> The 'biological differences' argument falls flat because it implies that somehow women changed on a biological level between 1984 and today. Or that computer

> The 'biological differences' argument falls flat because it implies that somehow women changed on a biological level between 1984 and today. Or that computer science, and programming, started to change around 1984, which is not at all implausible. Also, in the article you linked there is a good observation: > The share of women in computer science started falling at roughly the same moment when personal computers started showing up in U.S. homes in significant numbers. Which coincides with the time in which programming became a hobby you take up in childhood because you enjoy doing it, rather than a profession like any other. In other words, this could hint to a self-selection into a computer science career based on pure enjoyment of the activity as a child. (The article instead suggests computers were marketed mainly as toys for boys- which is also not implausible, but doesn't explain why tech companies would have willingly cut themselves off half of the possible revenues of their product- I bet a 100% increase in sales would beat any prejudice).