Even a full accounting of all STEM fields would not make your logic any less faulty.

Well, I think its noteworthy that you distinguished statistics from mathematics, but apparently felt automotive engineering (which I specifically asked about) to fall under ME, and you didn't comment on mining engineering, which does not fall under EE/ME.

But for some reason, you seem to think it's meaningful, so I'll acknowledge that for the purposes of this discussion, you have indeed effectively provided that accounting.

And I stand by my earlier response, to wit, that even a full accounting of all STEM fields would not make your logic any less faulty.

* The fact that the other STEM fields are usually more intellectually rigorous than CS.

* The fact that some of those STEM fields are in fact the intellectual foundation for CS (Daniel Bernstein has an old quote about how mathematics is fundamentally the "easiest" of the STEM fields, and has as a result advanced much further into the frontiers of human knowledge than the other field, which creates the impression that it is more forbidding than it actually is).

* The fact that almost all of these fields are dominated by computers; in fact, I know professors in bio fields who do more hardcore programming than the typical CS grad does (to wit: they're sometimes forced to write things in C, even in 2017).

* The fact that many of the STEM fields that feature significant female participation are more "things"-oriented than CS, which, as it is practiced in the industry, is largely abstractions wrapped around human social interactions.

* The fact that the rest of STEM, in which women excel, feature large amounts of long-term solo investigative work, while CS as practiced in the industry is universally a team pursuit which has been recognized at least since Fred Brooks as being overwhelmingly about communications and coordination skills.

If you'd like to broaden the analysis outside of STEM --- for instance, to observe how much other professions impinge on personal lives, make demands of home life, have poorer work-life balance, have utterly inflexible hours and workplace location requirements, and require short-notice travel, and still have nearly 50/50 participation of men and women, we can do that too.

It seems plainly obvious to me that there's not much of an argument for an innate female aversion to computer science that wouldn't contradict these observations. When you have to gerrymander an argument around inconvenient facts like that, we call the result "special pleading". Can you make a clear argument that won't be that thing?

Your logic seems to be:

1. Women are well-represented in many STEM fields other than CS or software development.

2. These other fields often involve use of computers and software development.

3. Therefore, it logically follows that they SHOULD also be well-represented in CS and software development.

4. Since they're not, it's "obvious" that "the field is hostile to them."

I think that's ridiculous. Women, as a group, can, and do, pursue just about any career of their choosing in the US. For years, efforts have been made to lure them into STEM fields, including CS/dev, in greater numbers. For all of the pontificating from feminists, I have yet to encounter a single documented example of a qualified woman who is banging on a closed door demanding to be let into the profession, that is being denied entry. That woman, like Santa Clause, is mythical. She doesn't exist. Of course, I can't prove she doesn't exist any more than I can prove that Santa Clause doesn't exit. But neither of them exists.

Her existence can be proven by a single example. But for all of the years of male-blaming in regard to this issue, no one has yet provided such an example.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your logic seems to be:

1. Women are well-represented in many STEM fields other than CS or software development. (I don't dispute that, or the bullet points you provided to support it.)

2. These other fields often involve use of computers and software development. (I don't dispute that, or the bullet points you provided to support it.)

3. Therefore, it logically follows that they SHOULD also be well-represented in CS and software development.

4. Since they're not, it's "obvious" that "the field is hostile to them."

I think that's ridiculous, for previously stated reasons.