> Why is this type of attitude normal in software?

I think people greatly underestimate what software developers actually do. To most of non-computer related folk we are just monkeys who bash keystrokes.

I'm not saying we do some rocket science, however in this profession a lot of online research is required to even do a simple things, and to most of people it is annoying to do so they give up.

I'm full-stack developer for about 10 years but still have to google MSSQL connection string or how to center stuff vertically in css.

Well, "artist" is a little farther away than the other two, but I would submit that most of the people who have what it takes to be a median accountant or lawyer probably also has what it takes to be a median programmer. For all the discussion of how we "think differently", I honestly don't think there's that much separation. Maybe when you get to the higher levels, but that separation is as much within the profession as between professions. There are programmers who have whatever the wiring is that makes them want to sit down in their free time and write a new kernel, and there are programmers who are reasonably content cranking out Wordpress installs on a 9-5 schedule.

And for what it's worth, I suspect that if most people were willing to put in the time and effort to learn how to create art, you'd find that many more people can create reasonable art than you would otherwise believe, because we've talked ourselves into a model of artistic talent that seems to hold that it's a binary switch, rather than something like any other skillset, where some people are more talented, but where almost anyone can develop some ability in it if they put in time and effort. I'm not a naturally talented basketball player, but I can run and play defense and hit a reasonable jumper in a pickup game, because I've spent a lot of time over several years learning how to play and then playing a bunch of games.

Candidly, there are plenty of people who delude themselves that they are well suited to being a doctor or lawyer. That said, they're prestige positions, so there are cultural reasons for doing so.

On the STEM front, a quick search immediately pulls organizations like National Girls Collaborative Project:

http://ngcproject.org/

Girl Scouts:

https://www.girlscouts.org/en/about-girl-scouts/girl-scouts-...

Girlstart:

http://www.girlstart.org/

and Girls Inc.:

http://www.girlsinc.org/news/editorials/inspiring-girls-expl...

that provide either focus or programs for outreach in STEM more broadly than computer science. Now, I don't know the exact numbers for whether programs for pushing for women in CS are greater in number than STEM. That would be interesting to know precisely. Mostly, my contention is that, yes, there are organizations that are attempting to encourage young women to entering STEM fields beyond software.

Now, at a city level where I live, I have noticed anecdotally that there's been a push for software based businesses from the local government. Though it's difficult to know for sure, my opinion of this push toward software as opposed to engineering is because the apparent investment in creating a new software company is lower than the investment in creating an engineering company. Engineering tends to be a more regulated field and often requires more expensive equipment. As such, I believe the city is interested in businesses that could have a large economic impact for a relatively low amount of investment. Now, is this so easy? No and I believe my city government's actions are somewhat misguided. That said, I doubt that where I live is unique. I do believe there's a national push for software based businesses because the apparent investment is low and the payoff is high. Along with that will be programs to encourage underrepresented people to enter the field and these programs will be visible. But, again, I contend they're not unique.