One thing all these fields have in common is that they are more intellectually rigorous and harder to succeed in than the computer software industry.
Clearly, they have something else in common. We just need to figure out what it is.
This essay, which invokes the "Google Memo", is subtly attacking a straw man. Even those almost the entire rest of STEM is better than CS, it's true that it's not balanced; it remains deeply imperfect. Physics and mechanical engineering, clustered with CS, remain the province of men. There's a expanse of STEM fields with female participation between 25-40% that you'd want to explain or correct. Is it stereotype threat? Implicit bias? Who knows? Probably not?
But that has nothing to do with why Google has so few women engineers. The work that a commercial software engineer does --- even at the lofty heights in which the profession is practiced in such a cathedral of software design as the Alphabet Corporation --- is simply not that hard; most of it is just wiring form fields to databases in new and exciting ways.
Whatever is holding women's participation in our field at or below twenty percent is artificial, and a travesty.
> But that has nothing to do with why Google has so few women engineers.
Uh. What?
As far as I can tell, it has _everything_ to do with that. These two things are so closely related i cannot fathom how you can make such a statement...
Also... You make the same point twice. To paraphrase you:
a) "academic CS is less intellectually rigorous and less hard to succeed in than chem/etc -- but there are less women in it"
b) "work as google is simply not that hard, just wiring form fields to databases -- but there are less women in it"
For both a) and b) you then point out that they are problematic and that we cannot explain them (and, for the record, I agree with you on both counts) - but they are still unrelated?
EDIT: To reiterate: I think you are right in that the gender imbalance is a problem and is hard to explain. It's just this disconnect that i don't get here...
The gender imbalance is systemic, and not at all that hard to explain. In the early 90s, as home PCs were becoming ubiquitous, they were in part marketed in the same vein as any other masculine hobby -- auto repair, diy tinkering, etc. The "titans" of early tech companies were men -- not because women weren't interested or weren't smart enough -- but because socially, the gender stereotypes were such that women need not concern themselves (i.e. "Women need not apply").
Ultimately, the same systemic sexism that refused women the right to vote until they pushed hard enough, or refused women equal pay, is the same systemic sexism that keeps women away from CS.
Someone else commented that perhaps it takes a certain "grit" (paraphrased) to maintain interest in CS. I think they're so wrong they're right: It takes a certain "grit" to continue in such a "programmer-bro" culture, where there are few female role models.