Yes, real science is/must be based on objective reality. But there is no guarantee that our society will retain the standard of living that progress based upon scientific understanding has enabled, IF society is dumb enough not to pass this knowledge down to future generations as a whole. They might not convince existing science students that the law of gravity is subject to a gender perspective. So they start redefining what science "is" and what math "is" in elementary schools. Those kids won't know any better, unless their parents teach them.
E.G. Math. Well, girls supposedly aren't as good as boys at "traditional" math. [Which as having a BS Mathematics, I find very strange to begin with.] So we "find" a kind of math that "equalizes" -- or better, empowers little girls, since they are "disadvantaged" by traditional math. This makes use of their strength of intuitive thinking. There is no longer an exact, "right" answer to a math problem. You take in all the information, and use your intuition to explain what you "feel" the answer is or should be. Of course kids taught that way will be left behind, because some people are not going to submit to nonsense. However, how many people can the nation afford to have thinking this way and being computationally illiterate? And, as voters, being trained to think emotionally and ideologically rather than logically?
It is very true. The proportion of women in hard science courses is small. Take any engineering school, graduate student population in math or math faculty. I'd say that, among math majors, they are 25% of undergraduates, 15% of graduate students and <10% of faculty.
The only field that, IMHO, is worse is computer science. Much to the dismay of this single mathematician.
Well, I have this theory that human males have somewhat of a "hard-wired" ability with math from natural selection over thousands of years of using missile weapons (i.e. he who can predict the trajectory of his rock stands the most chance of getting food--and/or of not BEING food!). This is NOT to say that ladies can't also do well at math--just that it comes a bit easier for males.
In a similar vein, I think human females have a similar "hard-wired" superiority with language, as superior communication capacity better enabled them to keep better control of their infant charges, and communicate to other gatherers where to find the local spinach patch. Again, obviously, men can learn to use language effectively--it just comes a bit easier for women.
Sexist remarks aside :), I am not terrifically comfortable with the idea of driving over bridges, riding in airplanes, or working in buildings whose designs were based on "intuitively-derived" mathematics. "Fuzzy math" is the most ridiculous notion yet to come out of the "professional educators" pipeline.