[_xo_]

Even assuming you are correct about this - CS is not one of these areas. If you go back a few decades, programming was a much more even leveled field. In the 80s, approximately 50% of all programmers were female.

(For numbers see e.g. http://blog.fogcreek.com/girls-go-geek-again/)

[onmydesk]

Why is 50% correct? Why was that right and later lower values wrong? What is the rationale?

[chc]

It's not that the numbers are "right" or "wrong." It's that the data shows there is nothing inherent about computer science that excludes women. So if women are not interested these days, there is something about the current state of affairs that is creating the friction. What we are doing here is rejecting the hypothesis "Women are simply, as a matter of nature, disinclined to go into computer science."

"Right" and "wrong" are judgment calls, though most people do feel that keeping women out of a field with no natural barriers to them is wrong. Regardless of your personal values, the historical data shows that whatever barriers exist are not natural.

[elohesra]

I don't actually think women are unsuited for CS, but I must say that I don't find the argument that 'in the past more women were in CS' very compelling, because it makes the pretense that all variables have remained constant over the past 40 years.

The fact is that CS -- or what people on HN call CS -- has changed massively in 40 years. For instance, startups barely even existed 40 years ago, and they certainly weren't as hyped as they are now. Furthermore, gender roles have changed in the past 40 years, as has female college admission.

There's something ironically conservative in democrat-styled liberals' [0] harking back to the CS of yesteryear where gender equality was the norm. Societies change, as do fields of work. If I had to take a pundit's guess at the reason, I'd probably say that we have similar raw numbers of women in the field now as then, but more men have flocked to the field as it's proved itself as an excellent means of generating wealth, thus upsetting the ratio.

In all honesty, if I were to guess at the reason there aren't many women in CS, I'd say it's because women don't tend to care as much as men do about generating wealth. Warren Farrell's 'Why Men Earn More' came to similar conclusions: that men are more disposed to taking nastier, more stressful jobs if the pay will be higher. If this is indeed the case, then it would seem that the easiest way to attract women to tech would be to get everyone -- irrespective of gender -- involved in CS at a young age, and allow them to see how fun it can be. If women genuinely do choose to work in careers that they find fulfilling, then this would achieve the goal of increasing the numbers of women in tech without having to discriminate in any way, simply by getting more women to self-select into tech.

[0] I must say, from the point of view of a UK liberal, there doesn't seem to be much liberalism in the US definition of the term. It seems closer to socialism from where I'm standing, with its heaps of top-down reforms and regulations. Yes, this is irrelevant, and no I'm not willing to defend this statement, since -- as a UK citizen -- I have no dog in this race.

[magicalist]

You're missing chc's point. The point is not that the older state of things was necessarily preferable, it's that the rate of women in CS fields is not steady state, which means that the status quo isn't by its mere existence evidence of the "natural" state of things (which would be the actual "conservative" argument).

[gtremper]

Because 50% of humans are female. If there's a strong deviation from this in a large sample size, then there must be a correlation between being a woman and in CS. If gender didn't matter, there wouldn't be a correlation.

[onmydesk]

I don't deny the correlation. I question the assumption that it is due to prejudice. It could be due to differences in the predispositions to excel at different types of work between the sexes. Men and women are different.

Why are so many professional basket ball players black? Racism?

There is an implicit assumption in this and its validity is assumed. It is not being questioned.

[nsxwolf]

The rationale is wishful thinking and nothing more. Some people need to believe men and women are the same in every possible way in all cultures.

[thesimpsons1022]

100 percent of pregnancies are women :( there is some obvious discrimination going on!

[Crake]

Damn, I knew science was a tool of the patriarchy!

[facepalm]

I don't think you can just compare programming in the 80ies to programming today. Also, would you therefore say society was more equal in the 80ies than today?

[cube_yellow]

It looks like the average CS guy went from rather alpha to rather beta. So, the solution is for CS guys to start working out and stop playing video games. Creepy is code for unattractive, so if CS guys took much better care of themselves, socially intelligent women wouldn't be rightfully put off from CS in general.

[quanticle]

I'm sorry, in what mystical era were CS grads ever "alpha"?

[ChrisNorstrom]

He's insecure and judges people and himself based on how manly and muscled they are. Read his other comments. Good guy, just needs to let go of things that don't matter.

[cube_yellow]

There are no net downsides to placing a very high priority on becoming more "manly and muscled". I don't think any guy anywhere has ever regretted doing that. To me, it seems like a very obvious and neutral thing to evangelize.

[Mz]

Creepy is code for unattractive

I am really tired of hearing that. I do not think that is what women mean when they refer to someone as "creepy." Closer to "unattractive and won't give up in the face of no" perhaps.

[cube_yellow]

You can be creepy without even saying anything. E.g. "creepy guy standing in the corner".

[Mz]

That's true. I don't think that is evidence that "creepy" simply means "I wouldn't hit that." Body language and other things can indicate that a person behaves in a certain way, without anyone saying a word.