I was involved in a long discussion about this recently, as well.

It was a surprisingly noisy conversation involving far more angry young men than I expected.

Anyway if the subject comes up, I recommend pointing people to the ENIAC story. Women have been buried in most tech, and at least computing, history for much longer than the past 30 years.

The women in the following articles were practically unknown to history until the 1980s, even though they were involved in one of the monumental technical projects of the 20th century. For the period up until the discovery of their roles, the photos of them were thought to be "refrigerator models" showing off the machines:

https://iq.intel.com/how-female-eniac-programmers-pioneered-...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB848012407846877000

Of particular note is Betty Holberton:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Holberton

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/17/business/frances-e-holbert...

In my university (not US), women are over-represented in academic positions. With an equivalent resume, a woman is much more likely to get hired compared to a man.

This is becoming true for most of the first world. Women are more successful in educational institutions than men on average already.

That's not just an anecdote, and not just restricted to outside the US: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract

Well why wouldn't you hire the minority candidate given otherwise identical qualifications? Among others, this encourages students of said minorities to apply, leading to more qualified applicants. How you construe this as a negative is beyond me.

Furthermore, there's still only around 15% women in CS here. Less among faculty. And you respond with a critique of diversity to a story detailing the awful crap women have to face every day during their studies?