Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on 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.

33 of 333 comments (clear)

  1. Girls, girls, girls... by msauve · · 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 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That was my first though, anything that restricts to either sex for a non-anatomical reason is inherently sexist.

      --

      I am a figment of my own imagination.

    2. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by JerryLove · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Was my first thought too.

      I can just see having to explain to a 7-year-old-child that heard about the program and doesn't understand why he can't try to be involved that it's because he's a boy. It's not just sexist, it may literally be the first obvious example of sexism that a young child notices.

    3. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Truekaiser · · 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.

    4. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sexist much?

      They're worried that boys would know Morse code for "GET STUFFED OBAMA"

    5. Re: Girls, girls, girls... by devoid42 · · 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.

    6. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · 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.
    7. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Roger+W+Moore · · 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!

    8. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    9. Re: Girls, girls, girls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fuck, man?

      Please don't attach your shitty upbringing to every single man. Your dad didn't raise me.

    10. Re:Girls, girls, girls... by brit74 · · 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.

    11. Re: Girls, girls, girls... by Dragonslicer · · 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.

  2. Gender discrimination is cool now? by CajunArson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apparently it's OK to be sexist as long as it's in the "correct" direction.

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

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:Gender discrimination is cool now? by devoid42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The GP use's two different terms in his subject and body. You do correctly match them up, they may not in fact discriminate in admittance, but the labeling and marketing is sexist.

      --

      I am a figment of my own imagination.

    2. Re:Gender discrimination is cool now? by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "These groups don't actually discriminate against boys. They let them in, and are just labeled and marketed to encourage underrepresented groups."

      Like marketing real estate for specific racial groups?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:Gender discrimination is cool now? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. But, as the feminists say.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's not sexist if it discriminates against men

    1. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by SecurityGuy · · 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.

    2. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by BarbaraHudson · · 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.
    3. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by Xenx · · 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.

    4. Re:But, as the feminists say.. by dgatwood · · 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.

  4. Déjà Vu: the first christmas tree on the by mdtiemann · · 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."

  5. Sexist, but not in the way people are thinking. by astro · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 meta-monkey · · 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.
    4. Re:Sexist, but not in the way people are thinking. by Slashdot+Parent · · 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:um... by martas · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nah, won't happen. Why do you think they excluded boys from the project?

    --
    weinersmith
  7. Re:The White House lawn is a park? by Qzukk · · 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.
  8. Re:Not just girls by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    feminists are sexist, just as "equal opportunity" pushers are white-hating racists

  9. Re:Just wondering by mwvdlee · · 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?
  10. Re:*sighs* by joelgrimes · · 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
  11. Re:*sighs* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "...we're making it our mission to creatively engage girls with code."