People keep trying to have this discussion in the context of the 1950s, but we're in 2014, where women are, among other things, the majority of college graduates (and increasing). It is a obvious fact that in the past 20-30 years, every discipline has made a huge push to attract more women, with great success. The real problem today is that computer science/programming needs to attract women in a world of incredibly stiff competition.

Why is enrollment declining? Is it that unreasonable to suspect that the answer is "because computer science is being outcompeted by the dozens upon dozens of other disciplines making women better offers"?

I deliberately phrase this as "computer science" and not "computer scientists" because I'm unconvinced the problem is in the people. "But sometimes, there are misogynists in the computer world"... how is that unique? Every field had that problem. Today, computer scientists have been damn near actively begging for women, to the point that the solicitousness itself is becoming offensive, as the author points out. There gets to be a point where advocacy turns into trying to tell women what to do.

Unless both genders are precisely equally drawn to every single discipline, an idea which I think is itself rather offensively insensitive ("feminism" shouldn't be defined as "women are just funny-looking men" but my goodness is that a popular version if you really look at what people believe), there's going to be unbalanced disciplines.

This goes against some of the doctrines, and so I think people tend to put this argument when I make in the wrong bucket, but personally I think the question of whether we're trying to tell women what to like and how to like it is itself a feminist question. "So we should just stop trying because it's hopeless, huh?" No, I don't think that. Roll the carpet out, with all due honesty and openness, sure... but if nobody chooses to walk on it, that may very well simply be their decision (in aggregate). We have no right to run up to them and tell them they are wrong.

Might I also add that by sp332's own statistic, that the ratio has been falling since 2001, the idea that the field has been getting more misogynistic in the past 12 years is just patently absurd, and that is itself evidence that what's happening here isn't about the people.

Conversely, if a boy does not know what he wants to do, he is likely to go for CS, because that is the "usual" decision.

Not every boy who went to study CS was dreaming in code since elementary school. Most of them learned to code in college. However, CS girls I knew usually picked it up because they really wanted to do it.

Edit: do I really have to put "on average" every time I use the words "boys" and "girls"?

Please stop encouraging this lie. I've never been encouraged to go into tech, and I'd venture a guess that most people here weren't either. As a matter of fact, for me it was quite the opposite, because every time I was fiddling with a computer, I was told to "stop playing games" and do something "worthwhile".

Now, there's almost certainly nothing inherent about women and men that means they have to think that way, but no-one seems to really be interested in changing this; even groups pushing for more women in tech think this way.

Of course women can be just as good as men, but there is an inherit risk of not being good at the job even after putting in the effort (for both genders). Perhaps women are generally less willing to take that risk and opt for careers that are more welcoming to varying skill levels?

In turn, as they see the massive proliferation of computing, they tend to look at it from a superficial perspective: "Children playing their silly computer games and not getting out, as was back in my day." No matter how much you debunk their arguments, the inertia still sticks and you're often perceived as socially challenged.

So no, boys are not necessarily encouraged to go into tech. Some are, surely. Often for monetary motivations. But a lot are guided by their own passion without outside encouragement, excluding their online peers with likeminded interests.

This indicates that women want to take computer science and engineering to a lesser degree than the other physical sciences. And it appears to be a matter of choice.

This is incorrect - assuming these women don't displace men, inequality will go up.

Say a woman (or man) moves from a $50k/year office job to a $120k/year tech job. Income inequality will go up. Gini will go up and the "size of the middle class" (typically defined as % of the population between 50% and 150% of the median) will shrink.

Simple example: consider a world of 10 people with income of 50k. Gini is zero. Now double the income of one of them. Gini has gone up to 0.08, and size of the middle class has gone from 100% to 90%.

So given that you have the stated goal of reducing income inequality, and your proposed policy would actually increase inequality, do you now oppose bringing women into computing?

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/09/07/eliezer-yudkowsky/tru...

Is some force actually "leaving out" women in creating the future? Is there some force that's going to lay the smackdown on people like Jeri Ellsworth so that they never go anywhere?

You've shifted the goal posts a bit with the emphasis on having more women in positions of creating the future. Personally, I'd rather humanity had more people willing and capable of creating a better future, period, regardless of the other details of their identity. I think there's a shortage, and I regret that my own contributions will if anything likely only be financial to those doing the hard work. Anyway, why would the tech field, as a whole, be better off with more women, when most people in the tech field, male or female, actually don't actively contribute to steering the future?

(On your earlier point about income inequality, you might benefit from reading PG's views about that: http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html)

The only thing that has changed is society's view of computer geeks, which has evolved from pathetic neckbeards to entrepreneurial wizards. And big surprise, now all of a sudden feminists are concerned about all the sexism and rampant harassment that's supposedly unique to tech.

Every conference I've been to, I've seen men falling over themselves to placate and humor the few women that do show up. Sexism? The vast majority is of the benevolent kind, the kind the feminists themselves constantly advocate for. The kind that makes men watch what they say when a woman enters the room, for fear of triggering another Adria Richards. And the kind that pisses off any capable woman with self-respect.

On top of that, engineering is one of the fields which has the largest attrition rate amongst its students. It's clear that just thinking you want to be an engineer is not enough to succeed at it.

Add to that the fact that women are inundated with the message that they absolutely should go into STEM, and I think you have a recipe for disillusionment that merely shifts the attrition further down the pipeline. Which is exactly what we find: after 10 years, many more women leave the field than men.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for any woman that does make it in the field, but they've pretty much all been the kind of atypical go-getter personalities that other, more girly women, feel intimidated by.

You mean to be dismissive of the wage gap or pay gap, or maybe more specifically the gender wage gap, or male-female income disparity.

Wikipedia seems to indicate that there is a healthy body of research on the topic, with researchers reaching different conclusions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_St...

Women in the mathematics, and engineering have long been underrepresented in tenured and full professor positions but overrepresented in untenured and junior faculty positions, even after controlling for publication productivity and institutional affiliation... Today, women faculty in science and engineering are still promoted more slowly and receive fewer honors and leadership positions.

77 percent say significant numbers of women and underrepresented minorities are missing from the U.S. STEM workforce today because they were not identified, encouraged or nurtured to pursue STEM studies early on.

"Persistent stereotypes that say STEM isn’t for girls or minorities" is one of the top causes of under-representation in STEM.