Slashdot Mirror


Etsy Hacker Grants Support Female Programmers

samazon writes "Online retail shop Etsy announced a living-expenses grant program for women interested in attending the free Hacker School 3-month programming course. The program is hosted in various New York locations (NYU and Spotify have both hosted sessions) and not only is Etsy offering $5,000 grants to ten women who are accepted into the program, they're also hosting the summer course, and have offered enough space to double the class size to 40 students."

211 comments

  1. So... by XPeter · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can they teach my girlfriend how to play Starcraft?

    --
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is always played using your hands.

    2. Re:So... by Silfax · · Score: 1

      I didn't SlashDot posters actually had girlfriends....

    3. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can they teach my girlfriend how to play Starcraft?

      Yes but she will immediately stop playing with your penis.

  2. * puts on sundress and matching shoes * by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hey I've been out of work for 6 months and I'm not above going tranny

    1. Re:* puts on sundress and matching shoes * by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      It is surprising because IT skills are Hot now. I can't go by 2 weeks without getting a Job offer out of the blue, at least by some head hunter.
      IT isn't about Technical Skills. Techies are a dime a dozen. You need to learn how to work with a team, and show that to your interviewer.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  3. Sexism by AntiBasic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who cares what sex the code comes from? I want the best possible, not because it's from a woman.

    But such is the way of "progressives"

    1. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Aren't jackass anti-progressives such as yourself usually the first to whine, "but it's their money, they can do what the want with it"?

    2. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having women in science/tech/engineering/math (STEM) programs is good for the women and their long-term job prospects and incomes, which currently suffer relative to men due partially to lower levels of interest and education in STEM fields. Believe it or not, not everything is about what's best for YOU.

    3. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Everyone deserves equal access. A person should not apply for this grant and be denied because of the way they were born. It's revolting and I'm glad to see other people have the same opinion.

      They will deny people access to this grant because of their sex. That is discrimination. Someone who meets every criterion they lay out for eligibility will be treated as unworthy because they haven't got the grantor's favorite chromosomes.

    4. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why would you have it be what's best for only another, then? We can reach a situation that's best for all of us, but it won't be found through this kind of sexism.

    5. Re:Sexism by HunsV · · Score: 2

      Is someone who's anti-progressive automatically a jackass?

    6. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try. Strawman argument. I see you couldn't answer his question.

      Why are women getting free stuff?

      Isn't that "SEXIST"?

      Nobody is stopping women from becoming programmers, except THEMSELVES.

      It must be all those super-macho 'sexist' male programmers, keeping them out of it somehow.

      Asshole.

    7. Re:Sexism by thesupraman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I suggest you put you knee back in its jerk, and consider for a moment how you would feel
      if they were to offer a grant that was only available to men..

      Reverse discrimination is no better than discrimination.

      Make sense now?

    8. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't think that was his point, you progressive ass hat.

    9. Re:Sexism by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So if it's good for them, why are they not flocking to those fields? Why is it you who gets to decide what's best for women (the tradeoff of higher salary, for working in a field you don't enjoy) instead of them making that decision for themselves? Or are you saying there's some sort of problem women have where they can't make rational choices, and need to be enticed towards them instead?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    10. Re:Sexism by HunsV · · Score: 2

      I'm glad my high school lit teacher had us read Animal Farm. This corresponds nicely with the part where the pigs start walking upright. They adopt all the mannerisms of the human farmers they were supposedly trying to get away from, while changing their society's motto from "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad" to "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Better."

    11. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Asshole

      Well at least you admit it by signing your posts that way.

    12. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It increases the pool of datable people programmers can meet at work unless you are a homosexual male.

    13. Re:Sexism by HunsV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I must argue strenuously against the idea of "Reverse discrimination." There is only one kind of discrimination. "Reverse discrimination" was invented by people who wanted to imply that some people are more worthy of discrimination than others, which itself is discriminatory. It is a perversion of the social outrage that rightly exists against discrimination.

    14. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They are offering the grant to encourage and promote the participation of women in the field. It's not like they decided, "let's give this money to folks who want to do CS" and then later "...but just women". As you all know, historically the number of women in CS has been very low. You can argue about why this is all you like. If you think the field doesn't suffer by not tapping into such a large demographic of human potential, you're kidding yourself. Medicine and Law shared the same kind of low numbers decades ago but managed to change over time and now there are contributions in those fields made by women that would have never happened otherwise. So:

      1) Many people think it would be good to get more women involved with CS.
      2) Some people are willing to spend some money to that end.
      3) The hope is that once a critical mass is achieved it will become more socially acceptable as a career path for women and this sort of thing won't be needed.

      No one is taking your resources away. These kinds of grants come into existence for this purpose. It's not political. It's not affirmative action. It's a private organization choosing to spend money for this purpose.

      You can whine about it, but it really doesn't make any sense to me why you would. Let's get the best and brightest from both genders involved in our field. I'm a man and I can't understand why anyone would think this is a bad idea.

    15. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lots of people care what gender the code comes from. Not consciously, not overtly, but they care. We're not in an ideal world where no one cares about these things. It's a bias, and it's slowly getting better, but it's not without effort.

      You want the best possible code. I want the best possible code. Great.

      Except society has trained most people to believe that the best code is written by men. And by the sheer number of men in the field, it sure seems like the best code is written by men. It's a bad feedback loop.

      There's a decent chance you're biased against a specific hard drive company. Does the fact that they make the best hard drive get you over your bias? Everyone would like to say yes, but in reality they initially feel "ugh, the last 3 drives I got from them failed within 3 months. Pass". It takes some convincing otherwise.

      And this isn't a problem which will resolve itself naturally, which is what you seem to think will happen. Yes, maybe it'd happen if everyone was like you or me or most of the /. crowd, but the world isn't like us. It's not that simple... this is a problem which needs actively worked on. And that is what is boing done.

      I guess it's sooooooort of similar to how many companies hire only those with experience. Someone has to hire them in the first place in order for them to get experience. Someone has to step up, else everything stagnates.

      Someone has to step up and give women a chance.

    16. Re:Sexism by Arcaeris · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      If 51% of the population is women, and women have an equal rate to become programmers as men, 51% of programmers should be women.

      But we all know they're not.

      So what is the cause of the lower-than-expected rate of female programmers, and what can we do to fix it? This is the same thinking for any minority group that is under-represented. This isn't "reverse discrimination," it's correcting for an error that has come about due to likely social, cultural, and other roadblocks that shouldn't exist.

      If you think that it's not because of any such man-made roadblocks, then you must be saying that women/blacks/hispanics aren't smart enough to be programmers (which makes YOU the sexist or racist) or that they don't want to be programmers (which is wrong, just ask them).

      Apply this thinking to the low rates of minorities in various job types/universities/C_O positions, etc., and you might start to see where us "progressives" are coming from.

      To say that the cultural and social oppression of a minority group (discrimination) is the same as trying to counter the results of that oppression is just ridiculous.

    17. Re:Sexism by TubeSteak · · Score: 2

      Or are you saying there's some sort of problem women have where they can't make rational choices, and need to be enticed towards them instead?

      Just because a *market is free does not mean it is rational or optimal.
      So yes, sometimes people need to be enticed towards rational choices.

      *In this case, the market for programming jobs

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    18. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you made a vital mistake when you stated, "women have an equal rate to become programmers as men,". Is there any evidence of this?

    19. Re:Sexism by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A person should not apply for this grant and be denied because of the way they were born. It's revolting and I'm glad to see other people have the same opinion.

      You are an idiot.
      There are thousands of grants that are amazingly specific in their requirements.
      Some are based on country of origin or last name, others are for redheads, left handers, skateboarders, tall people,
      short people, club affiliation, weight, religious affiliation, skin color, academic achievement, and so on.

      They will deny people access to this grant because of their sex. That is discrimination.

      Breaking News: Private citizens can choose who they want to give money to.
      Ric Romero with more at 11.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    20. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a transwoman, I self-identify and present as a woman. I have been enthusiastically offered two internships in the past two years which were mysteriously revoked after I revealed I am transgender. It was never said exactly why my two internships disappeared before my very eyes, but I knew. I considered applying to hacker school, as I'll be graduating from college this year and have not yet lined up a permanent position. I could not tick those two boxes at the bottom in good faith, because I fear it happening again, even in progressive New York. The way the second one only lights up after you tick the first indicating that you are female bothers me in a way I cannot explain.

    21. Re:Sexism by Arancaytar · · Score: 0

      Dude, giving a tiny grant to a group traditionally underrepresented in a field is not discrimination, neither reverse, forward or sideways. I think you and I will survive the terrible persecution of having to suffer a few women being able to attend a programming class.

    22. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't. That's the point.
      Whether or not they would have an equal inclination to become programmers were the selection bias of the field to be removed is the important part. And we're not going to find out without either a very large and potentially very immoral trial or removing the bias of the field.

    23. Re:Sexism by IceNinjaNine · · Score: 2

      If 51% of the population is women, and women have an equal rate to become programmers as men, 51% of programmers should be women.

      But we all know they're not.

      Cite?

      So what is the cause of the lower-than-expected rate of female programmers, and what can we do to fix it?

      A hypothetical problem which may or may not exist.

      It needs "fixing" why?

      And considering your venue, the argument had better be fucking sound.. as in QED knockout punch sound, not I'm an emo-bitch social justice wannabe sound.

      This isn't "reverse discrimination," it's correcting for an error that has come about due to likely social, cultural, and other roadblocks that shouldn't exist.

      Apply this thinking to the low rates of minorities in various job types/universities/C_O positions, etc., and you might start to see where us "progressives" are coming from. To say that the cultural and social oppression of a minority group (discrimination) is the same as trying to counter the results of that oppression is just ridiculous.

      Yes, because forty years of affirmative action has leveled the playing field.

      I'm a Democrat wtih Libertarian leanings, and an engineer to boot. You so-called progressives have no game.

      Anecdote alert (hey, at least I'm honest about it): I've worked with a number of highly skilled female software engineers, most of whom seemed to be math majors back in the day. Some were brilliant. Nearly all left the field after five years or so to raise a family, or to do something else more gratifying than working in software, thus becoming "non-current" in technology. And most of them didn't want to come back anyway. This may skew your politically correct numbers if you were to account for this.

      Tell me, do you advocate research as to the lower numbers of men in nursing or primary school teaching (a.k.a. the "Pink Ghetto")?

    24. Re:Sexism by metrometro · · Score: 1

      You comment would be more compelling if women were not underrepresented in the field due to sexism. But they are. It's not accidental that the first computer programmers were women -- it's hard work, and why should men do that? -- until business realized how powerful this stuff was, and poof, out go the women. See ya, Ada, we got it from here.

    25. Re:Sexism by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      and/or it could also be a marketing/pr move for a web site that predominantly markets to women in the first place.

    26. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just mad because you're not getting free stuff. The fact is there is a serious lack of females in this field. I don't think that they are innately better or worse than their male counterparts but if we can get a reasonable level of females interested in hacking/coding it basically doubles the amount of people able to work in the industry. This is a good thing.

    27. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are very few Asian Americans in the NBA.

      If you think that it's not because of any such man-made roadblocks, then you must be saying that Asians aren't tall/atheletic enough to be professional basketball players (which makes YOU the racist) or that they don't want to be NBA stars (which is wrong, just ask them).

    28. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that people have the right to be irrational.

    29. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your privilege is showing.

    30. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We see where the "progressives" are coming from; but a lot of us think it's misguided.

      First, there might be a testosterone factor wrt to programming. Further study is needed. If that turns out to be the case, trying to increase the number of female programmers is like trying to get more girls to sign up for field hockey.

      Race is a separate issue. There probably are residual social and economic factors from the days of true discrimination which are holding minorities back. Many of us would hold that more discrimination is not the answer to discrimination. It creates an expectation that you don't have to work as hard. It also taints the "brand" of minorities (guy in next cube isn't White, people are thinking he got there because of af action and is less qualified).

      Finally there's another reason to avoid pushing people in these directions that you probably haven't thought of. The demand for software professionals might be transient. If you train a bunch of minority children into the field now, they might get on the train just in time for it to stop. There's no guarantee that what's hot now will be hot when they're enterring the workforce.

      IMHO, disadvantaged groups are better served by a program of strong academic fundamentals that translate well into any new fields that might develop. Reading, writin', 'rithmetic. If you can make it through Calc BC, the jPad 3000-mark 6 supercluster development platform will only take you a few weeks to master.

      Also, minorities are in school systems in regions with low property values. Since school are funded by property taxes, hopefully they are finding a way to avoid trouble (by funding statewide?) YMMV. Then, don't get me started on teacher tenure and merit pay. If I couldn't fire a bad programmer, my software would probably work as well as the public school system.

    31. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. There should equal number of whites that can run a marathon as well as blacks. So we should prefers whites to blacks, when we select a team for the Olympics. This would encourage more whites to take up running and sort of level the field for everyone

      Also we need to encourage men to take up nursing, day care, teaching and prostitution. When hiring for one, men should be given preference.

    32. Re:Sexism by HunsV · · Score: 1

      Women have the same opportunity to get degrees and certifications in IT-related fields that men do. They CHOOSE not to of their OWN ACCORD. It was that way when I was in junior college, and again when I was in a 4-year university. The distribution would always look something like 27 men, 3 women. The registration system for both schools lets you sign up for whatever class you are eligible to take based on prerequisites, as long as there are open seats. If you are a woman, and you try to register for C++, it doesn't say "please don't try to register for this class because you're a woman." (Unlike certain grants offered by certain companies, which will say, "please don't try to apply for this grant if you're a man.") It just lets you register, regardless of your gender, because that's, you know, fair, and exactly as it should be. This is not a case of 51% of comp sci graduates being women, and then being turned away from jobs based on their sex. This is a case of the vast majority of women simply choosing not to sign up in the first place. They are making this choice of their own free will. To deny these grants to men is sexist. It places more value on women than it does on men. These assholes at Etsy would gladly collect profits from a man who sells on the site, but then turn around and tell him to go fuck himself if he asked for grant money. It's completely stupid.

    33. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a man who makes their living in software, I've decided the fact that there aren't more women programmers as a sign that women are more intelligent than men.

    34. Re:Sexism by HunsV · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is discrimination. If a woman wants to learn how to write code, she already has precisely the same access to resources that she would if she was male. If she wants to sign up for classes, no one is going to stop her. Since the women who want to learn to program have no greater barrier to taking classes than men do, they are in no greater need of any grants than men are, and the grants should be distributed based on actual merit, rather than something the recipients are born with and therefore have no say over. Treating people differently based on how they're born is a great way to define discrimination.

    35. Re:Sexism by HunsV · · Score: 1

      No one is arguing that private citizens shouldn't be able to give money to whom they please. The complaint that is being made by so many here is that it's sexist, which is the case whether the money is private or public. Whether other grants discriminate or not has no bearing on whether this one is discriminatory. Who is stupid now?

    36. Re:Sexism by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If 49% of the population is men, and men have an equal rate to become nurses as women, 49% of nurses should be men.

      But we all know they're not.

    37. Re:Sexism by HunsV · · Score: 1

      You should have thought this through more carefully before you commented. There is a difference between wanting to be treated the same as another person, and wanting to be treated better than another person. You should learn that difference. No one wants to stop women from going to school to be programmers, which is precisely what this is about. Trying to say that someone who wants equal treatment is the same as someone who wants to be treated preferentially, to the point of being able to physically hurt them and relegate them to menial work, is utter bullshit.

    38. Re:Sexism by petsounds · · Score: 1

      I suggest you put you knee back in its jerk, and consider for a moment how you would feel
      if they were to offer a grant that was only available to men..

      What? They are offering a grant to only one gender. Discrimination based on ANY gender (or race) should be quickly shamed for what it is -- favoritism based on arbitrary physical qualities of the person. You're basically arguing that this is reparation for a systemic advantage by males. That only serves to *enforce* a gender divide. Fix the educational system, fix the cultural bias, but this doesn't fix anything. The courts have repeatedly turned down the notion of affirmative action, and philosophically this kind of thing is no different.

    39. Re:Sexism by Z34107 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what is the cause of the lower-than-expected rate of female programmers, and what can we do to fix it?

      Needs "fixing" why? I see no evidence that women who want to become programmers are denied the opportunity.

      Why is it that nobody gives a shit about the lack of male teachers?

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    40. Re:Sexism by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I agree with you in essence, however, "reverse discrimination" is simply a useful term to give more information about the type of discrimination that is happening. It is all discrimination, as you say.

    41. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't "reverse discrimination," it's correcting for an error that has come about due to likely...

      FFS! When will we stop trying to fix crap we broke with more crap! When will we end the entitlements, the subsidies, the regulations, the "corrections"? All of which would never be needed if we would just keep our G-d damn hands off of this stuff in the first place. I swear, we are the stupidest creatures on this planet.

    42. Re:Sexism by Theaetetus · · Score: 0

      Women have the same opportunity to get degrees and certifications in IT-related fields that men do. They CHOOSE not to of their OWN ACCORD. It was that way when I was in junior college, and again when I was in a 4-year university. The distribution would always look something like 27 men, 3 women.

      That's because women were CHOOSING to have NOTHING to do with YOU.

    43. Re:Sexism by AntiBasic · · Score: 1

      You're not "progressive." Your "progress" is discriminatory and painfully ignorant. Again, no one answered my original question about the quality of the code.

      Way to be ignorant liberals. Again, I don't care who wrote it so long as it's the best.

      I'm sure you liberal idiots would be marching with pitchforks if some company did a male only programmers retreat. I'm sure you also defended Augusta for their male only policy right?

      Inb4 conservative

    44. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest you put you knee back in its jerk, and consider for a moment how you would feel
      if they were to offer a grant that was only available to men..

      What? They are offering a grant to only one gender. Discrimination based on ANY gender (or race) should be quickly shamed for what it is -- favoritism based on arbitrary physical qualities of the person. You're basically arguing that this is reparation for a systemic advantage by males. That only serves to *enforce* a gender divide. Fix the educational system, fix the cultural bias, but this doesn't fix anything. The courts have repeatedly turned down the notion of affirmative action, and philosophically this kind of thing is no different.

      That's his point. If it were a male-only grant people would yell "sexism!", but being female-only is fine. Women either are equal to men and require no special protection or are inferior to men and require special grants (or are superior and men should get special protection, but nobody advocates that).

      Captcha: thanks. Aww, /., no problem, it wasn't even a clever comment or anything.

    45. Re:Sexism by story645 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Women used to make up %40 of CS students in the 1980s (Camp 2001) and make up on average a little over %35 of Israeli undergrads in CS ( Vilner 2006) and vary all over the globe. This indicates that the current US rate of about %20 is due to culture because if there was something biological going on, then the rates around the world should be roughly the same.

      --
      open source modern art: laser taggi
    46. Re:Sexism by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word 'discrimination'.

    47. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      You don't understand. Every good thing that happens disproportionately to men is evidence that we live in a sexist patriarchal society. Any scientific evidence that men are better at something than women due to innate differences is evidence that even scientists are corrupted by sexism.

      Every bad thing that happens to disproportionately men (or good thing that happens to disproportionately women) is evidence of men's stupidity, women's greater ability, or men perversely preferring this state of affairs. Any scientific evidence that women are better than men at something is just the scientific truth, which won't go away just because men don't like it.

      Consider it a Feminist version of Bayesian updating.

    48. Re:Sexism by robwgibbons · · Score: 1

      Countering a sexist selection bias with an opposite sexist selection bias is still a sexist selection bias.

    49. Re:Sexism by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your a sexist. You want get women making as much as men? You want to have as many females in traditionally male dominated jobs? Convince the female population to buy things for men just for the chance that they might get the opportunity to sleep with them. Convince women that paying for men to live is a good idea, and that the men that stay at home are doing 100s of thousands of dollars worth of labor.

      PEOPLE are lazy. Half of our population is taught from birth that they CAN get a job and work if they want a good life. The other half is taught from birth that they MUST get a job and work if they want a good life. Denial that the extreme correlation between being taught that they CAN/MUST have a job and whether people actually do have a well paying job flies directly in the face of all evidence.

      Times are changing. All the way into my thirties, a woman who stayed home was a 'housewife' (or 'homemaker'). A man that stayed home was a 'bum'. Today, we see a little more acceptance of men who stay home while their wife works, but not nearly the acceptance that we see of women in virtually any traditionally male job.

    50. Re:Sexism by robwgibbons · · Score: 2

      That is such a bullshit excuse of a theory. If a person sincerely chooses their career path based on other people she associates with that industry, rather than her own goals and desires, she deserves where she ends up. I took drama in highschool regardless of the stigma associated with it and the "weird" types I met in the course, because I was interested in the program and what I could gain from it. If someone sits down, deeply thinks about their values and what they want to do with their lives, their decision is their own. Chauvinism is a problem in any industry, and to say it has any more impact on the tech industry is disingenuous. If there's any social reason why women don't do tech, it's because GEEKS are unappealing. Not MEN.

    51. Re:Sexism by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      I dont GP was arguing about legality of the grant. Just that it is discriminatory and sexist. Learn to read before calling others idiots.

    52. Re:Sexism by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      What privilege? Being able to take CS class or degree is a privilege awarded only to men, and somehow women are deprived of that privilege? Tell me that was a bad joke.

    53. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are offering the grant to encourage and promote the participation of women in the field

      Except not really.

      This grant doesn't bring more women into the field. Hacker School isn't a CS degree, they are providing courses for people already in programming. It might or might not be a competetive advantage, and it even might not be needed - if you believe statistics up there in the thread there are 20% female CS students, which means 20% of women in industry equals fair employment rate.

      To encourage and promote the participation of women in the field they'd better give grants or otherwise attract new women to CS degrees. I doubt it that there's discrimination which doesn't let women to major in CS.

    54. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It absolutely is discrimination. I think I'm okay with it, since they're underrepresented, but it is definitely discrimination in every sense of the word.

    55. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well yes, you've got to apply pressure in the other direction until you get proper representation. How else are you planning on removing the selection bias?

    56. Re:Sexism by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      Your chances of getting good code improve when there's more talent to draw from.

      See "Unlocking the Clubhouse" for information about how many obstacles are still in the way of women in technical education.

      We're losing bright high-achieving types.

    57. Re:Sexism by schroedogg · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't a private company be afforded the freedom to offer a scholarship to whomever they please? On the other hand, I do question all the government sponsored programs designed to get more women in STEM fields. How many government programs target getting men in the family & consumer sciences fields or other areas where men are the underrepresented group? There's a kind of double-standard. There's also the obvious possibility that, by and large, women just don't WANT to be in the STEM fields as much as men. Not because they aren't able or aren't smart enough, but because they don't have the desire. My wife was a 4.0 student and is very smart, but has absolutely no interest in programming. She'd probably make a better programmer than many men as she's an excellent problem solver. Why spend so much money trying to lure people into a career that they don't desire in the first place?

    58. Re:Sexism by leamanc · · Score: 1

      Well at least you admit it by signing your posts that way.

      Damn, that was the best chuckle I have gotten on /. in quite some time. Good one, Mr. Coward!

      --
      :q!
    59. Re:Sexism by polymeris · · Score: 1

      It needs "fixing" why?

      Because of the thousands of potentially great programmers that are not working in the field? It's like the good male programmers would be displaced if the female-to-male ratio was even, it would (hopefully) be the bad ones, if any.

      On a different topic, I see you are currently at "+3, Troll": very, very close to attaining the coveted holy grail of slashdothood, the "+5 Troll". Well done.

    60. Re:Sexism by djnanite · · Score: 1

      So many responses to this question (and previous similar questions) try to take guesses and assumptions as to why women don't choose software development as a career choice.

      Has anyone thought to actually ask women directly?

      I know this is Slashdot, but surely somebody somebody has done a survey of a broad spectrum of women to ask:

      a) Why they never chose to do software development in the first place.
      and
      b) Why they wouldn't consider doing it now?

    61. Re:Sexism by toutankh · · Score: 1

      Or, put differently, you don't fix an injustice with another injustice. You just create more injustice.

    62. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      discrimination noun

      2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination?s=t

      Anything more you want to comment on??

    63. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You're just mad because you're not getting free stuff. The fact is there is a serious lack of females in this field. I don't think that they are innately better or worse than their male counterparts but if we can get a reasonable level of females interested in hacking/coding it basically doubles the amount of people able to work in the industry. This is a good thing."

      Where is the concern about inuit representation? About left-handed representation? About representation for people with ADHD?
      This is just women discovering that the people who they shunned and told to go back to their dungeons in the 80:s to watch more porn actually made a boatload of money and now the women are angry that the people they made life a hell for are actually quite successful.

    64. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...you must be saying that women/blacks/hispanics aren't smart enough to be programmers...

      You're kidding, right? I cannot tell you how many times in the day I think to myself that I wish I was doing something else instead of bashing my head against a brick wall trying to get my bloody Java class loader to do what I want it to do. Somehow the fact that I can program a class loader makes me smart?

      This argument comes up once in a while and I always think that maybe, just maybe, the other side is thinking that they were smart to not get into programming.

    65. Re:Sexism by Johann+Lau · · Score: 0

      Why are women getting free stuff?

      They don't get "free stuff", they get encouraged to learn programming. Why? Maybe because we could do with more females in such fields. If women are stopping themselves from being programmers, as you say, then a little incentive might help? Are you worried that this will go on forever, even when females outnumber men in technology related fields? If not, what exactly is your problem, other than having some grudge in regards to sexism? Awww.

    66. Re:Sexism by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      And just because a job is rational and optimal for the market as a whole, doesn't mean it's enjoyable or desirable for the individual.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    67. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is at least in part that it's still assumed by many people that women aren't good at math or science, and this assumption on the part of teachers or their peers is ingrained into many females at a young age. It's not an irrational choice by women, but a perfectly rational choice given what they've been taught since little: that women working in math, science, and engineering is a rare thing; that they're probably not capable of doing it well; and perhaps that it's just not very feminine. As an adult you'd call bullshit, but children don't always work that way and they may not know to tell their parents about it -- or may even have parents who agree with it.

    68. Re:Sexism by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      In which case, the root cause is not that they're not getting paid enough (which is what this sort of funding seems to address) but that our education system is not functioning correctly. That is what needs to be addressed - the root cause. Not pottering around throwing money at the end product. Also, the notion of some activities not being "feminine" or "masculine" needs to die, hard.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    69. Re:Sexism by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      Because of the thousands of potentially great programmers that are not working in the field?

      And perhaps that is because they *don't want to*... not because they are discriminated against.

    70. Re:Sexism by sFurbo · · Score: 2

      You comment would be more compelling if women were not underrepresented in the field [...]

      So far, so good.

      [...] due to sexism. But they are.

      Citation needed. How do we know that it is because of sexism?

      [...]it's hard work, and why should men do that?

      Yes, because men did not work hard in the mid 1800's. We all learned that from the unbiased history book "How men has always oppressed womyn". No man has ever worked.

    71. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      due to sexism

      [citation needed]

    72. Re:Sexism by Thalia · · Score: 0, Troll

      Actually, they don't flock to it because they would prefer not to have to put up with the sexism so prevalent in much of computer science/IT these days. Having been the only woman in a CS class, I can assure you that it's not fun. It gets even less fun when the teacher firmly believes that you cannot be a good programmer because of your gender. It doesn't help that many women do not feel safe in the computer lab at night.

      If you think that tech is a meritocracy, you're not paying attention. If you think everyone has the same opportunities, and the same encouragement you do, you're not paying attention. If you think that there isn't discrimination against women, you're not paying attention.

      But here is the interesting thing. In places where there are enough women, as a percentage, these things are not as problematic. And that is why encouraging women to enter the profession is a very good idea, and a self-reinforcing.

    73. Re:Sexism by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      If you think that tech is a meritocracy, you're not paying attention.

      Well, no. Nobody who's every worked in a company with an HR department would claim that.

      If you think everyone has the same opportunities, and the same encouragement you do, you're not paying attention.

      What encouragement? I, like a decent chunk of people here on slashdot did, learnt programming before it was cool, by ourselves, with little outside support apart from books, and before the internet made language tutorials so accessible.

      If you think that there isn't discrimination against women, you're not paying attention.

      In the 10 years I've been in the industry, I've only seen one woman apply for a programming job. She got it, and worked fine in and with the rest of the team, until her husband got sick and she had to stop working to look after him and her kids.

      I know that's only anecdotal data, but then, so's yours. I have no doubt there are unprofessional, misogynistic people out there in tech - as in pretty much any jobs. That sucks, and sucks more for women than anyone else, but those aren't the sort of people I'd like working with either.

      As for a higher percentage of women encouraging more respect, I'd argue that environments that already respect women are more likely to gain a higher percentage of women in them, and that's why you see that bias. Misogynistic groups likely drive women away before they can accumulate to a high percentage.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    74. Re:Sexism by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1, Troll
      You felt that way because you, as a female, were brought up to believe that you deserved respect simply for existing, while men are taught from an early age that they must prove themselves. Society as it is right now is still the same way. We are taught to respect the ladies, but the men we make jabs at. You wanted respect in your class? Sorry - it isn't going to happen because respect is in short supply in the male world, and no matter what the male grouping is, even without any females in it, we are constantly reminding each other that respect has to be earned because there isn't enough to go around.

      That's how humans are built, that's how we evolved - if you don't like it you are free to start your own grouping, be it small business, large business, academic institution or even your own government, where the rules are different.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    75. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you in essence, however, "reverse discrimination" is simply a useful term to give more information about the type of discrimination that is happening. It is all discrimination, as you say.

      No. it's a term used to try and justify WHY the racism is occurring. I don't care if you're a racist because you got picked on by niggers or because your parents told you to hate Whitey. I don't care if it's because all the Wetbacks you know are poor pieces of shit or because all the Slopes are better at math than you. I don't care if the Jerries cooked your Kike family or the Micks took your jobs.

      Racist is racist and there is NO justification.

    76. Re:Sexism by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      First, imagine a spherical horse in a vacuum, as the saying goes. A poster above gave a link to statistics that in countries where social pressure is not directed against women wanting t be in IT the actual percentage of females in the filed as above 35%. here's in Russia in our team working on a internationally renowned product a third of developers including seniors are female In the US girls are bought toys that say math is hard. So this is not discrimination it's progressive action designed to correct social injustice against women in the US.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    77. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone thought to actually ask women directly?

      Why, it's because they don't know. Women are weak-willed, and since "society" told them to play with their dolls and wear makeup and fuck the football players, and told them that if they took math or science they'd be geeks or lesbians by the age of 18, they meekly and submissively did so.
      Speaking to them doesn't matter, because culture and educational institutions robbed them of all intelligence and motivation. We have to put out bait to lure them in, and when they show up we can leap out of the bushes, shove them in a sack, and turn them into liberated, science-educated Females.

      (end sarcasm)

      Seriously, the whole argument absolutely reeks of "We have to help women because the poor things just can't help themselves", and that is about as bigoted as it gets.

    78. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying that an industry dominated by males is healthy?

      This program is in place to help overcome the unhealthy situation where the average IT office is entirely male.

      By the time I post this, I guess you'll be +5 insightful.

    79. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outcome is not the same as opportunity.

      All people are not equal in ability in all things. A case of variety is good but it does tend to create variety in outcomes as well. I'll argue this too is good.

      Maybe men choose not to become nurses. Does this mean we should restrict women in each class to the same as the number of men and force equal outcome?

    80. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My job serves a field where our customers (which are businesses owners, not consumers) are over 80% female. Does this mean we need to "fix this" so that its only 51% female and 49% male? There are plenty of female dominated professions out there as well. How many of your primary education teachers were male? My elementary school had 3 male teachers. From k-3 there were only female teachers. The janitors were male. What about all the women that could be great janitors?

    81. Re:Sexism by crazyjj · · Score: 1

      51% of elementary school teachers and nurses should be men.

      But we all know they're not.

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    82. Re:Sexism by jimmifett · · Score: 1

      Racism is the belief in the *superiority* of a group due to genetics (or skin color).

      Sexism is the belief in the *superiority* of a gender.

      Prejudice is the forming of opinions of an un-encountered person from a group based on past experiences with other members of a group before facts are known. (not to be confused with racism)

      Bigot is an intolerant jackass unwilling to change own prejudices.

      Speciest is the belief in the superiority of a given species, such as Human.

      Feminist is the belief in the superiority of the female gender and the advocation thereof. (Do not confuse with equality. that is a different word)

      Please note these terms and use them properly

    83. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same AC here.

      The difference though is that women are discouraged from going into science starting on the day they're born. That's a terrible thing we as a society are doing to them. Take a poll about why women aren't in STEM and you'll get a significant percentage of people responding that they're just not good at it- including from women respondents.

      It's not a matter of choice to avoid the field, as is suggested by all the poor schmucks complaining here about grants and scholarships for women in science. When you understand this important commonality, you'll forgive the hyperbole for the truth behind it.

    84. Re:Sexism by jimmifett · · Score: 1

      Equal Opportunity does not guarantee Equal Outcome.

      This applies to economics as well, hence why equal distribution of wealth is pointless. Fiscal fools and bad luck, versus prepared individuals and good luck will always act as entropy. It's absurd to try and restore balance by rewarding the fools with the fruits of the successful by force of law.

    85. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People chose what they want to be, these choices would only be competely independent of sex if you where to assume that there where absolutely no differences between men and woman. We know perfectly well this isn't true.

      What is true however is that admission to schools and job offers are required to be unbiased when it comes to the sex of the applicants.

      Equal rights does not mean equal rates.

    86. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "due partially to lower levels of interest and education in STEM fields."

      So you think we should fund people who have lower levels of interest and lower education so they can get positions that should have been given to better qualified, educated and interested individuals (no matter what their sexes are). Because this is good for the people who aren't interested or qualified....
      That is definitely not good for the field.

      Sexism is sexism. If they wanted to fund woman in sciences, they could have chosen to fund people in sciences, and some of those people would be woman.

    87. Re:Sexism by 1s44c · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you think that it's not because of any such man-made roadblocks, then you must be saying that women/blacks/hispanics aren't smart enough to be programmers (which makes YOU the sexist or racist) or that they don't want to be programmers (which is wrong, just ask them).

      Different groups have different interests and aptitudes. You may consider people equal but they are not identical.

      I'm short, fat, white, and have no interest in sports. I didn't get a chance to play major league basketball and it's just not fair. I should be given a grant to help develop the basketball talent the world has cruelly withheld from me.

    88. Re:Sexism by bjourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, Sweden is even worse with only 12% female graduates in computer science related degrees. The situation is similar in all the Nordic countries. Those countries also happen to have the highest gender equality rating in the world (discounting some feminist crazies who believe the situation for women in Sweden is just as bad as in Afghanistan). It actually seems that the more freedom women get, the more inclined they are to choose gender stereotyped careers. Maybe on average more men prefer technology and more women prefer nursing? What's so inherently bad about that?

    89. Re:Sexism by jd.schmidt · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention that, some people are concerned about a lack of male teachers. There is some research that more male teachers are needed to get boys engaged in the classroom. There is no question but that my son connected best with his only male teacher and I kind of regret there not being more.

      Oddly when I was growing up in a smaller (but not small) town I had plenty of male teachers, and factually I remember them better than the female ones also (I am male of course). I imagine girls may have the same thing, so a mix of teachers seems to be best. Also there is some concern about a lack of males in some social service or assistive positions as some clients connect better with men. This stuff just never makes the headlines for some reason.

      Which kind of brings me to an interesting point. There are two ways to get more women doing X, recruitment programs for women to do X or programs for more men to do Y (which women do now). I can more or less understand attempts to recruit more women into areas where there historically have been few, I doubt we will ever have or should have equal numbers BUT you need to make sure you are not overlooking potentially good candidates. However I can't understand why we mostly focus on programs for women. It is as if our society is saying, traditional female jobs are worthless.

    90. Re:Sexism by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      yo dawg....I put some discrimination in yo discrimination so you can discriminate while you are discriminating

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    91. Re:Sexism by Cederic · · Score: 2

      No, I'm fucked off that people are discriminating on gender grounds. Stop it.

      Whatever the field, whatever the reason, whoever the hell is providing the money: Stop it.

      Shit, if I apply for one of the dozen software engineer jobs they're currently recruiting for, will I be refused because I'm not a girl? Why is 80% of their board male? Just what the fuck is going on at that company?

      I hate discrimination. Age, gender, race.. stop it.

    92. Re:Sexism by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      I think this post rightly ends the discussion.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    93. Re:Sexism by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Why do you feel you need to?

      Why would you apply gender discrimination instead of removing the barriers that prevent equal participation?

      If the $5k were going to people that would otherwise be too poor to attend, that would be understandable. It's not. It's going to women because.. they're not men.

      Fuck that sexist bullshit.

    94. Re:Sexism by Cederic · · Score: 1

      What the fuck are you on?

      If I go to github or sourceforge or kernel.org and download some source code, I have no idea who wrote it. I don't know whether they're male, female or some wondrous Thai intermediate state.

      I don't care either.

      More to the point, if I need to recruit a developer, I'm going to explore their programming ability, look for signs of interest in programming and also make sure that they'll fit with my company culture and our ways of working. I want technical skills, personal interest, strong communication ability and a track record of success.

      Frankly their gender doesn't come into it, and because I hire individuals, neither does the last three hard drives I purchased. That might stop me re-engaging a specific consultancy, but wont influence permanent staff recruitment.

      Someone has to step up and give women a chance.

      I work for a company that has a "Women's forum", where senior female managers meet with more junior women, take them under their wing, nurture them, find them opportunities for advancement and give them a chance to shape the company culture.

      As a man, I get none of this. Instead I get to watch my female peers get opportunities that are closed to me, get paid more for doing the same job and get to dress more comfortably, all at the same time. Forgive me if I'm not sympathetic to the plight of women in the workplace.

      (Incidentally, I read the output from a workshop held by the Women's Forum. In it the brainstorming had captured all the gripes that women had with the company, with the "male dominated culture", with the issues they were facing. Every single fucking issue, gripe, problem that they had were ones that men have too. Lack of opportunity, excessive workloads at senior levels, lack of career paths, inflexibility in work patterns, work/life balance, family commitments.. all of them are issues for men too. Where's the fucking Men's Forum so we can point that out?)

    95. Re:Sexism by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      Well, how are programmers treated in the workplace In the culture at large? Do they have lots of respect, time off, money compared to other occupations with similar difficulty and requirements? Is the profession relatively secure against its jobs being shipped abroad or filled with H1Bs?

      No, the culture in the US treats programmers like interchangeable nerds that can be replaced with foreigners making near minimum wage, who can be worked 80 hours per week until they become unemployable at 45. Yet few professions take more talent and effort. Unless programming itself is more attractive to you than anything else in the whole world - including family, friends, sex, money, and sleep - it's really a dumb thing to study.

        Maybe women are just being smart.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    96. Re:Sexism by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      What's so inherently bad about that?

      We can't allow the women in the trenches to think and act for themselves.. Their opinions and choices are not their own they are the result of centuries of exposure to an evil manipulative patriarchical society.
      The fact that more women appear to prefer nursing to men has nothing to do with human genetics. That is a fact claimed by the statistic manipulating rapist patriarch bastards and self-hating women that work tirelessly to destroy us all. The claim that an inbuilt desire to build up and nurture those having difficulties being a measurable and definable feminine trait is just one more example of the male propaganda that is constantly assaulting us 24/7.
      Legislation even now is being written to make sure that we get placed into positions of power in Fortune 500 boardrooms all over the country. What greater qualification is needed for these positions than 'I am woman hear me roar'. That male job applicant may have 30 years of experience in the trade but we have Y chromosomes and the power of Gaia behind us. Truly who can stand against us.

      Women's rights are too important to be left for the average woman to work towards. They need strong women to lead them in their inevitable march to equality against their proven historical manipulators and oppressors. We will get our 51% regardless of the economic, social snd societal costs.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    97. Re:Sexism by Confusador · · Score: 1

      Why is it that nobody gives a shit about the lack of male teachers?

      There are plenty of people who do. You just don't see it on /. because it's not really news for nerds. Seriously, does nobody do a simple search before the spout off these ridiculous examples?

  4. I suppose... by Haxagon · · Score: 1

    Having females at all in the hacker college is good, for some reason? I don't see how there's any inherent higher value of an woman versus an equally-skilled man; why not make this a merit/financial circumstance based grant?

    1. Re:I suppose... by Haxagon · · Score: 1

      I mean to say, "having females specifically", I hate left-behind editing errors.

    2. Re:I suppose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, firstly, meritocracy isn't inherently "fair" either: we're all born with different abilities just as we're all born with some sort of gender... and while we might be able to do a little about it, for most of us our dicks and our IQs are fixed. (Actually, we can do more about the former than the latter these days!)

      But, to get to the crux of the question, the answer is that Etsy will have 10 young women locked up for 3 months.

    3. Re:I suppose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      You are missing the point and stating it all at the same time. It's not that women have an inherent higher value - it's that men also don't have an inherent higher value. However, women are severely underrepresented and particularly so at this hacker college, and it's not because women are incapable of programming. So maybe a little encouragement will help more women attend.

    4. Re:I suppose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Why should grant money be denied to a man who is otherwise eligible? By only giving this grant to women, they are establishing that they believe there is more value in women. You can't have it both ways. If you would turn down a man who applies for this, who is otherwise eligible, you are implying that his education and future are worth less to you than that of a woman.

      But you shouldn't care about someone's sex. This is the message we have been hearing for decades. It's a good message. Unfortunately, it tends to get perverted by people who think that some genders are "more equal" than others.

    5. Re:I suppose... by Aeonym · · Score: 1

      If I were part of the otherwise all-male enrollment I'd consider it inherently good, but not for the reasons Etsy does...

    6. Re:I suppose... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      The OP wasn't arguing about "fair"; he was arguing about "effective". Why is a female programmer more desirable than a male programmer (given both are equally skilled)?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    7. Re:I suppose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      You can have sex with the female programmer, of course. What an odd question. There are lots of good programmers out there and we don't really need to train up any more - but you can never have enough sex with enough women.

      Maybe you're gay, or maybe people have become so twisted by political correctness that they resist the obvious when they feel they can't say it.

    8. Re:I suppose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not. So why are there more male programmers than female programmers, if they can be equally skilled?

    9. Re:I suppose... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Who knows? Who cares? Same reason as female teachers vastly outnumber males. As long as there's no discrimination going on, and the numerical discrepancy is the result of the choice of individuals, why are we bothering?

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
  5. Don't men sell things on Etsy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    100 years ago, in New York, there were signs on Italian businesses which read, "Micks need not apply." ("Mick" is a slur against the Irish, for those of you who are not well read.)

    50 years ago, angry white people held up signs exhorting black people to stay out of their neighborhoods.

    Now that racism is almost completely socially unacceptable (except against Asians, who for some reason are still unjustly and openly targeted,) people who like to blame their failure to relate on those with whom they cannot relate have to find new targets.

    If I was a dude selling stuff on Etsy, I would feel insulted. The owners of Etsy make profit from people who sell there, and then take some of that profit to offer financial support - but only if the person was born a certain way? Fuck that. It's sexism, and it's wrong.

  6. women only is asking for discrimination suits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    women only is asking for discrimination suits

  7. 2nd Etsy Slashvertisement today by Gothmolly · · Score: 0

    Nice Slashdot. Way to be, you know, journalistic.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  8. Makes perfect sense by ghn · · Score: 0

    They want women so they can pay them less.. Business masterminds!

    1. Re:Makes perfect sense by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      Although I sense some sarcasm in your post, that makes more logical sense than any other reason I've heard so far to only award it to people with a certain set of organs.

  9. sooo, i see you like to write code too... by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 1, Insightful

    here's my contact info... just feed it to your favorite compiler and run the executable to generate a QR code that lets you bypass the 7 proxies to my linkedin profile. btw, your packets smell like roses. you wanna get out of here?

    --
    insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
  10. $5000?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we have man tits can we get like $2500?

  11. Nice to see some sponsorship of women... by trims · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Because, for a "meritocracy", there's a whole lots of sexist bullshit going on in tech, and I'm not just talking about management.

    Part of the reason that women aren't more prevalent in tech, is that as soon as it becomes known that a female is present in a discussion (on-line, or in-person), the tone of the discussion changes radically. Women have a much harder time getting people to accept their ideas, even controlling for level of experience. And, you can't tell me inexperienced females come up with stupider ideas than inexperienced males (if anything, I think it's the opposite, 'cause at least most women I know bother to listen for a bit before making a comment, where most young males just shoot off their mouth at the first opportunity).

    No more are the comments about the technical correctness of ideas being discussed - nope, suddenly there's snide sexual innuendos that slide in. Women are being "bitches" if they fight for their ideas, but, hey, if I (a guy) strongly advocate my idea, that's just fine. And, that's just the start of it. I hear stuff (both in the discussion and afterwards) about such-and-such being "weak" or "avoiding talking" or similar. Not to mention the fact that during such discussions, I'll commonly see that the topic switches from "which idea is best", to "make sure that girl's idea doesn't win". It's annoying, to say the least, and I can understand why many women avoid tech - it's not fun to be constantly harassed or belittled simply due to being the only woman in the room.

    The primary problem here is not just a small minority of males being the jerk, but that the majority of males present give them a pass on it, and don't call them on their crap. That's just aiding and abetting the problem. DON'T GIVE THE JERKS A FREE PASS. Pay attention when women are trying to comment, and tell the assholes to shut their mouths when they start in with the sexist comments.

    Tech is supposed to be about quality of ideas, not personal attacks. Don't be an enabler.

    -Erik

    --
    There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
    1. Re:Nice to see some sponsorship of women... by HunsV · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And, you can't tell me inexperienced females come up with stupider ideas than inexperienced males (if anything, I think it's the opposite, 'cause at least most women I know bother to listen for a bit before making a comment, where most young males just shoot off their mouth at the first opportunity).

      -Erik

      You have stated that women are necessarily better than men at coming up with ideas. You are a sexist. You are also a male, so you are sexist against your own gender. You should get your head examined.

      No more are the comments about the technical correctness of ideas being discussed - nope, suddenly there's snide sexual innuendos that slide in. Women are being "bitches" if they fight for their ideas, but, hey, if I (a guy) strongly advocate my idea, that's just fine. And, that's just the start of it. I hear stuff (both in the discussion and afterwards) about such-and-such being "weak" or "avoiding talking" or similar. Not to mention the fact that during such discussions, I'll commonly see that the topic switches from "which idea is best", to "make sure that girl's idea doesn't win". It's annoying, to say the least, and I can understand why many women avoid tech - it's not fun to be constantly harassed or belittled simply due to being the only woman in the room.

      Even if this is true, why should a man, who has done nothing wrong, be denied assistance - because of what someone ELSE did - based on the fact that they have the same genitals? We are all individuals. Treating a woman differently because she's a woman is wrong. Treating a man differently because he's a man is also wrong. If a man other than me punched you in the face, would you retaliate against him, or against me, based on the fact that we both have dicks? That would be just as unfair as it was when he punched you.

    2. Re:Nice to see some sponsorship of women... by robwgibbons · · Score: 1

      Male chauvinism in the context you describe is not limited or any more rampant in the tech industry. IWhat you're saying is applicable to any field in which men and women interact. And perhaps even opposite in similarly female-centric industries. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with encouraging women to participate in technical fields. Balance is naturally ideal in any situation. The problem of sexism becomes real at some point, however, in trying to "encourage" female participation. The issue of why females choose not to pursue technical careers has no bearing on how we go about encouraging their participation. Female-only scholarships raise a very valid concern of sexism. There is a disproportionate ratio of females to males in the healthcare support field. Would it be sexist to provide a male-only scholarship for this field?

    3. Re:Nice to see some sponsorship of women... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay attention when women are trying to comment, and tell the assholes to shut their mouths when they start in with the sexist comments.

      So you think women are so useless they can't even talk without the help of a man? If someone is offended that's their damn problem, I for one won't get involved - I can't even be sure if they were offended in the first place. I bet you don't take off your white armor even for coding.

    4. Re:Nice to see some sponsorship of women... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did Erik post that men should be denied assistance?

    5. Re:Nice to see some sponsorship of women... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is stupid on several levels.

      So women need preferential treatment to accomplish something? How is that a "meritocracy"? How does giving preferential treatment to anybody based on no objective or relevant measure increase their acceptance? Do you think women will be respected by men or competent women because they got the job merely because of they were born female?

      People like you are the ones saying women are weak. The thing is, normal people who have no discirmination-bias are annoyed by the likes of you who constantly rag on how poor "chosen social class of guild-ridden focus" is being treated. Enforced discrimination does not make things better.

    6. Re:Nice to see some sponsorship of women... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I hear stuff (both in the discussion and afterwards) about such-and-such being "weak" or "avoiding talking" or similar.

      It's called being an introvert. It's not gender specific.

      I'll commonly see that the topic switches from "which idea is best", to "make sure that girl's idea doesn't win"

      I can happily admit that I've never seen this. Ever.

      The primary problem here is not just a small minority of males being the jerk, but that the majority of males present give them a pass on it, and don't call them on their crap. That's just aiding and abetting the problem.

      What the fuck makes you think that other men like this? If a woman in that situation can't speak out in her own defence, how the fuck is a man meant to? Who's going to speak out to defend the man getting similarly jerked on?

      Pay attention when women are trying to comment, and tell the assholes to shut their mouths when they start in with the sexist comments.

      I hear more sexist comments from female managers than I do from almost every man I work with. The one male exemption is the guy that can walk into a lift, wink at one girl, grab the arse of another and verbally proposition a third and leave all three beaming happily.

      Part of the reason the men don't make sexist comments is _because_ they call each other on it. Part of the reason the women do is because nobody stops them - and I've seen very aggressive women making HR type threats to men that do point out their misandry.

      Tech is supposed to be about quality of ideas, not personal attacks.

      Right, so stop attacking men please.

  12. This is great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If we accept the premise that gender is in no way related to programming abilities, the current gender distribution in the field means that we're missing out on a lot of great talents. So why is that, and what can we do about it? Sticking our heads into the sand and pretending that there is no problem sure as hell hasn't worked so far. I think we need to realize that there is a feedback loop going here. Getting more women into programming helps in creating role models and a less hostile environment.

    1. Re:This is great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why is there a lack of role models and a hostile environment in the first place?
      Programming is a field that (mostly) developed after the feminist movement, emancipation and equality in education. Maybe your initial premise shouldn't be accepted blindly.

    2. Re:This is great by cbhacking · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because Computer Science requires math, and "math is hard" or so young girls are taught (and pressured implicitly to believe by many of their peers).

      Programming is a field that developed in the aftermath of World War 2. During the war, so many men were off toting rifles and such that women were, by necessity, introduced into the workforce in large numbers. This includes both the "human computers" who performed (without electronic assistance) the calculations that are today done electronically, and the "programmers" (to use the modern term) who were responsible for much of the operation of early electronic computers.

      That was in the 40s, though. Feminism in general gained steam throughout the next few decades, driven in part by the wartime revelation that women were perfectly capable of both keeping the economy productive. Women asserted that they could run things, make money, wield power, and so forth - and they were, and are, right.

      Here's the catch, though: while many women will self-identify as "feminists" (at least if asked; the term has unfortunately picked up some negative connotations of "female > male" sexism), they still don't want to give and receive the same treatment as guys. For example, you're still not going to meet many women who will buy a guy in a bar a drink, uninvited, just because she thinks he's attractive (girls are taught by their friends how to *get* free drinks). You're also not going to find many who are willing to put up with the social consequences of caring more about finishing an AP Computer Science assignment than going shopping for another pair of shoes with their friends.

      At least, that's how it is in the US. Yes, women are taught that they can do whatever they want, and be whatever they want... but they're also taught that what they *should* want is popularity, and that it's more popular to be bad at STEM than good at it! India and China seem to have much less of a problem with this, but I'm only viewing that from a distance so I may be mistaken.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    3. Re:This is great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For every woman out for free drinks, there are probably just as many who don't want to be harassed because they don't feel an unasked-for drink entitles someone to a conversation.

  13. It's gender discrimination ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why only the women are getting the benefits?

    What about the men?

    Etsy doesn't care about their male customer any longer, does it?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:It's gender discrimination ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because women don't have male privilege.

    2. Re:It's gender discrimination ! by robwgibbons · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Men don't have female privelage.

    3. Re:It's gender discrimination ! by LoudNoiseElitist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please explain to me the "male privilege", especially as related to education.

      I remember my senior year of high school. Out of the the hundreds of college scholarships that were offered, only 10% of them were applicable to white males. We don't all come from families that owned land and people, mind you.

    4. Re:It's gender discrimination ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Funny how there are always two side to "Feminism".

      One side says "Feminism isn't some extremist theory about patriarchy and male privilege: it's just the desire for equality, who could be opposed to that"?

      But when you point out that some things go beyond formal equality, the other side says "Of course formal equality is not the point, since we have to deal with thousands of years of patriarchy and male privilege".

      People make fun of the far left, but dig deep enough and they are the ones dictating most of our political discourse.

    5. Re:It's gender discrimination ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Racists have a hard time understanding that everyone with the same color skin are not the same.

    6. Re:It's gender discrimination ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because it doesn't really exist.

    7. Re:It's gender discrimination ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      White males are not affected by stereotype threat. That's a privilege.

    8. Re:It's gender discrimination ! by crazyjj · · Score: 2

      You mean like the stereotype that all whites are rich and privileged?

      --
      What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    9. Re:It's gender discrimination ! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      They're obviously misandrists. If it was a men-only scholarship the feminists would be burning the place down.

      Do these yokels realize that the world's first high level language was written my a woman named Grace Hopper, and the world's first programmer was a woman named Ada Lovelace?

      This is just wrong. It should be illegal.

    10. Re:It's gender discrimination ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Women are getting the benefits because in a male dominated field, they need encouragement. Walk into any computer science course, and there are 2 or 3 women amongst a sea of men. Walk into the working world of developers, and the ratio pretty much stays the same. Any developer who sees this 3-month programming course will, no doubt, be interested. But who will take the effort to apply, instead of just daydreaming about attending this school? With a 50k grant, a woman developer has more of an incentive to actually apply. So it's not that Etsy doesn't care about their male customer. It's just that women who have a passion for coding are precious, because there are so few, so it takes more effort to push them out.

      People always mention the issue of having a lack of women in the computer science field. Something has to be done about it, because just leaving the issue alone hasn't been working. And a program like this is a step in the right direction.

    11. Re:It's gender discrimination ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, *5k.

    12. Re:It's gender discrimination ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a useful resource: http://sap.mit.edu/content/pdf/male_privilege.pdf

      Male privilege is an institutional thing; it's inherent in the construction of our society.

    13. Re:It's gender discrimination ! by anyGould · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other hand, apparently the men-women ratio in nursing is 1:19 (yes, one guy for every 19 women). But I suspect if some organization started offering men-only scholarships for nursing there'd be riots.

      I suppose it's just a shame that we have to bribe women to go against the trend, rather than just changing society. (I have a five year old daughter, and I will make damned sure she gets a chance to try a little bit of everything, gender-bias be damned.)

    14. Re:It's gender discrimination ! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      No?

      Women live longer than men.
      Women get more spent on their healthcare than men (UK NHS).
      Women get custody of kids ahead of men.
      Women get paid more for part-time work than men.
      Women get more time off work than men (maternity vs paternity).
      Women get legalised sex discrimination in their favour (UK).
      Women get nicer clothes than men.
      Women get their own government minister and men don't (UK).
      Women under 25 get paid more than men under 25 (US).
      Women get support for domestic abuse despite men under 25 being more likely to suffer it than women under 25.

      Sure. It doesn't really exist.

    15. Re:It's gender discrimination ! by Golddess · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you in principle, saying "why are you favoring women/blacks/gays/etc? What about men/whites/heterosexuals/etc?" I feel is a bad way to express what is wrong with things like this.

      Instead, we should be offering the following question to others. If people should be judged by the content of their character rather than their gender/race/sexual-orientation/etc, how does having special months set aside for groups of people, and special scholarships set aside for groups of people, and other such special benefits advance that position?

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    16. Re:It's gender discrimination ! by Confusador · · Score: 1

      Seriously, did you even think about Googling that before you wrote it? There are pages of scholarships for men in nursing school, and for exactly the same reason. This is a Good Thing.

    17. Re:It's gender discrimination ! by clairity · · Score: 1

      ugh, where to begin... first, you and your male compatriots in this thread should not be taking this out on the women who might benefit from this. you should be upset at the many generations of men who have had advantage over not only women but other classes of men. you should be angry that these guys took a disproportionate amount of resources for themselves at the expense of these other classes of people, and thereby creating a system designed to perpetuate such inequities. you may believe it's women who are taking something from you, but they are not. look at your male predecessors for people to be disgusted at for creating a situation requiring such remedies. this is no different from many classes of economic issues we are facing today because of the greed and shortsightedness of people past. housing prices, college costs, medicare/social security, etc. all have similar systemic disapportionments. we get to overpay for houses, college, and our retirement benefits (to name a few) because those who came before us wanted both greater benefits and lower prices/taxes.

    18. Re:It's gender discrimination ! by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Probably a bit late to reply now, but I would be very interested in any sources you might have here.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    19. Re:It's gender discrimination ! by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Ok, I can't be arsed trying to google for the individual news reports, studies and Government publications that back this up, but:

      Age at death : check any 'life expectancy' study in the past century in the UK or the US.

      Healthcare : women get screening at an earlier age than men, and more often. they're more likely to go to the doctor (for various reasons) which means they get more time/effort/expenditure as a result. They get a ton of maternity support which usually men don't need.

      Custody : check court statistics, dozens of news reports, mens support organisations..

      Part time pay : This was a UK government study into pay rates. The media focussed on a headline grabbing "men get paid more than women", focussing on numbers that compared all men (including those working 80 hour weeks in C-level positions) against all women (including those working 15 hours a week as a cleaner) and that didn't take into account the number of years worked, corresponding experience or the jobs being done. Only one report in the media acknowledged that the report had found that women working part time do earn more than men working part time, for the same job, on a per-hour wage basis. This is particularly relevant as many women prefer to work part time as they want time with their kids (something men also have to trade off against their career, but that is also generally disregarded when comparing pay).

      sex discrimination: it's the law in the UK that if a woman and a man of equal qualifications and experience apply for the same role, you can give the job to the woman because she's female. You can not give the job to the man because he's male. I think that's fucking atrocious. Entirely unrelated (no, really): The UK has a government minister for women, but not one for men.

      clothing: given the choice I'd wear female clothing to work. It's more comfortable than a suit & tie, the materials are nicer and there's greater scope for individual expression. It's silly that women get wear a t-shirt and slacks to work and it's "formal business attire" while men have to strangle themselves.

      minister: just google for UK ministers

      pay rates: This one's worth linking: http://www.ted.com/talks/hanna_rosin_new_data_on_the_rise_of_women.html - I'd mis-remembered, it's "young single childless" women earning more than equivalent men.

      Here's a bonus one for you: Compare the rates of 'death in service' between men and women. Whether it's military action, industrial accidents or any other form of employment, men are around 40 times more likely to be killed at work.

  14. Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by LionKimbro · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think that the way to understand the visceral reactions and willfully beligerant arguments on the behalf of so many men here, is to understand the intimate violence that men, and programmers in particular, have experienced at the hand of woman. I think that a lot of men intuit that their world is "outside" the home, and that women's world is "inside" the home. Women being the masters of the inside of the home places women as the masters of the inside of the heart. Since women say "no" to men's access to their own hearts space, their most intimate and sexual feelings, men feel that they have a right, and perhaps even a duty, to own the outer world.

    To put it another way: If our culture was not sexually violent, if in our culture men had loving sexual intimate relationships with women, they would have no problems with women occupying "their" space. But in a culture of sexual humiliation of men, there is no way that they are going to give up "their" territory.

    1. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is totally incomprehensible to a person not familiar with your specific buzzwords

    2. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahaha you're dumb as shit i hope all programmers legitimately do get their asses kicked for being whiny bitter misogynists who post on slashdot

    3. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

      Ask questions and help me draw it out. It's hard to explain ideas that are not common, and I could use some help.

    4. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

      Misogyny? How so? I'm all in favor of women programming. I love women. I love programming. I want to share it with women. I believe in equality of the sexes. I support the grants.

      There is no misogyny here; But I think I've touched a nerve...

    5. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by HunsV · · Score: 1

      I think you are talking about love and intimacy as though they always go the same way, and that men are like "this" and women are like "that." But that isn't the case. Every relationship is different. In some, it is the man who doesn't want intimacy as much as the woman.

    6. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Here, I'll translate.

      Programmers, particularly people who post on slashdot, can't get laid. They blame women for this, because none of their problems can possibly be their own fault. Therefore they lash out at any attempt to get women involved in programming, or any other area where Slashdotters still feel superior.

    7. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by LionKimbro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure what you mean, but I will try to unpack some of the ideas.

      "The Inside of the Home" and "The Outside of the Home." I am talking about the contemporary society, but also more broadly. Inside of the home is the space literally within the walls of a house or an apartment. Women tend to be the decorators, and in charge of the children, and in charge of care activities. I am not saying that this has to be the case; I am saying that that is how it tends to be in the majority of the cases in our society. Cooking, cleaning, household chores, childrearing, arranging doctor visits, and on and on. Also, interior decoration, arrangement, placements of objects, coordination of guests, and on and on. Even in dual income families, this is generally the pattern.

      "Outside the home" refers to the political arena, the realm of work (in an office, in a quarry, at a factory, etc., etc.,.) Again, I am not saying that this is the required way things need to be. I am saying that this is how it tends to be.

      The current fad of "man caves" -- or, homes within the home for men -- is a demonstration of this "Inside/Outside" division.

      The "intimate violence" that men experience is the control that women hold over intimate relationships, by the withholding power of the "No." Men ask, women reject. The horrors of this were detailed by a woman named Norah Vincent who is a woman who lived as a man for a full year. She detailed exactly what it felt like to be approaching women as a man, and noted for the first time what it is like to be rejected as a man. Women frequently say, "I have been rejected, I know what it's like to be rejected; Man has nothing on me," -- but Norah Vincent actually knows that there is a difference between night and day between the two.

      Women individually and collectively have the power to exclude and shame a man for his sexual advances, which he and he alone is required to make. How many tears have been shed by men because of the way that the sexual relationship plays out? This does not receive enough attention.

      I am not saying that women are bad, any more than noble-minded feminists are saying that men are bed. I am saying that there is something needing analysis here, if we are going to truly understand what is going on in the relationships between men and women in -- and this is one offshoot -- in the programming battle as well.

      Men know that they are at the mercy of women in the intimate sphere -- and they know where their powers are. Men know that their powers are in the programming sphere, in the trades sphere, in the political sphere, and on and on. Men do not want to disarm because women do not want to disarm.

      I have already been called a misogynist, -- just for pointing out the game. The battle is alive and well.

      Let's see; ... What else might be unclear, that *perhaps* I can give explain:

      I said that "Women being the masters of the inside of the home places women as the masters of the inside of the heart." Here I am treating the home metaphorically -- but the message is very visceral and real. Men who love women but can never "make it work," or feel that they have to go through layers of game or interpretation or just giving up (humiliation) in order to "make it work" should be able to intuit what is going on, though. Men and women (heterosexual) have each other in a death-grip around the heart. We love one another, clearly, but we are in a war, we are in a battle. We need each other, and that need has become war.

      Women can say "No," and hold themselves in reserve. Men can push her out or dominate her -- if not physically, then politically, economically, or "any means necessary," whether consciously or unconsciously. Of course, women can play the dominance game as well. But we all feel it. We know what is happening. We know when we are being pushed, and we know when we are pushing. At some level, we know.

      My appeal is to people who dream for equality, true equality, and love, between

    8. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by LionKimbro · · Score: 0

      And it's so obvious, right? Yes, you have translated well --

      -- except for two things: 1. the judgement, one, and 2. -- (possibly) -- the shame.

      There is a notion that men should be able to just "figure out" how to "get laid." That it's a man's job and duty to figure out how to fight the good fight to be smooth. That he needs to toughen up, and "just learn" somehow how to get women to want to have sex with him. Or perhaps it's impossible for him. Or perhaps he needs to learn how to dominate better.

      There is nothing in such a man's life telling him that women do in fact already desire him. Rather, there is "faulting," that you have given an example of. Now he's a bad person, or a lazy person, because -- "hey, it's easy." But it's not easy to navigate sexual intimacy, and, further, -- he's not a bad person. He just isn't successful in love. The man and the woman haven't found out how to intimately relate, that's all.

      It isn't a crime. And it also isn't his fault.

      There are courses teaching men how to pick up. There is the pick-up artist scene, and on and on. There are people who will teach you how to play games. If you look at these courses though, ... You're going to find war, in the vast majority of cases. You are going to find war. It's like dropping your knife for an AK-47. You'll find success, of course. You can take out tons of people to look big, and win success. But the war does not change.

      What we need to do, what I really believe we need to do, is to make a culture of love.

      I cannot imagine that, if we had a culture of love between men and women, (and in all the sexual worlds, LGBTx,) that men would be trying to push women out of programming, trying to keep women out of programming.

      That should be our objective. That should be what we are doing. That's how we can share programming, and every other field. Whether we are men or women, here is our hope.

    9. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

      You are correct. Every relationship is different, and every individual is different. But there are some generalities that can be made. For example, we are talking about men and women in programming. A great many of the men here are "pushing back," arguing for the purpose of keeping their territory.

      Are ALL the men doing that? No, of course not. But there are forces at work here, there are real lives being lived here.

      Intimacy is a mixed word, too. It can mean a lot of things. Here I am focusing on sexual intimacy -- I think this is where most ("a great many") men feel locked out.

      And I will push it back further: Even men who are happily married -- even in relationships between men and women, where there is no plan to escalate to sex, -- there is still the push and pull of desire in (say) the workplace. There is an intimacy even in this field. Just because a man's sex life with his wife has dwindled to near nothing, and he has given up on sex with anyone else, -- it doesn't mean that there aren't feelings, and that these dynamics are alive and at work within him and her and the society.

      I believe that sexual desire is like a nervous system within the social organism. It is always at play. When a group of men and women meet together for purpose A -- something like "making money together" (at a company,) or "going on a picnic" (at a gathering of friends) or "going to the movies" -- wherever there are men and women (or more generally: a "sexual landscape," to include the LGBTx,) -- there are always TWO channels. Channel "A" is the explicit, stated purpose, and then there is always, ALWAYS, Channel "B": the sexual nervous system. The networks of desire, shyness, bravado, temptation, hope, sadness, at play in the sexual realm.

      I've gone a long way from your comment, but what I want to say is that "intimacy" is a large field. 2 people who don't even speak to each other, -- just see each other on the bus every now and then -- can (and often DO) have an intimate relationship. So that "intimacy" is vast.

    10. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting theory, but you see similar anger towards Indian programmers, getting modded up here on Slashdot, even though they are male. So it's probably not just a matter of sexual violence.

      It's actually rather annoying.......in the Trayvon/Zimmerman stories, tons of comments get modded up for complaining about the latent racism in America. Then in a story about Indian programmers, you see actual cases getting modded up complaining about the Indians.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Women being the masters of the inside of the home places women as the masters of the inside of the heart...

      what?

      ...if in our culture men had loving sexual intimate relationships with women, they would have no problems with women occupying "their" space..

      I think you have some serious problems assuming all tech professionals are misogynists without the ability to form loving relationships. Not everyone is the live-in-the-basement nerd that is completely socially inept. I would argue that it is the minority that fits into that stereotype.

      Further, I don't see an overwhelming number of arguments here suggesting women need to get back into "their" space in the home. The most heavy handed "anti-progressive" argument in this discussion is that correcting for an imbalance by employing a sexist policy is (shockingly) sexist.

    12. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "To put it another way: If our culture was not sexually violent, if in our culture men had loving sexual intimate relationships with women, they would have no problems with women occupying "their" space. But in a culture of sexual humiliation of men, there is no way that they are going to give up "their" territory."

      Here is a much more direct answer. If women like Mary Gardinier didn't first scream her head off about how women are always discriminated and that we should carry every female word on a golden scale, to finish it off with telling us that she (Mary) knows everything about what is like growing up as a young boy and being bullied, then perhaps we would take female complaint seriously. Until then, the answer is simple. You want ruthless competition, you get ruthless competition. Just don't complain that we (men) have a better hand than you have. You could have joined the basement hackers when you were young, but you and your ilk were to busy fraternizing with the cool kids. Karma is a curious thing, isn't it?

    13. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps they just don't like discrimination, especially when it is being sold as being anti-descriminatory.

    14. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Your ideas are not only common Dr Phil soundbites, they are also wrong. Perhaps you should pursue a qualification in psychology before mindlessly repeating soundbites?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    15. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make some valid points. I often find it beyond belief that men and women ever get together.

    16. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of like how it never the particular woman's fault that she fails? It is always society's fault?

    17. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by samazon · · Score: 1

      Not to be rude, because I really make an effort not to be rude on here, but I call bullshit on this. I feel like you are speaking out about your personal life/issues/whatever rather than any objective "truth" about the world. Having been in relationships and observed relationships, studied both the social sciences and the technical sciences, you're referring to a marginally antiquated and very narrow sphere of human relationships. There are plenty of men who make "inside" the residence their space and plenty of women who work while their men take care of the house and children. And in many, one would hope most, relationships, everything is of equal give-and-take. As for sexual rejection, men are just as capable as women of rejecting another's advances, and we feel the same shame and confusion, particularly when the rejected advance was to our significant other. Just because you see it on tv and have experienced it yourself (maybe) doesn't make it so. I don't have time to argue with each of your points, and I DO think that your feelings are valid and your opinion is of value, but I feel like you are making generalizations based on subjective information.

      --
      I have the hiccups.
    18. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      Excellent post.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    19. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

      Antagonism towards Indian programmers (racism) is a different issue, with different dynamics.

      I don't deny that it exists, and I don't deny that it is important.

    20. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      men feel that they have a right, and perhaps even a duty, to own the outer world.

      I'm not sure this is a real thing.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

      Oh, Dr. Phil is saying this? You're just pushing. That's all. Zero content.

    22. Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1
      Maybe zero content, but at least I don't dress up my zero content as useful knowledge. Pursue the fucking degree already - there is a lot to learn about humans and mating strategies; what you state is how you would like the world to function. What you learn during the degree is how it actually functions.

      You need to learn the difference between "how things should be" and "how things actually are". Education will help.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  15. I Personally Like Seeing Women At Work by zbobet2012 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1) Environments with a good mix of men and women are more productive

    2) 20% of all long term relationships start at work. I am all for improving my odds and so should you be. Its not sexist or objectifying to actually want to interact with the opposite sex daily.

    This is acceptable to me because, its not necessarily "affirmative action", but rather it is attempting to attract another demographic. Lets be clear here, this program is:

    a) Free.

    b) Not terribly competitive.

  16. Means != Ends by warrax_666 · · Score: 0

    You're conflating the "ends" with the "means".

    --
    HAND.
    1. Re:Means != Ends by samazon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wish you would all read the article. The reason they're offering this specifically to women is to INCREASE female applicants to the Hacker School - less than 5% of applicants in some rounds were from women, and GUESS WHAT - as a woman working in IT, I can tell you that I was NEVER encouraged to take computer classes and had several teachers discourage me from it. I was given pats on the head my whole life and because of my parents, it pissed me off enough to get to where I am today, but plenty of my peers didn't have amazing, supportive parents like mine and were never encouraged to excel in math, science or technology. Say what you want, but until you've grown up with a vagina and been told "that class isn't for you, dear" you need to really consider what you're saying about females in education. There IS a reason women are targeted for grants like this, and it's because when you get down to it, little girls are not encouraged to be scientists, programmers and physicists. A trip to the girl's toys section of walmart should be proof enough of that.

      --
      I have the hiccups.
    2. Re:Means != Ends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We have all spent our lives being told what to do and what not to do. If I listened to 1% of what I was told at school I'd be carrying bricks on a building site for a living and being paid minimum wage, I'm not. The only people that get anywhere in life are the ones who get kicked and carry on regardless.

      Quit moaning about how you are some special oppressed class who needs support and just be equal instead. Stop perpetuating sexist nonsense and get judged on the standard of your work.

    3. Re:Means != Ends by samazon · · Score: 0

      Posting as AC? How brave. It's not moaning about how I am "some special oppressed class" because I'm not. I'm in the top percentile and I always have been, because of my parents. These grants are put in place because many parents are unwilling or unable to push their children, particularly female children, or to teach them to love equations and problem solving, and teachers don't always do it either. It is to encourage women who were never taught as children to pursue the things that were "unfeminine" as adults, because CHILDREN do what they are taught, and grow into adults who don't know any better.

      --
      I have the hiccups.
    4. Re:Means != Ends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That kind of sexism was prevalent not so long ago but I have to question how widespread it is now. I did not grow up with a vagina but my daughter did. She is majoring in biomedical engineering having taken science classes at a high school dominated by Mormons. I would like to think that the embedded sexism you encountered is being rolled back but it's difficult to measure something so localised and often subtle.
      If females are still being discouraged from entering the STEM track are discriminatory financial incentives the way to remediate? Not really. The root cause has to be addressed, best done with education. Unlevelling the playing field only makes the student gender ratio look better.

    5. Re:Means != Ends by anyGould · · Score: 1

      A trip to the girl's toys section of walmart should be proof enough of that.

      Yes, can we *please* make girl's toys (and clothes) in something other than hot pink?

      I have a daughter, and I tried to keep the pink away from her. Oh, how I tried. But once you get out of pure unisex baby clothes, the girls section is *nothing but freaking pink*!

    6. Re:Means != Ends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting as an AC because I prefer to generally be genderless...

      Did that, still very much against it. This is in huge part because I prefer to be viewed as a human, not a [vulgarisms for female genitalia] on two legs--and guess what? Because I choose to identify as human, and treat the rest as not terribly relevant, it never mattered one bit how much my family supported me, and I only briefly had to deal with anybody treating me as female sex organs on two legs.

      The one time since I left grade school I was ever asked "WTF are you doing in this class?" was a programming class--and it was purely because it's not where biochemistry majors normally turn up. (There was no problem when I said, simply, that I'd been programming since I was 12-13; the class was prerequisite if I wanted to take any of the more advanced programming courses.)

      Though, some of your complaint...the bad logic is... What places like WalMart stock in the way of girls' toys & clothes is what people buy for girls there, literally nothing more or less. It has really nothing whatsoever to do with what girls want--I didn't want hot pink (it makes me look an especially girly zombie) and I had no trouble finding clothes not in that color. I could then and still can easily get toys for girls that will encourage them to be interested in science.

      Google is your friend, and I ought not be needing to remind you of this--and if you're thinking that places that specialize in educational toys are for boys only...you're displaying even more of a bias than the people who never think to buy their little girls stuff other than Barbies and ponies. (Not that this mistake got made after I openly considered dissecting one...)

    7. Re:Means != Ends by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      , little girls are not encouraged to be scientists, programmers and physicists.

      You've obviously never seen Star Gate SG1. Turn in your geek card.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    8. Re:Means != Ends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said! Sexism is a nasty and entrenched attitude in today's society. While racism has been widely tamped down, sexism in blatant and subtle forms seems to be on the rise. Girls/women absolutely need special attention.

  17. Women are killing men by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    It is a fact that men have a lower average lifespan then women. Since it would be foolish to assume that men want do die younger it must therefor be women who are the cause of this. That is your logic. The races and genders are not equal. Only foolish bleeding hearts believe this, there are differences in alcohol tolerance, weight gain from sugar intake, heart disease risks and countless other diseases which affect one race more then the other.

    To therefor blindly assume that all races and genders are equally good at programming is naive or downright hateful.

    What are programmers? Well, from Slashdot you can readily deduce that a LOT of them are not the social norm. Gosh, could (functional) Autism which affects men more then women be over represented among computer programmers?

    Historic fact is that when math became computers, women were OVER represented in the field. They were considered better at it. Sexist? Now they are under represented (worked with exactly 1 female co-worker in over a hundred men in my career, in my class there were two girls out of 25 boys and our class had a high number of girls, as in all the girls from that year).

    Is this the male culture? Is it genetics? Is it culture? Is it race? Is it gender? Is it physical? If you deny any of them without investigation, you are ultimately doing everyone a disservice. It would be like denying that a soldier can't get Sickle Cell disease, because once they couldn't because blacks couldn't become soldiers. Now they can and a doctor would be wise to use race when trying to diagnose a person. Overly PC is harmful.

    We have in western culture some typical male dominated professions and some typical female dominated once, and a lot of surprises with them if you think about it. Professors are male, teachers female. Why the shift in gender with the age of the pupil? Why are cafeteria run by women but top restaurants by men when women do most of the cooking in the world? Why are dress makers male?

    Mind you, the Dutch government at least IS sponsoring men who want to teach younger kids, since it has been decided that a lack of male role-models can be harmful to the development of young boys. So it is not like white men are never the beneficiary of positive discrimination.

    Fact is that women tend to score better at math then boys, until a certain age. Does a rise in estrogen kill of brain cells? An observation of teenage girls (curse you judge for taking away my binoculars!) tends to confirm this... then again, teenage boys have trouble chewing gum... and walking? HA! Have you seen a teenage boy try to walk?

    Most companies I worked at were male dominated, I work in tech after all. But I also worked for a charity once and there the majority was women (very attractive ones to, that is where they are all hiding). So, even in "office" environments, there are gender separations, not so much along profession but along the type of company. Those women were nice enough to me as a male outsider BUT there was a seperation. Not so much because they refused to discuss female stuff when I was there, but because they did. I was raised by women and so raised to see women as delicate pure innocent creatures or they would hurt me. Talk to females not playing the gentle role on their own turf and "EEEEEK". Before that, as a I nerd I was slightly afraid of women, now I know I was right.

    Can a workfloor gender culture have an effect? Duh! But can this be changed? And how?

    There is no shortage of smart young girls. There is no shortage of young girls that might consider a tech career. There is a shortage of tech women on the workfloor. Something happens between the age of 10 and 20 that causes a shift.

    I am a nerd who plays with model trains, not for the modeling but for the automated controlling of a train network, think of it as robotics for those who can't handle path finding. Sometimes we demonstrate this, at rail modelers conventions. Sometimes wives, girlfriends (HA!) and daughters/sisters are dragged along. They are

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Women are killing men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To therefor blindly assume that all races and genders are equally good at programming is naive or downright hateful.

      There has never been any anatomical or operational difference observed when comparing the brains of two males of different races. (or two females of different races)
      There are, however, noticeable anatomical and operational differences when you compare the brains of males to females.

      So while I'll agree that asserting there is no difference between males and females is idiotic at best, saying that there is ANY difference between races is simple bigotry. And no, I'm not calling you a bigot.

      Gosh, could (functional) Autism which affects men more then women be over represented among computer programmers?

      That's a great point, and one which I've been making for a long time. Nobody seems to care. But it's hard to test the theory, because autism is poorly defined and incredibly difficult to diagnose accurately.

      What is with the hostility? So, ten women get a grant to boost female participation in an industry. Men get the same in other fields

      Maybe in Holland, but not in the US.
      Anecdote alert!
      When I was in high school, and the guidance counselors came around to all the classes with lists of places we could try getting loans, grants, and scholarships, there was an entire section of money for Females Only. The only items which were offered only to men were a few programs which only covered applications to specific all-male private schools, and those organizations also offered money to the women for all-female schools so it was an even deal. The only item which would be considered as mostly male was the Military programs.

      Where is the downside?

      The downside is that instead of attracting women who want to be CS majors, they attract women who do not want to be CS majors but are looking for a funding boost. So they take the money on a CS major, and take the bare minimum of CS core classes. Then they load up the rest of their credit hours with electives and classes which will be core for the major they actually want. After the first year, they switch majors, and we've done nothing to increase the ratio of women to men in the field, and more importantly we've done nothing to improve the total numbers of CS graduates in general.

  18. Careful! by Viol8 · · Score: 0

    You're trying to argue with politically correct liberal idiots with facts. And as we all know facts and reality in general are something that they despise. In their world women and men all have the same wants and desires and behave and think in exactly the same way and all have the same interests.

    Of course you never hear them whining about why there are so few men in pre school teaching or nursing or babysitting but then they are such well practised hypocrites.

  19. Oh get over yourself FFS. by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    "Having been the only woman in a CS class, I can assure you that it's not fun"

    Oh please. There were some girls on my course and they had a great time.

    "It doesn't help that many women do not feel safe in the computer lab at night."

    What sort of lab is this? Do they make crack alongside the computers? Or have you just been smoking some?

    "f you think that tech is a meritocracy, you're not paying attention. If you think everyone has the same opportunities, and the same encouragement you do, you're not paying attention. If you think that there isn't discrimination against women, you're not paying attention."

    I'm male and I work as a programmer. I never had encouragement to do it from anyone , in fact my parents wanted me to go into the family business and didn't understand computers at all. But guess what - I didn't start feeling sorry for myself , start making pathetic excuses for why I couldn't do it and blaming everyone else for my inadequacies like you clearly do, I just did the career I wanted to do. Period.

    Grow up.

  20. it's how the brain works by tommeke100 · · Score: 0

    The brain of men tend to only use one side when working on technical things (computers, , programming, car mechanics, etc...). Women use their two halves. It has been observed that women who enjoy car mechanics for example, have a brain usage pattern similar to men (mostly using one side).
    So, first of all, it's a biological thing. There are just less women really interested in technical fields like computer science and programming, just like there are less women whom are car mechanics.
    And most women in the field (I don't want to generalize, but it's a a feeling I developed in my CompSci university years and 10 yrs of experience as a software developer) see it as a job and not as a 'passion'.
    A couple of months ago I went to a free MongoDB seminar. It was 2 presentations, one about MongoDB, and one about OpenShift from RedHat, a free cloud PaaS, on how to quickly develop mobile applications using the cloud. It was free, free drinks, free pizza, free merchandizing and very interesting . There were about 40 people present in the audience...zero women!

  21. Romance at work by ElusiveJoe · · Score: 2

    Starting a romance at work is a very bad idea. Both for you, your spouse, your boss and colleagues.

    Also, in my experience, environments with a good mix of men and women are less productive, exactly because of flirting, hidden jealousy and dick measuring.

  22. Looks like /. is an all male community by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very interesting. Why aren't more women posting on this topic? I did.

    I'm expecting to get modded out anyway. I guess I write like a woman, too.

  23. It's not affirmative action. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're missing the point - all they're trying to do is increase the number of female applicants. They specifically said that they're judging men and women on the same criteria. By explicitly saying they want to welcome women, more women will apply. And if more qualified women apply, they have a better, more diverse pool to pick from, getting them closer to the 50/50 ratio they wanted. It's not about diminishing standards or "reverse discrimination" or what have you.

    Male slashdot readers: coming from a female programmer, you may not understand how much it sucks to be a novelty. Before you respond "I would love it if I was the only guy at my job!" I can promise you that you would've gotten sick of it by now. I'm sure that's why there are fewer men in female-dominated professions like nursing. Simply put, it gets uncomfortable, so it becomes self perpetuating. When I was visiting one college, and heard their CS program had something like 10% women, my first thought was "what's wrong with the place that makes all the other women hate it?"

    1. Re:It's not affirmative action. by nosilA · · Score: 1

      Yes. As a female engineer, I absolutely despise applying looser standards to women because it helps perpetuate the stereotype that women are less qualified than men. On the other hand, programs that encourage women to become better at technical fields can help break the stereotype. I can go toe to toe with most men in my field just fine, and I'm even perfectly content to be the only woman in a room with 20 or more men, but it wears me down every time someone I'm meeting with makes the assumption that a male colleague is the right person to direct technical questions to - especially when it continues to happen after both of us have made clear that I'm the technical lead. Then again, I find I have to consciously stop myself from making the same type of assumption when I'm on the other side. More women in technical fields who are in fact qualified to be there is the answer.

      Good: Scholarship programs, outreach, mentorship. Bad: lower standards, hiring/admission preferences, token females.

    2. Re:It's not affirmative action. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Good: Scholarship programs, outreach, mentorship.

      I concur. Where can I get some of this? Just that, these all seem to be closed off to me on the grounds I'm white, male, atheist..

    3. Re:It's not affirmative action. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm sure that's why there are fewer men in female-dominated professions like nursing."

      Well, speaking for myself only...
      I've been the only guy in an all-female nursing assistant class. The main problems are the low pay, legal liability, lack of opportunities for promotion and, not least, dealing with nasty infectious bodily fluids. Also nursing homes are depressing, and hospitals have the worst office politics of any type of workplace I know of. The women are OK, but tend to be intellectually mediocre - not honor student types, seldom read much.

    4. Re:It's not affirmative action. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have the advantage boy-o. Enjoy it!

  24. dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    KKK members used to have crazy reasoning to justify their bias, just like the new discriminators of today. Call them whatever you want, progressives, liberals, feminists... Discrimination is what this is. But welcome to America, where it's the age of UN-reason.

  25. How about subsidies for short people in the NBA by militiaMan · · Score: 0

    How about subsidies for short people in the NBA

  26. Men get "discouraged" then told to stop complainin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck are you talking about? You think men don't get discouraged from doing things? FUCK. I was told by my first boss that I'd amount to nothing. Get the fuck over yourself. When I work with someone I honestly don't care what hangs off their chest or between their legs. I've worked with some AWESOME women. I've also worked with women that were completely useless at their job or tried to get others to do it for them. Same goes for men. You don't want equality - you want what you think men are getting, which is nothing like what we really are.

    You want discouragement. Try being a male that is average or below looking and try getting a date. Try being told that you're suppose to be a wonderful father and contribute half to household and childrearing in the 2hrs/day you see your kids. Try being the only bread winner and if you fuck up your whole family doesn't eat! Try looking at the goddamn suicide rate of males vs females before you start whining about female participation in certain industries.

    In my experience many women just don't want to bother with technical details. They're not interested. They don't want to play with code, or with science, or with building techniques. THAT is why they don't succeed. When you do find a woman that is good at what she does and actually has an interest, the stereotypes don't tend to get in the way because they don't fucking let them. Stop being so weak willed and self-partonising. You're doing to yourself exactly what you accuse men of doing to you.

  27. Ok, a joke that explains it ALL... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Little boy & Little girl step outside on Christmas Day to play with their new toys. Kids being kids, they start trying to "outcompete" one another on "who did better":

    Little Boy says: "Look @ my NEW G.I. Joe w/ the Kung-Fu Grip!"

    Little Girl says: "Well, look @ my Barbie and her Ken Doll, with clubhouse, and corvette too"

    (Little boy is not done yet...)

    Little Boy says: "Ah, but I also have my new Daisy BB gun!"

    Little Girl says: "So what - My parents just set aside (insert LARGE dollar amount here) into a trustfund for me!"

    (This goes on & on, & the Little Boy is getting dusted @ every turn... he becomes frustrated!)

    Little Boy says (as he unzips his fly and pulls out his 'you-know-what'): "Big deal - I have ONE OF THESE, and you don't!"

    Little Girl says (pointing to the same general area of her body): "So what? I HAVE ONE OF THESE, & with one of these? I can get ALL OF THOSE I'LL EVER WANT or NEED!"

    * MORAL OF THE STORY? Women run men... & they make the choices, not us!

    APK

    P.S.=> Good for them though I say: Give them the grant! It'll get more girls interested in the field of computer sciences hopefully... which of course means that geeks will finally get to "hook up with" geek-esses in their "natural habitat" (best way to meet someone imo, in a place where you both have 'common-ground/interests' & I don't CARE what anyone says about meeting someone @ work - if you can HANDLE IT RESPONSIBLY & with maturity? It's DOABLE, without hassles)... they BOTH enjoy! apk

  28. Re:Men get "discouraged" then told to stop complai by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    My English professor (white, male) was told he would never get into OU's journalism school by his high-school professors and advisers. He did, and he graduated. When he was done with that he went on to accomplish some of the most amazing things most people will never come close to. He, for some reason, decided to walk the entire globe--which resulted in him becoming an internationally published author. He traversed the globe with no money, relying only on the generosity of people he met along the way. To date, only two people have ever been known to do this--and the other is not an author. Oh yeah, his dad thought he was crazy too.

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  29. These posts by jewelie · · Score: 1

    Bloody hell. Now I remember why I got out of IT. :-(

  30. School for hackers? by kmoser · · Score: 1

    First clue you're not cut out to be a hacker: you have to take hacking classes.

  31. Whoosh for the lot of ya! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    This is not about denying men their rights, nor is it about elevating women over men.

    This is one of those attempts to encourage young women to become more involved in areas that they have tended to avoid.

    I've been involved in some of these attempts to foster more women into technical fields before I retired. The overlying issue is that there are many more women in the workplace than years past, and many of them are professionals. But they appear to be shunning many of the technical fields. Other fields such as Medical Doctors, Veterinarians, lawyers, MBA's as well as social fields are well represented by females.

    And it appears that is just how they like it. When we polled the ladies what their aspirations were, probably half wanted to be lawyers, some doctors, and the rest MBA's - so that correlates well. Over the years, there was 1 girl who wanted to be an engineer.

    But now what would be the cause? As popular as it might be to say that the engineering and technical fields were somehow too "male oriented", or that they would be otherwise discriminated against - I don't buy it. Nor do I believe that somehow little girls have been trained by their dolls to shy away from technology. You think that technology is male oriented? Try MBA land.

    I think the real reason that young women stay away from the technical fields is that given the working hours, pay, and the harder educational route, they just figured out that it's too big a pain in the ass. Note however that becoming an MD is also a grind, so my idea isn't perfect.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  32. No sexism in technology in my past 40 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a woman and have worked in technology for over 40 years, long before the Internet was even thought of. The opportunities for women in technology have always been there but very few women took advantage of those opportunities. Women have been involved with technology since the beginning. For example, the COBOL programming language was invented around 1959 by Grace Hopper - often called "the mother of the COBOL language". I have never known a time when women were excluded from technology jobs. In technology, companies almost always hire whoever can do the job, whoever has the aptitude and wants to do this work. Women have not always paid equitably but that is another story. In my experience, the men in technology and science tend to be the least sexist and accepting of capable women in these fields. Most women simply have not shown any interest in technology.

    1. Re:No sexism in technology in my past 40 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a woman and have worked in technology for over 40 years, long before the Internet was even thought of. The opportunities for women in technology have always been there but very few women took advantage of those opportunities. Women have been involved with technology since the beginning. For example, the COBOL programming language was invented around 1959 by Grace Hopper - often called "the mother of the COBOL language". I have never known a time when women were excluded from technology jobs. In technology, companies almost always hire whoever can do the job, whoever has the aptitude and wants to do this work. Women have not always paid equitably but that is another story. In my experience, the men in technology and science tend to be the least sexist and accepting of capable women in these fields. Most women simply have not shown any interest in technology.

      I agree. I am new to SEO but old to IT networking and have never been treated any differently working in IT. This year I have shown much more interest in the SEO and internet marketing side of things where before I would show only interest in my art fields and own studies - So I cannot flaw the men for not taking me seriously until now. With that being said I have no solid IT Background other than my father owns a networking firm, however, I am familiar with most these terms, I can't say I know much about the above language but DO like what you have to say about this. I get really tired of women playing the we aren't equal game. Show the interest and they will show the help! Best Wishes, Kelly Neddo

  33. Equal by wirelan · · Score: 1

    Equal rights, OK.