Ignoring everything else wrong with your post, I'll just point out that most software developers were originally women before about 1960 -- it was seen as "woman's work" because it didn't require physical labor. Women were significant contributors to the development of computing from the very beginning -- in fact, "software" as a concept was invented by a woman [1]. The profession didn't become high-status or highly-paid until after men took over (and shut out the women by redefining it as "men's work").

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace

The story is far more complex than this, and the history makes interesting reading. As one might imagine, what we call software development today was really split into an array of roles: some more like mathematicians, some like engineers, some typists, etc.

The idea that women were somehow shut out of the industry doesn't really hold up. My programming classes in the 80s, for example, were about 50-50, and in my early career, I worked under several senior women programmers/technologists.

I'm well aware of that, but now women can choose, and don't choose that.

What is your point?

Back then software development was split over a much bigger amount of roles. The idea of a single person sitting in front of a screen is a modern invention.

How does this refute the previous position that women in general aren't currently as interested in computer science as teaching or nursing?

One does not need to refute the position that woman are less interested in computer science than nursing or teaching because asserting the personal interest of a hundred million people you've never met is nothing more than made up nonsense. There is of a course a lot of information out there about how societal expectations, existing power structures, gendered use of language, workplace dynamics and many other factors influence things like education and career ambitions. But ascribing it to the idea that "women are more interested in people" is lazy and meaningless.

I was more addressing the habit of colonial power structures to use violence and intimidation to push women and minorities out of positions of economic prosperity.

"Violence and intimidation" in a modern context is exactly what #MeToo was about, so it didn't stop just because women have equal rights under the law. Frankly, a lot of women don't want to put up with that kind of crap and so choose careers in industries where they feel safe (which often pay way less).

Social studies degree..?

One problem I see with this is your example of nurses. Women went into nursing in the past frequently because it was open to them, and being a doctor wasn't. That's changed, and now the only reason to be a nurse is because the educational requirements are much lower, and consequently, there's a shortage of nurses because who wants to do that instead of being a doctor and making more money, unless they don't want to spend as long in school and rack up as much debt?

Also, nurses are some of the least empathetic people around. Don't be fooled by the common misconception; they're usually not caring people at all. "Nurse Ratchet" is not that far from the truth. My mom was a nurse, and I've met many others; they're just not the nicest people around. And there's a good reason for this: a highly empathetic person would not last very long as a nurse. They'd get burned out very quickly, after seeing so many sick and dying people up close day after day.

Unless there's lots of well-known material that I'm unaware of... there seems to be a lot of mind-reading going on here. How can you know what drives people's thinking and decision making?

> Women tend to choose jobs that pay less.

This is accurate, but not for the reasons you have given.

Think of it this way. Within a profession, say "lawyer", there are different career paths. One career path involves a lot of travel away from home, and one does not. Because traditionally women are expected to be home for children, women tend to more often select the path that involves staying at home more, which tends to also pay less.

So then, when you look at "lawyer", you see a pay gap, and then you dive in and see that the women have chosen the "lower paying job".

But that still doesn't account for the entire pay gap. It still leaves about 7% difference.

That last 7% is what people are concerned about. That women doing the same job with the same experience get about 7% less on average than men, depending on the field. In some fields (I believe medicine is one), there is no pay gap between women and men with equal experience (although there is still an opportunity gap, where men will be promoted more often with equal qualifications).

Then there is tech, where there is a pay gap between people with equal experience. I've seen this personally first-hand (but at least when the manager was called out on it he made it right and gave the woman a raise, but before being called out, it didn't even occur to him that he was making that decision).

> I have no idea why income HAS TO be distributed equally.

Because people doing the same work should get paid the same for doing it. And because you shouldn't be barred from a career for reasons that aren't related to the job (ie. your gender).

Given that women are 1/2 the population, and given the sample size, women and men should on average be making the same amount of money. But they aren't. And study after study show that the reason is bias against women, and not women's choices.

Don't you think that is something that should be changed?

Would you be so kind as to pass along a citation for this?

>But that still doesn't account for the entire pay gap. It still leaves about 7% difference.

My understanding had been that the wage gap was a result of statistical malpractice. Further, I had thought that the intraprofession pay comparison between genders boiled down almost exclusively to (willingness to negotiate) and (taking time off of work to have children).

This podcast[0] is a pretty good summary, and links to the actual paper.

[0] http://freakonomics.com/podcast/what-can-uber-teach-us-about...

> I have no idea why income HAS TO be distributed equally. Unless you want to force women to become software developers..? But why.

Some people don't believe that men and women are (on average) slightly different so to them any gender inequality is evidence of fowl play.

They don't see it as forcing women to do things they don't want, but righting a social wrong.

> fowl play

Those damn geese.

I know, I just find it completely nuts.

I would assume if someone did gap analysis they would factor that in. It isn't about the wholistic are women making more or less than men. Rather it's the equality of are women who are the same role of men making the same. There shouldn't be a difference there.

This analysis is continuously being done. You can find it for your country easily. In most developed countries a ~5% gap exists. This is usually attributed to men being more aggressive in negotiations.

I’d also factor in maternity, too. I believe research shows that women’s salaries lag significantly after they give birth, even if they take no time off.

Maybe.

Aren't there laws that prevent discrimination on gender and race pretty much in every first-world country? That would make it illegal to pay a woman less for the same job.

If you consider jobs where the title is the same but the professional works B2B, maybe women are less likely to ask for a better pay? That's why pink razors cost more, after all.

Female soccer players make less money because less people watch and there is less money, same thing for BBC journalists who demanded the same pay even though they got 10% share compared to their male colleague.

There are so many variables...

> Female soccer players make less money because less people watch and there is less money

I think this is a great example! The US women's soccer team is better than the men's but they make a fraction of the money. It's not their fault that sports have a sexist history that influences viewership, ad revenue, and ultimately their salaries.

It's not "sexist history", it's just that men are better at (almost all) sports. Male football is simply more exciting to watch (I imagine, for broader audiences... it's boring to me, in general). For modeling, it's the reverse.

How is men’s soccer more exciting to watch rather than woman’s soccer? It’s literally people kicking a ball around. Does the ball explode if you are a man and kicking it?

Yes, the ball does explode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr1KB4Csp00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5v4RvbjRqY

Well, I can tell the difference. Men look more aggressive and professional overall. I mean, the US women national team lost to kids etc, so you tell me.

We have some women teams here in Spain, and while there's some movement in the league honestly it feels... like watching amateurish football. I guess they need time to catch on, but meanwhile it's not very appealing.

lol no, but the men kick the ball harder?

There was a time when women weren't allowed to play professional soccer. It can't not have a sexist history.

the sexist history is that people prefer watching better athletes.

Women can be just as athletic as men, and can easily beat them in many sports. It just depends on the sport. If the sport requires upper-body strength, forget it: men will always have a huge advantage here. But if upper-body strength is no help, and lower-body strength and endurance are important, women can do better. Off the top of my head, I'd point to endurance running: women have longer legs proportionally, and more fat reserves, and don't have to waste a lot of energy carrying around a lot of chest/arm muscles and bigger upper-body bones. They can also do well in downhill skiing, bicycling, etc.

Also, over in Tennessee, the UT women's basketball team has been much, much more popular for decades now than the men's team ever was.

No, men decided to pay less for jobs often chosen by women.

Economically, that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

If a business pays employees more than the market rate, it will be less profitable and thus more likely to fail. If a business pays employees less than the market rate, it will lose employees to competitors and it is thus more likely to fail.

Also, to say that "men decided" is pretty strange. It suggests a conspiracy, and it suggests that there are no women who could start companies or otherwise be in management.

So you've apparently just proven that no discrimination exists in the business world. South Africa's native population was just too stupid to work any job, until Nelson Mandela was freed, instantly improving their skills to make them eligible for employment.

Nobody would forgo a good bread, so Germans writing "Germans don't buy from jews" on bakery windows were just making the case that the bread had, within a few years, become intolerable. Hollywood studios stopped hiring communists because communists just aren't very funny. etc...

Here are a couple sides of the arguments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcDrE5YvqTs -- According to the DOL there is a much smaller than typically quoted wage gap, and there are additional variables not accounted for.

https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-...

Also WRT forcing women: "Uncle" Bob Martin observes that at one time programmers were 50% women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecIWPzGEbFc

The article is stating the exact opposite. In the past, this was true... but it seems like women are now starting to start participate in jobs Men have traditionally dominated.

Not really. The article is not stating the opposite.