You could swap the gender and career with just about any field in either end of this list[0] and have the same argument, but there is a razor focus on this one specific field/gender combination.

[0]: https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/chal...

You could, but I'm not sure how that's relevant to this discussion. Other fields have a similar problem, and are either unaware or don't consider it a problem.

I consider it a problem in the software/tech industry regardless of whether other professions do.

It's a reference to the GP's suggestion that maybe this isn't the correct problem to solve.

This is a tech site. Is it any surprise that there aren't a lot of discussions about getting men into macrame? There are no discussions of macrame, period, on HN. More's the pity -- it involves lots of cool knots. But somehow on a tech site it's just not of primary interest.

Nursing is brought up on everyone of these threads about gender, though. I haven't yet built the threatened autoposter about efforts to get men into nursing and the premium that men in nursing are paid over women in nursing, but both of those are well-documented.

I think the reason so much emphasis is put on attracting women to tech is the same reason so much emphasis is put on female politicians: tech people - especially startup founders - have the opportunity to have an outsize impact on the lives of everybody else in society. Encouraging more men to become kindergarten teachers may be great for the kids in their classroom but it's unlikely to have the impact of the next Twitter or a Facebook.

And the majority of the fields leading up to tech, excluding a few outliers like Sales reps, fall under categories in which men have an undeniable advantage as employees. Computer Science and other STEM fields are not limited by physical capabilities.

Also, I'd be interested to see if the rates of women in AE/IE are going up, holding steady, or if like CS they are declining. The declining rates of women entering our field is truly worrying.

So what? That's not any kind of rebuttal to doing this.

Being a developer was not presented to me as a realistic option in my childhood either, mainly because most of the many schools I've attended did not have any sort of computer science curriculum until the senior year.

Nor did I have anyone in my circles interested enough in programming until I've already picked my major.

Does that mean I now qualify for some special victim treatment just like those women?

Let's be honest here. If you want your argument to mean something, it can't have anything to do with gender. If it does - then the whole basis of it just boils down to "let's give women more handouts"

There are plenty of outreach efforts in the US targeted at students who might not get exposed to coding in school. I guess I wouldn't consider them special victim treatment; after all, golf and tennis also have outreach efforts to communities that don't have golf and tennis in school. Is that special victim treatment? It is often framed as charity as well as a way to popularize the activity in question.

Should all attempts to expose people to coding cease? Or are they ok if we only target people like those currently in the industry, perpetuating the status quo of 2016 but not 1984?

I notice you ignore the "welcoming atmosphere" part of the parent.

Yes, because your childhood and socialization is the same as the countless women who were raised to think that their value is an extension of their sexuality or partner. You did not face the same sets of problems that women did. Presenting your "analagous" situation is entirely disingenuous.

If you want your argument to mean something, it can be related to gender. It can be related to a critical analysis of the way that our society treats and raises boys and girls and the implications that this has on their lives and livelihoods.