who is less deserving than oneself, getting admission into a better college or a better branch due to his/her reservation on the basis of birth benefits.

I am quoting your reasoning why it is supposedly fair when men are doing stuff with high salary and decision power and women are not, why the current enormous imbalance of power and opportunities seems justified and natural to you:

the requirements for those jobs require immense sacrifice, risks, responsibilities, etc which more men are likely to do

women prefer to be less risky and live a more stable lifestyle

women are more interested in people and men are more interested in things

So when you are talking about IT jobs, please tell me exactly, what kind of great risks and responsibilities are required to code algorithms? Which great dangers are you facing, that women would not be able to withstand, while sitting in front of your desktop computer? Is your adrenaline level really going up and down with every semicolon? Are you aware that the python programming language is actually not about taming a real poisonous snake?

Have you noticed that ICPC teams consist of three students each, because software development is a very cooperative task?

When talking about jobs in parliament, does this not require some interest in people? Wouldn't you want your representatives to act "less risky" and "more stable"? It's "We the people" and there are plenty of "people's republics", but I've never heard of even a single "republic of things".

Meanwhile, does cooking and cleaning really require such great interest in people, isn't this more about things actually?

And isn't bringing up a child essentially about "immense sacrifice, risks, responsibilities"?

Your reasoning is flawed. It does not make any sense whatsoever. It only serves the purpose to help ignore the obvious injustice you (we all, I guess) inherited from previous generations, which now you apparently want to continue benefiting from. It is hard to disprove some alleged genetic properties, which science supposedly is still to unravel. But since my hint apparently did not suffice, let me give you a more vivid excerpt of how this logic of biological supremacy has been used for suppression throughout history:

• Slavery: "These slaves don't have the mental capacity to fulfill complex tasks. We (slave owners) are actually doing them a favor by keeping them under our control."

• Colonialism: "People living in these colonies don't have the character traits needed for successful statecraft. They are inherently lazy, stupid, etc., so it is for a good purpose that we (colonial powers) assume the responsibility they are unfit to assume and take all the decisions concerning them."

• Nazism: "Jewish people have inherent evil character traits and cannot be contributing members of society. We (nazis) are doing the world a great service by eliminating them. Our genes are simply superior."

Discrimination against women is (mostly) less violent and less deadly than those. But you are using the same, terrible type of reasoning, you are trying to establish the biological superiority of one group (men) and the inferiority of another group (women). You may say that your point is actually not about superiority, but in effect, regarding political, economical and social power, it is. You are using deeply flawed pseudoscience (of course, people feel drawn to what they are taught and used to, so measuring that provides little information) to argue that it would be just when women live in subordination to their husbands or families, while men benefit from superior rights and opportunities. But this is not just, it is merely convenient if you are part of the group in control. While it is fine to observe biological differences, you must never abuse biology to establish superiority.

By the way, since you also argued that "we aren't living in the 1600s anymore", please note that, formally, all of the above (slavery, colonialism, and nazism) have been abolished long times ago. But the discrimination persists for billions of people in their present everyday life. There is stil great prejudice against black people in most places of the world, people in former colonies are still facing severe economic disadvantages, Jewish people today are still threatened with their elimination from multiple parts of the world. So it is ridiculous to say that discrimination against women has been abolished. I just asked my girlfriend today and she gave me a long and very convincing list of examples how women are being discriminated against in the present day in Germany. I also gave you some obvious examples like limited or no political representation and frequent economic dependency.

To summarize in one line: YOUR GENES DO NOT MAKE YOU SUPERIOR TO ANYBODY! They also do not make you inferior. There are roughly 8 billion people on this planet and everybody deserves an equal share of power and the same opportunities. This is the only way we can get along peacefully. We must never stop working towards that. If you do not accept this fact, then no sustainable organization will want to hire you.

Germany might offer some insights here. While still a less frequent occurrence, it is actually not that uncommon, especially in the younger generation, that a man would mainly take care of the household or the child while his female partner focuses on her career and earns big money. For example, my brother and his wife are mainly doing this, while she is currently completing her degree in medicine. At a later point of time, maybe they will switch, or not. Less pressure, more happiness for everyone.

An issue exists primarily in cases where men are still brought up with misleading stereotypes like "you have to be the leader of your family, must have a great career, be successful with women", and whatnot. Instead, the lesson I would convey to boys is that there are many different paths to happiness. Sure, it is usually nice to be in a relationship with a woman. But similarly, it is nice to have excellent hearing. Now there are many people in this world who have bad hearing, and that certainly is an inconvenience, but I have little doubt that most of these people are still living a joyful life, and, in many cases, accomplishing great things. Even if you're deaf, you should not feel sorry about it, it is usually not your fault. Society should accept you in exactly the same way. And similarly, it is often not your fault if you don't have a female partner. It really is not terrible, many people actually prefer to live this way. Instead, maybe you have many friends. So in my opinion, society should (where this is still the case) perhaps stop portraying relationships as ultimate goal and stop defining a person's success through that persons relations with the opposite sex. I know that this pressure can feel quite intense, for men and women alike. That's totally unnecessary. Ultimately it is for yourself to define what brings you happiness and you should not feel pressured in any way.

You didn't get Gregory's point:) He meant that since those top 7 women had a more difficult time(societal pressure) getting to where there are. They would have faced more difficulties than the men ranked 14-20th to attain the same level of knowledge as they do, due to(again societal pressure)

The solution however he proposes does not cleanse the root of the problem, that is the initial pressure, that is what I do not agree with him. Or however it does fix the root, if both genders were represented equally in the marker. That is his point I believe

"In history, men hunt, women raise children. This is our history and our evolution."

You seem to have a pretty concise picture here (which, to be honest, I don't – I think we know very little about prehistoric task distribution and can mainly speculate). However, there are some major inconsistencies:

• Gathering: Hasn't gathering actually also been a major part of evolutionary history, probably the dominant part, and isn't gathering very much about things? To me, gathering actually appears to be a much more logic-driven activity compared to hunting (the things you gather will grow in repetitive patterns, so you can deduce where and when you will find what, and it also requires a lot of logic and planning to gather enough for the winter). If you draw any comparison, then gathering should probably be the activity most similar to IT work. Why would gathering have been done by men and not women?

• Hunting: Hunting, meanwhile, deals with animals acting irrationally and mainly requires instinct and physical control, I would say. On the contrary, it is worth observing that in today's world, excellent analytical skills often come with motor deficits. E.g. 87% of people with autism also have some motor difficulties. I have seen this in action. Please trust me, these students are extremely bright, but they would certainly never have been good hunters. So I would assume you would find good instincts and good analytical skills on opposite ends of the neurological spectrum.

• "tools/armor/weapon": I don't think there have been a lot of weapons/tools/armor around in Stone Age, so that would only concern recent history and have limited impact (according to Wikipedia, bows and arrows have arrived in Europe 9,000–11,000 BCE, while homo sapiens is perhaps 300000 years old, homo erectus over 2 million years). We are probably rather talking about simple stone-age tools for hunting, cooking and cutting or building stuff, and perhaps ornaments. What makes you believe that these tools have predominantly been used by men and not by women? If, like you allege, women have been in charge of raising children, then they have probably been cooking, cutting and building stuff a lot. And being good in those traits would certainly have increased their chances of survival. Perhaps men would also have selected the women wearing the most interesting self-made ornaments for reproduction.

• divergence: Of course, there are usually significant differences between males and females, in particular with regard to reproduction. But my understanding is that most evolutionary development is shared between males and females, because most genes affect males and females in similar ways. For example, I presume that the necks of both male and female giraffes have grown over time, due to the same genetic mutations. So if we allege that the traits of males and females diverged, then much greater evolutionary pressure would have been necessary. E.g. this could have been the case when skilled use of tools was very helpful for men, but actually harmful for women. Or when men had disadvantages from increased people skills. This all seems even more unlikely (again, please note that I am neither a neurologist nor evolutionary researcher – this is just my very basic understanding of evolution).

• egalitarian societies: Perhaps also noteworthy, Wikipedia suggests that prehistoric people mostly lived in egalitarian communities for most of the past 2 million years (I understand mainly based on observing uncontacted tribes today). Of course, evidence is extremely thin, I would put this as informed speculation at most. But that would make neurological divergence even more unlikely.

My point is: There has been a long evolution with great neurological development. There is no doubt that men and women exhibit some neurological differences. But we have very little understanding of how neurology was evolutionarily influenced. Even if we assume that there were vastly different roles in hunting and gathering, which I think is in dispute, and even if we went furter and also assumed that that lead to men relying more on things and women interacting more with people, which is more far-fetchend, and even if we assumed that this lead to development of different character traits, which is now pure speculation, then there still is an enormous gap missing in order to argue that as a consequence men and women in todays world, which requires entirely different sets of skills, are genetically so different that men are predestined for most jobs with high wage, while women are naturally drawn to activities with low wage. To the best of my knowledge, the scientific community is also mostly unconvinced by such theories, and I presume for good reason. It is, of course, hard to entirely disprove that this could have been possible, like it is difficult to disprove most things where we don't have perfect knowledge.

This is why I was curious if you perhaps would knew about any way to substantiate such a link. I have to conclude, if your key evidence are YouTube videos full of opinion TV talking points but without any facts or solid reasoning, then you apparently do not have any meaningful indication for this either. Please, do not put forward potentially very discriminatory views if you do not have any evidence whatsoever to back that up. Because it can cause real harm.