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."

27 of 211 comments (clear)

  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
  2. 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: 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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?

    5. 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
    6. Re:Sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Asshole

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

    7. 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.

    8. 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!
    9. 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.

    10. 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
    11. 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
    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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?

  3. 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 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...
  4. 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 robwgibbons · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Men don't have female privelage.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.)

  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. 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.