Google, National Parks Partner To Let Girls Program White House Xmas Tree Lights

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google, National Parks Partner To Let Girls Program White House Xmas Tree Lights

Posted by samzenpus on Monday December 1, 2014 @03:10AM from the how-lovely-are-your-branches dept.

theodp writes The Washington Post reports the White House holiday decor is going digital this year, with dog-bots and crowdsourced tree lights. "Thanks to Google's Made with Code initiative," reports a National Park Foundation press release, "girls across the country will experience the beauty of code by lighting up holiday trees in President's Park, one of America's 401 national parks and home to the White House." Beginning on December 2, explains the press release, girls can head over to Google's madewithcode.com (launched last June by U.S. CTO Megan Smith, then a Google X VP), to code a design for one of the 56 state and territory trees. Girls can select the shape, size, and color of the lights, and animate different patterns using introductory programming language and their designs will appear live on the trees. "Made with Code is a fun and easy way for millions of girls to try introductory code and see Computer Science as a foundation for their futures. We're thrilled that this holiday season families across the country will be able to try their hands at a fun programming project," said former Rep. Susan Molinari, who now heads Google's lobbying and policy office in Washington, DC.

28 of 333 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Girls, girls, girls... by msauve · 2014-12-01 03:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sexist much?

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
1. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by devoid42 · 2014-12-01 03:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That was my first though, anything that restricts to either sex for a non-anatomical reason is inherently sexist.
  
  --
  
  I am a figment of my own imagination.
2. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by JerryLove · 2014-12-01 03:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Was my first thought too.
  I can just see having to explain to a 7-year-old-child that heard about the program and doesn't understand why he can't try to be involved that it's because he's a boy. It's not just sexist, it may literally be the first obvious example of sexism that a young child notices.
3. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 03:43 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  doesn't understand why he can't try to be involved that it's because he's a boy.
  He'll probably assume the reason is that girls need extra help because they're dumb.
4. Re: Girls, girls, girls... by devoid42 · 2014-12-01 03:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Except that forced quotas are sexist, once the "quota" for either side is full and you deny entrance to the next applicant based on their gender, you are discriminating.
  
  --
  
  I am a figment of my own imagination.
5. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 03:55 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Oh so dissenting the SJW line makes you a sexist too. I see. No room for alternative viewpoints around here.
6. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Roger+W+Moore · 2014-12-01 04:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I can just see having to explain to a 7-year-old-child that heard about the program and doesn't understand why he can't try to be involved that it's because he's a boy.
  We've already had to have that conversation with our 10 year old son. The Engineering faculty of our local university runs a Raspberry Pi programming course...but only for girls. My wife contacted them to ask about programs for our son. The super enthusiastic airhead who responded suggested that they had lots of programs for boys but really it boils down to a few places in a summer program and even then much of that program is for girls only. My wife got as far as asking them how their blatant sexism was consistent with the Alberta Human Rights act but got a typical email full of PR but empty of content. In the EU such practice would actually be illegal under gender discrimination laws in Alberta it is less clear since they have this get-out clause 'unless there is a justifiable reason'.
  
  So we had to explain that there were no programs for him because he is a boy which he had a really hard time understanding because he has always been taught that sexism is wrong. Since actions speak louder than words this has undermined the lesson that he had learnt and I've already heard him once tease his older sister that she shouldn't use computers until she has had the 'special lessons for girls'! So as a scheme to eradicate sexism this is an epic way to shoot yourself in the foot. Even simple logic tells you that you cannot eradicate sexism while actually practicing it!
7. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 05:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Clearly you missed a great opportunity to do the obvious: have him listed as a girl. Don't even bother trying to dress him up as what you imagine a girl would look like. And if they ask, he can say, "Sure, for the purposes of this program, I'm a girl". If they push the issue or kick him out, write a letter to the Chancellor of your University asking that if you have your son bind his genitals like women used to bind their breasts if he can return to the program? Perhaps if you dress him in gaudy makeup and dresses?
  Be sure to forward a copy to your local TV station. The real truth of eradicating sexism is to make a big fuss when sexism occurs. Just quietly writing on /. doesn't do a lot. Making a civil disobedience spectacle? It might not change anything, but it'll teach your son something more valuable than rolling over to some "airhead". It'll show you can participate in a program and gain something even when they actively deny you.
8. Re: Girls, girls, girls... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 05:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The fuck, man?
  Please don't attach your shitty upbringing to every single man. Your dad didn't raise me.
9. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by brit74 · 2014-12-01 05:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "Men, and I include myself, are shit." You sound like a self-loathing male.
  
  "To this day, I am very upset that we have all done a grave disservice to ourselves by turning our backs on a 50-50 chance of benefiting from a female Einstein." nobody is arguing that women should be shut-out of tech. They are arguing against discrimination against boys. Tell me how locking boys out of opportunities helps us produce the next female Einstein.
10. Re: Girls, girls, girls... by Dragonslicer · 2014-12-01 06:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Aren't the women who become CEOs of large corporations just as big sociopaths as the men? That doesn't really change the system much at all.
Gender discrimination is cool now? by CajunArson · 2014-12-01 03:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Apparently it's OK to be sexist as long as it's in the "correct" direction.
Fun factoid: If the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) had been passed in the 1980s, then this little government side-show would be black & white unconstitutional... I'm pretty sure the supporters of the ERA wouldn't have liked the outcome...

--
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
1. Re:Gender discrimination is cool now? by devoid42 · 2014-12-01 03:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The GP use's two different terms in his subject and body. You do correctly match them up, they may not in fact discriminate in admittance, but the labeling and marketing is sexist.
  
  --
  
  I am a figment of my own imagination.
2. Re:Gender discrimination is cool now? by msauve · 2014-12-01 03:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "These groups don't actually discriminate against boys. They let them in, and are just labeled and marketed to encourage underrepresented groups."
  
  Like marketing real estate for specific racial groups?
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
3. Re:Gender discrimination is cool now? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 05:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I have a cousin who wants to go into a particular field, but cannot get into a particular school due to gender-based discrimination. This is not a school that is solely for the opposite gender, they simply turned my cousin away because they already had too many of my cousin's particular gender.
  
  Now, is this right or is this wrong? No, you do not get to know the gender of my cousin. You must decide whether this is right or wrong without that knowledge. Because if it is wrong in one direction, it is wrong in all directions, and a history of gender discrimination in one direction does not change that fact, no matter how much you might claim that it should.
But, as the feminists say.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 03:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, yes it is. Though promoting an underrepresented (Underrepresented SINCE the mid 80's, sharp decline on women in tech since then, used to be far more parity between genders before) demographic has net positive results.
But focusing on either gender exclusively IS sexist.
Silly strawman.
Sexist, but not in the way people are thinking. by astro · 2014-12-01 03:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yes, this is sexist, but not how others here are posting - sexism against boys (which actually isn't the case, as people are pointing out now). This is sexist in that it extends an invite for girls to code - for something pretty, something cute, something showy. Something typically associated with girls. It perpetuates the same kind of sexism as the "Barbie is a computer engineer" thing that got everyone so in a kerfuffle recently.
1. Re:Sexist, but not in the way people are thinking. by XxtraLarGe · 2014-12-01 03:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is sexist in that it extends an invite for girls to code - for something pretty, something cute, something showy. Something typically associated with girls.
  I agree. They should put them on a project that's less showy but more important. Perhaps they could reprogram the White House's security system. It's not like they could do a worse job than is already being done. And if they did? Oh, well.
  
  --
  Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
2. Re:Sexist, but not in the way people are thinking. by meta-monkey · 2014-12-01 06:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't know if that's really an issue. Boys and girls do like different things, and not taking those issues into account while trying to spark interest in a child would be foolish.
  And I don't buy that it's all learned behavior. My son is 2 and when we decorated his room and bought his toys when he was born, it was all animal stuff, which is gender neutral. That wasn't on purpose...I wasn't trying to be some gender-neutral hippy dad. It just happened that we used animal stuff. When we started bringing him to daycare at around 8 months old the other kids that he saw every day were three slightly older girls and they were into princess stuff. I'm not in construction, I don't drive a big truck, I don't watch TV shows about trucks. Besides "no," "mama," and "dada" my son's first word? "Truck." He'd point out trucks everywhere we go. Lose his shit if he saw a fire truck. All he wants to play with are trucks. I have no idea where the exposure to trucks came from. And it's fine by me, I wasn't trying for or against "boy stuff," just saying if you want to interest him in programming, making a game where you play with trucks would be a good idea. Girls are frequently not as interested in trucks. A programming challenge about, say, Christmas trees might interest them more.
  When I was a kid and I'd type in BASIC programs from books or magazines into my Apple IIe, they were mostly games, like a version of Space Invaders where you're shooting aliens. That probably wouldn't interest a lot of little girls as much as writing a program to control Christmas lights would.
  That said, I think it's complete bullshit to have a national program like this and specifically exclude boys. I'm really wary of all these "get kids coding!" and "code bootcamp" bullshit programs. It's just Zuckerberg and pals trying to flood the market with as many programmers as possible to drive down wages because they're incensed about having to pay middle class wages for developers. They don't have enough billions, obviously.
  And don't give me the "but not everybody can code..." thing. True, but there's an awful lot of people who could code who would have done something else. Maybe they'd have been a biologist or a librarian instead, but they see that they can code and that it's a good bet for a decent job and go with it. You still wind up with a flood of competent coders.
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
3. Re:Sexist, but not in the way people are thinking. by Slashdot+Parent · 2014-12-01 08:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  not how others here are posting - sexism against boys (which actually isn't the case, as people are pointing out now).
  Excluding a sex from something is sexist by definition.
  How the fuck am I supposed to tell my son that his sister can do cool stuff but he can't because he's a boy?
  
  --
  They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Re:The White House lawn is a park? by Qzukk · 2014-12-01 03:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

The public can and does use it. You can too, you just have to be faster than the secret service.

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:Not just girls by iggymanz · 2014-12-01 03:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

feminists are sexist, just as "equal opportunity" pushers are white-hating racists
Re:Just wondering by mwvdlee · 2014-12-01 04:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

There's not an infinite amount of money, therefore there is not an infinite demand for products, therefore there is not an infinite demand for companies.
By definition, only a certain fraction of society will be succesful at starting a company that can employ people, regardles of individual qualities.

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Re:*sighs* by joelgrimes · 2014-12-01 05:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'd like you to explicitly describe the sexism you are imaging exists in madewithcode, because you guys almost never do any research before opening your defensive little mouths.
Huh? how is madewithcode NOT sexist? Hit madewithcode.com and then hit all of the top-level links. Lots of pictures of people. Not one guy. MENTORS showcases 5 people, all girls. MAKERS showcases 5 people, all girls. COMMUNITY has one image of 4 people, all girls.
Maybe you just meant code.org - in which case maybe you're right, but madewithcode is clearly designed for girls and only girls.

--
Textbooks and Open Educational Resources
Re:But, as the feminists say.. by SecurityGuy · 2014-12-01 05:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Fair point, but I don't see it justifying sexism now. I have daughters as well as sons. Do you think it's reasonable to tell the boys that their sister gets to do something cool but they don't because someone entirely unrelated to them or me did something wrong so long ago their father wasn't yet in elementary school when it happened?
I'm completely for stopping all kinds of discrimination, but when you're taking things from the grandchildren of the people who actually performed the discrimination, you're doing it wrong.
Re:*sighs* by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 05:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

"...we're making it our mission to creatively engage girls with code."
Re:But, as the feminists say.. by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-01 06:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

The best way to fight discrimination is to set the example by not discriminating. A few generations ago, kids were segregated by sex in school. Today we'd see that as definitely interfering with their normal social development.
Ditto this program - admit equal numbers of both sexes/genders, get them to work together and experience the fact that the other sex likes it as well, making it normal that either sex can do it. What are we always telling our kids? "Two wrongs don't make a right." Maybe we should be more consistent in practicing what we preach, or they'll see that discrimination based on sex is still okay.

--
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Re:But, as the feminists say.. by Xenx · 2014-12-01 06:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's telling boys that girls get to do things they can't, for no other reason than being a girl. Reinforcing sexism among the youth is not the best way to end sexism.