How are women strictly necessary in the software development industry, if they are considered exactly equal as their male counterparts? What should be aimed for, is equality in treatment in the workspace, and salary, which I believe we have pretty much for granted by now; correct me if otherwise. Not an equality in number.

If women want to get in the game industry, or get engineering degrees, it's entirely up to them; and they'll be welcome if the industry, provided that they can comply with the required level of competence (which applies to any worker in the industry, regardless of gender). There's no point in forcing them to enter the industry.

All I can say is that interests aren't cultivated in a vacuum. If we don't stand up to sexist portrayals of women in all aspects of society to ensure that our children, our daughters, don't grow up to entirely dismiss sciences, maths, engineering, tech careers, it won't matter how open we are to having women working in the industry because we will have engendered a generation of young women who see it as infinitely more profitable and preferable to be a celebutante like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian.

Our children's interests come from a variety of sources, they don't just spring up from some genetic predisposition (although there is a certain amount of that, which ironically usually goes from father to daughter), but from mass media portrayals of women and girls, positive and celebrated role models of women at the top of many different industries but particularly in ones which have been traditionally male-dominated or otherwise considered to be traditionally 'masculine' professions (including science and tech), down to the kind of choices we make when we buy our children toys, what kinds of choices we make as consumers when we support companies which make negative or positive contributions to sex discrimination, right on down to sexual politics in the home and gender stereotyping. If we give our children the impression that women need to stick to the home, or to certain designated pink collar ghettoes while the men remain the primary bread-winners, that's a lesson our children, especially are daughters, are going to learn simply by watching us, and we can tell them all we want that we want them to choose any profession out there they desire, if what they first see and learn from is us, by watching and imitating us, they are much more likely to do as we have done.

And I'm not denigrating household management or any number of demanding and important roles that traditionally 'feminine' housework fill in society, and if anything, there should be much more societal respect for those who stay at home to take care of the children and the home, regardless of sex or gender. And I'm also not saying there's anything wrong with having the father work while the mother stays at home, in the context of the stereotypical hetero nuclear family unit, if that's how the work of the family are best divided.

But I'd like to see greater emphasis on encouraging our children, whether they be male, female, intersex or transgender, to see beyond traditional 'masculine' and 'feminine' stereotypes of various types of work, careers, etc. and see that as human beings we're all just as capable of doing any number of different tasks that do not rely at all on physical and biological sex differentiation.

Moreover, specifically regarding video game development, I would love to see more games where the main protagonist whose actions we control in the game as players, are either gender neutral, or are designed in such a way that the player is able to choose what our in-game avatar looks like, that we can choose a character that looks more like ourselves so that we can feel more of a connection, a greater suspension of disbelief and have the feeling of actually being in that world, being that person, rather than simply manipulating a controller to control a character within a game. I think games like Mass Effect have begun to achieve this, and as more people begin to play MMORPGs and other games where we can choose what we look like (which changes how others interact with us online), where we can choose to create in-game avatars which more reflect what we look like, or how we would like to look like, so that we feel a personal connection to the games we play.

While many male gamers (and even some female gamers) argue that it doesn't really matter what the sex or gender is of the character they are playing as, I feel that male privilege extends to the video gaming world where men have plenty of male protagonist role models to choose from so it doesn't matter so much to us if occasionally we encounter a game where the main character is female (or otherwise not a male heterosexual human). But it matters to girls, to women precisely because there are much fewer representations of themselves in the video games they play, and while some female gamers may not be bothered by this, I imagine they would still feel a greater connection to certain games (particularly of the RPG type) to be able to at least have the choice of creating in-game avatars who best represent their own sex, their own perception of themselves, and thus create a more realistic portrayal of how people (both real and NPC) interact with them as they might in the real world.

And without creating these games with greater inclusivity, we're creating invisible barriers for girls and women to become interested in video games in the first place, and it's not simply a matter of creating games with pretty pink box art and pictures of little kittens and ponies either: that in itself plays into sex role stereotypes and the idea that girls can only like these traditionally stereotypical 'feminine' colours, subject matter, etc. (while also perversely frowning upon boys who may like those very things, whether they are heterosexual or not).

There are many girls who love nothing more than to frag some 'bros' in CoD and really school them in terms of kill/death ratios and killstreaks, but there are all too often an intensely misogynistic reaction to girls and women who enjoy 'masculine' games of the FPS genre, and for some terribly sexist reasons some boys (and even men) cannot seem to take this terrible blow to their egos to imagine that a 'mere' girl might be better at them at a game like that. I think it makes them feel emasculated, and they feel threatened at the idea that a woman might make a better warrior than a man, even if it's just within a video game. I can't even begin to imagine the kind of sexism, misogyny, discrimination that exists in real militaries around the world with that kind of sexist stereotyping of sex and gender roles going on in that testosterone-fuelled macho atmosphere, and unfortunately, video games of that type only seem to reinforce those types of sexist ideas.

But if we perhaps started creating more military-style shooters where the main protagonist is a woman, and young boys could start seeing women as being just as capable of kicking ass and taking names as special forces operatives, the more likely we are to start moving society to one where we can feel safer in sending our daughters to join the army, because we know our sons are going to be there alongside them as comrades-in-arms, not seeing women as inferior or somehow unworthy of wearing the uniform, but proudly looking out for each other just as they would look out for their male counterparts.

And you can tell by the number of armed forces personnel who play games like Call of Duty and Battlefield 3 religiously, and I believe that making more games which represent women in that, among many other contexts, will help to normalize the idea of women participating in all aspects of human society without fear of discrimination or subtle societal hints of disapproval for women who choose unconventional professions which are not considered traditionally 'feminine' work, and that in turn will help create a greater atmosphere of mutual respect, acceptance and hopefully eventually pride regardless of a person's sex or gender.

Because all these influences are inextricably intertwined with the rates at which women enter a male-dominated industry like video games (and other tech-oriented industries). If you don't start capturing the interests and imaginations of girls at a young age in wanting to not only play games, but to become curious about how they are made, you're never going to have enough women even considering it as a career option, let alone having them apply for the kinds of training and schooling necessary to increase the pool of qualified applicants for jobs in the industry.

Interests don't develop in a vacuum: girls and young women are already subtly being pushed into already ghettoized professions (pink collar jobs) at the expense of nurturing them and encouraging them into going into male-dominated professions. And it can start with something as simple as whether we buy our daughters One Direction tickets and a subscription to Tiger Beat or whether we get them a Playstation Vita and a subscription to Games Informer.

I'm so sick of this argument,
women are equal in most people's minds,
they have the exact same chance at life as any man, isn't it about time everyone stops pissing and moaning about this and just gets on with their jobs?

Been working in the industry for over 10 years now, and I can pretty much speak for everyone I know - more females would be very welcome.
Reasons why there's very few....pretty simple.
The vast majority of people working in the idustry are there because they're interested in computer games - often from when they were children.
Traditionally that interest is far more common in males.
It looks like there is an effort to encourage females to play video games (although that's generally to increase the sales market).
I suspect as the number of females with an active interest in video games increases over the next 5 years, you'll see that reflected in the number of females employed in the industry - but it'll probably be another 5 years before that becomes noticable.

Women do themeselves no favors imagining that there is some kind of conspiracy here. Rare are the women I've found mad enough to love coding in the same way as some men, probably including myself. I never question the innate ability but accomplishment in any field is more about motivation. Be honest how many women for example spend their teenage years bedroom coding just for the thrill of it. Software development has very low barriers to entry, if you can do it, you can do it. Most software development teams are more than eager to recruit women, where are they to be found?

I agree with the article, but ... While I do *not* think sexism is the reason for fewer females than statistically reasonable in development, I do feel this topic never really explores the entirety. It always goes back to, 'If not sexism, what?' Generally, the assumption is not enough women "interested" in technologically or mathematically based careers, which is, in its own way, admitting that, yes, it is sexism, just of a broader sort. I have another opinion to offer ...

First, how many in these discussions are: (a) Women (barring the obvious opinion pieces); (b) Women who are training for careers as any type of developer, or, who are currently in development positions; (c) Women who have previously been [b] but who have since changed paths?

My intention is not to imply the discussion is pointlessly circulating irrelevant opinions. They're all relevant. My intention is to ask, why, if this is so important, does anyone not ask females who have either left the industry, or who would love to be a part of the industry but who are not? I haven't read any input from this clearly relevant and existing segment. Maybe that's my oversight, but I'll tell you my theory and it's a little different than the above. It's a two part problem ...

(1) In the office -- Yes, there are some harmful attitudes and behaviors, but as many people have pointed out, it's not just the game industry and it's not just about people being female. It's about disrespect and lax communication made more often okay in the studio under the guise of easy-going natures. Where this sort of attitude might be "office politics" as normal in another job, in a creative job, it's impossible to work together efficiently unless you're a cohesive, communicative unit that respects a range of talents and skills, and tries to brings those out in each other. The average office model of separate cubicles and employees who might be nagging behind backs in the break room, or for supremacy, or notice, doesn't work. In addition to this, positions in games specifically often pay less competitively than they should, offer employees little freedom to decide where to live and work, and can require large amounts of time on the job that is often unequal to payoff (any benefit, not just literal pay), often because of how the studio might be organized. These are issues developers talk about everyday, and many managers and employers theorize they don't stop productivity out of those with drive and the ability to work around office problems. But what if these same problems DO keep females out?

If you are single, and have no children, or plan no children, the industry is easy. It's even easier if you don't have any restrictions on where or how you live. But the convenience level goes down with each demographic; married, children, locality and financial needs, female. Looked at like this, doesn't it make more sense that very young men would be a larger percentage of the employed? Not because they supposedly had more interest?

All the females I know game, and most are capable of multiple development positions. Many are in tech, and most of the remainder are in the arts. Growing up, I rarely met girls who didn't game, whether or not they were interested in it as a career. (But, at the time, it didn't seem like a career path to most people anyway.) But to a female who is married with children or who ever plans to be such, it's more lucrative NOT to be in the industry, just as it's more lucrative for a University schooled programmer to work at a bank. Other jobs pay more, offer more time and flexibility in lifestyle, often more latitude, and don't require you to move to limited high cost of living centers that might be additionally inappropriate for a person with family and/or additional financial considerations. If a women developer realizes her husband makes more than she'll ever make in her entire career, one that might offer them additional difficulties in the future, why should she not leave for almost anything else? Even if she doesn't, exactly how does a position that doesn't offer an environment competitively conducive to creative work compel her to stay? The original article is quite right that it's a highly creative and multidisciplinary career, but it only CAN be, it doesn't HAVE to be, not in order to move product and stay afloat.

The irony is that, "traditionally," many classic games were developed by women, and "traditionally," software and computer work was women's work, mainly because of the possibility of working from home without loss of productivity and the connection to "traditional" areas of "female suited" work; bookkeeping, data entry, office management, language, etc. ... (If this sounds odd, look it up, don't take my word for it). Why is it that now, when it should be even more possible to be flexible at work and manage both a career and home, is it still so difficult an idea to pitch? If game developers are truly a dime a dozen and of so little importance they aren't worth much pay or career latitude, why not let them manage their careers however and where ever they want? High skill level must not be the problem, either, because it's relatively easy for a somewhat untrained young person with the desire and a few classes under their belt to get their foot in the door, as long as they either offer time (intern) or a move to the area of whatever studio they're targeting. Sure, they might not get a very large or detail oriented job, but there's always something out there. If this is the case, which it seems to be, then why are we choosing to forget the recent past in favor of the mythologies spawned in the last three decades? The same skill sets used to balance books or manage a home are suddenly, when put on a spread sheet in a gaming studio, mainly man's work? The same data entry and file keeping female secretaries are hired for in droves is suddenly, when put in a gaming studio, work predominantly men only like? It's not desire and skill I'm questioning, here. It's the mythology we've begun to normalize to rationalize our own blindness. This has nothing to do with whether girls like games (Who doesn't like to have fun? Learn? "Hang" with others? Have hobbies? Express themselves? What a crazy thing to say ...), or if 45% or 65% of "gamers" are female. Is the magic number 60? 58? Food for thought.

(2) Education -- Yes, but, this involves how we chose to educate ourselves as a whole. The level of academic segregation in traditional schooling is not conducive to game development, no matter who you are. As previously noted so many times, this type of job, at its best, is multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary. Rarely are an students, male or female, encouraged to look at school, work, or life this way. Interdisciplinary and self-designed options are not often available, unless the student, knowing exactly what they wanted in this regard, was lucky enough to go to a more flexible program they hand picked. Additionally, students in the maths and sciences are rarely encouraged to take seriously the humanities, and the "softer" sciences are rarely encouraged to take extra maths. Even rarer still is real crossover between the performing arts and above. I personally saw students who were interested in entertainment creation barred from classes they thought necessary for their careers, or, allowed to join only to be ignored by teachers and snubbed by the "real" students who felt the interlopers were a distraction and seat drain. This is a problem in a lot of interdisciplinary areas, not just game development, but it does have more serious consequences: A student of the arts who wants to branch into the social sciences can jump into a second degree area with very little fanfare. It just takes time and perseverance. An arts or humanities student without prior math and science credit will find it incredibly difficult to add math or science training after already setting down an opposite road, and, depending on how many years they've already spent in school, either the cost or institution rules alone make it unreasonable. Assuming we encourage the extra interdisciplinary training we want at the high school level instead of worrying about game design's place at the collegiate table, how do we then justify multimillion dollar development costs for a product that requires no more than a few exam's worth of training to produce? We first need to ask ourselves what sorts of specialties, skills, educations, and backgrounds we really most want, where, and why.

Roly writes:

"Rare are the women I've found mad enough to love coding in the same way as some men, probably including myself."

Where have you been looking? Similar to how the saying goes about "thinking they're out to get you," just because you don't see the women coders doesn't mean they aren't there. YOU just don't see them.

"...] Be honest how many women for example spend their teenage years bedroom coding just for the thrill of it."

With all seriousness, if you were in your bedroom coding, whom else did you meet, face to face? I regularly meet many women who code, and are in high positions doing so, but they didn't go to game specific programs and aren't in game jobs now. They went to science and engineering school, or art school, and now work in other industries, or for themselves. Good work ethic and high skill level isn't just limited to those who sit alone and practice as a child "just for the thrill of it." If motivation isn't enough to accomplish anything, as said, what does thrilling teenage adventure have to do with anything, and how does expressing mad thrill not describe motivation? It doesn't make sense.

"[...] Most software development teams are more than eager to recruit women, where are they to be found?"

Where are the recruiters? Why? What are they doing? Aren't those better questions? What are they offering?