> Why do you find that 'argument' hard to buy?

I find it insufficient to answer the question of whether sexism is the problem. Computer programming used to have a lot more women -- why did that change? If it was changing interest, what is the source of the gender imbalance in the change in interest? Certainly, the perception that there was gender bias in the field arose while the rate at which women were participating was dropping from its high -- was gender bias in the field part of the cause of disinterest?

Oh, that's fairly easy to answer: the field changed to be more like other engineering fields, and lo-and-behold, the percentage of women in the field gradually approached what it had always been in engineering.

The graph[1] that is usually shown is highly misleading, because it compares CS with "physical sciences", and law, but does not include engineering. If you add engineering, it all makes a bit more sense[2].

Also, you seem to be approaching this from the angle of "can we prove that it isn't sexism" (which is the common approach). It seems that the correct approach is for those who claim that it is sexism to make the case, which after looking at the evidence I think they absolutely have not. (I used to think it was, but that was because I bought the narrative without looking at the evidence).

And the narrative is strong. For example, the link to the percentage of women decreasing with the discipline becoming more engineering like is known. However, the explanation then shifts to "the men in CS got together and decided to make the discipline more engineering-like expressly in order to keep the women out". Seriously??

[1] https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/10/21/womencoding_wide...

[2] https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/p/7/005/06b/02d/33fe648.jpg

> the field changed to be more like other engineering fields

How so? I feel exactly opposite is true. I'm successful developer with over 10 years of commercial exp with masters degree from technical university and in wildest dreams I wouldn't call myself engineer without laughing even though I have it written among other things on my diploma. I feel more like artist, craftsman or repirman.

>Computer programming used to have a lot more women

I have yet to see a valid study showing this. Instead, I've seen numerous studies that have not mentioned that a 'computer programmer' included employees whose job consisted of transferring punch cards and tapes. Obviously these jobs are no longer required.

The only statistics that show even a tiny bit of proof for your argument come from Soviet based nations that did have a higher percent of women in actual programming positions

That's backwards. We got rid of the gender bias.

Very long ago, computer programming was seen as being like typing and/or secretarial work. It was seen as being unmanly. Compare with nursing and kindergarten teaching.

A woman might get assigned to invent COBOL instead of being in charge of an aircraft carrier.

Well, we got rid of the sexism. Happy now? Hmmm, guess not.

Your comment amused me a bit, so I wanted to write something in response. I work in metal fabrication, our workshop specialises in structural steel, so we are part of the general construction industry. We call ourselves 'boilermakers', though I've never worked on a boiler.

Anyway, in the 17 years I've been doing this on and off, I have met precisely 1 female boilermaker. And nobody cares.

What I don't follow is why is gender imbalance in other industries seen as a problem but we never see any serious attempt to get more women in to the construction industry.

Why does anyone care there are differences in numbers of men and women in various industries? Things change over time, fashions change. I think approaching these issues from the "we must correct this imbalance" is incorrect reasoning.

And, lastly, if we do manage to level the playing field, what will gender identity become?

A quote form the film Trainspotting: One thousand years from now, there will be no guys and no girls, just wankers.

I'm willing to posit that strong gender roll identity is crucial for a healthy and resilient culture.

There aren't a lot of females in waste management either (i.e., garbage men). I've heard it can be a pretty well-paying job too. No one says that we need more women waste management workers, truck drivers, or coal miners.

I think it's mostly because if half of 'boiler makers' would start doing something else not many would care, but if half of the programmers would go work in nail saloons instead we'd be in much trouble.

Software is eating the world, there's so much work to do, and a thought that anyone that could be a programmer isn't for some silly reason, is very unpleasent.

Because without data, it's a circular argument.

"Women aren't interested in programming, so none of them go into programming professionally.

Why don't women go into programming professionally? Because they aren't interested."

Separate out whether women are interested from whether women are being forced out for other reasons (harassment, gender imbalance in the field, etc).

They can't be forced out if they didn't start in the first place (because of lack of interest). When I was at University, there were way more guys studying engineering and CS. Were they forced out before they started?

There is literally nothing circular about that. You're just saying the same thing twice.

Yes, there is. Allow me to rephrase it using Boolean logic to elucidate:

IF women aren't interested in programming, THEN none of them go into programming professionally.

IF women don't go into programming professionally, THEN they aren't interested."

I have 2 better questions to ask:

1) If fewer women than "the ideal" are interested in STEM, then why is that?

2) Why do we think a perfect 50/50 ratio across all fields is "the ideal," when "nature" might not deem it so? (note: this is NOT an "argument to nature")

Why are there less male elementary school teachers? Are they being forced out due to gender prejudice or are they not interested?

> Are they being forced out due to gender prejudice or are they not interested?

Positive (for males) gender prejudice in a wide array of higher-status, better-compensated jobs drawing men disproportionately elsewhere. Which is kind of a mix of both of your options.

On the other hand, saying a gender imbalance in the field is causing a gensee imbalance in the field....

Come on.

Ada Lovelace, Grace Hopper, and App Camp for Girls refute your bs.

Grace Hopper might have rather been in charge of an aircraft carrier. Ada Lovelace might also have wanted to do other things.

Opportunities were limited for women. Don't assume that computing was the first choice career for those women.

> Grace Hopper might have rather been in charge of an aircraft carrier. [...] Opportunities were limited for women.

Even had the Navy not had gender-restricted roles, the only reason Dr. Hopper got an exemption from physical requirements she did not meet was her strong background in math and physics that qualified her to fill the need for the computation project.

Gender bias aside, she would never have gotten to command an aircraft carrier.