This is incorrect - assuming these women don't displace men, inequality will go up.
Say a woman (or man) moves from a $50k/year office job to a $120k/year tech job. Income inequality will go up. Gini will go up and the "size of the middle class" (typically defined as % of the population between 50% and 150% of the median) will shrink.
Simple example: consider a world of 10 people with income of 50k. Gini is zero. Now double the income of one of them. Gini has gone up to 0.08, and size of the middle class has gone from 100% to 90%.
So given that you have the stated goal of reducing income inequality, and your proposed policy would actually increase inequality, do you now oppose bringing women into computing?
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/09/07/eliezer-yudkowsky/tru...
Is some force actually "leaving out" women in creating the future? Is there some force that's going to lay the smackdown on people like Jeri Ellsworth so that they never go anywhere?
You've shifted the goal posts a bit with the emphasis on having more women in positions of creating the future. Personally, I'd rather humanity had more people willing and capable of creating a better future, period, regardless of the other details of their identity. I think there's a shortage, and I regret that my own contributions will if anything likely only be financial to those doing the hard work. Anyway, why would the tech field, as a whole, be better off with more women, when most people in the tech field, male or female, actually don't actively contribute to steering the future?
(On your earlier point about income inequality, you might benefit from reading PG's views about that: http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html)
The only thing that has changed is society's view of computer geeks, which has evolved from pathetic neckbeards to entrepreneurial wizards. And big surprise, now all of a sudden feminists are concerned about all the sexism and rampant harassment that's supposedly unique to tech.
Every conference I've been to, I've seen men falling over themselves to placate and humor the few women that do show up. Sexism? The vast majority is of the benevolent kind, the kind the feminists themselves constantly advocate for. The kind that makes men watch what they say when a woman enters the room, for fear of triggering another Adria Richards. And the kind that pisses off any capable woman with self-respect.
On top of that, engineering is one of the fields which has the largest attrition rate amongst its students. It's clear that just thinking you want to be an engineer is not enough to succeed at it.
Add to that the fact that women are inundated with the message that they absolutely should go into STEM, and I think you have a recipe for disillusionment that merely shifts the attrition further down the pipeline. Which is exactly what we find: after 10 years, many more women leave the field than men.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for any woman that does make it in the field, but they've pretty much all been the kind of atypical go-getter personalities that other, more girly women, feel intimidated by.
You mean to be dismissive of the wage gap or pay gap, or maybe more specifically the gender wage gap, or male-female income disparity.
Wikipedia seems to indicate that there is a healthy body of research on the topic, with researchers reaching different conclusions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_St...