[switch]

Note: I really would like an answer for the first question. What's the reason that everyone seems obsessed over getting more women into programming?

Why do people care so much about having lots of women work in the software industry?

Seriously, there seems to be this desire to get women into programming. If women really were into programming they would get into it despite the 'sexist creeps'. It might surprise all the people here but a lot of industries (like real estate and sales) have a LOT more sexist creeps than programmers.

There are lots of areas where people are sexist and racist and jerks - it doesn't stop the people who want to get into those areas from getting into them.

Perhaps women just don't want to get into computer science. And no amount of bending over backwards and trying to appeal to female programmers will get us to a situation of 50% female developers.

The first question people going on and on about 'ratios in the software industry' need to answer is -

Are there really that many women interested in becoming a software developer? Is their interest a lukewarm type of interest where the minute they see one sexist programmer jerk they run off?

We are talking about the same women who fought tooth and nail for things like the right to vote and who do lots of really tough things like raise a family (often alone). Are we to believe that a few sexist programmers scare off these same women?

Final Question: Is the presence of some percentage of sexist jerk programmers the real reason there are far fewer women in programming? Is that really what differentiates programming from fields with more social interaction (like sales) or fields with more of a human aspect (like health care and medicine)?

[akeefer]

There's no single reason why there are fewer women than men in programming, so asking if sexism is "the real reason" is asking the wrong question. Instead, you should ask, "is it a real reason" why there are fewer women in programming?

I think that the answer there is probably yes, and I think that if you talk to enough female engineers, they'll tell you that the sexism and insensitivity is a turnoff to them. It obviously doesn't push every woman out of the field, but it's pretty hard to imagine that it doesn't discourage at least some women from pursuing a career in software.

Getting to 50/50 gender equality isn't the goal; the goal is to not have women discouraged from doing a job that they'd want to do because of the (often unconscious) sexism of their potential coworkers. If we did that and the field was still 70% male, then okay, but can anyone say we're honestly at that point yet, and that no one is turned off by this stuff?

[jdp23]

Great point. NCWIT has a good summary of the various factors leading to underrepresentation of women at http://www.ncwit.org/thefacts and the book "Unlocking the clubhouse" goes into a lot more detail.

[bethling]

I don't think we need to get to 50% - I would just like it so that women don't feel like they're pushed out - some of it is cultural (it's easier to believe that you can't do something as well as the next person when the messages around you reinforce that this isn't the right field to you) - but some of it is a negative atmosphere created by the sexist jerks.

And it's not most, or even many of the guys I've worked with, but it just takes one or two to complete ruin an environment. Had a had a child when I had planned to, I can almost guaranteeing that I wouldn't have bothered returning to software development.

It's better now - I don't know if it's because I work in a different city, with different people, or maybe I'm just older and the younger women deal with the same old crap. It'll still pop up from time to time - and I'm getting better at seeing the warning signs that someone is going to be that person, deal with it before it saps any of the remaining enjoyment I have for the field.

[michaelchisari]

it just takes one or two to complete ruin an environment

People seem to forget this. All it takes it the complacency of most men to let those one or two blowhards create a hostile environment.

[jdp23]

That's a great point. The HN community's a great microcosm. There are a few sexist jerks, and a number of guys who routinely defend sexist jerks. Of course there are also plenty of guys who speak out about sexism, and then there's what seems like the the vast majority: guys who would rather not talk about it. The net result, my women friends tell me, is that the overall feel is hostile to women.

[pickeju]

Amen. As a lady dev, I think this is a universal truth. I don't think this particular male-dominated field is probably any more sexist than other male-dominated fields, though.

IMHO: What holds some women back more than anything is unwillingness to be a potential lighting rod everywhere you go. I have kind of a pioneering spirit, and am willing to fight the sometimes daily battle to be recognized more for my merit than my high heels. But I absolutely understand why another woman would find that kind of effort exhausting and unworthy of her time. Some people are happy standing out in a crowd and others are not. Most people are crowd people. It's not good or bad, just a preference.

[solipsist]

  Perhaps women just don't want to get into computer science.
  And no amount of bending over backwards and trying to
  appeal to female programmers will get us to a situation of
  50% female developers.

Or perhaps they do want to get into computer science and there are a number of obstacles stopping them. Most people would agree with this.

If you're going come up a controversial answer, you better have some solid evidence backing you up.

[yummyfajitas]

If you're going come up a controversial answer, you better have some solid evidence backing you up.

Would he not need solid evidence if he were pushing the politically correct answer?

[ryandvm]

What are these obstacles? Employers are dying to hire female programmers. Universities are dying for females to enter CS programs. Right now, a women that sets her mind on programming has an easier chance of landing a job than any given guy.

Basically, women just aren't interested. I'm not sure it's an obstacle.

Why aren't we just as concerned that there are far fewer male hairdressers than female?

[solipsist]

  Why aren't we just as concerned
  that there are far fewer male hairdressers than female?

CS jobs are held in higher esteem in society than hair dressing jobs. They pay more and require more experience.

[cheez]

You have ignored the 18 years leading up to the university.

Infants: Pink clothes (ok, no biggie)

Toddler: dolls, playing mommy and dressup

Preschool: more of toddler, perhaps getting into TV now. Oh look, none of the women on TV are into science or tech. Maybe I shouldn't be either.

School: Come on Carly, let's play with dolls. But I wanna play on the computer. LOSER.

Teenager: What kind of a nerd plays with electronics and gadgets, lets go shopping!

So society is completely geared towards beating it out of them. As the father of a pre-teen who has probably solved more software bugs than most her age and is deeply into robotics, it is a constant, constant battle even though she loves the field.

Let's not forget all the aunties, grandmas and neighbours who don't encourage tech curiosity for girls. "Hey, here's another shitty fashion toy for your birthday" meanwhile, the girl is thinking "I really wanted a gizmo... oh well." Even though dad specifically sent around suggestions for the next robot she wants to build.

Your universities can want females all they want, but society... I want to punch it sometimes.

Edit: I should mention that TV is getting a little better with this. There are a couple of female leads in shows that are technically oriented.

[Perceval]

As I recall from my own primary and secondary education, being a nerd who likes reading about science and math, and spends most of his time after school on his computer is not exactly encouraged by society either. Your parents want to cut down on your time spent in front of the computer, your dad wants you to go outside and play sports, the jocks at school give you shit, the girls pay no attention to you.

Girls interested in computers may be portrayed as losers and antisocial and outcasts, but guys interested in computers have been portrayed as and treated by society as antisocial outcast losers for as long as there has been such a thing as a computer geek.

Given that amount of social pressure and shaming and exclusion faced by young computer nerds, one wonders why anyone would go into tech. But more boys do and fewer girls do.

[Klonoar]

Girls interested in computers may be portrayed as losers and antisocial and outcasts, but guys interested in computers have been portrayed as and treated by society as antisocial outcast losers for as long as there has been such a thing as a computer geek.

Popularity and clique mentality tends to be much more of an issue in female circles than with males. I would say that, if one were to assume either sex will get untold amounts of hell for dabbling in tech early on, a female will probably get it worse.

You also have to note that culturally, there is the "nerd" phenomenon backing guys being interested in tech. If a young woman decides to get into tech, she doesn't get the same label as a guy does, she's often labeled by her peers (which can be fairly brutal) as a loser, outcast, or just "not one of the girls".

Now, given that last point, take a female developer who's young and just trying to get into things: you'll never quite be "one of the guys", and by choosing this vocation you're throwing up a flag that states you're fine to never be "one of the girls". That's not a fun combination to go through your youth with.

[Perceval]

You seem to be placing the blame for girls not going into to tech on other girls. Are girls' peer groups really the ones holding back girl in IT?

I don't see the "nerd phenomenon backing guys being interested in tech." It's a negative stereotype, not a positive one. Negative social stereotypes don't encourage people to take on an identity/vocation. No one sits at home, looking at the stereotype nerds on TV shows saying, "Gosh, I'd like to be a weakling with no style, no charisma, no popularity, no girlfriends, but a really sweet nitrogen cooling system for my computer."

[thricedotted]

Exactly the point I wanted to make, but pithier. Kudos.

[thricedotted]

Here's my view on this as a young female computer nerd: even with all the negative stereotypes attached to the male computer nerd, the fact remains that (a) he is typically male, and (b) he is not the only one of his ilk.

Let's consider the perfectly realistic scenario where society has only just recently realized that women are good for more than making sandwiches and childbearing, and can are capable of doing professional jobs as well as any man. Thanks, society! But since this change just happened recently, it is not unreasonable for there to still be fields that are male-dominated, despite the fact that women are just as able to work successfully in these fields. This is what gives us (a).

However, now that the floodgates have opened, women would really like to get into tech! But first, there's everything that cheez mentioned -- society's subtle socialization of women into their proper gender role. Boys are expected to tinker with and possibly break their toys, girls should be combing doll hair. And later, the boys who are nerds almost always find a nerd clique...which is almost entirely comprised of other boys. And the girl who wants to bond with somebody over her nerddom? All the boys are scared of her, for she is GIRL, a separate and incomprehensible breed from BOY. And there's condition (b).

Personal anecdote time: all of my friends (which is stretching it) in high school were guys because the other girls at my school thought computers and programming and video games were "a guy thing". and even among this group, I only had one who truly respected me (who brought me into the circle in the first place) -- to the rest, I was the token female to be awkward around and bounce sexist jokes off of. During that time, I was a huge tomboy and a huge jerk -- not because I don't like doing typically femme-y things, like wearing makeup and dresses, but because I felt like I'd be more accepted if I wore guy clothes and made dick jokes and, yes, sometimes even objectified women and acted homophobic (but only for men, because lesbians are hot, har har) for the sake of humor. Even being more "guy-like", though, never really earned me any respect -- even if I laughed at their jokes about "dumb bitches" and made my own, the fact remained that I was still born without a penis and could therefore never really relate. It was only after I got to college that I was able to recognize my disgusting attitude for what it was and realize that it was possible to be both femme and a CS major, though that would have earned me no love from most of my HS "friends".

tldr, men do have to overcome the barrier of being socialized to like sports and fast cars and what-have-you, but once they do, they've at least found more of their kind. Women, on the other hand, face that barrier two-fold -- both from outside and within the community, and that really, really sucks.

But I'm so glad that this conversation is happening, because I really do think that making the tech industry more welcoming to women is important -- and if it turns out that you're right, that at the end of the day more boys and few girls go into tech anyway, at least we're still a kinder, better, more accepting community. What do we have to lose from that?

[Perceval]

I think the narrative you're constructing is inaccurate. Even given that society only just recently realized that women could be equal members of the workforce, I don't think that tech fields were especially male dominated when they started out. In fact, there was an article recently arguing that women used to comprise about 40% of the IT field. Computing used to be seen as somewhat clerical work, so the inclusion of women into it was natural early on—it wasn't a field that women had to fight as hard to get into.

http://blog.fogcreek.com/girls-go-geek-again/

I know several women in their 60s now, friends of my mother, who were early systems analysts for IBM or otherwise involved in the tech field. IT is a field that women have left, not that they have been excluded from.

Second, taking from my mother's experience, she did have to fight her way into a field that was male dominated: graphic design. But that field is no longer dominated by males. Look at graphic design degrees awarded and you can see that women outnumber men now. Is graphic design somehow fundamentally different from IT? Are people in IT inherently more sexist than people in graphic design? They both use computers to do their jobs. But graphic design sees growth in the number of women, while IT sees a decline.

I just don't buy the early socialization argument, because there are just as strong pressures on boys to not be nerds. Simply because there are more male losers doesn't make having a 'clique' of losers an advantage over a loser girl. It's still discouraging whether or not you have a bunch of other negative charisma, zero social skill geeks to be miserable with.

As for your personal anecdote, I don't see how that's unique to tech at all. It sounds just like everyone else's shitty high school experience: you endure shitty fucked up social situations in order to fit in. Would have been no different had you been interested in other things and been in a different clique. If it hadn't been guys saying retarded fucked up shit, it would have been girls saying retarded fucked up shit.

[cheez]

Thanks for your post, it was very enlightening.

[cheez]

You're right, but I think girls have an even less incentive. Based on my experience as a father of a girl.

[romey]

I could say the same things (in general) about guys who are deeply interested in science and tech:

Toddler/Preschool: Gifts of balls, sports cards, action figures, etc.

School/Teenager: Come on bro, get off the computer and play some sportsball! Don't be a nerd! Come on bro, lets watch football and drink beer!

Even on TV, when they show engineers and scientists, they are almost never cool or desirable.

Basically, I seriously doubt that anyone becomes an engineer because it's the "cool" thing to do, or in any way socially optimal; it seems to be based more on a child's innate proclivities, and a lot to do with the type of parents they have. To me, this seems to be the same problem that has many asking "Why aren't there more black engineers?" Well, in many cases, it's simply because the parents of kids who would become engineers don't have the resource, interest, or knowledge of how to foster these abilities.

I applaud you on encouraging your daughter's interests. With more parents like you, we'll surely see the a more diverse field in the future.

[dpark]

Society does push both genders toward and away from particular careers; look at the imbalance in nurses or teachers for the other side. However, this has nothing to do with sexism in the workplace. It's not sexism in the software industry that causes society to push women away from the sciences. (That's not to say that sexism doesn't exist in the software industry or that it's not a problem.)

[cheez]

The guy I was replying to said:

> Basically, women just aren't interested. I'm not sure it's an obstacle.

I was pointing out that even if they are interested in science or computers, the deck is stacked against them from the time they are born.

[dpark]

Fair enough. I took his statement to refer to obstacles in the university and job setting. Perhaps that's not what he meant, though.

[tsotha]

>Or perhaps they do want to get into computer science and there are a number of obstacles stopping them. Most people would agree with this.

You might want to provide some support for this before you start demanding evidence from other people.

[k33n]

> Most people would agree with this.

I doubt it. And I don't really find his answer controversial at all.

[dhume]

Or perhaps they do want to get into computer science and there are a number of obstacles stopping them. Most people would agree with this.

Keep in mind when looking for the cause of the lopsided male-female split that it happens well before they even start university.

[michaelcampbell]

> Or perhaps they do want to get into computer science and there are a number of obstacles stopping them. Most people would agree with this.

> If you're going come up a controversial answer, you better have some solid evidence backing you up.

I find these 2 statements, back to back, presented in a serious context about the most amusing thing I've seen in a long, long time.

[rokhayakebe]

The keyword is here is perhaps. What are these obstacles that you speak off?

[uncr3ative]

Imagine you are going to class of 100 students, 99 of which are women. It is fairly awkward, like walking into a men's club. Because I am generally quiet, mostly the guys pretended I wasn't there (definitely, better than the alternative.) They would talk about things I had no interest listening to - rated various women, and more innocent things like football. Anyway, every time I walked into that room I felt like I was intruding. And I think if you were to walk into a room with 99 women you would feel awkward as well. From my perspective, as a woman software engineer - there is no "perhaps" about it.

[yummyfajitas]

Women faced this barrier in every traditionally male field - law, medicine, biology, business, etc. It did not prevent women from achieving parity.

Why does this barrier prevent women from entering CS, math and physics only?

[michaelcampbell]

So... "obstacle" one is you're embarrassed by your gender?

What's the next one?

[thricedotted]

...I don't know how to put this more clearly than uncr3ative already did, but both of the responses to that post have basically demonstrated exactly why we feel the way we do when we walk into a classroom dominated by men.

It's not embarrassment. It's the fact that you walk in and you are already seen as the "other", different from them. The fact that they can be talking about you as if you're an The fact that they will be talking about their interests which might not coincide with yours (but oftentimes coincide with you and people of your sex), and so you're not sure how to broach conversation with them. The fact that you feel like an intruder, unwanted or invisible, because you're not in ~the clique~ and therefore shouldn't be there.

The fact that somebody would respond to this, and put quotes around "obstacle", because how could any of those things be an obstacle at all?

I'm sorry that your level of privilege has never allowed you to savor the harsh taste of true intimidation at some point in your life.

[michaelcampbell]

You presume that you are prejudged, and that's bad, and then come out with something like this?

> I'm sorry that your level of privilege has never allowed you to savor the harsh taste of true intimidation at some point in your life.

Seriously?

[tsotha]

That's it?

Huh. After all these years I find women really are the weaker sex.

[rokhayakebe]

rated various women. From my experience women rate other women even more so then we do (so you are different in this manner), and most women I talk to know shit more about sports than I ever will. Awkwardness isn't an obstacle, it's an inconvenience. You are here, so other women can do the same.

[uncr3ative]

Sorry, I obviously wasn’t clear. I never intended to say that I was "embarrassed by my gender" as Michael seemed to believe and I don’t think that the guys in that classroom were participating in offensive sexist behavior (most of the time they weren’t.) And women of course rate other women and men, both sexually and just with stereotypes. However, all that doesn’t change that slight feeling of intrusion, and isolation. I’ve worked in various companies now, and on every team I’ve been on (even teams as large 30 developers) I was the only woman, so it was good practice walking into that classroom in the university. Sometimes, it is still a little lonely.

But here I am coding at a prestigious gaming company, and I agree, a lot of other women could do the same. But, if I wasn’t so determined– if during university I didn’t think that programming starcraft was the definition of cool – I might have decided it wasn’t worth it to go into that room every day. I could have gone to study biology or architecture or psychology and not felt the least bit awkward. And I had girl friends who I would convince that programming is “dead useful” by automating something for them. I would try to convince them they should sign up to some programming class and they would say “nah, too much testosterone.”

I’m really not trying to make men into “villains” or “creeps” with this monolog. In fact, I’m trying to say that before we get to the sexist creeps who assume I can’t code because “you’re a girl” or that I won’t be able to understand what they are talking about because I’m not the type who can do math… Before all that, you have to walk into a room where you are different and alone. I realize that this is what it feels like to be a minority. As a white woman it isn’t something I’m used to feeling, but every time I stepped into a CS classroom I definitely did. Obviously none of these are obstacles that are impossible to overcome, and if women had no choice in the university – I’m sure most of them would be perfectly capable of walking into a room full of guys and getting a degree in CS. Some of them might even enjoy it.

PS thanks thricedotted for explaining the intruder/invisible feeling better

[rokhayakebe]

I sympathize with you. What needs to be done is help these women be more confident and know they have every right to be where they are.

You think women are minority. Try being Black, from Africa, with an accent, and without a college degree. So believe when I say I feel you.

There are dicks everywhere. However I learned very early that 99% of what's holding people is within themselves and not the rest of the world. That goes for you, me, and every other minority.

[roc]

> "Is that really what differentiates programming from fields with more social interaction (like sales) or fields with more of a human aspect (like health care and medicine)?"

If you're implying that programming just isn't work that most women are interested in, you'll have to more-precisely indicate what it is about programming that puts them off, given that accounting has no such problems.

Every accounting department I've ever seen is at least half female and many have a female majority.

Surely there are different skills involved, but many overlap in type [1] and it's a bit of a stretch to imply accounting is any closer to stereotypical female-dominated fields like social work, sales or health-care.

[1] Technical, precise, largely impersonal -- there's even database, script and simple application work

[wisty]

Job stability? Reasonable hours? Promotion prospects, without working like a maniac?

Women tend to value those things, often more than men.

Also, women in IT are often undervalued. A boss will assume they have no real talent, for some reason. While a guy who shows any ability will often be seen as a genius. People just don't assume that girls are hardcore hackers, while they assume that any guy who talks the talk (and wears are really bad t-shirt) is. I know I think that way, but I'm aware of it, so I can consciously compensate.

[roc]

> "Job stability? Reasonable hours? Promotion prospects, without working like a maniac?"

There are plenty of corporate programming jobs with those attributes.

[pugnusferreus]

Still depends on your boss. I used to work for a bank and my head of department dislike people who goes home before 7pm. Our official working hours is 9am - 6pm. I was called into the room once for going home at 6:15pm.

[docgnome]

That would be what you call, a terrible job.

[peterwwillis]

* > A boss will assume they have no real talent, for some reason. While a guy who shows any ability will often be seen as a genius. People just don't assume that girls are hardcore hackers, while they assume that any guy who talks the talk (and wears are really bad t-shirt) is.*

IMHO, promotion is rarely done based on merit. Welcome to corporate life.

(Also, you have to actually show your boss you are a hardcore hacker. My boss will assume I have no talent too unless I demonstrate it)

[Jem]

"We are talking about the same women who fought tooth and nail for things like the right to vote and who do lots of really tough things like raise a family (often alone). Are we to believe that a few sexist programmers scare off these same women?"

Just because we can fight doesn't mean we should have to...

[kubrickslair]

This article is pretty relevant, whatever side you are on, it's worth a read.

My fundamentalism is better than your fundamentalism http://blog.fawny.org/2010/07/28/stubbornella/

Bear in mind that the author is not a computer scientist, and views narrow-minded geekery with some distaste. But he raises quite a few interesting points. I quote:

>“Underrepresentation” is an insulting concept. Who exactly gets to decide how many women should hold down jobs in a certain field? Who then gets to decide when too few women hold down those jobs? In short, who says women are underrepresented in technology? Who sets the quota? I don’t exactly hear complaints that men are underrepresented in kindergarten teaching and nursing. (Actually, there are men in nursing, but many of them are gay. So are lots of male teachers. Perhaps that explains why this is a topic women’s advocates do not want to discuss.)

>“Merit” is a misnomer. Hence “women[’s] being unable to compete on merit” means nothing. But the airy dismissal of merit as a real issue incurs collateral damage. There isn’t any dispute that typical female brains differ from typical male brains, though the extent of the differences is disputed. Susan Pinker, in The Sexual Paradox, characterizes the differences as significant, while Lise Eliot, in Pink Brain, Blue Brain, argues that within-sex differences dwarf between-sex differences.

[michaelchisari]

Women are fighting to get more respect and representation in computer programming. That's why we're having this discussion.

[icebraining]

Which was actually started by a man.

[danso]

...and the point is? a) Many of the leading abolitionists in America and Europe were white and b) if we're in agreeance that the majority of comsci professionals are men, and that comsci professionals make up much of HN, then it's not surprising that this discussion, or any discussion on HN, was initiated by a male.

[icebraining]

The discussion wasn't started on HN, but on G+.

But the point isn't that there's no discrimination, just that we're not necessarily having this discussion because "women are fighting to get more respect and representation in computer programming."

[michaelchisari]

This essay by Mr. Werdmuller did not start the discussion, it's been ongoing for a while now, and this essay is just a part of it.

[rubinelli]

The reason why people care about getting more women into programming is the same reason why we will never get rid of the creeps: there simply aren't that many people with the ability to write software. A job applicant that can write a function that implements bubble sort and comes for the interview on time and wearing clean clothes is already way above the median. I'm not thinking of any specific example here, but a key developer of a successful open source project can be a total jerk and still get plenty of job offers and even a few speaking invitations.

[podperson]

So I read the original post (well, I skimmed it) and then your response. My first impulse was to decide you're an asshole blah blah, and I start discussing the topic with my wife who is doing grant-funded research on this topic (she's a social psychologist).

So the big obstacles to women in a lot of professions are social norms (like sexist behavior, people refusing to hire you because you're not the kind of person they expect, or career structures that force women to choose between work and having children) and stereotype threat (fear of one's conduct reflecting badly on the group to which one belongs).

To take the real estate agent example: the business may have a lot of sexist jerks (I imagine they're better at pretending not to be though, since they are selling stuff) but there are plenty of good norms (e.g. real estate agents generally have very flexible schedules). And there's no problem with stereotype threat -- women aren't widely considered to be bad at talking to people and selling houses.

TV shows have a huge impact on stereotype threat (and probably norms as well). E.g. there are plenty of shows on TV that show women being successful doctors and lawyers without failing socially. (These are also, to some extent, professions involving helping people and communicating -- which women are stereotypically good at.) The same cannot be said for software development (which isn't portrayed much on TV, and when it is stretches credulity).

I think that there's one thing I can say for certain: the reason sexist jerks are prominent in the software business is that they're allowed to be. There's no question that if more women were in the industry there would be less tolerance of sexist jerks, but getting women into the industry is probably as much a problem of addressing stereotype threat, tokenism, etc. as it is combating norms.

Meanwhile, sexist jerks aren't helping. So call them on it.

[pickeju]

>"What's the reason that everyone seems obsessed over getting more women into programming?"

Because a greater diversity of life experience leads to better design, usability, and implementation. Women are users, too, and when women devs have input into interfaces intended to be used by women, the product can be much better for it. Obviously there are other ways to incorporate women, children, the elderly with user acceptance testing and usability reviews, but why wouldn't you want that kind of diversity and insight on your team?

[agentultra]

It's not that "women just don't like tech, so what?"

It's more likely that they learn not to like it from an early age due to sexist gender stereotyping.

http://www.7wonderlicious.com/2/post/2010/12/girls-stem-and-...

One of the most disgusting things I read when this conversation comes up are the remarks and arguments from the apologists. Their common thread is that "we shouldn't be offended." It's a completely asinine position to take and any reason they offer for why is equally laughable. The problem is that as these ideas persist, they reinforce gender stereotypes and contribute to the aforementioned problem of young girls having to choose between being stereotypical girls (and thus accepting all the baggage that entails) or being smart (and accepting all the baggage that entails).

Such a choice is a hard one to make. That it persists is one of the great injustices of the world that women suffer. And the great tradgedy is that ignorant male assholes who want to avoid being pegged as a sexist ignoramus will argue blindly that women are equal, that it's okay to objectify them, that everyone should relax, that maybe women just don't like tech otherwise there would be more of them in it.

Wake up.