Everyone knows that men outperform women, and outnumber women, in the most intellectually demanding professional careers: Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics. The most vehement cultural Marxist reading SRS would agree with what few actual misogynists there are upon this point.
The great raging debate, of course, is about why. This debate becomes a great deal simpler to understand, and engage in, if we regard STEM field success as being like a crime (which SRS readers already do, but in the wrong manner).
A crime has three necessary components:
Means. Motive. Opportunity.
Women lack either the intellectual and cognitive means to perform at technical tasks and education, or the motivation to train for, and work in, these fields, or the opportunity to realize their potential within this arena.
If women are outperformed by men at STEM, they must lack one or more of these things. Positions in the great debate can therefore be easily broken down into which one(s) one thinks it is.
A cultural Marxist would say that women lack the opportunity; that an entire culture conspires to drive women away from the laboratory.
Some contributors here point to evidence suggesting that women may frequently lack the means to perform in STEM settings; that many of them just aren't smart enough to compete.
Others would say that women lack the motivation to pursue STEM careers, or even take math classes, because math is hard (for everyone), and women are made happy by social relationships, not intellectual or financial achievements; that, for them, the juice is not worth the squeeze.
From which of these, and in what proportion, would you construct your explanation of this?