Ha... You came up with just one example to make your point. Whereas the article has a lot more example to make it's point. I think you should go around the surface to understand that women have been misrepresented by the make dominated society.
None of this takes away from the fact those women made the best of what they were given, had an unfair playing field compared to their "peers", who were handed everything, and yet we're able to make themselves their peers and yet weren't represented at all.
My example of one determined woman even in the 1800's shows that an interested, determined person can contribute, hell if she could back then, then it has only gotten easier.
I think the under representation of women in science and engineering is more down to gender biases and the way parents have traditionally raised boys and girls differently.
As a society we have been more willing to support males in daring endeavors of exploration and science. This meant historically, scientifically inclined women were less likely to be funded by some benefactor, as was common with the scientists and mathematicians of Europe between 1500-1900.
There is for sure a natural set of interests different genders are encouraged to do by society, and this has meant less women are doing things that contributed to science.
we can opine about the state of the past or we can encourage and support the future. I know which is more important to me.
It's a shame that most people here and everywhere, when asked about Kateryna Yushchenko, would at most recall the wife of former ukrainian president, and almost noone heard about another ukrainian Kateryna Yushchenko, author of one of the first programming languages.
> Science and nature were regularly personified as women up until the early 20th century, with the male researcher characterised as penetrating their secrets.
If you go beyond the bare surface of a subject you will find iconic figures of both genders.