Your first link does not show evidence of discrimination. It claims that women are not present in computing because women are different from men in ways that make them poorly suited to a role in computing:
"CS education works best for people who already know how to code before they begin. CS teaches the theory behind a practice in which they assume you already have some skill..."
"CS education also focuses a lot of effort on puzzles and very abstract concepts..."
"Women are less likely to jump up and say “me! me! me!” "
"Recognize the need for work-life balance. Most women still have primary responsibility for children and home."
"I believe CS and Web Development currently select for certain masculine qualities that are largely unrelated to someone’s prowess as a coder. I believe it is these tangential code-cowboy qualities women are unable or unwilling to emulate, and not their skill or capacity for abstraction, problem solving, creative thinking, or communication — All of which actually make them better developers."
"Scholarships like the one Google proposes aren’t meant to give women of lower merit something they don’t deserve, they are meant to circumvent the discrimination that extremely talented women still face."
You also pulled your quotes completely out of context.
Could you explain how context changes the substance of my quotes?
I realize the author doesn't believe that spending time on your work, improving your skills and solving abstract puzzles matter. Maybe she's right, though I prefer employees who don't need hand holding. But that's irrelevant - rewarding autodidacts, puzzle-lovers and hard workers is not discrimination.
She wasn't talking about reasons why women are "poorly suited to a role in computing". She was talking about ways which CS could be bettered in general. For the first part you quoted, gender isn't even mentioned. The second quote? Full context:
"CS education also focuses a lot of effort on puzzles and very abstract concepts when practical applications where you can see the why and how might work better for women (and a hell of a lot of men). I like yummy algorithms, but we could make CS education more accessible by putting them in context."
Your third quote has to do with the environment that exists— not because women don't inherently participate.
She was talking about ways which CS could be bettered in general.
From the article: "She said that CS is the only science where the participation of women is getting worse not better. We have a problem. We’re geeks (supposed to be good at problem solving). So let’s figure it out!
I think we should look at:
[The bulleted list from which I quoted some items]"
According to her, these particular items are reasons why women specifically are not participating in tech.
And again - focusing a CS class on algorithms is not discrimination.
They're reasons why women are not participating— not reasons why "women are different from men in ways that make them poorly suited to a role in computing". There is a huge difference.
No one is saying a class on algorithms is discrimination. Are you intentionally misconstruing her article or are you truly this confused?
No, it says the gender gap is caused— in part— by assumptions that favor men due to the tech industry already favoring men. The first item on the list about video games being male-centric sets up the rest.
"CS education works best for people who already know how to code before they begin. CS teaches the theory behind a practice in which they assume you already have some skill..."
"CS education also focuses a lot of effort on puzzles and very abstract concepts..."
"Women are less likely to jump up and say “me! me! me!” "
"Recognize the need for work-life balance. Most women still have primary responsibility for children and home."
I didn't bother with your other links.