Survey: More Women Are Going Into Programming

itwbennett writes: We've previously discussed the dearth of women in computing. Indeed, according to U.S. Bureau and Labor Statistics estimates, in 2014 four out of five programmers and software developers in the U.S. were men. But according to a survey conducted this spring by the Application Developers Alliance and IDC, that may be changing. The survey of 855 developers worldwide found that women make up 42% of developers with less than 1 year of experience and 30% of those with between 1 and 5 years of experience. Of course, getting women into programming is one thing; keeping them is the next big challenge.

Comments

And we care because...why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps we could move the craft forward rather than focusing on the players?

Re: And we care because...why?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

And you can be sure you'll keep hearing about how that 5% is not enough until it's around 50%, but nobody's going to say anything about the women majority in management, project management, testing and UI design.

Re: And we care because...why?

[Anonymous Coward]

But... what I don't want to see is the political correctness infect programmer ranks. I like IT the way it is, something akin to the Wild West, at least places I've worked. I don't like working for women because they tend to lean to being PC, overly sensitive. I like the boys' club mentality of IT, always have, always will.

I rejected pair programming because I don't work well sitting next to someone. I rejected the notion of sitting in one open environment to "foster sharing and collaboration". Doesn't work for me. I need my own office where I can stream trance music all day long and focus on what I'm doing. Having to tiptoe around being nice to women, watching my language, being PC all the time. No. I love women, but as wife and friends, not colleagues.

Re:And we care because...why?

[freezin fat guy]

Feeling excluded is one thing. Telling people what to do is another.

Re: And we care because...why?

[Anonymous Coward]

All this fearmongering over PC is nonsense. Basically: don't be a dick to people, at least without justification. Don't call women sluts. Don't use racial slurs. Don't be a complete insufferable ass that no one wants to be around. Actually treat others like real people with different personalities, wants, and needs.

That's not being PC, that's being a decent fucking human being.

Jesus whine some more why don't you.

Re:And we care because...why?

[MyAlternateID]

Feeling excluded is one thing. Telling people what to do is another.

The entire premise behind "I am offended" or "I feel excluded" is that these are not complete thoughts. The complete thought ends with "... therefore I get to dictate what you can say, how you will think, and how you will live, and if you don't comply, all manner of social pressures will come crashing down on your head."

Re: And we care because...why?

[Oligonicella]

Ah, ah, ah... You can't use male motivations if one cannot use female motivations. We need to MAKE SURE that there is a 50% male population in those areas. Isn't that how this works?

Re: And we care because...why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he's referring to situations like this one:

Three male developers have been tasked with improving the quality of the software systems they're responsible for. They're looking into using the Coq proof system.

They're sitting together in the office's open workspace discussing this tool. The conversation goes something like,

Programmer 1: "What do you guys think about playing around with Coq?"

Programmer 2: "I've played with Coq for a few minutes, but I don't like it very much."

Programmer 3: "Yeah, I've tried Coq a few times, too, and sometimes it's way too hard for me to handle."

Programmer 2: "Yup, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, too."

Programmer 1: "Ok, that settles it. Coq is no good for us, so we won't touch it."

Well, since they're in an open environment, some of their coworkers overhead the conversation. These coworkers include a couple of women, and a male homosexual who is transitioning into becoming a woman, all of whom work in project management and design. All three are extreme feminists.

Taking the discussion totally out of context, these coworkers mistakenly hear "Coq" as "cock", as in penis.

As you can imagine, this brings an extreme level of outrage to these self-righteous coworkers. They think they're hearing sexually explicit, and possibly homophobic, discussion in the workplace. They go to HR, and raise a shitstorm.

HR cracks down hard on the three male programmers, who have no idea why they're being attacked. They try to explain what Coq is, and how it has absolutely nothing to do with penises or sex. It doesn't matter. They dared to say a word that sounds like "cock", and for that they must pay dearly, because coworkers got offended.

Instead of using their skills to improve the products that the customers want and need, the programmers are now stuck fighting political battles over a total non-issue.

I think that that's what the GP was talking about. Situations like those.

Re: And we care because...why?

[war4peace]

And over 50% for both genders, while we're at it! Come on, I know we could ultimately have 100% of each gender in any given job. Failure to achieve that is our own damn fault!

Re: And we care because...why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, ah, ah... You can't use male motivations if one cannot use female motivations.
We need to MAKE SURE that there is a 50% male population in those areas.
Isn't that how this works?

Exactly. What can we do to get men to work in management, project management, testing and UI design? If 95%of males don't want to work there, we have to take an honest what drives them away from these fields. I could be those fields are hostile to men's needs.

Re: And we care because...why?

[Dins]

Trigger warning: The word violence is totally gonna come barreling through this post, doing like 40 in a 35.

I'm triggered by the word trigger, as it reminds me of big scary guns, and you failed to adequately warn me that said word would be used.

This round of PTSD is all on you, buddy!

Re:And we care because...why?

[Grishnakh]

Bad example with the nail salon thing. How many men have you seen with fingernail polish? There might be a few gay men interested in breathing those fumes all day, but they're likely employed in nail salons (or more likely own them). That field likely is almost-all-female naturally.

The child-care example is quite valid, however. Lots of men like being with small children, but our culture discourages that as they're seen as potential molesters. Another example is primary education: how many kindergarten or grade 1-4 teachers are male? There's simply no evidence that 95% of men have zero interest in being around small children, absent social stigma.

Anyway, I know you're joking about the cartel thing, but there's definitely a stigma about having men around small kids without female supervision, and this really is an inefficiency that's bad for society. Personally I think it results in a lot of women being around kids (because they fill the void basically) who really shouldn't be. As a society, we seem to have this idea that women are all wonderful, caring people when around small children, and it simply isn't true. A lot of them are nasty, heartless bitches and shouldn't be around any kids or have their own. Assuming men are generally bad and women are generally great with kids is bound to result in a bunch of these women taking jobs with children.

Re: And we care because...why?

[Ol Olsoc]

This isn't about forcing people to take jobs they don't want. However women are clearly capable of these jobs, and were clearly interested in them in the past.

If there is some biological basis then it does not account why the percentage of female programmers has declined over time, so I seriously doubt it's some sort of innate bias. There's a clear problem, even if you fail to acknowledge it. Why has the percentage dropped? You clearly don't care, but some people do.

There has been a lot of conjecture. And your choice is who you want to listen to.

At can be either the third wave "weak woman" model, where some incredibly trivial things can apparently force a young lady who is passionately into programming into dropping it completely.

Or it might be that women who have now re-entered the workforce voluntarily - as opposed to the "Rosey the Riveter" WW2 example of dire need - to perhaps adjust over time to what they find as a good career path.

Now an analysis of the two "reasons" is pretty important. The "weak woman" model presupposes that any negativity will destroy a woman's passion for the work, as well as ruin her self esteem. It's the same rationale that Barbie Dolls turn young ladies into anorexics.

It also fails because it assumes that the only career field in which there is any form of sexual harassment is STEM. Because I don't hear people whining too much about rampant sexism in the business sector, and there are a lot of women employed there. And if a dongle joke or a image of a Playboy model's face can destroy a young lady's passion for STEM, imagine when she gets to the workforce. You get hammered with more negativity than that every day. If that's the real reason, it makes no sense.

Now the other thesis, which I espouse based on many years of experience trying to recruit young women into STEM fields is that they have seen STEM, and want no part of it. And for much different reasons.

And those reasons are really long hours, mediocre pay, and an utter lack of respect. The image of the geek, working in the company basement, living on Cheetos and Mountain Dew, and working 20 hour days is not terribly inaccurate (I like their Crunchy Jalepeno Cheddar ones myself)

There might also be a correlation with thought process, but it is like walking into a minefield trying to suggest that there is any difference between the way men and women think in general.

But you do not have to invoke the second one, the first reasoning is fine by itself.

In the end, I question not so much why women are not going for STEM careers, but why any men are.

All of this is to say, if there is enough pay and prestige, and pleasant work environment, they will show up. And good luck with the idea of making the geek's work life better. That would cost money, and the woman making that decision might not want to spend it.

Re: And we care because...why?

[MyAlternateID]

I care about equal opportunity. I don't give a fuck about equal outcome. When you pretend that those two are the same thing, you stop being intellectually honest.

A tremendous number of cultural changes have happened to women since the '50s and '60s when a lot of computing was actually considered secretarial and therefore "women's work", however right or wrong that may be. To ignore those or pretend they happen in a vacuum and can't have any impact on women in the workforce is ridiculous.

Re:And we care because...why?

[godrik]

I certainly care. I love computer science and I would love to do anything that can push the field forward.
Right now, in my college, only 20% of our CS students are female. What this tells me is part of the female population is not as attracted to the field than male. I do not know why. But it means that if we could attract them as well as we attract men, we would have higher enrollments. And so the top 10% would likely to be smarter.
In other word, I care about having more female in CS becasue I am afraid we are missing out on very smart people.

Re: And we care because...why?

[Ol Olsoc]

They are in an amazingly advantaged group and can not even see it, instead acting afraid that one day they might not be able to tell sex jokes at work as if that is the worst possible discrimination.

I had to chuckle at that. Have you ever heard a group of women getting together and either telling raunchy jokes or graphically describig their boyfriend/husband's funy face when he cums? I have.

All of this bullshit is bullshit for very large values of bullshit.

Its like third wave feminism has gone so far around the bend that thy hate a victorian era version of women's psyches. The present day idea that hearing a bad sexully oriented word irreparably damages a women is plain unrealistic.

Women have sex drives

Women have a sense of humor

The two most filthy minded raunchiest people I have ever worked with were women.

Very very few are as pure as the driven snow.

And yet we somehow have follen into a pit dug for us by humorless misandrysts.

My favorite story of the utterly screwed up system we have fallen into comes from my lab's machine shop, where of course, the old days of calendars showing women in bikinis have been utterly banned.

I the pursuit of banning any "offensive images from the workplace, one day, the wrong person saw on the inside of one of the machinists toolboxes, an offending photograph of a young woman in a cheerleading outfit. She went to HR to complain. After all, the obvious sexual undertones of a machinist, and seeinf the tittlation such a person would get from looking at such an offensive image were all there.

So HR aid the guy a visit. Told him the photo was offensive to a woman and must be removed immediately.

His answer - and this is paraphrased, because it became a legend around the place, went something like "I'll take the picute of my daughter, who is a high school cheerleader out of my toolbox when you put out a memo that there wil be no photos of people's children allowed anywhere here."

HR left, with their tails between their legs. I have no idea what they told the offended woman.

But as I have always said about these things, you have to pay attention to who you listen to. Because outraged humorless misandrysts won't ever be actually satisfied. No outraged humorless people ever are.

Re: And we care because...why?

[thinkwaitfast]

The number of female hams (ham radio operators) is a consistent ~11% across countries, cultures and time. Back in the olden days of personal computers, hams were first adopters of the technology, being well versed in electronics.

Re:And we care because...why?

[hcs_$reboot]

We care because the new girl who entered the programming team makes an excellent coffee.

Re: And we care because...why?

[narcc]

Female behaviour is civilized, but male behaviour is crass, tactless, and rude.

First, I said nothing about either stereotypical female or male behavior. You invented that all on your own to fit your preconceptions.

Second, the OP is complaining about being unable to engage in "crass, tactless, and rude" behavior. Specifically, "off-colour jokes" and "crude humour". He thinks that "these things are all healthy male banter". Read our posts again. This is pretty obvious.

Essentially, his complaint is that he can't engage in crude and uncivil dialogue in mixed company without facing social consequences for his admittedly anti-social behavior. He blames women, though I doubt many men would want to work with someone that unprofessional. He puts me in mind of the Drew character from Office Space. Would you want to work with someone like that?

Re: And we care because...why?

[Darinbob]

They still look pretty similar. Ie, computer help desk support is mostly the same, such as interacting politely with clients and helping the entire company run smoothly. No wait, I guess that did change... But I'm still writing code, it's still in C or C++, still some shell scripting, not doing anything stupid like JavaScript. Of course many of the same women from back then are still in computing, the problem is getting new women into the field.

Re: And we care because...why?

[Anonymous Coward]

No you've got it wrong. The point is that the overpaid, overentitled, overcompensated, overly favored MALE (or any majority with a shared attribute) is using it's influence to KEEP OUT FEMALES (or any minority with a shared attribute and an axe to grind) and therefore the MALES (or any majority with a shared attribute) MUST BE SUBVERTED AT ANY COST! It does not matter if there is only a ~0.00000000000000001% MALE (or any majority with a shared attribute) population for the given job (or any possible activity) the FEMALES (or any minority with a shared attribute and an axe to grind) MUST NOT SUFFER BECAUSE OF THE MEN! (or any majority with a shared attribute!) And you can bet that as long as that sub 1% MALE (or any majority with a shared atrribute) is present at the given job (or any possible activity) FEMALES (or any minority with a shared attribute and an axe to grind) will SUFFER until that sub 1% becomes 0%.

As far as computer programming goes I'm all for more women to be programmers if they want to be programmers. I do think some bad actors exist in IT that disbar people based on prejudice, and those bad actors should be held accountable for their actions. I just don't think it's as bad as it's currently being claimed, and I think that there are some who are using the real bad cases to gain an unfair advantage by crying victim. An opinion that gets reinforced when I see things like the last part of the summary: "Of course, getting women into programming is one thing; keeping them is the next big challenge." emphasis mine. So if they don't want to be programmers, then why should we force them to be programmers? Isn't that just as bad as keeping out those that do? Why should they be lured into to a career that they don't want and then be kept there by force of society? Oh right, it has nothing to do with desire to participate and everything to do with creating victims, punishing the innocent, and giving power to whose who helped organize all of it.

Re: And we care because...why?

[Ol Olsoc]

The problem I see with your "weak women" argument is that you seem to suggest that all of the harassment women in STEM fields is trivial and if that drives you from the field, you are weak.

Wow. It's time for me to just keep quiet about this. No matter how I try to say that women are actually strong, and not weak, I'm wrong. I say they are stronger than the excuses given for them staying out of STEM. It's too confusing to say women are strong, then have people come back to say I'm saying they are weak when I say thyy are not. I give up.

I'll state one last time my thoughts, then go back to the tried and true method of not sharing my opinion.

Real actual sexual harassment should in every case be pursued actively. Perhaps the list of what construes sexual harassment is being expanded beyond reasonable expectations. Because It's a big world, and a lot of people in it, some who are plain nasty. It woud be great if we could protect everyone from jerks. The guy that tried to force my wife to give him oral sex at work has now become the moral equivalent of a dongle joke.

BTW, she aggressively proceed to use the system to destroy his life after that little assault.

Work is often nasty for everyone, men included.

Anyhow, I''m sorry for your experiences. You might actually prove my point about the strength of women, but I'm finished with the matter.

Retention is a bigger issue

[Anonymous Coward]

I graduated with a masters degree in CS in 2008, and as such now have 7 years job experience. Watching the other women I graduated with it's entirely a retention issue. The reasons for why they left the field were wildly varying, but I only know of two who graduated with me who are still in the industry out of maybe twenty.

Re:Retention is a bigger issue

[tomhath]

Yup. My experience is that a large percentage work for a couple of years, then start having babies and are gone forever. Daycare for one is tough, leaving two or more cute toddlers and paying for day care isn't worth going to the office.

Re:Retention is a bigger issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Take an informal survey of female programmers that you know (might be a small sample size, unfortunately). Of those who are married, what is the profession of the partner? I'm willing to bet (based on my experience) that the answer is "programmer". Even if the woman is not married to another programmer or engineer, chances are they are married to someone who makes a lot of money. I have *never* met a woman in IT who had significantly more earning potential than their husband.

Which is not to say that I think there is a huge wage disparity between men and women in IT (I think there is one, but it is very small in NA). It's just as well that I am posting AC, because I think this next statement will not be popular with some people, however true I think it is: it seems to me that woman (in general) tend to choose partners either in the same social class that they are in or higher. Men seem to do the opposite.

The upshot is that women in IT (or other high paying professions) who have babies also have husbands who make enough money to support a single income family. Also, most countries/companies give maternity leave, but not paternity leave. So this means that a woman with a high paying job (that has good maternity benefits) will take up to a year off work to look after the baby. Her husband will spend approximately 0% of that time looking after the baby. Most people have their first baby within 10 years of starting their career in IT, so that 1 year represents 10% or more of your overall experience.

Every woman in IT I have ever worked with who has had a baby has experienced the same thing. They intend to go back to work after maternity leave. After a year of being the sole care taker of their precious baby, they can not imagine anyone else looking after the baby. Their husbands have gotten promoted and been given raises in that one year, so the prospect of the husband looking after the baby seems ridiculous. Since there is enough money coming in (and day care is expensive anyway), the thought of handing over the baby to some one else seems absolutely horrible at that point.

For some professions (like doctors or lawyers) there may be considerable pressure for the woman to come back to work because the practice is an independent business. But for programmers, engineers, technicians, research scientists, etc there is very little pressure to return. A year away is a long time and their jobs have long since been filled by someone else.

My personal opinion is, if you want women to stay working, you have to give them a reasonable alternative to being the sole care taker of their baby. For example, if maternity leave was set at 6 months and if the spouse were then given paternal leave for the next 6 months, women would have a reasonable choice for returning to work for at least 6 months while their partner was looking after the child. It would also even out the burden for careers across the partners, so that the woman isn't always at a disadvantage.

I think without this kind of change, the only place that women will be a representative force in the work place is in lower paying jobs where the woman is forced to go back to work because her partner can not support the family on a single income.

More women = good stuff!

[grub]

I keep the sexual harassment forms in the bottom drawer of my desk.
That way when a woman goes to get one, I can check out her ass.

Re:More women = good stuff!

[grub]

It was a joke: nothing more, nothing less.
Like if I were gay and wrote "Oh that's too bad, less cocks to go around." Lighten up.

Re:More women = good stuff!

[grub]

FEWER cocks, sorry.

Re:More women = good stuff!

[LaurenCates]

Oh, get over yourself. I'm female and I gave him a mod point for that.

I haven't made use of my fainting couch in years, by the way.

-LaurenC

Re:More women = good stuff!

[LaurenCates]

Uh, whoops.

The woman giveth, and Slashdot taketh away.

Re:More women = good stuff!

[LaurenCates]

I don't think you're replying to me, but I will have you know that my tits were voted the sweetest at the New York State Fair in Twenty-Aught-Three.

To casually pass around a title that some of us have earned, damn it, why that's an insult, you contemptible cur!

And if that was directed at me, apologies in order, and thank you for addressing me by my proper title.

I don't believe her.

[gerald.edward.butler]

In all my years working in IT I have NEVER seen the kind of behavior that is claimed. Women get out of IT because IT sucks. It's incredibly socially isolating (working with a machine all day). *Most* women want much more inter-personal interaction. That's a fact.

Re:I don't believe her.

[Anonymous Coward]

Programming involves dealing with many sociopaths all day long. The computer is the only honest one out of the bunch.

Re:Abandon IT

[Grishnakh]

They're not going to be tossed out as obsolete. As another poster above noted, women are a majority, not a minority. Just not in actual coding; they're a majority in places in management, project management, testing, and UI design. So the women are concentrating (smartly, I'll add) in things which will be the last things to be outsourced, if ever, and aren't as subject to age discrimination. As usual, this shows that women in general are more social than men, and move into jobs which require more socializing and less of just keeping your nose stuck to a monitor all day, even when it involves working with men who do exactly this.

Re:Abandon IT

[__aaclcg7560]

Thank God I'm working IT in the government sector. I'm 46-years-old and surrounded by other gray beards like myself. Can't outsource my job when a security clearance is involved.

Re:Keeping them certainly is the challenge

[Grishnakh]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the 80s were a better time. Everything went down the tubes with the invention of grunge music.

Conclusion not supported by given evidence

[Chris Mattern]

The fact that 48% of first programmers are women does nothing to show more women are getting into programming. It is entirely possible (and maybe probable) that it's been 48% for a long time, and what we're seeing is not more women getting into programming but that a lot of them are getting out again quickly.

Re:Conclusion not supported by given evidence

[T.E.D.]

The girls were just picking majors based on salary surveys.

And guys don't do this? You have some data to back this speculation up with? I wouldn't dare make a blanket speculation about jewish people all being greedy or black people all being lazy without even a fig leaf of data to hold up. So why is it OK to do that with a stereotype-based argument about women being greedy and less interested in intellectual pursuits for their own sake than men?

I really don't get this. I don't get why its OK with everyone for an entire industry to be such a huge demographic anomaly, I don't get why its OK to dismiss every fact presented with BS made up on the spot, and I don't get why its OK to use complaints about it as a free excuse to spread unsupported (and provably wrong) stereotypes. Its like this one topic somehow magically transforms a community of data and logic driven thinkers into the Divinity School of Liberty University.

Re:Conclusion not supported by given evidence

[LaurenCates]

The funny thing is, a lot of people in this thread do the whole "assertions" thing and lack evidence.

There's a glass ceiling...except for people like Marissa Mayer, Sheryl Sandberg and Hillary Clinton.
There's a brogrammer culture...except nobody's hauled out any proof that this is a thing.
There's evidence that maybe men and women have different preferences in careers...except where there isn't.
There's an overwhelming amount of sexism that takes place in workplaces...except in places that are pretty helpful and facilitate careers for women (and if you think there isn't, it's because you didn't ask your HR department).

Can we all just agree that there isn't really a homogeneity in the world where things are all the same in all places?

Basement

[Art Challenor]

Do women programmer's live in their dad's basement? Just asking...

Best and Brightest

[PopeRatzo]

Stories about women in tech always bring out the best in Slashdot readers.

Re:Best and Brightest

[T.E.D.]

Stories about women in tech always bring out the best in Slashdot readers.

It really has gotten to where I dread opening any such story. For everything else, I can find really good insightful commentary. For this subject, it seems like all the moderators are members of the Bobby Riggs fan club.

Re:Best and Brightest

[LaurenCates]

Where is this misogyny I keep hearing about?

Generally, the guys in these threads are pretty positive on me.

Now, I've been accused of being a karma whore before, and I'm not going to say that doesn't bother me.

But I don't get the sense that Slashdot, or tech in general is any more miserable for women than anywhere else is.

People are dicks to each other sure, and they'll find ways of finding your soft spot. If your soft spot is that you get touchy when anyone insists you're inferior because you're a woman, congratulations, that's where the dicks are going to keep hitting you.

Calling me a "bitch" and calling you an "asshole" isn't worse for me because I'm a woman. Nor is it misogyny (even though the insult was gendered). It was directed at me and only me. And I have no problem with that. You have every right to feel the way about me that you do, as does everyone else on Slashdot.

However, to say that the majority of the Slashdot population has yet to prove to me that it hates women, and I dare you to prove me wrong.

The keyword: Worldwide

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

It is very common for women to enter IT side in India. In the recent years more women are graduating from college, more women are getting engineering and medical degrees than men in India.

Re:Barriers to women often subtle or invisible

[wyHunter]

Again, I have 30 years experience in this field and I have never, ever seen that. Guess what? Engineering salaries are far higher than temp workers. Engineers do not get asked to watch the phones regardless of gender. Have you graduated with your BS yet?

Re:Barriers to women often subtle or invisible

[phantomfive]

The main problem is that a lot of firms talk about diversity, but aren't great on actually hiring women in tech. And when they get hired, getting shunted into more "traditional" roles, like being asked to cover the phones or front desk (as a female) when the male interns aren't asked to do that.

I would be really interested if you had evidence of this, because it goes directly contrary to my experience.

In other news...

[TeknoHog]

...more programmers are going into women, if you catch my drift. And I think you do, being the ever so smart programmer yourself.

Percentage of Personality Types (INTJ)

[clifwlkr]

Well one thing that comes to mind is that some of the best programmers tend to be of personality type INTJ. The frequency of INTJ in male vs. female population is clearly shown to be radically different. Let's look at all of the INTx types:
Intellectuals (NT)
Population Male Female
ENTJ - Chief 4% 5.5% 2.5%
ENTP - Originator 4.5% 6% 3%
INTJ - Strategist 1.5% 2.5% 0.5%
INTP - Engineer 2.5% 4% 1%
All NTs 12.5% 18% 7%

Seems to pretty clearly show why we might have a difference in the number of male vs. female programmers, huh? I doubt the males are forcing personality types on them.

Re:Percentage of Personality Types (INTJ)

[Anonymous Coward]

There are much more interesting numbers than that. IQ is not a good indicator of overall intelligence, but it directly tests a few things like pattern recognition and abstract logic. While the curves of men and women are very close, the curves do NOT have the same shape.

The curve for women is steep while the curve for men is more shallow in comparison. This makes men's IQ more variable than women's (this same variableness compared to women is noted in tons of such charts). In addition, there are more men than women that are conceived (with miscarriage rates for males being 2x the rate of females and a ratio of around 100 women for every 108 men -- 105 men in the USA). These numbers become about equal by the 26 or so at which point women continue to gain (think about that, in the US, at least 5/100 men die before 26 -- if no women die at all).

From an evolutionary standpoint, this situation is fairly optimal. Women's genes are more stable meaning that fewer children are being born to absolute idiots. The expense of this stability is fewer women at the extremes (note: fewer does not mean none and does not mean that the women in the extremes are any less capable than men in the same category). In order to continue to push society forward, humanity rolls the risky dice with the men. 108 men are born with more geniuses, but also more idiots. A huge amount of these idiots are killed off early in life (which is probably why IQ favors men by a few points overall). The point in time when most men are considered to be at their most attractive also happens to coincide with the age where the genders approach balance.

Depending on which IQ analysis, the ratio of women/men at the 95th percentile is as much as 1 to 4 with the numbers skewing even more drastically in extreme top. The number of STEM jobs is estimated to be 7.6million, but that number includes non-technical roles as well (things like managers and "sales engineers"). If we accept the given numbers, then 1 in 18 people -- 5.5% of the population -- work in STEM. If these people generally correlate to the best and brightest (interestingly, our 95the percentile number), then we would expect to see ~20% of STEM workers to be women.

Since these numbers are accurately reflected in the current distribution, why would we assume that there is a shortage of women?

Finally, if STEM is so discriminatory, how do we describe other professions. Society as a whole and medicine in particular use to heavily stigmatize against women entering the field. The discrimination faced by women was very pervasive and fairly well-documented. Women dealt with the discrimination and proved how good they can be as doctors. STEM has far less stigma and far less resistance to women entering. Why haven't women done what they did with medicine? The answer is that the women who are both interested and have the capability are entering and succeeding. Any other answer will imply that women are too weak -- sexism of the most extreme kind.