If % of degrees awarded to women is increasing overall, it's worth thinking about what happens to the men if/when they get pushed out.
If the number of degrees are increasing past the replacement rate of the profession, that's something the profession has to deal with regardless of the gender of those new degrees.
Those men can go find jobs in some other fields, and the average competence of CS students will increase.
I'm only being slightly facetious here: If we're going to blather on about being a meritocracy, we can't be afraid of competition, or worry about the poor men getting "pushed out".
Is it really a meritocracy if we afford special privileges to one group with the goal of balancing the numbers? Positive discrimination AKA affirmative action is still discrimination and all forms of discrimination besides merit undermine a meritocracy.
A similar (facetious) situation would be if you were comparing two soccer teams. The first team has to learn soccer by itself and is frequently told that it would be better off learning some other sport. The second team is coached by a good coach who encourages them and gives them specific drills and feedback to help them improve in the skills in which they are deficient. When they have a game (or several), a contest of merit, most of the time the second team will win. But is this really the way to get the best soccer players? It is quite possible that some of the players from the first team would have been better than those in the second if they had had access to the same resources.
Obviously the ideal solution is to get everyone a great coach and support them, but what do we do about the ones who already had to go it on their own? If we are hosting a soccer training camp and really want the overall soccer training system to be "fair" and "merit-based" doesn't it make sense to consider how far someone has come in relation to what resources they've been able to obtain? Or do we continue to give the camp coaching resources to those who already had great coaching and deny those resources to those who didn't?
I guess what I want to say is that I believe positive discrimination is too blunt an instrument. If there is a problem with unequal access to resources then solve that problem directly. Positive discrimination attempts to apply a band-aid to the problem after the damage has been done. And this fix is so broad that it may actually worsen the inequality of resources situation for many people.
Because lots of people are. This used to be the rug in the lobby at Github: http://readwrite.com/files/gitrug1.jpg
> I want whatever benefits me the most.
Are we going with naked self-interest and no pretense of justice, then?
Your second paragraph leaps to a negative conclusion. It's far from clear what the results would be - good or bad - for people already in the industry (men and women, btw, not just men). There are reasonable reasons to think it could be good or bad, and no justification to assume the worst.