ChickTech Brings Hundreds of Young Women To Open Source

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ChickTech Brings Hundreds of Young Women To Open Source

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @06:54AM from the more-engineers-more-cool-stuff dept.

ectoman writes: Opensource.com is running an interview with Jennifer Davidson of ChickTech, a non-profit organization whose mission is to create communities of support for women and girls pursuing (or interested in pursuing) careers in tech. "In the United States, many girls are brought up to believe that 'girls can't do math' and that science and other 'geeky' topics are for boys," Davidson said. "We break down that idea." Portland, OR-based ChickTech is quickly expanding throughout the United States—to cities like Corvallis and San Francisco—thanks to the "ChickTech: High School" initiative, which gathers hundreds of young women for two-day workshops featuring open source technologies. "We fill a university engineering department with 100 high school girls—more girls than many engineering departments have ever seen," Davidson said. "The participants can look around the building and see that girls from all backgrounds are just as excited about tech as they are."

158 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

many girls are brought up to believe that by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 06:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

[citation needed]
1. Re:many girls are brought up to believe that by Tokolosh · 2014-07-16 07:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Indeed. I keep hearing this stated as a fact, over and over. It's like a lie that becomes the truth if repeated enough.
  Maybe because all the females in my engineering department were women, and not girls or chicks?
  Mod parent up.
  
  --
  Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
2. Re:many girls are brought up to believe that by BonThomme · 2014-07-16 07:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  http://xkcd.com/385/
3. Re:many girls are brought up to believe that by bangular · 2014-07-16 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Go to any university STEM departments and here's what you'll find (with my anecdotal evidence).
  
  Women like science. You'll have to go to the Biology department to find them. Women like math, you'll just have to go to the Applied Math & Statistics departments to find them. Women like Computer Science. You'll just have to go to the database courses to find them.
  
  Women are different than men. Forcing this seems artificial.
4. Re:many girls are brought up to believe that by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  What's wrong with this picture?
  Just like 1 in 5. Just like "Rape Culture". The numbers just do not warrant these wild assertions.
5. Re:many girls are brought up to believe that by Prien715 · 2014-07-16 10:04 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There's a "skills gap" present in Math aptitude tests that appears in countries where the status of women is worse. There are countries where the gap is lower or even reversed -- which seems to suggest culture rather than biology.
  If you can find an alternative explanation beyond "American Culture", feel free to suggest it.
  
  --
  -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
6. Re:many girls are brought up to believe that by fyngyrz · 2014-07-16 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  It's not about numbers. And it's not about validity. It's about manufacturing PC/media panics and distracting the public from real problems by fomenting pointless opposition on non-issues.
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
7. Re:many girls are brought up to believe that by mi · 2014-07-16 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  There's a "skills gap" present in Math aptitude tests that appears in countries where the status of women is worse
  This may be partially explained by the mistreatment. However, there is a giant elephant in the room of "sex equality": sports. The all-female teams are invariably weaker, than the all-male ones — and compete separately. Co-ed teams are required to have a certain number of women (2 players for a 6-member volleyball team, for example). Soccer World Cup just ended — did you see a single female player there? Are you going to attribute it entirely to sexism?
  It is not all about muscles either — women aren't any better at chess, than they are at at swimming or running. It is so bad, the international chess body(ies) had to create a separate title: Chess Woman Grandmaster (CWG) — because so few of them could become actual, non-gendered, Chess Grandmasters (CG). Indeed, only one percent of CGs are female.
  Sure, there are individual women, who are stronger and smarter than an average male. But the strongest man is stronger, and the smartest — smarter, than the strongest and smartest woman, respectively. We just don't look or smell as good. And we can't give birth...
  Sure, there are arguments politely trying to explain away this disparity. But they fail.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
8. Re:many girls are brought up to believe that by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 11:22 · Score: 0
  
  Right, because there's a well-known sex-linked trait which causes women to like biology, applied math, and databases. Thanks for weighing in, Professor.
9. Re:many girls are brought up to believe that by Prien715 · 2014-07-16 11:48 · Score: 2
  
  I'm really not sure how sports fits into this. Yes, testosterone gives better performance in sports. Barry Bonds was fined for it. As was the Chinese women's swim team.
  As far as chess, first mandatory xkcd. Another good reason is how women are treated in mostly male fields. There's very few women who play Magic: The Gathering or chess for this reason (yes, I've been to the tournies). On the other hand, more women are interested in studying academic subjects -- there must be some reason more women go to college than men right?
  Men must be biologically weaker!;)
  
  --
  -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
10. Re:many girls are brought up to believe that by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  Or, maybe all the money and focus on getting women into college is, dare I suggest it, getting more women into college? Also, the primary and secondary education systems are heavily geared towards women, and getting worse all the time. Normal young male traits are being considered disorders that require psychoactive medication, and of course being male is 'curable' so the drugs usually just make life worse for the kids.
11. Re:many girls are brought up to believe that by mi · 2014-07-16 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  Another good reason is how women are treated in mostly male fields.
  So, you are trying to explain the entire disparity with mistreatment by males. I don't buy it...
  
  there must be some reason more women go to college than men right
  That may be because of the numerous programs like the one being described in TFA. That such programs are deemed necessary, reflects badly on the fair sex...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
12. Re:many girls are brought up to believe that by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 17:06 · Score: 0
  
  I really don't understand how you can say in the same comment "women like science, biology, math, and computer science," and "women are different than men." Different how, exactly? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
13. Re:many girls are brought up to believe that by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 01:31 · Score: 0
  
  there must be some reason more women go to college than men right?
  Men must be biologically weaker!;)
  Because men enter more fields where one can be successful without a college degree. Or maybe it is systematic discrimination against men by an eduction system dominated by teachers with misandrist leanings. I am sure boys can look forward to an affirmative action program targeted at getting them into college soon, because any disparate impact is surely due to discrimination.
14. Re:many girls are brought up to believe that by rhyous · 2014-07-17 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  I was constantly told growing up that girls are naturally better at math than boys. I was probably top 5 in my High School in Math as a guy. I heard this over and over and over again. The girls heard it too.
  So why is this post saying the opposite?
  Is my one experience just an anecdotal anomaly?
15. Re:many girls are brought up to believe that by kuzb · 2014-07-17 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  >There's very few women who play Magic: The Gathering
  What a bunch of bullshit. I know at least half a dozen girls in my town alone who regularly play this game. If they exist here, I'm certain they exist all over. Your idea of what young women participate in these days is outdated.
  
  --
  BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
16. Re:many girls are brought up to believe that by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  As I grew up, I constantly heard that girls were better than boys at school and college.
17. Re:many girls are brought up to believe that by Prien715 · 2014-07-17 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  So, you are trying to explain the entire disparity with mistreatment by males. I don't buy it...
  I follow the data. In numerous other countries, this is not the case. Again, if you have better data, please share (as I did in GP). Otherwise -- buying into the idea of female inferiority with no data to support your assertion -- is precisely the kind of prejudice I'm talking about and you are the perfect example.
  
  --
  -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
18. Re:many girls are brought up to believe that by mi · 2014-07-18 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  I follow the data. In numerous other countries, this is not the case.
  Could you share a link to the data, so I can follow it too? Do those countries have a better number of female Grandmasters? Nope...
  
  Otherwise -- buying into the idea of female inferiority with no data to support your assertion
  You've already conceded, that men are stronger: "testosterone helps". Why would not they also be, no, not smarter — able to concentrate deeper on a single problem, for example?
  
  buying into the idea of female inferiority with no data to support your assertion
  I do have the data — merely 1% of Grandmasters are women — and not for lack of trying for there is a large number holding the title of Women Grandmasters. But most of them can't match the males. You are trying to dismiss this 1:99 discrepancy with "prejudice" — and that's nonsense. Nothing prevents girls from takin up chess. No large investment is required to keep practicing — even the poorest can do it.
  If it were mostly due to prejudice, the countries with more such prejudice would have fewer prominent female players — but the opposite it true. Most of these ladies come from former USSR and China, where the prejudices are, if anything, worse — but the girls do learn the game, and do get fairly good at it. Just not as good as males.
  I don't know, why that is. Women are from Venus. Some researchers have suggested, evolution made females develop better handling of many small and tedious tasks (gathering foods while avoiding snakes, numerous chores of child-rearing), whereas men got better at solving a single problem (killing the mammoth). Again, I don't know. But the "data", which you profess to follow, is irrefutable.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Where's BroTech? by the_skywise · 2014-07-16 06:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

"In the United States, many boys are brought up to believe that 'doing math makes you a nerd' and that science and other 'geeky' topics are for wusses," the_skywise said. "We break down that idea."
1. Re:Where's BroTech? by Falos · 2014-07-16 07:11 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  I bet you think you're funny, huh? You a comedian or something, dork? Here's a nerd joke for ya: Why don't you make like a tree and GTFO?
2. Re:Where's BroTech? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 07:14 · Score: 0
  
  Please, that's as ridiculous as a screen door on a battleship.
3. Re:Where's BroTech? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, obviously you've never had a BBQ cookout on a battleship in the South Pacific. You know what a PITA those water-tight doors are?
4. Re:Where's BroTech? by Tokolosh · 2014-07-16 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Whoosh!
  
  --
  Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
5. Re:Where's BroTech? by Alopex · 2014-07-16 07:28 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  To maintain consistency, BroTech was rebranded as D**kTech
6. Re:Where's BroTech? by foradoxium · 2014-07-16 07:30 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  so true.
  discrimination is discrimination, unless you're on the beneficiary side of the stick. But hey, isn't that what makes the US of A so special?
7. Re: Where's BroTech? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  Not a BTTF fan, I take it?
8. Re: Where's BroTech? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  GREAT SCOTT!
  We've entered a parallel timeline where both mods and posters don't know about Back to the Future!
9. Re: Where's BroTech? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 08:22 · Score: 0
  
  How do you know it's parallel? Wouldn't that depend on which time-travel theory being postulated?
10. Re: Where's BroTech? by Immerman · 2014-07-17 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  Easy - the perpendicular timelines aren't nearly so similar.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
11. Re:Where's BroTech? by CauseBy · 2014-07-17 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  When I saw this headline about ChickTech it made me rethink the company BroadCom, and wonder when we will have BitchWorks and HoGrammers.
  Times must have changed because ten years ago when I was coming of age, "chick" was an unacceptable diminutive.
12. Re:Where's BroTech? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  it's why organizations like this are needed.
  I have a cousin who wants to learn about X. But every where my cousin looks, my cousin is turned away for being the "wrong" gender. My cousin does not understand why some people are let in but others are not, and so my cousin wants to acquire the "right" gender. I sadly had to tell my cousin that the "right" gender is something one must be born with. Now, my cousin, who had always looked at it as we're all people instead of as them vs us, hates the other gender.
  
  Congratulations. You did not simply add wood to the fire of discrimination, you reignited the spark.
This is sexist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 06:59 · Score: 0

Why don't we just accept people as people and do away with all these diversity reports and similar crap.
If we keep focusing on how diverse we are, we miss the point of being tolerant and accepting of others who are different. Equality and Acceptance comes when we begin to realize that this type of thing only perpetuates intolerance
1. Re:This is sexist by maliqua · 2014-07-16 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  I agree kind of,....
  An organization entirely run by women and doesn't accept men.
  Because segregation is the key to integration and tolerance right?
2. Re:This is sexist by maliqua · 2014-07-16 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  whoops i thought i was replying to the post by the_skywise, begin troll with my blessing
3. Re:This is sexist by Gaygirlie · 2014-07-16 07:07 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Oh, yes, because that has worked so well in the past? There are still lots of ages-old prejudices and preconceptions, like e.g. women suck at anything technical and men who become nurses must be feminine gays and so on. These things do not change unless they're forcibly made to change and ignoring these things helps no one.
4. Re:This is sexist by AmiMoJo · 2014-07-16 07:10 · Score: 2
  
  TFA claims that "The participants can look around the building and see that girls from all backgrounds are just as excited about tech as they are." If that is true then clearly there is a problem because girls are interested but put off for some reason. At the very least it blows the argument that girls just don't like engineering out of the water.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
5. Re:This is sexist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  So by creating an environment only welcoming to one group is the way to the solution?
  take any 2 groups any 2 groups separate them and have them work exclusively with people from their own group... then see how well they integrate when you combined them together... do they seem to have a prejudice against the other group? do they flock together or intermingle freely?
6. Re:This is sexist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 07:12 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I will leave this right here:
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem...
  And this more controversial one:
  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...
  I will say I'm a fan of female scientists, there are some with biochemical and chemical degrees in my family (who have long since abandoned the field for hearth and home, a decision of their own choosing), but I see a lot of men who are promoting it simply trying to make women in their own image. Maybe they are dads with only one child, daughters, which is very common now or what not. But actively steering them away from traditional female disciplines just because it offends our modern senses of "diversity" and conflating equality with equal results is just as wrong imo.
7. Re:This is sexist by Gaygirlie · 2014-07-16 07:15 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  When one of the groups is already prejudiced against and is lacking in skills and education exactly because of this behaviour, then yes, you really do need to take steps to fix this. You can get your panties in a bunch over this all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that women are, indeed, in a position where they're not being taken seriously and where they're afraid of even getting education in these matters.
8. Re:This is sexist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 07:18 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If I'm talking about the national budget in some advertised talk, and I look around during my lecture and see people very interested in the topic, should I say the majority of the population loves studying economics?
  What kind of fucking logic is that?
9. Re:This is sexist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Seems to me to be a poor way to be taken seriously. It screams "we cannot compete with men so we must create our own exclusive clubs." Fear of getting an education because someone might disapprove is just pathetic.
10. Re:This is sexist by Tokolosh · 2014-07-16 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, this is not accepting diversity. It is trying to force sameness.
  
  --
  Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
11. Re:This is sexist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 07:27 · Score: 0
  
  Seems if you look through their entire board and leadership and research its 100% female. seems to me if they were accepting of men ( i didn't say they didn't allow men just didn't accept them) we wouldn't be segregated to low level functions only
  even a bigot will let who they oppose clean up their crap.
12. Re:This is sexist by i+kan+reed · 2014-07-16 07:31 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  I forgot that "Marcus" was a female name. My mistake.
  Bald faced liars make for the best threads.
13. Re:This is sexist by rolfwind · 2014-07-16 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  It seems the stereotype threat theory is a myth:
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
14. Re:This is sexist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  MARKETING!
15. Re:This is sexist by Gaygirlie · 2014-07-16 07:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The article doesn't actually talk about what this ChickTech is about. "According to that theory, girls tend to perform worse on tests after they've been told they'll do poorly." -- entirely a different matter. This isn't about addressing whether women do poorly or not, it's about addressing the whole premise of women even trying in the first place because of various efforts to dissuade them from it.
16. Re:This is sexist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 07:48 · Score: 0
  
  Again and again, any time someone tries to work on the 90/10 problem in software development
  When do we start addressing the 90/10 "problem" in the NBA? Or in Hair Salons/Schools/Nursing?
17. Re:This is sexist by i+kan+reed · 2014-07-16 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  NBA is granted permission to be gender segregated by the US congress. I don't really approve, but it is the law.
  We do have programs to work on gender ratios in Nursing, teaching, and Salons aren't exactly a career people aspire to, as if that were equivalent.
  The difference is feminists don't come whining about people trying to make progress in these areas because they feel threatened. They welcome the break in stigmatized job roles.
  MRAs, on the other hand, just love to pretend any attempt at social progress are an attempt to discriminate. And their whines pierce the vale of every single debate.
18. Re:This is sexist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  The token male who suddenly appeared on the internet in April of this year, with no information to back up "his" existence, other than the listing on that page and a single article toeing ChickTech's party line? That Marcus?
  Also: https://web.archive.org/web/20130529232614/http://www.chicktech.org/about-us. You'll note that doesn't go to the "Leadership Teams" page, because, according to that page's source, it was created 5/23/2014 (and updated this morning).
  So, the AC claimed the leadership was 100% female when it's (reputedly) actually (at least) 93.75% female. Wow... you really told 'em with that "bald faced liars" bit. Do single-digit-percentile discrepancies always drive you to froth?
19. Re: This is sexist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  There are men involved in leadership. Maybe you should check out their website and educate yourself.
20. Re:This is sexist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  NBA is granted permission to be gender segregated by the US congress.
  I think your parent would go "WHOOOOOSH" but you might take that as a purely basketball reference....
21. Re:This is sexist by i+kan+reed · 2014-07-16 08:44 · Score: 1
  
  So, now it's a grand conspiracy to fabricate fictional men in order to discredit internet commenters.
  Yep. That's sane.
22. Re:This is sexist by Darinbob · 2014-07-16 08:52 · Score: 1
  
  I joined SWE, Society for Women Engineers. Never had to take a DNA test or anything.
23. Re:This is sexist by MouseTheLuckyDog · 2014-07-16 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  That's because they pretend to like diversity, but come to work everyday dressed as Pennywise, or respect "Talk like a Pirate Day".
  Shoot I've been harassed at work for using fountain pens with purple ink, working with my office light off, and a bunch of other stuff.
  They wanmt their token diversity, but when it comes ot real diversity forget it.
24. Re:This is sexist by epyT-R · 2014-07-16 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  Promoting access based on sex is sexually discriminating. Whether it's men or women, for or against, it doesn't matter. Building bias into the system under the guise of promoting 'diversity' and/or 'equality' is even worse than the original discrimination it claims to fight because it adds hypocrisy to the pile.
  The reality is that 'diversity' and 'equality' are mutually exclusive. To feminists, it should be the ('empowered' female run) state that decides how and when one trumps the other, building privilege for women into the system. A system that encourages use of relevant discriminators when making decisions doesn't need any of this because it would treat everyone justly. Of course, this would also put a lot of politicians and lawyers out of a job.
25. Re:This is sexist by epyT-R · 2014-07-16 09:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The litmus test is in applying the opposite logic. What would the situation be if they were promoting boys instead, and someone like yourself came along and answered feminist criticism with "but see they accept women too!" Even if they did, their primary discriminator is still the sex of the student instead of relevant discriminators, like aptitude and interest. The bottom line is you (or some other feminist) would have called someone out for saying
  
  "While they're overwhelmingly male in structure, you're absolutely wrong in your made up assertion that they don't accept women."
26. Re:This is sexist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 09:09 · Score: 0
  
  Conspiracy theories are derided because most of those require the cooperation of thousands of people that have no personal interest in maintaining the conspiracy. That's why moon hoaxers are mocked. I don't know if Marcus exists or not, he probably does and honestly I don't care. However, if he didn't, modifying a webpage to create an imaginary person does not require a "grand conspiracy" just the complicity of a few persons.
27. Re:This is sexist by i+kan+reed · 2014-07-16 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  "I don't care, but let me rationalize this out-of-nowhere accusation that makes no sense"
28. Re:This is sexist by i+kan+reed · 2014-07-16 09:27 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Oh, no, I wouldn't say that's a problem for a reversed situation either. The society of male nurses is mostly male, for example, because they're specifically addressing concerns of male nurses. There's a natural and not-fundamentally sexist reason for that divide to have some degree of existence.
  People do have a need to be concerned with their own interests.
  You accuse me of hypocrisy, when the reverse you assert is entirely within acceptable bounds of anyone who isn't a tremendous misandrist. The fact that hypermisogynisic assholes run rampant on slashdot is gravely concerning.
  Now if it were, say, an industry, instead of a gender issues organization, that would be cause for alarm and serious work. The problem here is just sexist pretending to care about sexism. And nothing else.
29. Re:This is sexist by Livius · 2014-07-16 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  When there's a statistically significant imbalance between the sexes, sometimes it's because of discrimination, and sometimes it's because there are actual statistically significant difference physical and psychological difference between men and women,.
  They could distinguish between the two, of course, but that would require thinking.
30. Re:This is sexist by Livius · 2014-07-16 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Those aren't "prejudices and preconceptions" any more.
  Maybe they're just your prejudices and preconceptions.
31. Re:This is sexist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 11:30 · Score: 0
  
  You've got it all wrong - the overwhelming majority being female doesn't mean they're excluding men - it just shows that there's a genetic predisposition on the part of the dudes to not want to be involved in things that help women succeed in science and math!
  Do you see how your own argument can undermine your own points? Do you realize yet how ridiculous and fallacious it is?
32. Re:This is sexist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  I care about correct reasoning, I don't care about that Marcus. I actually believe he exists. But that doesn't change the fact you said the above accusation was a conspiracy theory. It isn't. Not all accusations lacking evidence are conspiracy theories. You should have just stated "you have no evidence Marcus doesn't exist".
33. Re:This is sexist by epyT-R · 2014-07-16 12:50 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  The issue is that male focused groups are criticized for it while female groups are lauded. Sure, the society for male nurses might be mostly male, but try building a society specifically for male engineers. What happens? The SJWs come out in droves clamoring for the death of the 'patriarchy.' Meanwhile the last 50 years of new laws and social reforms lobbied for by feminists force organizations to select for women because of their sex and not their accomplishments.
  Criticism of feminism's hypocrisy is often taken as misogyny when it is not, which is what a lot of feminist critics deal with on slashdot and the mainstream media. These arguments are just ad hominem attacks (eg calling them misogynists) and other fallacies (like taking it as 'proof' of patriarchy) because feminists don't have sound justifications for granting women privilege in society under the guise of fighting for everyone's equal opportunity. This cannot be true as long as feminists only concern themselves with the needs and whims of one sex. Many of them have no qualms about 'redefining' masculinity as well, which is ironic considering how they don't want men dictating what a woman should be in any sense.
  You're right, though, people should be able to concern themselves with their own interests and ally as they see fit, but it is wrong to have the state dictate which cross sections are permitted to do this, labeling some as 'oppressors' and others as 'oppressed,' by default. This 'chicktech' initiative is no more or less discriminatory than my male engineering society example above. If one should be allowed then so should the other.
34. Re:This is sexist by Kielistic · 2014-07-17 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody disagrees with you in a debate!? The nerve of some people!
35. Re:This is sexist by AmiMoJo · 2014-07-17 00:50 · Score: 0
  
  Really? The women-hating Daily Fail is your source. Literally the last place you would go to find any reliable, balanced information on women's issues. Even the photo in the story was selected to show the maximum amount of boob.
  How about I just leave this here: http://youtu.be/r9dqNTTdYKY
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
36. Re:This is sexist by i+kan+reed · 2014-07-17 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Why would you need a group to help get more people who are already overrepresented into an industry.
  This. Makes. No. Sense.
37. Re:This is sexist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  So, now it's the red herring instead of defending your implication of diversity in a stratum of the workforce that's demonstrably at least 93.75% gender-biased.
  Yep. That's trollin'.
38. Re:This is sexist by i+kan+reed · 2014-07-17 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  There absolutely was the accusation of a conspiracy theory there.
  "I can't prove to myself he exists" is directly implying the assertion that he doesn't and thus is fabricated. It's literally crazy.
39. Re:This is sexist by i+kan+reed · 2014-07-17 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  "Why would there be self selection for jobs on women's rights"
  --an abject moron.
40. Re:This is sexist by david_thornley · 2014-07-17 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, distinguishing between discrimination and actual systematic differences requires experimentation. We know that women do not do a great many athletic things as well as men, as a general rule, because lots of people have tried.
  The fact that there are lots fewer women than men in tech suggests to me that there's likely discrimination going on, and that it would be worthwhile to find out. I keep remembering my son's middle school math club, which was something over half girls. From what I heard, that was not rare. Where do they all go later on?
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Name by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 07:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

The probably could've pick a name that wasn't so terrible.
1. Re:Name by sycodon · 2014-07-16 07:19 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I had a business called ComputerChicks. For $500 they'd come to your house, fix up your computer and then fix you up...any way you wanted.
  The authorities got really cranky about it.
  But I did get meet a lot of really interesting guys over the course of 5 to 10 years with time off for good behavior.
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
2. Re:Name by boristdog · 2014-07-16 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  I actually had a business called "rent a nerd" in the early 90's when I was in my mid 20's and in great shape. I got lots of repeat calls from lonely divorced women to fix very simple "problems" with their computers. e.g. Problem: "My screen is blank!" Solution: "Turn up the brightness knob" | Problem: "My software won't load!" Solution: "You have to run the install.exe program, not the readme.txt"
  If I hadn't had a girlfriend and/or a conscience at the time I would have made even more money. I did get a lot of free sandwiches & beverages, and got to see a lot of low-neckline shirts.
But girls really *can't* do math. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 07:06 · Score: 0

Not without some guy offering his help, then stating dumbfounded "uh, that's actually pretty hard. Are you sure that's what you are supposed to be doing? How about we do something else?"
Kuhscheisse. by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-16 07:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

It means "Cow shit."
Looking around my cube farm:
3 rows of 9 cubes for a total of 27 cubes.
3 cubes are inhabited by boxes and spare equipment, the rest by people.
Out of 24 cubes with people, a solid half (13 to be precise) are filled with females, the rest, males.
So, no, there is not a "shortage of girls in tech." Now, there may be a "shortage of girls" in certain avenues of the tech industry, but I'll bet dollars against pesos that there's a perfectly reasonable, non-misogynistic reason for at least the majority of those shortages.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
1. Re:Kuhscheisse. by doctor+woot · 2014-07-16 07:16 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  You're a good statistician and sociologist. Strongly persuaded by the narrow anecdote you used to support your loosely worded presumptuous conclusion. This is the quality bullshit comment systems were invented for.
2. Re:Kuhscheisse. by gstoddart · 2014-07-16 07:17 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  So, no, there is not a "shortage of girls in tech." Now, there may be a "shortage of girls" in certain avenues of the tech industry
  Were they in actual tech roles, or non tech roles?
  My own experience says I've never seen more than about 10-15% female actually in tech roles. I've never worked at a place which didn't have women in tech roles, but there's always been a bit of a skewing towards males.
  Heck, when I was in school, the ratio was about the same in my classes, and seemed to drop as you went to more advanced classes. There were more in first year classes, but as you went up there were fewer people overall, and the number of women dropped faster for the most part. I was dating the only female in my classes for the last few years of school.
  But my experience (yes, purely anecdotal, and I don't claim otherwise) is that out of 27 cubes the most I've ever seen is 2-3 women, and that's an upper bound.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
3. Re:Kuhscheisse. by AmiMoJo · 2014-07-16 07:21 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  So, no, there is not a "shortage of girls in tech.
  Your survey of your immediate surroundings isn't very convincing in the face of much wider studies and larger data sets. Are you one of those people who doesn't believe in climate change because it's quite cool in your office?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
4. Re:Kuhscheisse. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  Analysts, testers, managers, yes. Developers? Not so much. I've only worked with a few women coders in my career (interestingly, all of them were awesome programmers). Even in college, there was a relatively equal gender balance in IT but very few women enrolled in programming classes.
  My wife is a teacher. Her school has somewhere around 50 classrooms. Out of all the teachers and staff, there are only two men.
  But I never wanted to be a teacher. No amount of encouragement or support would have pushed me toward that profession. I just have no interest in it.
5. Re:Kuhscheisse. by sycodon · 2014-07-16 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  But were they young, cute girls?
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
6. Re:Kuhscheisse. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  There are women in the IT department where I work, but they're in operations, doing tasks assigned to them by more technically oriented people. In a prior job we had female developers, but they were all Russian, which points to a problem in our educational system. There's no reason Russian women should be more capable of complex technology work than American women, other than a cultural problem here.
7. Re:Kuhscheisse. by woodworx · 2014-07-16 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  much as I like the english to german translation, I think Norm Schwartzkopf called it better during the first gulf war. Bovine Scatology.
8. Re:Kuhscheisse. by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-16 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  But were they young, cute girls?
  No...
  OK, suddenly I have a "good" reason to support this ChickTech idea...
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
9. Re:Kuhscheisse. by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-16 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  So, no, there is not a "shortage of girls in tech.
  Your survey of your immediate surroundings isn't very convincing in the face of much wider studies and larger data sets. Are you one of those people who doesn't believe in climate change because it's quite cool in your office?
  Unlike the author of TFA, who doesn't even bother with facts or statistics at all, but rather predicates their entire platform on the statement "Dur, we need more gurls in tech!"
  Seriously, go read TFA. It's not so much an article as an advertisement for the organization.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
10. Re:Kuhscheisse. by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-16 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  So, no, there is not a "shortage of girls in tech." Now, there may be a "shortage of girls" in certain avenues of the tech industry
  Were they in actual tech roles, or non tech roles?
  Seems about 50/50 - half are either in management or administrative roles, the rest are either developers, project coordinators, or systems designers and installers. In my department, 2/3 of the managers are women.
  
  My own experience says I've never seen more than about 10-15% female actually in tech roles. I've never worked at a place which didn't have women in tech roles, but there's always been a bit of a skewing towards males.
  It does seem that tech jobs tend to have more men than women in them (sure, half the women are devs, but 80% of the men are too), but I don't believe the reasoning to be nearly as misogynistic as some of these "gurls up" organizations want us to think. It's just that most chicks don't dig coding, just like most men aren't big fans of sewing. Has nothing to do with ability.
  
  Heck, when I was in school, the ratio was about the same in my classes, and seemed to drop as you went to more advanced classes.
  Interesting, I had the opposite experience - I recall 1 female student in most of my 100-level classes, but when I came back to the higher level stuff after a 2 year hiatus, about a 1/4 of the students were ladies; still not "equal numbers," but significantly higher enrollment than a few years prior.
  
  But my experience (yes, purely anecdotal, and I don't claim otherwise) is that out of 27 cubes the most I've ever seen is 2-3 women, and that's an upper bound.
  What part of the country? I'm in the Midwest, I wonder if perhaps geographics/local demographics is an influencing factor?
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
11. Re:Kuhscheisse. by CanHasDIY · 2014-07-16 08:03 · Score: 2
  
  You're a good statistician and sociologist. Strongly persuaded by the narrow anecdote you used to support your loosely worded presumptuous conclusion.
  I know, right? Do you think CNN will hire me to do a show, or should I shoot more towards the ultra-partisan MSNBC/FOX News crowds? When it comes to BS I can make Ann Coulter look like a rank amateur.
  'Course, were I to respond in a slightly less sardonic manner, I'd mention how if you're the sort of person who extrapolates someone's personal anecdote about their own officemates to imply a globally-viable statistic, well, that little bit o' idiocy is on you, not me.
  Slightly less sardonic...
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
12. Re:Kuhscheisse. by doctor+woot · 2014-07-16 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Either you're implying that you really don't know how "so" works as a conjunction or you're backpedaling. I'd believe either at this point.
13. Re:Kuhscheisse. by Yunzil · 2014-07-16 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  They say that almost 20% of the world's population is Chinese. However there are no Chinese people working in any of the offices on the same floor of the building as me. Therefore I conclude that all these so-called experts are wrong and there are in fact no Chinese people.
14. Re:Kuhscheisse. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 08:16 · Score: 0
  
  Do you suppose there is actually a natural reason women are drawn to professions that involve dealing with people such as medicine and law and not objects like machines? I think there is. And I also think its a mistake to take their naturally occurring desires and telling them it is wrong to be drawn to a type of subject they desire and should instead pursue things they have a hard time getting interested in and, once most of them are 'exposed' to it (I love that term. Its like they are Amish people who never even used a computer or modern appliance before) find not that they can't do it but that they just really don't like it? Feminists and others who find a conspiracy behind every bush need to reflect a little bit more deeply about how reality rarely mirrors their politics.
  And isn't it astounding that more women don't choose welding and HVAC repair as professions? They are as rare there as they are on the moon and no feminist is decrying women for not getting involved in that area.
15. Re:Kuhscheisse. by AmiMoJo · 2014-07-16 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Out of 24 cubes with people, a solid half (13 to be precise) are filled with females, the rest, males.
  So, no, there is not a "shortage of girls in tech."
  
  You made the extrapolation yourself.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
16. Re:Kuhscheisse. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  Better ration then I've seen. I can't find any sexy male waiters at Twin Peaks or Hooters. Why?
17. Re:Kuhscheisse. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  I work on a programming team of three. I am the only male. I'd like to see fewer females in tech, thank you very much.
18. Re:Kuhscheisse. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 11:41 · Score: 0
  
  It's just that most chicks don't dig coding, just like most men aren't big fans of sewing. Has nothing to do with ability.
  Why don't chicks "dig" coding? Can you point to a specific genetic or physiological variation that's sex-linked? Or are you just talking out your ass?
  Why aren't men fans of sewing? Again, can you point to a specific genetic or physiological variation that's sex-linked? Or are you just talking out your ass?
  I'll save you the trouble: you're talking out your ass, and stating your own prejudices and biases as if they were well-established fact.
  
  What part of the country? I'm in the Midwest, I wonder if perhaps geographics/local demographics is an influencing factor?
  So wait, I'm confused - first you assert that "chicks don't dig coding," but then you try to qualify it with, "oh well, it must just be girls from a certain area"? Again: if you cannot point to specific genetic or physiological variations that are only present in women when making this assertion, you're talking out your ass.
19. Re:Kuhscheisse. by mirix · 2014-07-16 16:47 · Score: 1
  
  Russians have the innate ability to code.
  
  --
  Sent from my PDP-11
20. Re:Kuhscheisse. by Kielistic · 2014-07-17 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  And what exactly are you doing? Does he have to give you the exact "dig coding" gene and explain why it's not expressed in women before you'll stop chanting "you're talking out of your ass"? It's not exactly outrages to say that two genders that often exhibit different preferences and interests might have different preferences and interests.
This is sexually racist by doctor+woot · 2014-07-16 07:12 · Score: 0

I abhor the use of personal resources to aid any specific group of people for any reason. People should spend their money only in ways that further my own interest, I'm too insecure to have it any other way.
People trying to help others overcome inequality makes me sick.
1. Re:This is sexually racist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. And lets use up your money first since that is the only money that will work on this 'intractable' problem. Then we'll go pillage another poor fool at the point of a government gun and see how that works.
2. Re:This is sexually racist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 16:32 · Score: 0
  
  People trying to help others overcome inequality makes me sick.
  You jest, but fools often do when ignorance is common.
  
  "ChickTech: High School" initiative, which gathers hundreds of young women for two-day workshops featuring open source technologies."
  Where is StudTech then? Equality is not achieved through sexist application of support to one sex or the other. It could have just been KidTech, and fostered both boys and girls, you know, working together, showing that they can both do tech and math, etc. Nope, female centric male exclusive. Hey, get this. There are hundreds of government programs that benefit only females. I have yet to find one that benefits exclusively males.
  This is not trying to help others overcome inequality. It is creating inequality.
Coastal Big Cities only by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 07:12 · Score: 0

In other words not very effective at all.
Great Idea by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 07:17 · Score: 0

ChickTech sounds like a great idea. Teach women to make their own online sex surveys and horoscope generators.
hmmm... by woodworx · 2014-07-16 07:40 · Score: 1

my seventeen year old daughter scored a 5 on the AP Calculus AB exam. she intends on teaching High School Math. ( why she wants to go back to high school, I have yet to understand.) so in my mind, girls get to choose what they want to do just like guys do. dunno why girls don't choose geekage as much as guys do... could be the tan line possibilities.... (or not)
1. Re:hmmm... by the_skywise · 2014-07-16 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  Hear hear...
  In my experience it's not that they can't be programmers it's that they don't WANT to be programmers. The smartest women in my family is a bio-engineer. The second smartest got an MBA (well.. y'know...we love her anyway. ;) ) I've known women physicists, astro-physicists, doctors (the MD kind), veterinarians, and psychiatrists. (None in a professional capacity) All of them geeks in one way or the other but all of them HATE computers and only use them as a necessary evil. I work in IT and have worked with a FEW women programmers compared to the hundreds of men I've encountered and worked with.
  It's anecdotal to be sure, but I don't see women being scared out of STEM fields so much as women don't seem to "like" technical engineering/machines as career choices even though they're perfectly capable of doing the work. Is that something to do with existing patriarchal social power structures or something more intrinsic to how the sexes look at problem-solving? (This is aside from the sexism that IS inherent in all the fields but I don't think that's the core problem.)
2. Re:hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 08:21 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly! It's like trying to get women interested in cars. A few do. Most don't.
Peer pressure? by Vyse+of+Arcadia · 2014-07-16 07:40 · Score: 1

My completely anecdotal non-scientific evidence is that girls interested in math, science, and tech were mostly discouraged by their peers. Communities to support girls and women pursuing tech are great and all, but I feel like for a lot of girls it's going to come down to one very simple question: do I get new hobbies, or do I get new friends? It wouldn't surprise me if a majority of girls choose the latter.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe things have changed since the decade or so since I was a high school student. Maybe it really was just my high school. But my suspicion is that this is still common, and ChickTech is going to have to find a way to solve the peer pressure problem.
1. Re:Peer pressure? by Tokolosh · 2014-07-16 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  I found this interesting: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
  
  --
  Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
2. Re:Peer pressure? by the_skywise · 2014-07-16 08:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I have to question the analysis after this:
  "These STEM majors, as with economics, begin with few women enrolling and end with even fewer graduating. This “leaky pipeline” has been somewhat puzzling, Arcidiacono said, because women enter college just as prepared as men in math and science. On average, women more eagerly spend time studying than men do, a trait that should theoretically attract women to STEM fields, which generally assign more homework."
  More homework? Women should be attracted to STEM fields because they "generally assign more homework"?!
  Well... THERE'S YOUR PROBLEM.
  F- that... That's not at all why I wanted to go into "STEM" fields. I wanted to build s**t.
Here's a better name by hackingbear · 2014-07-16 07:41 · Score: 2

Chick Squad
1. Re:Here's a better name by louaish88 · 2014-07-16 08:45 · Score: 2
  
  Teen Girl Squad
geek stuff is for pimple-faced, socially awkward by raymorris · 2014-07-16 07:43 · Score: 1

BS on anyone thinking "geek is for boys". Everyone knows geek work is for both pimple-faced, socially awkward boys AND fat girls too.
Which doesn't explain why my boss is so good at it, nor why my mom was an awesome programmer and analyst - neither of them are fat.
Open Source Women by Bob_Who · 2014-07-16 07:46 · Score: 1

I just love the sound of that.

Oink
1. Re:Open Source Women by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  but the code is still obfuscated like crazy.
Feel good kumbaya by Gothmolly · 2014-07-16 07:52 · Score: 3, Informative

a) there's nothing special about Open Source
b) being excited about something is not tangible
c) self-esteem is not the point
d) being a career non-profit means that you never created value
e) Oregon is full of hipsters and douches

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
to a larger extent, this is culture war. by nimbius · 2014-07-16 08:04 · Score: 0, Troll

The largely patriarchal narrative woven into the fabric of the american dream is that women are caretakers of children and roasters of turkey during holidays. Whereas the soviet union in the 1970's boasted much greater equality in the workplace in terms of female STEM headcount, the US doubled-down on rhetoric, shuffled 'in god we trust' into the pledge, and made haste to forget rosie the riveter ever existed.

We have an entire party in government that literally see women as uselessly inferior to men. We cant even approach the idea that women are, in terms of sexuality, to be treated as equals to men. Womens healthcare at the local and state level is nothing short of an embarassing campaign to wipe the scourge of contraception off the map, at any cost. Colleges routinely hush up rape cases and take it upon themselves to redact student names and details of repression and reprisal. Its also sadly true that not a day goes by where a politician or religious leader claims to speak for reason when they ardently affirm rape can be 'legitimate' and its the womans fault. Our approach to womens education is inconsistent at best as women didnt get to attend military colleges until the 1970s, and it wasnt until 2013 that we decided they could not only participate in the military but actually serve a combat role.

so yeah, if we ask ourselves why the deficit exists its because we have tacitly and communally agreed that women are inferior, despite a thin veneer of nodding and applause for our insistent declaration that women are no different than men and can achieve anything.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:to a larger extent, this is culture war. by Raseri · 2014-07-16 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  The mods have identified you as a troll, but in case you're really this ignorant, here are some numbers showing that "patriarchal oppression" has not stopped women from becoming the majority of recipients of all degrees, up to and including doctoral degrees. This would seem to indicate that such oppression is purely the stuff of myth and legend.
  
  --
  Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
2. Re:to a larger extent, this is culture war. by mvdwege · 2014-07-16 18:21 · Score: 0
  
  And where does that refute his point? Despite the fact that society pats women on the head by passing them a largely useless piece of paper (it's still mostly your social network that determines advancement, not your degree), we still get politicians like Akin, and the Hobby Lobby decision.
  Quite frankly, GP is right, and the Troll mod is probably the work of yet another pimply MRA type.
  
  --
  "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
3. Re:to a larger extent, this is culture war. by Raseri · 2014-07-17 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  Despite the fact that society pats women on the head by passing them a largely useless piece of paper
  
  You don't think women earn their degrees, or that having a degree increases anyone's earning potential? Okay.
  
  the Troll mod is probably the work of yet another pimply MRA type.
  This isn't jezebel.com. If strawman and ad hominem arguments are all you bring to the table, then you can expect more troll mods in the future.
  
  --
  Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
4. Re:to a larger extent, this is culture war. by mvdwege · 2014-07-17 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Again I ask, what does that single stat do to refute the multiple points brought up by its parent post?
  
  --
  "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
5. Re:to a larger extent, this is culture war. by Raseri · 2014-07-17 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  I only gave one example because there's no need to refute troll posts point by parroted talking point. If you don't agree that even one piece of actual, reliable data is stronger than a million appeals to emotion, that's your choice, and I won't waste my time or bandwidth trying to convince you otherwise.
  
  --
  Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
6. Re:to a larger extent, this is culture war. by mvdwege · 2014-07-17 19:26 · Score: 1
  
  OP gave multiple, well-documented cases, of which I was so nice to actually put a name to two, but anyone who followed the news the past 5 years recognised them.
  Of course, like a typical troll with no argument you just shout "t'ain't so!" and run away, while projecting your own moral bankruptcy on the other. I had expected nothing better after asking you to back up your position.
  
  --
  "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
7. Re:to a larger extent, this is culture war. by Raseri · 2014-07-18 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  If it will make you stop whining:
  
  The largely patriarchal narrative woven into the fabric of the american dream is that women are caretakers of children and roasters of turkey during holidays.
  What's wrong with taking care of children? It's a hard fucking job, and one that I honestly hope you never have. This is changing, anyway: http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
  
  Whereas the soviet union in the 1970's boasted much greater equality in the workplace in terms of female STEM headcount
  [citation needed]
  
  the US doubled-down on rhetoric, shuffled 'in god we trust' into the pledge, and made haste to forget rosie the riveter ever existed.
  [citation needed]
  
  We have an entire party in government that literally see women as uselessly inferior to men.
  Are you suggesting that government is actually representative of the people? Because I'm fairly certain it is not (see also: the NSA, NDAA, FCC, and so on).
  
  We cant even approach the idea that women are, in terms of sexuality, to be treated as equals to men.
  Not so fast there, senpai. What's this "we" bullshit? Maybe you can't get your head around that concept, but the pronoun you're looking for is "I."
  
  Womens healthcare at the local and state level is nothing short of an embarassing campaign to wipe the scourge of contraception off the map, at any cost.
  This is pure hyperbole. Again, maybe it's true where you live, but there are 50 states in this country, and I'm going to go ahead and guess that mvdwege has never been to any of them ('recognised' gave you away as being a foreigner; we spell it 'recognized'), let alone lived in any of them long enough to know anything about it.
  
  Colleges routinely hush up rape cases and take it upon themselves to redact student names and details of repression and reprisal.
  Routinely? And you're saying all colleges do this? Before you point to a couple of high-profile cases, anyone else can just as easily point to a couple of high-profile cases where the woman was proven to be a liar. The problem is that such cases tend to be anomolous, which is why they make the news.
  
  Its also sadly true that not a day goes by where a politician or religious leader claims to speak for reason when they ardently affirm rape can be 'legitimate' and its the womans fault.
  You expect reason from politicians and religious leaders? Fantastic. Do let us know how that works out for you.
  
  Our approach to womens education is inconsistent at best as women didnt get to attend military colleges until the 1970s, and it wasnt until 2013 that we decided they could not only participate in the military but actually serve a combat role.
  This is a given. I would expect the military to evolve more slowly than the rest of society; it doesn't exactly attract the brightest bulbs in the box.
  
  so yeah, if we ask ourselves why the deficit exists its because we have tacitly and communally agreed that women are inferior
  Again with "we," and again, the pronoun you're looking for is "I."
  
  , despite a thin veneer of nodding and applause for our insistent declaration that women are no different than men and can achieve anything.
  [citation needed]
  
  OP gave multiple, well-documented cases
  No, OP did no such thing. Maybe something in that post triggered you to recall the narrative that the feminists have hammered into you, but read it again. Notice that there are no citations of any kind.
  
  Of course, like a typical troll with no argument you just shout "t'ain't so!" and run away, while projecting your own moral bankruptcy
  
  --
  Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
Relevant question by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 08:04 · Score: 0

How many of them of them collision repair shop mechanics are women? Maybe women are disadvantaged in getting those jobs too. Better start a training program.
Shameless Plug by psybre · 2014-07-16 08:07 · Score: 1

Also see:
The Ada Initiative.

--
Authority questions you. Return the favor. -- d474
Selective Service by Tokolosh · 2014-07-16 08:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wake me up when women are required to register for Selective Service, and qualify to be shot or blown up against their will.
https://www.sss.gov/fswho.htm
WHO MUST REGISTER
Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male immigrants living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service.

--
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
1. Re:Selective Service by AmiMoJo · 2014-07-16 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  How about instead of forcing women to fight against their will you just stop forcing anyone of any gender? Most first world countries don't have any kind of mandatory service.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
2. Re:Selective Service by Oligonicella · 2014-07-16 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Because they rely on ours. It would be interesting to see the change if we pulled all protective forces back.
3. Re:Selective Service by blue9steel · 2014-07-16 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  You're right of course. Heinlein had the correct solution, namely that all conflicts should only be initiated by referendum and that anyone voting yes is automatically drafted if it passes.
4. Re:Selective Service by misexistentialist · 2014-07-16 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Every country has plans to mobilize men, except maybe in Africa where they prefer to draft little boys. The socialist countries don't need any kind of registration because all citizens are already tabulated into the collective through national IDs, health insurance, welfare, etc. Though the OP's complaint is rather trivial, I'd be more outraged about the average female's tax/entitlement ratio.
5. Re:Selective Service by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 09:28 · Score: 0
  
  Because they rely on ours. It would be interesting to see the change if we pulled all protective forces back.
  I wouldn't be called a patriot by most, and worse by some, and the ramifications are still obvious to me. If the US decided to no longer be the world police, within a decade or two would be the bloodiest, gruesomest, and most economically damaging shitshow the world will ever likely to see. It would also probably congeal into one huge war that would truly end all wars. Pakistan and India. Greece and Turkey. Russia and everybody. The Koreas. Middle east conflicts up till now would be seen as a polite disagreement. They would all go after eachother without the threat of the Big Green Bully with USA stamped on all their gear.
  What a disaster with a hair trigger.
6. Re:Selective Service by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 10:12 · Score: 0
  
  SEX GENDER CHANGE / TRANSEXUAL
  Individuals who are born female and have a sex change are not required to register. U.S. citizens or immigrants who are born male and have a sex change are still required to register.
  This is also interesting...
7. Re:Selective Service by phantomfive · 2014-07-16 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  How about instead of forcing women to fight against their will you just stop forcing anyone of any gender? Most first world countries don't have any kind of mandatory service.
  I think you're getting confused by differences of terms.......in the US, no one is forced to fight. We have to register, but it is something that will not be used until emergencies (of course, the definition of emergency is flexible).
  
  Most countries have some kind of registration, or provision that will allow conscription when it becomes necessary. Some countries, like Russia, South Korea and Switzerland, require actual military service. That is something different, and not what happens in the US.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
8. Re:Selective Service by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 16:45 · Score: 0
  
  It would be just like now. There's so many mercenaries (like Blackwater) paid to "lend support" to American troops (give our troops orders, when the mercenaries answer to no one) that when Obama starts saying shit like, "I'll just ignore congress and do whatever I want," my dictator red flag goes through the fucking roof, and yours would too, if you really knew what you were talking about.
9. Re:Selective Service by CauseBy · 2014-07-17 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  If America ever again uses the draft, that will either be changed first or will be challenged successfully in court by the first draftee. But in general I agree with you, it's an obviously unconstitutional law.
Re:Coding by aevan · 2014-07-16 08:49 · Score: 1

I've seen studies go either way. I've seen claims that women CAUSE more accidents (random braking etc) that they themselves don't get INTO the accident, but effect the people they had cut off etc (claims by traffic cops). I've watch women apply makeup while making lane-changes on 6-lane highways, or declare they waited long enough to cross a highway "they'll just have to stop". Personally come across as many accidents caused by hesitation as by aggression.

tl;dr: Both genders have their share of incompetent morons.
Not the way to do it.... by mark-t · 2014-07-16 08:54 · Score: 2

"In the United States, many girls are brought up to believe that 'girls can't do math' and that science and other 'geeky' topics are for boys," Davidson said. "We break down that idea."
Except, of course, for the fact that by trying to focus attention on how males and females are being treated differently where gender should be irrelevant, they are, in fact, treating the different genders differently when the notion of gender should be irrelevant, which only perpetuates the problem

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
1. Re:Not the way to do it.... by AmiMoJo · 2014-07-17 00:45 · Score: 1
  
  So the best way to deal with the problem is to pretend that it doesn't exist?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
2. Re:Not the way to do it.... by mark-t · 2014-07-17 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  The best way to deal with the problem is to just stop treating people differently based on gender in the first place... perpetuating it by treating them differently to compensate for how they may have been treated differently by others just perpetuates the problem.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
3. Re:Not the way to do it.... by david_thornley · 2014-07-17 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Stop treating people differently sounds good, but it simply isn't going to work in almost all cases.
  Assume that everybody decided to try treating people differently based on gender. There'd still be all sorts of perceptions built in, and all sorts of blind spots. There was a study of teachers in California that found they tended to call on boys a lot more than girls, and that this behavior continued (although lessened) after they'd been told about the initial results.
  Sometimes treating people differently based on X for some time is the best way to counteract having treated people differently based on X.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
4. Re:Not the way to do it.... by mark-t · 2014-07-17 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  If it doesn't work, then study *WHY* it doesn't work.... *WHY* are people treated differently based on gender when there is no need to? Address that issue, and you solve the problem. Treating them differently to somehow compensate for how they may have already been treated differently is *STILL* treating them differently.
  Instead of trying to compensate for a past that may have been less than ideal, people should concentrate on trying to make the future better than yesterday was.
  
  --
  File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
5. Re:Not the way to do it.... by david_thornley · 2014-07-19 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Well, yes. That's what things like Chicktech are - experiments. We don't know everything that's going on.
  Compensating for a less-than-ideal past is worthwhile in many cases. The only people currently without a past aren't going to hit the technical workforce an any numbers for twenty years now.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The feministas win again... by buckfeta2014 · 2014-07-16 08:58 · Score: 2

It's one thing to have an organization comprised of women, it's another to go all-out like penis-hating feministas.

--
Buck Feta. You know what to do.
ehhhhh.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 09:00 · Score: 0

Shut up, Meg!
20 years from now by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 09:02 · Score: 0

Whenever I hear about stuff like this, I can't help but imagine there will be massive layoffs in tech just in time for all these people to be in it.
White males got into tech early because they were in the right demographic. Next, White males will get into something else because they'll parlay the money they made off tech into... something else.
So maybe 20 years from now it'll be, "Why aren't there enough minorities in the recreational marijuana industry?" I'm just throwing that one out there; but come to think of it you see an awful lot of White growers getting away with it, and an awful lot of minorities dealing a little and getting thrown in jail.
So yeah, lots of things cause things to be the way they are.
How about just providing everybody equal opportunity and letting people sort it out for themselves? Yeah, I know... to simple, and not likely to spawn a bunch of organizations that can hold fundraising dinners and shake hands with politicians.
Re:geek stuff is for pimple-faced, socially awkwar by misexistentialist · 2014-07-16 09:21 · Score: 1

Sorry you had to find out like this, but your mom is a boy.
Kuhscheisse. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 10:27 · Score: 0

This has got to be a midwest thing.
At my current place of employment, half of the staff are women and the majority of them are in developer positions or billing/project management. There is only one male developer.
At another place where I know the owner, there is some interesting...diversity going on there. For women, you can start as part time with full time pay and not know anything about computer science. You then can sit there and learn programming on your free time while completing your degree. None of their female developers touched a comp sci program at school. If you are a guy, no similar arrangements will be made. If you are a comp sci major and just trying to complete your degree, you cannot work part time. Those options are for the fairer sex.
It is no secret that Google, the head of such initiatives, just lost one of their own to his sugar baby. Let us all take a moment to reflect on the nature of humanity.
Perhaps not the best start by russotto · 2014-07-16 12:53 · Score: 1

"ChickTech Brings Hundreds of Young Women To Open Source"... where they encounter Richard "THAT'S FREE SOFTWARE TO YOU" Stallman , Linus Torvalds, and Theo De Raadt and vow never to touch a computer again.
Where's BroTech? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 20:19 · Score: 0

Everywhere. We call it "the tech industry", and it's why organizations like this are needed.
Coding by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-16 20:31 · Score: 0

I like open sources!
Viem nang long
Typical. by kuzb · 2014-07-17 04:50 · Score: 1

Where exactly is the funding to get free education for my son? Why exactly is it that he has to be disadvantaged for not having a vagina?

--
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Let's all avoid a needless flamewar, shall we? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-17 08:41 · Score: 0

And in that vein, I will simply leave this here to inspire peace...
http://www.sandraandwoo.com/2014/07/17/0599-question-3-2/