Everytime you think "it is naturally so" you need to take a step back and wonder why you think that is. My experience is that most of my male coworkers do not have a natural interest in computer science or engineering. They are here for the money.

I will ignore how untrue that is for now and tell me why is it the same situation in university CS/engineering courses too then, 99% is men? Tech doesn't even make as much money as other industries such as sales/recruitment so doing it only for the money is not a valid point

What do you mean by "naturally so"? In my work place there are about 20% women doing hard CS things, my point is that for some reason it gets easier to hire women when you already have alot of them doing the same interesting stuff.

I think I interpret "naturally so" as some biological argument, but even if it alludes to what society makes us do, I still think it is incorrect. The reason is that working at broculture dev shops killed my will to code, so I really think it's a question of how a vocal fraction those 95% men create a culture of exclusion.

Remember we are both talking about personal experiences here, I do not think that all workplaces that do not have women are broshops, nor do I have solutions for more women in CS. For me it has been a pleasure to work in places with a lot of women doing "things that are naturally ment for men", that's one of the reasons why I do not like the term "naturally".

> My experience is that most of my male coworkers do not have a natural interest in computer science or engineering. They are here for the money.

So the conclusion we draw from that is ... women aren't as interested in money as men?

I'm not saying quotas and affirmative action are the way to go, but it should be pointed out that women are still heavily outnumbered in the tech industry and STEM education. My personal view is that I'm not sure it's actually an issue that needs to (or can) be fixed, I think we should let people do what they want to do. Turns out that means bigger gender differences in career choice.

I don't think there is anything wrong with gender difference in subjects. Psychology for example is 95% women. Some professions are naturally more interesting for men other for women. Don't see why policy is trying to fore women into tech

Why do you conclude that the cause is "natural interest"?

I've heard a number of other theories that also sound plausible, and they sound like problems that should be addressed.

Examples of other theories (not exhaustive): alienated by brogrammer/strutting/aggressive culture many places, discriminated against in hiring many places, harassed by some individuals, not trying due to belief that they'll be discriminated against, not trying due to belief that they'll face harassment or other hostile culture.

what you said can be applied to literally any job. Not a valid point when it comes to tech in particular

Many tech organizations talk a lot about culture, put effort into cultivating culture, develop their own hiring processes unique to tech, etc.

There are also, for whatever reason, differences of employee distribution across gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic, etc.

I think it's reasonable to suspect that tech organizations overall would tend to have different hiring practices, cultures, and distributions of individual behavior than organizations in other fields overall.

I don't know the research on this, but there's a lot of grassroots talk that they do.

If it can be applied to any job, why is it unfair to apply it to tech.