I mean, I was referring to encouraging women to learn the stuff and apply it, not simply apply if they weren’t capable. Disrupting work culture is likely not as much of an issue as the natural talent companies miss out on because of the relative lack of female participation in those fields; you can imagine the cost to society if someone like Marie Curie had decided or been forced not to participate in STEM careers. That Marie Curie had a loving husband also contradicts your statement (although maybe this is what you mean by superhuman?). I don’t support shoving women into STEM jobs until it’s perfectly half-and-half; I’m saying that it’s beneficial to make sure that naturally talented women do get their opportunity to try out these fields without feeling unfairly discouraged on account of their gender.
And while I would like to see your data on how bad women are at negotiating salaries, that problem is separate from the first ones. Either way, the problem is not to take power away from women, the inevitable result of which is to further reduce their economic bargaining power. After all, the modern feminist movement (the non-crazy-SJW-part) does promote things like equal pay for equal work that would address problems like that.
