What was absolutely obvious to our grandparents is shocking news to the "enlightened" urbanites over at the Boston Globe:

In general, Rosenbloom's study found, men and women who enjoyed the explicit manipulation of tools or machines were more likely to choose IT careers - and it was mostly men who scored high in this area. Meanwhile, people who enjoyed working with others were less likely to choose IT careers. Women, on average, were more likely to score high in this arena.

Personal preference, Rosenbloom and his group concluded, was the single largest determinative factor in whether women went into IT. They calculated that preference accounted for about two-thirds of the gender imbalance in the field. The study was published in November in the Journal of Economic Psychology.

It may seem like a cliche - or rank sexism - to say women like to work with people, and men prefer to work with things. Rosenbloom acknowledges that, but says that whether due to socialization or "more basic differences," the genders on average demonstrate different vocational interests.

"It sounds like stereotypes," he said in an interview, "but these stereotypes have a germ of truth."

"A germ of truth?" Sounds, rather, that it's a fair summation of the situation. Imagine that: men and women are different? Who would have conceived of such an idea. (Answer: Only every generation in history until the baby boom.)

Of course, there's much politically-correct hand-wringing over this unfortunate discovery: "... It may seem ... like rank sexism.... The concept of self-selection sets off alarms for many feminists. It seems to suggest that women themselves are responsible for the gender gap. It can also be an excuse for minimizing the role of social forces."

Isn't that an amazing observation? That the idea that women make their own choices should be threatening to the group who claims to be the most pro-woman? Shouldn't they be joyfully embracing the idea that women are now making their own choices, and that it produces a distinctively feminine style and outcome? One which is qualitatively different, but not in any way inferior?

If a woman wants to be in IT, let her. Some of my closest friends are women who have plenty of skills in that area. On the other hand, if she has a different preference, let's value that too, okay -- even if it means she "just" wants to be a stay-at-home mom or healthcare professional.

"Feminism" often seem to take things women tend to prefer and dismiss them as wrong or trivial or unworthy (wanting a family, frequent social contact, a preference for care-giving, intimacy with commitment) and often seems to communicate that women, or (more indirectly) women's "progress" should be judged by how women to conform to certain stereotypically masculine traits.

I sometimes think the movement should have been called "masculinism", not "feminism".