Sure it is. Didn’t you ever watch Numb3rs?
Huh. I knew about Newton but I’ve just seen that Leibniz also never married.
That makes the whole calculus dispute a whole 'nother level of sad.
Don’t forget that, for a large part of history, society has been set up in such a way as to make mathematicians, and engineers, for that matter, get the general impression that women are, as a species, gum-snapping, malaprop-spouting, vain bimbos. Just try to imagine Harriet Vane or Hermione Granger as a character in a 17th-century novel. (Heck, just look at the Greek philosophers who defend homosexuality on the grounds that, while reproducing the species is, of course, important, a man needs an intelligent companion.)
Even if this were true (and I do not really concede it, there have been plenty of portrayals of both strong and/or intelligent women and stupid and/or weak men in historical literature, going back at least to Greek epic and drama), in why would it have impacted mathematicians or engineers any more than other types of men?
“Intelligent” is not the same thing as “intellectual”. Indeed, to a sufficiently one-cultured male, even a giant like Jane Austen comes off as a blithering idiot. (The problem does, in fact, have two parts. Snow’s “Two Cultures” weigh down the male pan as much as the exclusion of women from certain careers tilts the balance upward on the opposite site.)