But in other fields sometimes such events are organised, to encourage men into female-dominated jobs. Guess who comes out of the woodwork to attack them:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydne...

The University of Sydney is under fire for a new scholarship of nearly $30,000 that gives preference to male applicants, with the head of the scholarships office likening it to grants that “discriminate” against students who are not Aboriginal.

...

“The way I think about it, affirmative action should only apply to people who have structural barriers to receiving an education – that’s what the exemption in discrimination law is about, so you can procure particular benefits for women in Stem [science, technology, engineering and mathematics], Aboriginal students and so on,” Grant said. “It’s not for further advantaging men. It’s really quite bizarre.”

For example, there are few events targeted at recruiting more boys to college, even though only 40% of college students are male; and few programs specifically targeted at helping homeless men even though most homeless people are adult men.

Contrast that to the PR value of program like this that's targeted at helping women.

some people and groups just want special treatment

This appears to be a strong assumption of the sort I asked to avoid. How do you know the reasons are historical and sociological and not simply that men like computers more?

You're ignoring privileges that a man would have over a woman in getting investments

But again, I asked for concrete discriminations not hypothetical "privileges" based on working backwards from unequal outcomes. You're speculating that "connections made through school" are important for men and not women, but that's nothing concrete and doesn't even make much sense - startup founders typically find VCs or the other way around the time they create a company and need money, and men and women are not segregated at universities. It's not like investors pick companies on the basis of being at the same college together. See the article yesterday about the flood of money from Softbank who have more or less single handedly killed any talk of a bubble pop.

Statistically differing outcomes might make sense if we were talking about smaller differences, but--when 11% of executives are women, women are earning 1/4 of computer science degrees, and the declining rate of women working in tech has fallen--you notice a pattern of exclusion across the entire spectrum of experience levels.

No. This is exactly the kind of argument I asked people to avoid - you are observing statistical trends and then assuming it must be caused by invisible discrimination. You can't point to any actual examples of companies stating they won't hire women or investors saying they won't invest in women, whereas I can do both these things for men. Instead you resort to strong assumptions of invisible discrimination you can't actually point to, based on observation of disparate outcomes.

Oh, and you can explain 11% of executives being women and women not going into tech very easily using ordinary and undisputed biology/psychology - men take more risks and women prefer working with people. These aren't even controversial aspects of biology: no "pattern of exclusion" required.