I can't speak to your 70% Iran science degree holder figure but I do want to make the point that we can't make generalizations about gender participation in "tech" when tech is a generic heterogenous basket of different activities. It jumbles together all/most of the the sciences (for example, would bio be tech but social science not be tech?), engineering and programming, for example. Still speaking in rough terms, but at a little higher degree of fidelity, I'd say female interest/talent/ambition in science fields is much higher than in programming, which in turn is higher than in traditional engineering (EE, mech eng, etc.) -- and even within engineering the percentages vary by specific field. So if you told me of one particular country or region or whatever where say 70% of bio science degree holders were women, that wouldn't sound too extra-ordinary to me. If you said 70% of electrical or mechanical engineers, that's different.
Btw, do you think society also has a problem (speaking USA) that the vast majority of cosmetics salespeople are women? Do you think there's some horrible educational/cultural/societal conspiracy or flaw going on that has caused there to be so few men in that field? And how about child day care? How about the small percentage of women that are garbage truck pickup workers? Auto mechanics? Hunters? Weightlifting?
I think that today in the USA we're about as close to "culturally gender neutral" in mathematics, science and programming as we're ever going to get without some sort of significant genetic engineering or neurological/cyborg modification. Small changes? Sure, of course. Big changes? I highly doubt it without hacking on our DNA or hormones.
Note that the use of gender-specific industries is a bit of a sham when you can't demonstrate that the tech industry /itself/ has any overt gender-specific targeting, outside of the occasional attempt at tech fashion. In fact, it isn't too hard to imagine a culture where cosmetology /is/ male-predominant - just switch the zeitgeist around so that peacock behavior is seen as sexually beneficial.
I'm afraid your underlying logic is full of holes. At the very least, it's unimaginative, and fails to at least ask "actually, /why/ is this so?" As for the 70%, Wiki's "Science in Iran" lists it as specifically degrees in science and engineering. While Wiki is, at times, unremarkable in its factuality, this specific assertion is actually backed by citation.
Furthermore, biology being /also/ male-dominant in the US, your point doesn't hold well. What makes biology more female-oriented than chemistry or physics anyhow? What basis are you making such a claim?
What makes dancing so much more female-oriented than male? What makes playing dress up? What makes gossiping on the phone? What makes playing with dolls and toy babies? Make-up? Shoes? The beauty of this line is that one doesn't need to come up with any "line of reasoning" or "logical argument" if it just comes down to biological/hormonal/neurological differences between males and females.
Why do so many women have vaginas and so few have penises? Cultural conspiracy? Or is there perhaps some other force or mechanism involved? I know which I think it is. :P
Tango is male-dominated, mostly because of its internal culture. Dressing-up is, again, cultural pressure and can conceivably be changed with altered values. Plus, guys dress up to - only, when they do, they get called a fag and suffer detrimental social effects. Guys gossip all the time - Hacker News is /full/ of gossip, if you haven't noticed.
Genitalia has nothing to do with technical merit. Or, rather, as my point has been this entire time, it /shouldn't/. Most of our cerebral functions are a good long ways away from it - that is, unless you really do think with the smaller head.
Trying to say that there doesn't need to be explanations for these only demonstrates the limits of your own range of exposure. In fact, there has been plenty of discussion, academic and otherwise, as to the roles and functions of cultural norms. It's call anthropology.
The traditional definition of gossip I use is two people talking about a third person behind their back, particularly if it's a neighbor in their community. And particularly if this "spreads" throughout the neighborhood, from person to person, talking about third parties. That was gossip as I understand it. My mother, for example, engages in gossip. And some of her women friends as well. It may give them pleasure to do it, so they do. The males in my life to this date? Probably 99% have not liked to gossip. Now, merely talking about news, about world events, about events in the industry, talking about new techniques or technologies, or asking for advice about business -- these things are not gossip. If my friend Tom said, "Mike, did you hear about Bob? He did such-and-such with his wife. And then Steve did this and Dave did that but Mary didn't know that Tom did that so Steve said but -- oh but don't let anybody know I told you this, okay?" <--- Bingo. Gossip.
Tango's a good example -- yes there is obviously more male participation in that, especially at the professional level. But there has to be, IIRC, because the tradition is to have a male-female pair doing it. That old saying, "Takes two to tango!" I was talking more about among amateurs, among students, minors, etc. And other forms of dance. And in suburbs and rural areas, etc. From what I can tell in my life experience so far those subsectors of dance all mostly involve women. (Can't believe I need to even point this out. I can't even imagine a point anytime growing up where I ever saw a guy say, "Hey guys, let's go dancing tonight! giggle" whereas I had lots of exposure to incidents where women wanted to dance, or take dance classes, etc. That's what I'm talking about.) Also when I talked about males and dance I assumed straight males. A high percentage of males in professional dance seem to be gay -- just listen to them talk or walk sometime. And it's clear from studies that they have biological or neurological differences in their brain and hormones -- a point which further lends credence to the notion that men and women are different due to biological/structural/hormonal differences, and that this is probably a large factor involved in explaining statistical differences in interests, behavior and talents. Change a man's brain/body to make it more female and guess what both his body and his behavior become more feminine. And vice versa. Transsexual adjustment procedures depend on this fact. It's science, not wishful thinking.
This is my last post in this thread. Talking about gender in society on the Internet is right up there with religion and politics. Rarely leads anywhere. :)
Btw, do you think society also has a problem (speaking USA) that the vast majority of cosmetics salespeople are women? Do you think there's some horrible educational/cultural/societal conspiracy or flaw going on that has caused there to be so few men in that field? And how about child day care? How about the small percentage of women that are garbage truck pickup workers? Auto mechanics? Hunters? Weightlifting?
I think that today in the USA we're about as close to "culturally gender neutral" in mathematics, science and programming as we're ever going to get without some sort of significant genetic engineering or neurological/cyborg modification. Small changes? Sure, of course. Big changes? I highly doubt it without hacking on our DNA or hormones.