The idea that nothing has changed is by itself pretty preposterous. The gender ratio of college students is a big one, for instance, which keeps shifting in women's favor.

Plus, we just came out of a decade and a half of focused and persistent activism. If none of that changed anything, then a big lesson ought to be not to listen to the activists or their suggestions.

If you look at the outline of the paper, something should also stand out. Despite the fact that this claims to be science which examines the nature of how men and women are treated in CS, the ultimate focus is purely on confirming the pre-existing conclusions:

- that when women and men are being treated differently, this is always biased against women and in favor of men

- that it is the fault of men and male attitudes

- that is never the fault of women or female attitudes

In fact, feminism has a great sleight-of-hand that they consistently use for this. When they can blame men, they blame men. But if logic and evidence would require them to blame women, then it's suddenly the fault of "society", "unconscious biases" and "attitudes" whose origin is a mystery.

Just one example. While the paper dedicates a lot of ink to the ills of the "male environment", it does note that women communicate differently, e.g. with more "hesitation", "excessive qualifiers" and "excessively polite and deferential".

If you then go look at what the paper's recommendations are for women to "build confidence" it is to:

- attend classes with other women

- find female role models

- join women's groups

At no point is it considered that maybe women in a masculine environment should instead start acting and talking more like men, if they want the men to include them in their discussions and feel like she is one of them.

So yeah. Not much has changed. Not much will change. Because they keep entering a field full of people who are not like them, and expecting that mere complaints will feminize the whole lot.

I don't really see this as a productive perspective.

AS the paper says, there is no overt sexism and misogyny. Computer science lacks social appreciation in general. All you need to do to experience this is be a male software developer in Germany. Germany is a horrible country to be a software developer in. The silicon valley types and maybe the new yorkers have a strong prestigious tech culture, but go away from these tech hubs and you will encounter that software development is pretty much low status work. The envy comes from cherry picking the most successful men working in the most successful locations. A lot of men get into software because they play a lot of video games and want to make their own video games. They don't get paid very much, because they trade passion for less money. These days men get harassed for playing video games. They get harassed for their primary motivation to sit in front of the computer.

The paper also goes into the fact that men are pressured to perform and be successful. They don't have the luxury to sit things out because things are biased against them. If there is bias, then they are expected to overcome it through their own strength and to not rely on others. Take parts like this

"Singly, these behaviors probably have little effect. But when they occur again and again, they give a powerful message to women: they are not as worthwhile as men nor are they expected to participate fully in class, in college, or in life at large"

This seems incredibly outdated. These days things are swinging the exact opposite. Men are not considered as worthwhile as women, nor are they attending college and life at large as much as women, but here is the thing. Men are supposed to figure it out and face adversity themselves, whereas women often simply ask for help and support and they can often count on it. This means the pressure to perform simply isn't as high. Calling this "a bias" is essentially the same as begging for handcuffs and forced labor. The rat race must develop to a higher level.