You're assuming that given free choice, more women would choose computer science. But there are lots of other higher status degrees to choose, so I wouldn't take that as a given.
Personally, I still think this is the most parsimonious solution to the question. Its only flaw is that it doesn't give anybody any reason to self-flagellate, or at least not much of one.
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.
Woman that wants to study computer science or like coding will have no trouble to go to study it. However, if a girl is not sure what she wants to do, she will almost certainly NOT pick up computer science, because it is thought about as a boy major.
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.
That's probably not true. The money is pretty good, for one thing :) The ratio used to be higher in the USA, and it's still higher in some other countries. To be specific, it seems like boys are encouraged to go into tech while girls are not, which has a few effects. The first is that girls don't really consider tech at all: it's not that they consider and discard it, they just don't think of it. The other is that more boys are proficient at computer skills and programming by the time students are entering college, so even if girls do take intro courses, they are discouraged because it seems like the boys are so much better at it.
Edit: do I really have to put "on average" every time I use the words "boys" and "girls"?
"it seems like boys are encouraged to go into tech"
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".
The money may be good, but the working conditions are often awful - long hours, continual crunches and emergencies, work-life balance basically a myth... Since women are socialised to care less about income and more about work-life balance than men, and both groups are under pressure from society to fit into those traditional gender roles, the fact the money's good is probably enough to cause much of the gender gap in itself.
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.
The software industry is kind of elitist. The pay can be great if you are at the top of your game. Below average programmers, however, do not seem to benefit from good pay or access to work.
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?
This is highly relative and culturally dependent. The older generations (at least the ones that weren't already exposed to earlier computing, AKA the majority) usually have idealized and regressive views of their youth, idolizing the "good ol' days" that never were.
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.
Posted separately:
"In another report, in 2013, 41% of college seniors that elected majors in Physical Science were women. Yet, only 18% of those who chose computer science or engineering were women. It seems they'd be equally capable in chemistry and physics as in computer science and engineering. But their major choices indicate it is not about ability and something else is going on:
http://www.directemployers.org/2012/08/16/the-college-class-.... "
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.
Not necessarily, although it does worry me that the ratio is declining. Specifically, computer-related fields make more than average amount of money, so getting women into tech would help reduce income inequality and associated issues in our society. But here my specific point is: tech fields would be better off with more women!
...so getting women into tech would help reduce income inequality...
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?
Computing is a very young field. It's well on its way to infiltrating our everyday lives, but it's incredibly underdeveloped. Leaving women out of the process of creating the world we're going to live in seems like a really bad idea.
What exactly are the mental differences between men and women that lead you to think it'd be a "really bad idea" if women didn't have any role at all in steering the future? (Last time we let a woman try to steer the future, we wound up with COBOL! (Joke alert.))
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?
The garbage man and the bus driver see little benefit from the latest SV IPO. How about a program to encourage people to move into higher potential roles and keep an eye out for implementors giving unfair benefit to one gender/class/whatever.
I just don't buy this argument. As others said, it is 2014, not 1990. Women now outnumber men in colleges 3 to 2, and this is somehow not an issue of discrimination or inequality, on the contrary, it is now apparently more important than ever that we eradicate the few areas where men still unambiguously dominate the outcomes.
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.
Income inequality generally just means that different people make different amounts of money. It's quite obviously true, and has increased quite a lot in the U.S. in recent decades.
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:
Every study I have ever seen that says there is a wage gap, compares people in different roles and industries which seems stupid. That's like complaining that a teacher doesn't earn as much as a CEO.
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.
I didnt even know who my professors where or would be when I enrolled in university, are you suggesting women dont enroll in IT because there arent female professors?
Well, many college students don't settle on a degree for the first year or two and it's pretty normal to switch majors. If you get through a few courses and there are no women role models in the department, I would guess that more women than men would switch to something else.
As a woman, I've been told I was bad at math and science since I was a kid. And the funny thing is, is that I'm not bad at math and science. Quite good, really. Your comment drives down to the pits of social and cultural challenges for the past few decades. Remember, women were only allowed to compete for the same jobs as men a generation ago.
In the US, I'd argue that the declining ratios are due to a larger proportion of foreign students (now a majority). Different cultures have much lower focus on female education.