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.

204 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 Trepidity · 2014-12-01 03:21 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It's fairly common to have programs specifically for underrepresented groups, especially if there is a goal of changing traditional perceptions that led to that underrepresentation. With gender it works the other way as well, with male-targeted programs in traditionally female occupations, such as those run by the American Assembly for Men in Nursing.
  In principle none of these occupations have to do with gender, but due to the significant imbalance and cultural attitudes around it, I think being a man in nursing, or a woman in programming, can be a bit weird, different from just "any other job".
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
3. 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.
4. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  Sexist much?
  Exactly my thought. Why not include boys too? Seems to me that if they only allowed boys to do this, then everyone would be crying sexist. While I understand the incentive to include girls in technology, excluding boys just because of their sex is discriminatory and sexist.
5. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 03:32 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  You know, initially I was outraged, the same as you. And then it occurred to me that if you let the boys design the Christmas tree lights, eventually the White House would be adorned with 12 foot tall penis light sculptures...
6. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by EmeraldBot · 2014-12-01 03:37 · Score: 2
  
  Sexist much?
  I agree, first thing on my mind too. I understand people want more women in programming, but this? THIS? This is literally the definition of sexism. You're telling me that just because someone is a boy, he can't operate the White House's Christmas Lights? Unbelievable.
  
  --
  "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
7. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Truekaiser · 2014-12-01 03:38 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  This is the swedish paradox. The more equal the society the more likely that the sex's flock to 'traditional' roles.
  The only difference seems to be in reaction to this, in sweden they decided to study it and found out, *gasp* human brains between the sexs are pretty much wired differently. Who would of thought of that in a species with sexual dimorphism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  In the united states how ever, the lack of women in STEM jobs and the lack of men in Nursing is seen not as a result of hard wired biological differences. But some kind of 'oppression' like women bullying men who go into nursing, and some invisible boogeyman called the 'patriarchy' calling women 'bossy' and making them not want to be leaders and such.
8. Re: Girls, girls, girls... by tysonedwards · 2014-12-01 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Because a girl has __never__ done anything obscene when given free reign over a public forum. ;)
  
  /me grabs popcorn and waits for Morse Code messages, or pictures that can only be seen from particular angles or with long exposures.
  
  --
  Thirty four characters live here.
9. Re: Girls, girls, girls... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  They should have done it 50/50. True equality, and still more girls than the real world ratio.
10. 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.
11. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Chrisq · 2014-12-01 03:48 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Sexist much?
  They're worried that boys would know Morse code for "GET STUFFED OBAMA"
12. 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.
13. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by sribe · 2014-12-01 03:59 · Score: 2
  
  Sexist much?
  Just being practical. They didn't want a giant pulsating cock & balls in lights. Come on, you know that would happen if they let boys in.
14. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-12-01 04:11 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Barbie showed her drawing to Skipper. "Isn't that a pretty Christmas tree light pattern? The arrows show how it'll go!"
  "Oooooih! That's pretty! I can't wait to see it!" squealed Skipper!
  "Hmmmm," thought Barbie. "Now all I need is one of the boys to program it for me!"
  (3 pages skipped)
  "And programming...done! Switch it on! Oh, here, like this [switches it on]", said the boy.
  "And our national winner of best Christmas tree programmer is Barbie Mattel!" The president grinned and shook her hand. "What an excellent programmer!"
  "I know!" exclamatederionoed Barbie!
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
15. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Penguinisto · 2014-12-01 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Depends, really. When my ex-wife first began nursing school, the only guys you saw in her class were considered to be homosexual (even by many of the female classmates). This stemmed from the perception of nursing as a caring and nurturing profession, more akin to motherhood than to traditional male traits.
  I suspect that aside form what other guys think, there's also the 'ick' factor among male patients who have a male nurse, especially when it comes to things involving the more intimate bits of the human body; it's one thing to have a woman shaving your nether regions in preparation for a surgery or giving you an enema (or similar), but some dude doing it to you introduces a bit of mental discomfort in guys. I suspect the biggest reason stems from nearly everyone having had their mother bathe them and care for them when they were kids, so it's easier to overcome if a woman does it. Mind you this isn't sexism, but the result of conditioning.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
16. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Penguinisto · 2014-12-01 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  He'll probably assume the reason is that girls need extra help because they're dumb.
  Quoted for visibility: Most folks, when not given a sufficient reason for something, will come up with one of their own. A child isn't going to know (much less comprehend) all the (let's face it, oftentimes dumb) nuances of ideology or politics, so they'll often come up with and go for the simplest explanation they can contrive given what they know.
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
17. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Two legs good, three legs baaad.
18. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by x0ra · 2014-12-01 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  And you are advocating for a pro-female, anti-male policy. The more thing change, the more they stay the same...
19. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by x0ra · 2014-12-01 04:35 · Score: 2
  
  This is sexist... We like boobs too.
20. 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!
21. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by MNNorske · 2014-12-01 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  That may happen too, but my dad experienced first hand bullying from at least some of the women in the nursing department. Not sure the exact reason for it, but it was primarily from the older nurses in "Charge" positions. He was the only full time male nurse in the hospital, the others were either CNA's or floaters who worked part-time. But, there were at least two older nurses who constantly bullied my dad around and made his life hell. My mom, who was also a nurse at the same hospital, actually came home in tears sometimes from what the bullies were putting my dad through. Dad being a marine (won't say former, once a marine always a marine) hid it most of the time.
22. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Sexism is sexism. period.
23. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by x0ra · 2014-12-01 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  How about a program for underrepresented midwives men ?
24. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by PRMan · 2014-12-01 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Hilarious in light of the recent "Barbie is a Computer Engineer" book. Somebody needs to mod this up.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
25. Re: Girls, girls, girls... by DNS-and-BIND · 2014-12-01 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  It's OK to discriminate against boys, because they have the patriarchy on their side and they will go on to become the next class of CEOs and perpetuate a sexist system. Promoting girls helps to break the system, which is the entire idea.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
26. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by x0ra · 2014-12-01 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  This is how feminism created one more "misogynist".
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Richy_T · 2014-12-01 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  he has always been taught that sexism is wrong. Since actions speak louder than words this has undermined the lesson that he had learnt
  On the contrary, it's the perfect time to teach him a healthy disrespect for authority and how to think for himself.
30. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Richy_T · 2014-12-01 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  I guess Marie Curie was just whistling Dixie?
31. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Richy_T · 2014-12-01 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  Rosalind Franklin?
32. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Richy_T · 2014-12-01 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Truth in advertising.
33. 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.
34. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Dragonslicer · 2014-12-01 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  And yes, being a man means that you definitively can do the dishes, after repairing the car, after writing some kernel code, after having fixed the pluming, after having done some web dev.
  Doing the dishes is one of only two things on that list that I can do, and of those two, I'd much rather do the dishes.
35. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by aristotle-dude · 2014-12-01 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  You know, initially I was outraged, the same as you. And then it occurred to me that if you let the boys design the Christmas tree lights, eventually the White House would be adorned with 12 foot tall penis light sculptures...
  You appear to have a phallic obsession. I personally like boobs.
  
  --
  Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
36. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by fisted · 2014-12-01 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Who would of thought of that
  God dammit. Why do people constantly do this? It makes me rage harder than TFA.
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
37. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by cyberchondriac · 2014-12-01 06:12 · Score: 2
  
  On the whole, I don't see how any of this is really any different from Affirmative Action, and the baggage that it too creates.
  As my user byline says, "Political Correctness: the misguided practice of enforcing the tenet that two wrongs make a right." as it so often leads to a form of discrimination to fight discrimination.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
38. 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.
39. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by EmeraldBot · 2014-12-01 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Consider, for a moment, why it would be beneficial for the participants to have this program be for girls alone.
  Take your time.
  I don't see a benefit. What I see is suggesting that they're inferior to men, and need to be separated into their own groups. I can understand if you want to put more girls in a class, to make it less awkward, but then you should be encouraging girls vs excluding boys. Now, I have a question for you: what do you think of making beauty pageants exclusive to boys?
  
  --
  "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
40. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by fisted · 2014-12-01 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Wow... just.. wow. Impressive degree of stupidity.
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
41. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by AmiMoJo · 2014-12-01 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  No-one is trying to make men and women the same. You misunderstand the problem.
  Some girls are interested in programming. Some boys are interested in nursing. Unfortunately for a variety of reasons they are either not encouraged or actually put off pursuing those interests. The idea here is to enable children to do the things they want to do, not to force them to do things they have no interest in.
  There will always be some imbalance because of the reasons you outlined. However, that doesn't mean it's okay to exclude one gender because they are a minority. With nursing the issue is a lack of male role models, a lack of support for males in a female dominated workplace and yes, some outright discrimination by women.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
42. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by narcc · 2014-12-01 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see a benefit.
  
  Like I said, take your time. Maybe do a bit of reading.
  
  What I see is suggesting that they're inferior to men, and need to be separated into their own groups.
  What a ridiculous notion. Groups are divided out for many reasons. In this case, the reason is clear: girls are underrepresented in computing. This in no way implies that girls are inferior to boys.
  
  Now, I have a question for you: what do you think of making beauty pageants exclusive to boys?
  
  I no know nothing about beauty pageants. I would assume, however, that they're already separated along those lines as the purpose is to be named the best representative of your gender, yes? This doesn't bother me in any way. Why do you think I should find that disturbing?
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
43. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-12-01 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  Your common sense has no place among these dumbass women hating neckbeards.
44. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by frovingslosh · 2014-12-01 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  America has become an Obamanation. Sexism is good, as long as it is for the purposes of things the "good" people want and not for the purposes that the "bad" people want. Just look at our last two supreme court appointments to see that it isn't about getting qualified people any more, it is about sexist and racist agendas.
  
  --
  I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
45. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Yet you're totally cool with a male surgeons and doctors who do see you on the OR table? I think if you have a medical emergency the last thing on your mind is the sex of the person caring for you. Let me guess, you're bleeding profusely and you'd wait for the hottest female nurse? Prick.
46. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Truekaiser · 2014-12-01 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  It's biology.
  The studies were done with babies less than a year old as to rule out cultural influence.
  It is also the fact that different hormones affect the human brain differently, a brain awash with testosterone will be structurally different than one awash in estrogen and progesterone.
  Keep in mind just a change in the level of serotonin can radically change someone's behavior.
47. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by dywolf · 2014-12-01 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  mod this up, this is precisely it.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
48. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by x0ra · 2014-12-01 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'd have more belief in the competence of a male surgeon, yes. It would seem there is an interesting dropout among female would-be specialist http://quod.lib.umich.edu/g/gs... or http://jbjs.org/content/92/13/... . Unsurprisingly, female ratio gets higher in family medicine, and is at a majority in pediatric medicine. This could be explained by these roles being closer to motherhood. Inversely, general surgery is closer to technical medicine (body equivalent of plumbing or car repair), and see a male dominance.
49. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by T.E.D. · 2014-12-01 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  In the united states how ever, the lack of women in STEM jobs and the lack of men in Nursing is seen not as a result of hard wired biological differences. But some kind of 'oppression'
  
  There was a time in the early 20th century when "computer" was a job description, and most of the holders of those jobs were women. Math was viewed as a female activity, which their brains were better wired for than men's. Interestingly, at the same time a lot of the best basketball players were Jewish, and there were all sorts of explanations for why Jews were better than everyone else at basketball that look horribly racist today (eg: the game supposedly relied on "being sneaky").
  So basically what you are asking me to accept is that these racists had the right idea about genetic predispositions being something we can infer just by looking at activities that groups of people engage in, but since their societies weren't perfect like ours is today, that logic didn't work like it does today. Do I have that about right?
50. Re: Girls, girls, girls... by devoid42 · 2014-12-01 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yes they are, I tried to illustrate it. Think of when the quota if fulfilled; I have a job pool of 20 jobs. So far I have filled 10 slots with mails and 5 with females. In order to follow the quota I would have to auto select 5 women, regardless of the qualifications of the remaining male/female applicants. If any of those 5 remaining slots were better suited by male applicants (by qualifications or other quantifiable metrics) they were turned down as a result of discrimination.
  
  --
  
  I am a figment of my own imagination.
51. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by T.E.D. · 2014-12-01 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  If he's a boy, there's a good chance that's true. However, if your child is a girl, I can pretty much guarantee she's encountered sexism before age 7. I remember my oldest daughter coming up against it at age 4, and being really frustrated about it. And that's just the first time I (a relatively clueless dad) noticed it.
  Is the problem here that we need to isolate little boys from the knowledge of their own privilege?
52. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by BobSutan · 2014-12-01 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  They need more women in programming to double the pool of available workers so they can pay folks less. Supply & demand.
  
  --
  "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
53. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by BobSutan · 2014-12-01 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be happy as hell if we passed the Equal Rights Amendment, minus the Hayden rider. It's the Hayden rider that makes it untenable.
  
  --
  "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
54. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by BobSutan · 2014-12-01 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  I wish this was the #1 comment. Everyone wondering about how this came to be needs to watch this:
  http://rixstep.com/2/20111127,...
  
  --
  "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
55. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by BobSutan · 2014-12-01 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Stow that ideology before you hurt yourself.
  http://rixstep.com/2/20111127,...
  
  --
  "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
56. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by xaotikdesigns · 2014-12-01 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Einstein was Jewish, in Germany, in the buildup to WWII. Are you telling me that there was no oppression there? Do you really think that women have it that much worse than a Jew in preWWII gertmany that they just can't do science?
  You have daddy issues so you now think all men are shit. Maybe you should see a shrink instead of just being an ass on the internet.
  
  --
  XDInd
57. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by x0ra · 2014-12-01 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  My point exactly. I prefer to be misogynist rather than eunuch.
58. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by x0ra · 2014-12-01 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Btw, I also lie, I cheat, I steal, and I like guns, computers, cars, sharp tools... and porn. In other words, I am a progressive libtard's nightmare !
59. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Cederic · 2014-12-01 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  People that go into programming as a career are ostracised by women, but apparently that's the fault of men too.
60. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Cederic · 2014-12-01 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  You're so full of shit.
  I know of no cultural let alone systemic bias against women in IT. I've seen a lot of bias by women against IT, but you're just trolling.
61. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  >>Later, when I entered the world of physics, I noticed the almost total lack of women in math, science, and computer repair and programming.
  And when I did my degree in Medical Laboratory Science, I was one of four guys in a class of 25, but no-one thought it was sexist one way or the other. People were just doing what they wanted to do.
62. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Ash-Fox · 2014-12-01 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  Like I said, take your time. Maybe do a bit of reading.
  I would suggest you give specifics instead of vague responses that come off condescending and do not reveal any real insight beyond what appears to be a statement to provoke.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
63. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Tanktalus · 2014-12-01 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  All the entries should be judged on the merits of the entry, not on the plumbing of the creator.
  If you don't want 12-foot-tall penis light sculptures, don't approve them. It doesn't matter if that was coded by a boy or a girl.
  Simple.
  And not sexist.
64. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by _merlin · 2014-12-01 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  My brother was a nurse in Australia for a few years before advancing to become a paramedic. He actually did encounter a lot of sexism at work. The older female nurses would treat him as though he shouldn't be there - "What kind of girly man are you? What are you doing here? This is a women's domain!" The younger female nurses would flirt, proposition him, grab his arse, etc. Basically all the same stuff that women in male-dominated spaces complain about. Makes you wonder whether men and women really are all that different.
65. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by CaptainDork · 2014-12-01 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  In all honesty, you're a bastard.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
66. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by CaptainDork · 2014-12-01 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't snap to it at first. My bad.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
67. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by CaptainDork · 2014-12-01 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, hi there. I'm surprised to see the reverse discrimination card.
  
  --
  It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
68. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by narcc · 2014-12-01 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  If I offer anything, it will be rejected out-of-hand. If he comes to an answer on his own, through reading or reflection, he has no choice but to consider it.
  You can't argue with ideologues on the internet. With luck, however, you can guide them.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
69. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Pseudonym · 2014-12-01 15:16 · Score: 1
  
  There is an imbalance in the world of elite jazz instrumentalists. There are far, far more men than women who are at the top of that profession.
  It is not due to lack of interest in jazz. We know this because elite jazz singers are split pretty much 50/50 men and women.
  It is not due to lack of skill. We know this because elite classical instrumentalists on those very same instruments are split pretty much 50/50 men and women.
  Your task is to explain how this is due to biology and not culture.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
70. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by x0ra · 2014-12-01 17:56 · Score: 1
  
  that too.
71. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by AmiMoJo · 2014-12-02 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  You don't understand what affirmative action is. It's a way to bootstrap minorities into fields. Say you have a CS class that is consistently 100% female, and guys say they are put off because they will be the only male there. So you decide to say "we are taking on three guys out of 100 students this year, assuming we can find three interested guys". Then hopefully the next year prospective students see that men are studying CS and apply for it, and are selected on merit alone.
  If you are trying to mandate a 50/50 mix, you are doing it wrong.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
72. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by AmiMoJo · 2014-12-02 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like this course was designed to address the low number of girls studying CS. One of the issues that girls have is being a small minority in a class of boys. How else can that be solved, except for by having some girl only classes to get them started or by doing other "sexist" things that encourage girls specifically? There isn't a problem with boys wanting to study it, as your son demonstrates.
  If the class were open to boys as well, how would you prevent it having the same problems that put girls off studying CS in the first place? 50/50 quotas are sexist, forcing boys not to act a certain way that discourages girls is sexist... What is your solution?
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
73. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by cyberchondriac · 2014-12-02 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I was talking about jobs there, not so much academia. What you describe seems sound in theory, but in practice in the job market, AA sometimes leads to just filling a quota rather than hiring the very best candidate(s), which is generally not good for the company or the economy on a grander scale. Honestly, if a company is offering a good salary and position, that should be enough to entice anyone of any race. And these days, I've not seen any employer that is not already relatively diverse, at least in my region.
  I don't care what race a person is, as long as they just hire the best qualified person for the job. That is the only important criteria. Where I work, we are plagued by nepotism, which is also a problem.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
74. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Ash-Fox · 2014-12-02 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  I am starting to question the author behind these comments and I am going to be forward by including my feelings in this comment to be direct behind my considerations so that you may understand them better.
  
  If I offer anything, it will be rejected out-of-hand.
  I would consider that quite a generalization. However, for people that follow the extroversion, intuition, thinking, judgement Myers-Briggs personality type, being direct and verbally fluent (even to the point of debating) is usually the best method for convincing such people. I am suspicious of someone that talks about considering and consuming information for thought that didn't consider personality types.
  
  If he comes to an answer on his own, through reading or reflection, he has no choice but to consider it.
  The problem is, upon my reading and reflecting what was written. You didn't seem to have a genuine point, but rather you seemed to not reveal any real insight beyond what appears to be a statement to provoke. Considering this, it seemed like an opportunity to duck out of a discussion in an attempt to avoid any genuine discussion on the topic.
  I don't feel it's far-fetched for others to view your comment this way. I am also suspicious of someone that talks about considering and consuming information for thought that managed to miss anticipating this reaction.
  
  You can't argue with ideologues on the internet.
  I disagree. Additionally, your lack of substance in such discussions seems very practised.
  
  With luck, however, you can guide them.
  If my intent is to guide someone (and this particular discussion, it is not). I would suggest befriending the person first as the issue I sense you're trying to verbalize relates to how a person is on the defensive and trying to make a point won't get absorbed in such a scenario.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
75. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by narcc · 2014-12-03 00:58 · Score: 1
  
  I am suspicious of someone that talks about considering and consuming information for thought that didn't consider personality types.
  Meyers-Briggs, DISC, and similar Jungian personality assessments are bunk. That doesn't mean they can't be useful, but it does mean you can't rely on them for their intended purpose. I'm deeply suspicious myself of people who put stock in such things. Particularly Meyers-Briggs, as it's the most widely criticized, even if that's for no other reason than its popularity.
  
  I am also suspicious of someone that talks about considering and consuming information for thought that managed to miss anticipating this reaction.
  But it was anticipated! That's why I didn't engage more directly in the first place.
  
  Considering this, it seemed like an opportunity to duck out of a discussion in an attempt to avoid any genuine discussion on the topic.
  On that point, there's nothing to discuss. You'll note that I did offer him more specifics on his other points.
  
  Additionally, your lack of substance in such discussions seems very practised.
  Does it? I've found that people tend to "read in" to my posts more than what is actually there. I attributed this to the 'either-or' mentality you find here.
  It is true, however, that I try to keep my personal views private as they're often irrelevant to the discussion. Unfortunately, most people here are more interested in someones personal beliefs than they are the content of their posts -- it makes it easier for them to dismiss what the other person has written. Rather than an "attempt to avoid any genuine discussion on the topic" as you suggest, it's one of the few ways to actually achieve it!
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
76. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by narcc · 2014-12-03 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  It's widely accepted that women are more comfortable learning and engaging in environments where they're not underrepresented. There are even some anecdotal examples of that in the comments here. By offering opportunities like this exclusively to women, you eliminate a lot of potential barriers that men, in general, don't face.
  Your mistake is believing that if men and women are equal, then they face identical obstacles. That's, very obviously, not the case.
  
  Consider for a moment how many programmers learn: They don't ask for permission, they don't apply for a government permit, many don't even take a class. They pick up a book or visit a website and start banging their heads against the wall. It's inherently egalitarian, and your standing in the community has every reason to be based on a meritocracy (you're just a series of characters, so nobody knows what you are unless you advertise)
  A simple difference between your first and second statements: One is about individuals, the other is about individuals in groups. Programming is anything but egalitarian when you introduce social dynamics. Not everyone hides in their basement, you know. Sooner or later, you have to leave mom's cellar to attend work or school, or you may want to share what you're doing/learning with friends and family. Your belief that programming is "inherently" egalitarian depends on the ability for a woman to maintain anonymity. I don't really need to point out the absurdity of that!
  Women shouldn't be forced to hide their gender to get equal treatment. In online communities, development communities in particular, the default assumption is that you're a man. Consequently, men don't need to "advertise" their gender nor make special efforts to conceal it (how could they?). In your pretend egalitarian world, you have women hiding behind a masculine or gender-neutral pseudonym and never engaging with anyone face-to-face!
  See, you don't believe (or you don't believe that others believe) that women are just as capable as men. That's why you think they need to hide their gender -- that badge of inferiority -- from others. It's no wonder that you think programs like this are insulting to women; you think that it highlights a natural inferiority.
  In short: Giving women special treatment like this helps ensure that women have equal opportunities. Women face different obstacles than men. If all programs like this were gender-neutral, they'd be (unintentionally) excluding women. It's not insulting, it's empowering.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
77. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by asylumx · 2014-12-04 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know what you're talking about. I've never had a woman ostracize me because of my choice of career. In fact it's usually a huge plus because I'm in a hot industry and am financially stable. I suspect in this example that you're getting ostracized because of your personality, not because of your career choice.
78. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by asylumx · 2014-12-04 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  it's one thing to have a woman shaving your nether regions in preparation for a surgery or giving you an enema (or similar), but some dude doing it to you introduces a bit of mental discomfort in guys
  I can't say I've had to have something like this yet, but it seems to me that this situation would have plenty of mental discomfort regardless of the gender of the technician. When you had your last physical, was the physician the same gender as you or the opposite? Did you care? Why would the gender difference not matter for the doctor, but would for the nurse?
79. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by asylumx · 2014-12-04 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I certainly didn't claim that it doesn't happen (so I'm not sure why I got modded flamebait).
80. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Cederic · 2014-12-04 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  The reaction to me as an individual will be based on a number of factors including my stunning good looks, my sparkling wit, my friendly charisma and my well paid career.
  The reaction to everybody I know working in IT is "oh. IT."
  When ladies that started dancing so that they could find a boyfriend complain (to me) that "why are all the men here in IT?!" it's not because they can't find a nice man, it's because they're applying preconceptions and prejudice. Incidentally the response to their complaint is "for the same reason that all the women here are teachers and/or single mothers".
81. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Ash-Fox · 2014-12-13 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Meyers-Briggs, DISC, and similar Jungian personality assessments are bunk.
  They're certainly not applicable to all people, but that doesn't mean it is outright bunk. Not much different from how the different psychology have completely incompatible premises yet have managed to have successful treatments regardless.
  
  But it was anticipated! That's why I didn't engage more directly in the first place.
  I honestly don't buy that.
  
  On that point, there's nothing to discuss. You'll note that I did offer him more specifics on his other points.
  From my point of view, the most important point he made was making was that he didn't see the benefit. The rest of his comment appears to be intended to elaborate the first sentence. The question in it self was stupid in my opinion, but more about driving the point he was trying to express through.
  
  Does it? I've found that people tend to "read in" to my posts more than what is actually there. I attributed this to the 'either-or' mentality you find here.
  It does in my case.
  
  It is true, however, that I try to keep my personal views private as they're often irrelevant to the discussion. Unfortunately, most people here are more interested in someones personal beliefs than they are the content of their posts -- it makes it easier for them to dismiss what the other person has written.
  Red herrings are red herrings. When they happen, pointing it out is sufficient without needing to argue the points.
  
  Rather than an "attempt to avoid any genuine discussion on the topic" as you suggest, it's one of the few ways to actually achieve it!
  Giving you the benefit of a doubt, I had waited some time for this to prove you correct. I don't really view that as actually have taken place here. I remain unconvinced.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Just wondering by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-12-01 03:18 · Score: 2

After these girls decide they love coding, and pursue an education in programming, will they have to move to India, renounce their citizenship, so they can get a job on an H1-B visa?
Really, this all feels good, but are there going to be jobs available, or will this just be the next over-educated group making that minimum wage at McDonalds?

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
1. Re:Just wondering by reanjr · 2014-12-01 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know of any talented developer who is concerned about jobs going to India. Have you ever worked with foreign outsourcing? They make me feel MORE secure in my job.
2. Re:Just wondering by Oligonicella · 2014-12-01 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  Blather. "Get girls interested in coding"... As if it's a little friggin' switch you throw in the brain.
  
  By the way, your last paragraph is exactly what should be said to all those complaining. That's the problem entirely, *they* don't want to "fix" it, they want someone *else* forced into "fixing" it. Which pretty much sounds like what you want.
3. 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?
4. Re:Just wondering by x0ra · 2014-12-01 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  There is a tremendous huge gap between being a good coder and a good entrepreneur. Even fewer women have the "risk taking" balls to get this way.
5. Re:Just wondering by PRMan · 2014-12-01 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, yeah, there are NO programming jobs available...
  Just move to California. Every company is looking for 5 programmers.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
6. Re: Just wondering by Solarhands · 2014-12-01 05:08 · Score: 2
  
  "Money" as I think you are meaning being an apportionment of the value of all resources is neither finite nor infinite. Since our own actions can effect future suplies and can affect the relative value of those supplies. This is the economic principal of productivity. The reason that programming is now seen as more important than other fields is that the productivity of our capital investments is limited by the intelligence of the user. Current technology on a hardware basis is more than capable than the human brain, but nobody has yet managed to program AI efficient and adaptable enough to replace human intelligence. When that happens, the rate of advancement will go from the order of c^x to cx^x.
7. Re:Just wondering by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-12-01 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, yeah, there are NO programming jobs available...
  Just move to California. Every company is looking for 5 programmers.
  Unless they ae in Defense, probably H1-B's .
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
8. Re:Just wondering by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-12-01 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know of any talented developer who is concerned about jobs going to India. Have you ever worked with foreign outsourcing? They make me feel MORE secure in my job.
  Well, it was mostly a joke. But how many jobs are there going to be for American programmers, outside of defense, where they pretty much have to be citizens?
  This is more of a politically motivated thing than any real shortage. If there was a real shortage, would gender really matter?
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
9. Re:Just wondering by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-12-01 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Blather. "Get girls interested in coding"... As if it's a little friggin' switch you throw in the brain.
  
  I'm more concerend about transgenders in coding. Why doesn't anyone think of the shemales?
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
10. Re:Just wondering by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-12-01 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  There is a shortage of SKILLED programmers in the united states.
  Which is pretty much true of most positions.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It's a PENIS! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 03:19 · Score: 1

One can just wonder HOW MANY submissions will be of penises light-shows...
1. Re:It's a PENIS! by ThatsDrDangerToYou · 2014-12-01 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  One can just wonder HOW MANY submissions will be of penises light-shows...
  Mod Insightful! I haven't seen any other comments note this OBVIOUS reason why only girls are being recruited for this. Most 12 year old boys' light displays would depict the most epic penis displays, at least until their parents found out. Dammit Mom!
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 CrankyFool · 2014-12-01 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Speaking as a supporter of the ERA, I think if it had been passed in the 80's our society would be very different today, and I'd accept this minor cost pretty happily.
2. Re:Gender discrimination is cool now? by i+kan+reed · 2014-12-01 03:27 · Score: 2
  
  These groups don't actually discriminate against boys. They let them in, and are just labeled and marketed to encourage underrepresented groups.
3. 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.
4. 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
5. Re:Gender discrimination is cool now? by devoid42 · 2014-12-01 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Nice ad hominem... The fact that a gender is referenced as a qualifying factor in this program is sexist. What you fail to understand is WHY slashdot has such issues here. The typical geek loves strict definitions. They hate when labels and identifiers are only applied when the arguing party feels they benefit them.
  
  --
  
  I am a figment of my own imagination.
6. Re:Gender discrimination is cool now? by i+kan+reed · 2014-12-01 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  It's almost like there's a history of abuse in that arena, that distinguishes it.
  Guess what, you can't legally sell real estate to only women either. This "see it's just like this time the empowered majority abused the dis-empowered minority, except all these dozens of ways it's not" arguments are always really lame.
7. Re:Gender discrimination is cool now? by i+kan+reed · 2014-12-01 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  Because a history of something changes the nature of it now?
  YES.
8. Re:Gender discrimination is cool now? by i+kan+reed · 2014-12-01 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  No one ever forced you to use any of those words. No one stuffed them in your mouth. (going on probabilities here)You've never even seen the in popular culture outside satire of their use. Calm down.
9. Re:Gender discrimination is cool now? by narcc · 2014-12-01 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  *You can call this one if you want.
  No, he can't. As you so colorfully put it: "That's not an 'ad hominem', douchebag"
  
  I promise I won't even start a petty debate about the difference between an insult and an ad hominem.
  Well, I guess it's on now ... My bad.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
10. Re:Gender discrimination is cool now? by i+kan+reed · 2014-12-01 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, since we're derailing a bit:
  The insult just distracts from the point. Functionally it's similar to an ad hominemem in that sense, even if it's ancillary to the point I'm actually making. I felt calling him a douchebag was worthwhile because he was making one of those "I called your argument a fallacy therefor I win" internet debate styles that's just the worst, especially when they're wrong about it being a fallacy. I hate those guys, and feel no remorse about insulting them.
  The thing he called an "ad hominem" before that? That was just crazy. To compare the fundamental similarity of two notions in order to highlight how something stated before might be relevant isn't attacking the person. It's comparing one argument to another, similar one. It's a fundamentally sound method of debate(barring other fallacious reasoning being included in the comparison).
11. 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.
12. Re:Gender discrimination is cool now? by McFly777 · 2014-12-01 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  If the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) had been passed in the 1980s, then this little government side-show would be black & white unconstitutional....
  An interesting choice of words, especially considering the 14th amendment and '60s civil rights laws, etc. which did pass; yet we still have Ferguson today.
  
  --
  
  McFly777
  - - -
  "What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
13. Re:Gender discrimination is cool now? by cyberchondriac · 2014-12-01 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Actually you'll find the most objection goes to the feminist "corrective" "remedies" like coining new words such as "womyn," "snowperson," "herstory," etc. intended to stamp out language bias you're referring to. A writer named Eric Arthur Blair wrote a book about correct language in action. Check it out, maybe we can police thoughts after we police language.
  We're already halfway there.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
14. Re:Gender discrimination is cool now? by narcc · 2014-12-01 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  I felt calling him a douchebag was worthwhile because he was making one of those "I called your argument a fallacy therefor I win" internet debate styles that's just the worst, especially when they're wrong about it being a fallacy. I hate those guys, and feel no remorse about insulting them.
  I couldn't agree more. I ran across this the other day, you may find it interesting as well.
  Sorry to derail the discussion, I was just having a bit of fun.
  
  --
  Required reading for internet skeptics
15. Re:Gender discrimination is cool now? by i+kan+reed · 2014-12-01 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  That's a "straw man". And I wasn't dismissing it. I was embracing it as something crucial.
16. Re:Gender discrimination is cool now? by BobSutan · 2014-12-01 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  With or without the Hayden rider? People need to be aware that had the ERA passed with it attached then it in no way would have been about "equality", but instead privilege for women.
  It boiled down to "Oh, all those cookies men and women get? Men have to give theirs up, but women can keep theirs because we say so."
  
  --
  "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
17. Re:Gender discrimination is cool now? by AmiMoJo · 2014-12-02 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  Context and gender do matter in this case. If the class was 98% male and they decided to set a minimum of 2% women, and your cousin was a male he could argue that technically he was denied due to his sex, but in reality it was 2% gender and 98% because he wasn't good enough.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
But, as the feminists say.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 03:21 · Score: 4, Funny

It's not sexist if it discriminates against men
1. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by x0ra · 2014-12-01 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  It *is*, but it is good sexism. Though, this is just as hypocrite as condoning social lies, but condemning all others...
2. 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.
3. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by HBI · 2014-12-01 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing but a quantifiable outcome difference could justify sexism. For instance, I can easily justify sexism in hiring at my gym - hiring women at the front desk makes for more signups. Ditto for bartending, waiting tables and the front desk at just about any business. I can also justify it at the fire department and in front line soldiering, for different reasons. It's really hard to sustain for coding software to run some christmas lights, though.
  The cure for knee-jerk sexism is to *NOT BE SEXIST*, rather than to put in set-asides to right old wrongs.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
4. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by x0ra · 2014-12-01 05:32 · Score: 2
  
  Discrimination feminazi are trying to stop aren't real in the first place. Sure, if a women goes in a team of single man, everybody will try to bang her, but the same is also true, if a men appear in a team of single women, every women will try to bang him, women are not perfect being either... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem...
5. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by MightyYar · 2014-12-01 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, I don't really have a problem with programs that actively solicit the under-represented party - so long as they are not exclusionary. So if they call it a "girls event" to try and draw in girls but actually don't forbid boys from participating I'm OK with it. It's not like they'll be checking genitalia at the door.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by TheCastro1689 · 2014-12-01 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  There was a high of 37% women back in the 80s, it has decined since then. That's what the other comment was trying to say.
9. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by xaotikdesigns · 2014-12-01 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Depends, maybe they'll have a few TSA agents available to do some pat downs.
  
  --
  XDInd
10. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by xaotikdesigns · 2014-12-01 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  But you don't fix sexism with more sexism.
  By your logic, the clan is bad, but if the BlackPanthers decided to march with signs that said "Kill WHitey", it's perfectly fine.
  You can't right a wrong by wronging another group. If they wanted to put most of their recruiting for this event towards girls groups, but still allow anybody to join in on the fun, that would be fine since they are not disqualifying anybody based on their gender, only reaching out to more girls.
  
  --
  XDInd
11. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by xaotikdesigns · 2014-12-01 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Sexism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
  The definition includes nothing about "harm" being done, only that there is some type of prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination. This event discriminates against boys.
  
  --
  XDInd
12. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by T.E.D. · 2014-12-01 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Its perfectly reasonable to say that their sister gets to do something they don't because otherwise she wouldn't bother doing it or anything else like it at all, because everyone seems to (wrongly) think that stuff is only for boys. (Yes, I have daughters and a son as well). I have a daughter who has totally bought into that "math is for boys" thing society has pushed on her, and IMHO nothing short of tactical nukes is out of bounds in attacking that.
  Tell you what, when we have a situation where there are more girls than boys in IT, then we can start worrying about correcting anti-boy discrimination. Until then, yes it may exist, but it is clearly not our biggest problem
13. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  (...) admit equal numbers of both sexes/genders (...)
  I'd just like to point out that implementing this through an admissions cap is just as sexist as only admitting girls.
14. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by ljw1004 · 2014-12-01 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  The best way to fight discrimination is to set the example by not discriminating.
  [citation needed]
15. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by dgatwood · 2014-12-01 09:57 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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.
  Yup. And if you introduce systemic biases (quotas, lowered entrance requirements, etc.) to encourage girls to do something, then invariably some of those girls will be less qualified than the boys who get excluded. When the boys notice this (and they will), then they'll start to assume that all girls are less qualified. And thanks to confirmation bias, this perception will tend to strengthen over time, because they'll always notice the underqualified women and won't notice the qualified women. Thus, in the long run, using reverse biasing to counter discrimination almost invariably leads to more discrimination, not less.
  And although it is unclear whether contests that are strictly for women will have the same effect, at a minimum, they'll cause envy, which is almost certainly not an effective way to encourage men to take women in STEM more seriously.
  You can't fix discrimination with more discrimination. The only way to fix discrimination is with marketing—by hyping the heck out of members of underrepresented groups who are good at what they do, so that they'll serve as examples for other people in those underrepresented groups, and will encourage them to work harder to overcome the discrimination and take jobs in particular fields. This approach is also the only way to counteract the confirmation bias that is the source of nearly all discrimination—by repeatedly showing examples that contradict the biased expectations, and by showing those counterexamples far more often than they see confirmatory examples.
  For example, if you want to get more girls into a contest like this, when you advertise the contest, use mostly pictures of girls. Don't change the rules; don't change the requirements; change the image you project. Unlike every other strategy, this works, and has been repeatedly proven to work through decades of advertising research.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
16. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by cayenne8 · 2014-12-01 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  I kinda actually hope someone brings a sexual discrimination lawsuit against the Whitehouse/Feds on this one.
  Definitely justifiable....what's next? Mexican only New Years Eve fireworks there? Blacks only 4th of July BBQ at the Whitehouse....?
  Seriously, why is discrimination based on sex ok in THIS case?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
17. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by HBI · 2014-12-01 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  It's been 15 years and the idiot mods are still idiot mods, modding as offtopic something that is definitely ON topic and true, but is something the idiot mod didn't agree with or want to hear.
  What an asshole.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
18. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by random+coward · 2014-12-01 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  So your good with discriminating against women in college admissions and a Title IX style law requiring more male school teachers?
  
  Yeah, didn't think so. Its about the female imperative, not equality after all.
19. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by x0ra · 2014-12-01 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Any proof backing your claim, beside the fact that Samantha Brick is controversial for feminazi ?
20. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by x0ra · 2014-12-01 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  Just to piss you off, more controversial stuff to show you that women can be bitchy among themselves... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem...
21. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by MightyYar · 2014-12-01 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  Zing!
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
22. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by NotInHere · 2014-12-01 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  So, where do we stop? 50% black 50% white? 30% muslim 30% christ, 30% jew and 10% mormon? Your your criticism is right, but your proposed solution doesn't fit completely.
  I don't say that quotes aren't a bad thing for "seeding" females into previously male-dominated groups. But they are no means that should be permanently in force. Otherwise you make the difference between male and female matter, which is exactly what you wanted to prevent.
  One of the reasons qoutes are a bad idea is that you needed to implement a binary gender model. You know that that model is just simply wrong.
23. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-01 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. Discrimination is favoring one group over another. This favors neither group and would pass human rights legislation.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
24. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-01 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  It's funny that you should bring in religion in a discussion about gender equality. Since it's nobody's darned business what your religion is (and employers, for example, aren't allowed to ask), that should be a non-issue (and anyone who wants to make it an issue should find something more constructive to do with their time).
  As for skin color, discriminatory hiring practices (as well as discrimination against members of the public based on skin color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc) are also banned.
  As for the "implementing the binary gender model", we're getting away from that as well. Last year the APA finally officially changed their stance that "transsexualism is a disorder", 40 years after they did the same for other members of the LGBT; it's not perfect, but we're getting there.
  Which brings us to the all-girls-only opportunity. It doesn't have to be 50-50. You could set a limit to the class size, and fill it based on 50-50. If there are still spaces left at the end, let the other gender take those unused spaces.
  Quotas are only meant to be a temporary measure, BTW. :-)
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
25. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by bane2571 · 2014-12-01 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  Picture twins, brother and sister. Sister gets to play with the lights at the whitehouse but brother does not.
  
  Now picture a group of friends with half girls and half boys. Same problem: You're saying to the boys that it is OK to exclude someone because of their gender, kind of not the message that you want to send when trying to improve gender equality.
26. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by Pseudonym · 2014-12-01 15:07 · Score: 1
  
  The best way to fight discrimination is to set the example by not discriminating.
  The best way to fight discrimination is to find out exactly where the discrimination is happening, and then fix that. This is known as "affirmative action".
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
27. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-01 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  Affirmative action has its' own problems, and is also discriminatory.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
28. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by Pseudonym · 2014-12-01 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  Affirmative action is almost entirely about data collection. What's discriminatory about data collection?
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
29. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by AmiMoJo · 2014-12-01 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  I think children are capable of understanding when action is taken to correct a problem, rather than just because to be sexist. They can understand things like children in third world countries being poor and not having enough to eat, so I'm sure that if you bothered to explain it they could understand that girls in their own country need some assistance to get into programming.
  I guess you would prefer to frame this as a gender war, a form of sexism. Children will find your attitude strange, because they can see that girls and boys are clearly different don't have the same opportunities.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
30. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by AmiMoJo · 2014-12-02 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  If that were true there would be a lot more male nurses and primary school teachers. Of course it isn't true, and your source is the Daily Fail, a newspaper well known for hating women.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
31. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-02 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  Affirmative action is almost entirely about data collection. What's discriminatory about data collection?
  Affirmative action is not "almost about data collection."
  Definition: an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in relation to employment or education; positive discrimination.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
32. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-02 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  No, I just think that when you get kids young enough (like these), neither gender will have had much experience programming, so why not give them all a positive experience by making it 50-50? We're not talking about rectifying old wrongs - because we don't have a time machine and it can't be done. We're talking about a new generation that should be raised without discrimination wrt gender, and this kind of starts both genders off on the wrong foot, no?
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
33. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by Pseudonym · 2014-12-02 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  In the United States, affirmative action is legally defined in a bunch of executive orders, in particular 11246 (which established the regime for US government contractors) and 11478 (which extended it to the civilian workforce).
  And yes, it really is almost all about data collection. The idea is pretty simple: If you are not discriminating, then you should be able to show it. If you haven't looked, then you don't actually know if you are the cause of systematic discrimination or not.
  
  “Let me be clear about what affirmative action must not mean and what I won’t allow it to be. It does not mean – and I don’t favor – the unjustified preference of the unqualified over the qualified of any race or gender. It doesn’t mean – and I don’t favor – numerical quotas. It doesn’t mean – and I don’t favor – rejection or selection of any employee or student solely on the basis of race or gender without regard to merit.”
  -- Bill Clinton, July 19, 1995
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
34. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-02 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  Neither the purpose nor the end result are about "collecting statistics." And affirmative action programs were in place LOOOONG before Clinton. Like with Kennedy in 1961 with executive order 10925 that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin" , and Johnson in 1965 with executive order 11246.
  [citation]
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
35. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by Pseudonym · 2014-12-02 23:40 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's neither the purpose nor the end result. But it is the practical effect. To implement an affirmative action programme, that's pretty much what you have to do.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
36. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-03 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  So? That doesn't make it "almost entirely about data collection". And no, they didn't have to do any data collection to order desegregation of the schools. It was a court case - "Brown v. Board of Education" in 1954 - that did it, and the 1955 ruling in "Brown II" that required the lower courts to require desegregation "with all deliberate speed" - an affirmative action in the true meaning of the word.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
37. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by goose-incarnated · 2014-12-03 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  If that were true there would be a lot more male nurses and primary school teachers. Of course it isn't true, and your source is the Daily Fail, a newspaper well known for hating women.
  Only if men chose profession based on promiscuity. An argument so stupid no one ever tried to push it before.
  
  --
  I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
*sighs* by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 03:23 · Score: 1

It seems we are trying too hard to make sure we are not sexist. This is causing sexism. Just like we try too hard to not be racist which creates racism...
1. Re:*sighs* by x0ra · 2014-12-01 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yes it does, because minority start to think in term of skin color, and not social status. Look at Ferguson, Brown wasn't shot because he was black, he was shot because he was a lousy, self-entitled, thief who decided to assault a cop.
2. 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
3. Re:*sighs* by i+kan+reed · 2014-12-01 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, but no one sees a problem there. And we aren't going to rally behind your movement to fix the problem with a mere 92% representation in the industry.
4. Re:*sighs* by i+kan+reed · 2014-12-01 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, so, you think overrepresenation is a bad thing, now? If that's the metric we're going by, I've got some bad news for you.
5. Re:*sighs* by x0ra · 2014-12-01 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  No. He was armed. There was no visual way to distinguish between a bb-gun and a real gun. On the footage, the car pulled over a few meter from the kid, which was a really bad tactical position. If the gun had been real, it wouldn't have left much time to the officer to protect their lives from a close threat. The thing you fail to consider is that LEO have to make split second decision which might cost them their lives. How to prevent this ? Don't let your 12 years old kid alone with a bb gun in the park... that seems to be common sense to me. If the kid had been white, MSM wouldn't have given a crap about it, and they don't... it... http://www.washingtontimes.com... http://www.washingtontimes.com...
6. 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."
7. Re:*sighs* by i+kan+reed · 2014-12-01 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  To quote myself
  
  The worst that some of these orgs do is say they're trying to encourage underrepresented groups.
8. Re:*sighs* by McFly777 · 2014-12-01 05:53 · Score: 2
  
  This can happen regardless of color. As I understand it, the kid had removed the orange tips from the "gun" which is supposed to help the police know that it is a toy.* Orange tip or not, I can remember specifically telling my son that he was NOT to point his cap-gun at ANYONE, and he was not allowed to play with it in the car as we returned from Disneyworld, where we had purchased it.
  * Re: the orange tips, I have always wondered how often (or why don't) criminals paint the tip of a real gun orange, just to gain that moment of hesitation on the part of the police.
  
  --
  
  McFly777
  - - -
  "What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
9. Re:*sighs* by x0ra · 2014-12-01 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  No sane LEO would trust the "orange tip". Do you imagine how easy it would be for criminals to put a bit of orange paint at the tip of the barrel and make their real gun look like a toy ? This, gun-free zone, universal background check and gun registry are nothing but libtard's fantasy...
10. Re:*sighs* by joelgrimes · 2014-12-01 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  Okay, so, you think overrepresenation is a bad thing, now?
  Nope. I didn't say that.
  What I was saying is madewithcode appears sexist. I don't know if you were deliberately conflating madewithcode and code.org in order to strengthen your attack on the AC you responded to, but you asked someone to describe the sexism. I'd say the total exclusion of males on their site is prima facie a deliberate and sexist decision on their part.
  If that's who they are, if they want to be in the business of supporting girls - and only girls, that's fine with me. But nobody should pretend to be surprised by an accusation of double standards
  
  --
  Textbooks and Open Educational Resources
11. Re:*sighs* by i+kan+reed · 2014-12-01 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, it appears sexist. Is that the problem? Let me just confirm that before we move on.
  (To answer your unstated query code.org is the primary recepient of madewithcode's funds, as they are a meta-charity).
12. Re:*sighs* by wiredlogic · 2014-12-01 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  It's the same as how affirmative action is supposedly for all minorities but in reality is just about perks for blacks. Any other minorities need not apply.
  The superficial veil paints a picture of blissful equality. Nobody could possibly be against equality right? Then behind the scenes money is strategically steered to favor one group over another because that's how to achieve equality.
  
  --
  I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Déjà Vu: the first christmas tree on the by mdtiemann · 2014-12-01 03:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

Anybody remember this: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12... ?
"Thousands of Internet tourists used their computers to tap into a central computer at Cygnus Support, a software company in Mountain View, Calif., to see the "xmastree." (The name itself is a joke to cyberspace insiders, who regularly use programs with names that start with "x," as in xterm or xwindows.)
"Two programmers at Cygnus had wired a real, 7-foot Christmas tree directly to the company's internal computer network, using simple controllers that enabled people on Cygnus Support's office network to turn the decorations, bells and lights on and off without leaving their computer terminals. The 6,000 or so outsiders who peered in from the Internet could view a simple computer rendering of the tree and check a status report to see which doodads were on and which were off, but only the people on Cygnus's local network could play with the switches."
um... by Charliemopps · 2014-12-01 03:27 · Score: 2

Hack turning lights into something totally inappropriate coming in... 3... 2... 1...
1. Re:um... by martas · 2014-12-01 03:49 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Nah, won't happen. Why do you think they excluded boys from the project?
  
  --
  weinersmith
2. Re:um... by i+kan+reed · 2014-12-01 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Now that's a real possibility. It's pretty clear they're running arbitrary code on some machine on the whitehouse network. It can't be that hard to escape a sandbox when you've got arbitrary code with necessary access to a hardware layer.
  I think this would make a good theme for next years' innocent looking C contest.
3. Re:um... by x0ra · 2014-12-01 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  Do you think girl's brain is more... pure ?
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 Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 03:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I'd agree that the role assignment you pointed out is sexist too. But the sexism against boys is present, actual exclusion is irrelevant. It's sexism in all the literature and information provided indicates exclusion.
3. Re:Sexist, but not in the way people are thinking. by i+kan+reed · 2014-12-01 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Counterpoint: as a boy learning to code in my spare time, screen savers were an early fascination of mine. Clearly decorative, but also useful. Christmas lights are a very public very interesting environment to work with. You're right that it's not the most sex-atypical(meant in the sociological sense, not some biotruths way) thing in the universe, but it's probably the most public display of work a kid could possibly work with.
  I'm not saying you're wrong, that some "clever" idiot came up with it, just that it might be over-investing the notion of decoration as a feminine pursuit. In fact, my sense of cultural norms is that exterior Christmas lights are something done by the stereotypical bumbling husbands in fiction.
4. 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.
5. 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
6. Re:Sexist, but not in the way people are thinking. by SillyHamster · 2014-12-01 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  Boys excluded from cool activity. Not sexism against boys. Girls get to do cool activity. Sexism against girls, because Christmas lights are pretty.
  Yep.
The White House lawn is a park? by nbritton · 2014-12-01 03:34 · Score: 1

Can you really call it a park when the public is not allowed to use it?
1. 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.
2. Re:The White House lawn is a park? by x0ra · 2014-12-01 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, that the nature of "parks", a place you cannot use. Can't camp, can't make fire, can't hunt, can't fish, can't take pictures... unless you pay the right permit... http://www.oregonlive.com/envi...
Not just girls by Iamthecheese · 2014-12-01 03:52 · Score: 1

The connection between real-world happenings and computer code needs to be drawn for every student. There's a world of difference between "I can make these words appear on the screen" and "I can let someone buy something" or "I can make a light turn on" or "I can tell a 3-d printer how to make a shape". Making real things happen in the real world is the spark of excitement that has brought many novices into the world of programming.

--
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
1. 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
I wish this were around when I was a kid by seepho · 2014-12-01 04:14 · Score: 1

Really seems like the kind of thing that would have been a cool induction to programming for my young self.

*Looks between legs*

Shit, nevermind.
1. Re:I wish this were around when I was a kid by x0ra · 2014-12-01 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  That the thing, women need positive discriminating government run program to "enter" into tech, all I needed was a programming language book. Tell a lot in itself...
2. Re:I wish this were around when I was a kid by seepho · 2014-12-01 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  That doesn't really tell much. I didn't get into programming until college because I was never introduced to the idea that it was something I could just sit down and do until then. While I'm willing to admit that there are differences between the world now and the world of 15-20 years ago that I grew up in, I think the government should be in the business of making sure all kids have the opportunity to be introduced to programming, rather than catering to different subsets of people.
3. Re:I wish this were around when I was a kid by JustNiz · 2014-12-01 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  >> I didn't get into programming until college because I was never introduced to the idea that it was something I could just sit down and do
  Hmm, I didn't need someone to introduce me to the idea, I just did it.
4. Re:I wish this were around when I was a kid by wiredlogic · 2014-12-01 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Nowadays we have this thing called an internet. Most people can afford it and it contains a wealth of free information any young person can use to teach themselves new skills.
  
  --
  I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
5. Re:I wish this were around when I was a kid by x0ra · 2014-12-01 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  At my time, I had no internet, but taught myself nonetheless...
6. Re:I wish this were around when I was a kid by seepho · 2014-12-01 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately just because that's something you were able to do doesn't mean it is something that was an option for everyone else.
7. Re:I wish this were around when I was a kid by seepho · 2014-12-01 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like our lives were pretty different, huh?
8. Re:I wish this were around when I was a kid by x0ra · 2014-12-01 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  Going in a library and buying a book is not an option ? You got to be kidding me... or you were living in soviet territories...
9. Re:I wish this were around when I was a kid by seepho · 2014-12-01 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Just rural Ohio.
Re:Program for boys? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 04:19 · Score: 1

Not to mention that many women choose their gynecologist these days based on gender as much as their skill.
You mean *ALSO* in the way we're thinking by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-01 04:22 · Score: 1

Limiting the competition to girls is - in and of itself - sexist.
No matter WHAT the content is.
We should simply exterminate all the men by gelfling · 2014-12-01 05:04 · Score: 1

Then all the white people, then the heteros, then of course, the Jews. At least progressives will have a smile on their faces for a whole 5 minutes for the first time in their miserable lives.
1. Re:We should simply exterminate all the men by x0ra · 2014-12-01 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  I would hate to be a white Caucasian heterosexual male nowadays... oh wait... :-(
2. Re:We should simply exterminate all the men by Slashdot+Parent · 2014-12-01 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Then all the white people, then the heteros, then of course, the Jews.
  
  Damn. I might as well just go shoot myself and get it over with. Beats getting exterminated 4 times!
  
  --
  They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Reverse discrimination by RobinH · 2014-12-01 05:31 · Score: 1

I'm sure a lot of women think this is great because it's just doing to men what they perceive has been done to them, but I fail to see how this is fair when the victims of the discrimination are young boys, who haven't even had a chance to do anything wrong yet. This is punishing them for alleged wrongs that they could never have had any part in. It's going way too far.

--
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
1. Re:Reverse discrimination by x0ra · 2014-12-01 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  What has been done to them ? Are you kidding me ?
Gender gap.... by x0ra · 2014-12-01 05:46 · Score: 2

How comes male have an overall lower rates of higher education than women ? http://www.prb.org/Publication...
Re:Déjà Vu: the first christmas tree on by fisted · 2014-12-01 06:32 · Score: 1

The name itself is a joke to cyberspace insiders, who regularly use programs with names that start with "x," as in xterm or xwindows.
Make it stop! PLEASE!

--
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
Re:A few thoughts... by Cederic · 2014-12-01 09:32 · Score: 1

In the UK if he was presented as a girl they'd have to treat him as one, due to laws around transgender equality.
I find it ironic that the best protection against sexism available to men is to pretend to be a transgendered woman.
ripe for shananigans by chris200x9 · 2014-12-01 11:38 · Score: 1

Man, I hope the girls program the white house lights to read "Impeach Obama"
Re:whining by Windwraith · 2014-12-01 22:44 · Score: 1

Man, I am white and male and cops stop me from time to time for random checks, my bank doesn't give me the time of the day and when shopping, security guards follow me around. And I don't even look like a crook, quite the contrary, I am in my 30s still being confused for a teen.
Aren't you sure you aren't just lucky male instead of white male?