Average *men* aren't suited to STEM either. Analytically gifted men and women are. If you weren't "worthy" material, I doubt you would have gotten into those pre-college programs.
Is there a gender skewing for raw numbers of analytically gifted men and women? I don't know. We all know there's presently a cultural skewing. If we fix that, we have to be prepared for the possibility that the gender distribution will never be 50/50. It may be, it may not be. Policewomen exist now, but they're only <a href=http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table_74_full-time_law_enforcement_employees_by_population_group_percent_male_and_female_2011.xls>11.8% of the force</a>. What are the reasons?
What are the skewing effects of a complex economy with millions or even billions of people in it? It's one thing if you're a small country and you need every STEM person you can possibly produce. In a more authoritarian society, maybe girls wouldn't just be trained, they'd be trained forcibly without much choice for their career tracks. Many of the Communist countries used to run people's lives that way. But in a big open economy like the USA's, people can go in all kinds of directions. Whose to say those directions are always going to be 50/50 gender distributed? There's no a priori reason to assume it in a complex system.
Box2D, who cares? If the Box2D author(s) are now kicking themselves that they could have been making more money pursuing something else, that's their problem. The permissive open source licenses aren't a royalty fee structure. They don't come with any strings attached as to how much money someone can make with your work. To think otherwise is the ethics of software patents, and if that's what the Box2D author(s) thought they should be on about, they can hop to it now.
Open source art, well, it tends to increase supply which will probably reduce demand. I also have little faith in the originality of a crowd.
Average *men* aren't suited to STEM either. Analytically gifted men and women are. If you weren't "worthy" material, I doubt you would have gotten into those pre-college programs.
Is there a gender skewing for raw numbers of analytically gifted men and women? I don't know. We all know there's presently a cultural skewing. If we fix that, we have to be prepared for the possibility that the gender distribution will never be 50/50. It may be, it may not be. Policewomen exist now, but they're only <a href=http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table_74_full-time_law_enforcement_employees_by_population_group_percent_male_and_female_2011.xls>11.8% of the force</a>. What are the reasons?
What are the skewing effects of a complex economy with millions or even billions of people in it? It's one thing if you're a small country and you need every STEM person you can possibly produce. In a more authoritarian society, maybe girls wouldn't just be trained, they'd be trained forcibly without much choice for their career tracks. Many of the Communist countries used to run people's lives that way. But in a big open economy like the USA's, people can go in all kinds of directions. Whose to say those directions are always going to be 50/50 gender distributed? There's no a priori reason to assume it in a complex system.