Slashdot Mirror
Google-Advised Disney Cartoon Aims To Convince Preschool Girls Coding's Cool
theodp writes: Cereal and fast food companies found cartoons an effective way to market to children. Google is apparently hoping to find the same, as it teams with Disney Junior on a cartoon to help solve its computer science "pipeline" problem. The LA Times reports the tech giant worked with the children's channel on the new animated preschool series Miles From Tomorrowland, in an effort to get kids — particularly girls — interested in computer science. The program, which premieres Friday, introduces the preschool crowd to Miles Callisto, a young space adventurer, and his family — big sister (and coder extraordinaire) Loretta and their scientist parents Phoebe and Leo. Google engineers served as consultants (YouTube video) on the show. "When we did our computer science research, we found the No. 2 reason why girls in particular are not pursuing it as a career is because their perception was fairly negative and they associated it as a field for boys," said Julie Ann Crommett, Google's program manager for computer science in media. Can't wait for the episode where Google and Disney conspire to suppress Loretta's wages!
Design shit on an iPad and give it to the "boys" to knock out some C# modules to slurp back DB2 recordsets for your shitty app. You go girl.
They can't even get basic computer use or hacking correct in a $200 million movie. How are they going to accurately represent software programming in a cartoon? The computer will probably beep every time she types like some 90's movie.
Any industry White Males work in needs to be diversified.
Presently 12% of men older than 45 in the US, by US Census data, have never married and will never have kids. 1955 - 1995 that was >5%. Demographic is half poor, half in the 80th percentile of wage earners.
The trend is, about a third of Men in the US will never marry, never have kids; if you're in highschool in grade 8-12, chances are, one in three guys will never have kids or marry. Majority is white.
Japan - same numbers, they're presently at 25% over 45 never married no kids, about 50% of men will never marry, never have kids.
That doesn't include half of the children in this country are being raised without a father in home.
Keep up the great diversification work, the last time we had this many men without families was the dark ages. As those men age, they realize they have nothing to lose. This creates instability, you are creating a demographic nightmare that will cause a lot of people to end up dead.
From the short description of the show what I get is that the boy is the hero (of course), and the older sister will probably solve stuff for him, but he'll get all the credit (what hero doesn't?)
I'd say it probably has more to do with equal opportunity laws not being excempted by H1B hire status.
Specifically, gender demographics biting them in the ass in this industry.
(Evil Human Resources Drone #1)
"We need more H1Bs to keep wages cheap--- But OMG-- Most of the H1B applicants are male too! That means we have to pass over H1B applicants TOO to meet our new PR demographic split!"
(Evil Human Resources Drone #2)
"Hey, I have this great idea! Let's use H1B labor NOW to drive down the wages of IT industry wide-- while simultaneously encouraging local girls to become technology experts! In 10 to 15 years, we will have enough female applicants that we dont have to pass up top talent when we see it because it's the wrong gender, AND wages will ALREADY be in the toilet!"
(Evil CEO)
"Brilliant!"
Will they have the standard character stereotypes of the lovable, but well intentioned bumbling male paired with the more introverted, but take control female that seems to have permeated every other TV show?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
You wanna know why programming is thought of as a field for boys? Because to be really good at programming takes an almost obsessive devotion to honing your craft at a young age, and girls are far too social to spend their summers in front of a computer in the basement.
As a side note, this "everyone can code" stuff irritates the hell out of me. Yes, everyone can code just like everyone can play Chopsticks on the piano. But there's a world of difference between the coding that "everyone can do" and the kind of skill and breadth of knowledge required to land a job at Google.
Kids are going to feel disappointed and cheated when they realize programming isn't as quick, easy, and pretty like all the fun UIs in the show.
The Featurette on youtube didn't show any actual coding. It showed a bunch of MEL that's generated as the artist used the GUI. I am 99.9% certain that the artist didn't create the character in MEL and instead used the modeler tool. There's nothing wrong with that, but if they wanted to talk about programming, they could have shown some of the cool Maya plugins PROGRAMMERS created for the artist to use.
Comment on wage suppression is spot on. These fuckers are evil. There's an agenda here, like they know they can hire women at 76% the cost of a male.
The idea is to suppress EVERYONE's wages by increasing the overabundance of programmers even more. I'm just glad my daughters didn't follow me into the field.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
we found the No. 2 reason why girls in particular are not pursuing it as a career is because their perception was fairly negative and they associated it as a field for boys
Well, that's great, but if the No. 1 reason is that girls just aren't as interested in coding as boys (generally/on average) then how far are you going to get?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Or an episode, where she sleeps with journalist to get better review for her application... after all, this is not something which should be ridiculed or condemned, right?
...they do what you tell them to.
Girls hate computers because they don't do what you want them to.
...coding ISN'T cool. It can be fun, rewarding, and it can pay the bills, but there is very little that is cool about programming. If you have a group of people picking their future careers simply using the "is it cool" filter, then you can except to get very few programmers out of that group.
The two rules for success are:
1) Never tell them everything you know.
The really hilarious implication here is that young boys code because society portrays coding as "cool" for boys.
Really? What society is that?
Take a peek at the adolescent reality of pimply-faced, never-gonna-get-laid young geeks and the truth becomes clear: Young males code *despite* it's complete LACK of coolness ...because they like it.
And therein lies the truth of most gender-heavy careers: The issue was not, and has never been one of innate capacity. It is one if interest. And interest breeds capacity.
Men and women LIKE different things. To argue with this point is to push ideology in front of empiricism.
Young chess aficionados spend thousands and thousands of hours watching chess games. Why? Because they like it. That's why chess grandmasters are men. And it's why there are women's chess championships. To suggest that some patriarchy is at work is laughable. But feminists insist that this is the case.
We are expected to believe that 90 pound, bespectacled chess geeks who spend their days fantasizing about even having a conversation with a female are somehow intimidating women out of the field.
In software the same dynamic exists. But feminists ignore the thousands of hours that geeky teenage boys spent along staring at CRT's, look only at the hiring patterns of large firms, and cry "patriarchy".
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
HOLYSHITFUCKIJUSTFIXEDTHEENTIREPROBLEMSWITH GIRLSANDCS! major idea bomb. so first observation, this goog initiative will fail, because kids don't want to be told what's cool. second observation, the secret to engaging with girls is through SMS. Subset observation, it blows me away that girls spend so much time on their phones because it looks like dorky boys with their faces in a game boy. conclusion. make a robot-style thing, like a roomba or something cutesy for kids. have somebody send controls to it by sending a text message to a phone number. then the kids can take turns controlling it with different commands to move around or watever. One step commands can build up to multi-step commands, all communicated to the robot through sms or imessage or whatever. shh don't tell the kids that they're coding!
So at what point does using kids shows to try to create interest in this topic cross the line from 'marketing' to 'targeted propaganda'?
I'm all for more women in programming, but I think they should come to it on their own rather than be indoctrinated.
Let people who love it do it, rather than creating more of the 'I don't like it but it pays well and I can always find a job' MCSEs of the 90s.
The issue was not, and has never been one of innate capacity. It is one if interest. And interest breeds capacity.
Interest and capacity go hand in hand. Very few people are interested in pursuing things they lack the capacity for.
Not true. All the latest neuroscience shows that new neural pathways develop in response to activity. Interest --> activity --> capacity.
Of course there is such thing as innate capacity. But that just gives you a head start. Nobody is innately a badass coder.
Hey, that's how I got into it ... why in 1981 I was assured that being a nerd was a sure ticket to fame, fortune, and women swooning over me.
No, wait, it was the other one ... mockery, social outcast, and no play with the hunnies.
Come to think of it, that part came first and then the coding.
Awww, crap.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Maybe most girls simply aren't interested in programming or firefighting or plumbing, just like most boys aren't interested in being fashion designers or makeup artists. Why is there such an enormous effort to "convince" girls that programming is what they're supposed to do? If any group of kids needs so much cajoling to get into a certain career path, maybe they just don't want to do that!
Because politically correct agendas. That is all. Notice that no one gets all SJW about the lack of white players on pro basketball teams, or whine that there are "too many" women teaching elementary (K through 6th grade) school and not enough men.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
Huh? Loads of people pursue careers they lack capacity for: Sports, acting, art, writing, etc.
Ours, Circa 1980.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As for empirical study, the rates of CS involvement with women closely followed those with men until about the 80s, when the home computer showed up on the scene, and the advert material focused almost exclusively on male demographics.
That's what the historical data shows.
All the latest neuroscience shows that new neural pathways develop in response to activity
To a point, yes.
Nobody is innately a badass coder.
No, but some people have the innate abilities that can turn them into a badass coder, while others don't. Nobody is born as a concert pianist, but some people are born with a feel for music that allows them to become one.
It would be about a little girl who can code, and has the superpower of not asking for a raise!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Have the cool kids be good at school
Have kids be unashamed about doing well in school.
If you must have a comic relief buffoon have him be good school
Do not promote ignorance and or stupidity as a good thing.
anybody who spends time coding and really thinking about why the code works the way it does and how to improve it is going to get good eventually
I know quite a few people who are coding every day, and still suck at it.
Why don't we teach girls that construction, driving a garbage truck, driving delivery and transport trucks, driving a snow plow, farming, and other typically male dominated jobs are cool? Why all the fuss about programming? I've talked to girls about CS and it just doesn't interest them... at all. When I was in school only two girls signed up for CS, and both dropped out after the first year because they hated it. Accept it, girls and women like different things than boys and men. Girls prefer to play with dolls while boys prefer to play with trucks and tools, etc. Women are great at marketing and advertising, project management, etc.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Quite. Though its more than an agenda now - its an entire industry where offense is deliberately being taken in order to manufacture grievances.
in the future, it will be done by 'cheap world labor'. ie, NOT YOU. I see every day in the bay area; there are so few americans doing software work in silicon valley, that you only have to connect the dots to see that this field is QUICKLY DRYING UP and won't be viable for US based folks (who want to be above poverty level) in the future.
maybe 5 yrs, maybe 10 yrs. 20 yrs tops. it shows all signs of going to 3rd world countries who can 'think and work remotely'.
thinking jobs (or IP jobs) just don't make sense locally anymore. companies don't want to pay (in their minds, 'overpay') and I don't see this trend reversing (how could it? we are greedy capitalists and don't care for our fellow locals; and so since cost is ALL that matters, it WON'T be done in the US anymore).
so, putting your kids thru college for software? what a waste of time, money and disservice to THEM!
I hate this. I spent my whole friggin life being good at software and gaining tons of (what I thought was) valuable experience. but its not valued! only 'time to market, speed and low cost' matters. quality is a has-been.
sure, there are some counter examples, but being a bay area resident for over quarter of a century, I've seen this trend and its a very obvious clear trend to anyone who's been here long enough. there USED to be a good software job market here. now, its drying up and all you see in companies are h1b's! and soon, even those won't be viable anymore.
please, see the writing on the wall. save your kids the upset and expense of going into a field that has, by the time they are ready for it, dried up.
very sad. depressing. but lets be honest, here. we all see this, don't we?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
It's 2015, and most of the egregious geek stereotypes have changed significantly. But, the development and IT industries are still very similar. Development is a very solitary experience, as is IT once you get out of run of the mill support. I know I've spent stretches of a few hours digging through log files, troubleshooting an intermittent problem, etc. by myself. Even with agile development, pair/team programming, and every other coding fad that makes people work together, there is a lot of time spent alone solving problems. I like doing this -- it fits my personality type. Do most women? Probably not; I'm guessing most would rather be in social situations. Do some? Sure, I've worked with a bunch.
Being married to a female, and now having a daughter, I can safely say that men and women are very different creatures. I think women self-select out of IT and development mainly for the following reasons:
- Perceived lack of socialization, and yes, the nerd stereotypes are still there to a lesser extent.
- Especially in workplaces that suck, the work/life balance is screwed up. My wife and I both work, I'm in IT and she's got a corporate finance job. We are both incredibly lucky to have good employers who don't death-march us on a regular basis. I know many more people who don't have this luxury. If you're female, and are wired like most females, you will want to take care of your children more than spending extra hours at work. I feel that way too, and this is coming from someone who really loves my job and loves digging into strange problems.
- Women are smart, and they see the writing on the wall for the IT/dev industry. Now that it's "easy" to program an application for a phone, and more aspects of systems management are automated, there will be an inevitable reduction in employment and salaries across the board. These days, you really have to be on top of your game to stay employed at the higher salaries, and be constantly learning. There are a lot of jobs that have less of the constant retraining, are more stable, and have a better balance.
- Especially in the SV startup/web/social media sphere, the rise of the "asshole brogrammer" stereotype as evidenced by many stories all over the tech press might be scaring women away too. This is kind of the opposite end of the nerd spectrum -- now that development is open to more people, the more extroverted fratboy types who got through CS are founding startups and getting themselves into sexual harassment trouble.
Do I think any of this encouragement works? Not really. I think what would work is to keep developing girls' logic, problem solving and math skills at an early age. Those who excel at these and can handle all the other crap that comes with an IT/dev job will gravitate toward it. Others won't, and we just have to live with that.
>> in the future, it will be done by 'cheap world labor'. ie, NOT YOU.
I call bullshit. I've worked in several comapnies that have each tried outsourcing software development projects and without exception they've ALL failed due to bad quailty. Thankfully many if not most US companies are finally deciding that outsourcing software development as a cost-cutting exercise just doesn't work.
pretty much what I said in my last post.
the field is already saturated and I, as a born-and-raised american, can't find a job in the bay area (I'm also over 50, and I admit that's a big part of it) even with nearly 30 yrs of software experience.
guiding young people into the software field - for anything other than personal use (ie, not a day job that pays the bills) is doing a disservice to our own people.
companies are brutal and refuse to support people in their own local society. they only care about low-cost, above all, to the exclusion of all.
you think americans will still be hired for 'grunt software work' in 10 or 20 yrs? no way! not even h1b's will be given the work since it will be cheaper for africa (probably the next geo to take over 'cheap remote work' once india and china have had wages go 'too high') to do the work.
its very clear that the cost of living in the US will never be competitive to overseas work. and being able to think and type does NOT require you to set even one foot on US soil.
US companies will be 'mangement houses' at best, with some token low-wage support folks here, just to say we have a US presence. but all the real work will be done overseas.
want job security: do something physical. hang wallboard, do plumbing, car repair, gardening. all the stuff that you were told NOT to go into (isn't that a switch?). but physical things can't be done remotely. they won't be high paying but SOME pay is better than being out of work for months at a time, every few years (a cycle that I'm put into, by virtue of my age and being 'too experienced').
do you see wages and life balance going UP in software? I don't. and it won't change. the hey-day of being in software and living in the US is on the decline and there's only so much time left before it bottoms out entirely.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
if we can get women coding, the pool of applicants is much larger and we don't have to permit more H1-B visas to get that effect. Which is great for our financials.
which reminds me, I thought their motto was "do no evil"?
That statistic has been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked. Even Obama finally shut the fuck up about it. Fuck off with this bullshit.
An "innate ability" would imply a genetic cause, which as we know from experience doesn't exist.
Sorry, what? How do you explain someone like Mozart? I could play the piano every single day for the rest of my life and never even be close to being as talented as he was at like five years old. Clearly there was something more than just "practice" at work for savants like him.
You mean the latest bullshit data. If this were truly the case why would you EVER hire men?
Ours, Circa 1980.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As for empirical study, the rates of CS involvement with women closely followed those with men until about the 80s, when the home computer showed up on the scene, and the advert material focused almost exclusively on male demographics.
That's what the historical data shows.
I wonder: what was the amount of female interest in auto repair prior to versus after the introduction of the Ford Model T?
227-3517
and I asked her how she felt about how there are few women coders, and surprisingly her answer was that she was happy with that because she enjoyed working with mostly men, because she "could avoid all the cattiness and emotional bullshit" and just concentrate on work.
Maybe we should focus on recruiting just the lesbian part of the female workforce then? ;)
Sent from my ENIAC
Seems to me that having the parents both be scientists defeats the purpose. If you want to appeal to most girls, I'd think you'd want to have a more "average" family, not show how daughter of scientists does sciency stuff. Maybe show how daughter of wage workers helps solve family/work problems by coding. For example, my first useful coding job was a score-keeping program for my mother so she didn't have to do it by hand for her entire bowling league.
To me the effort sounds pretty badly done, the female coder being in a secondary role? How is that supposed to convince anyone coding is cool? It seems more like a prep job for a life where you are a mad coder - who has to work for Miles clones running the actual business. Thanks for the indoctrination video Google!
I say that as someone who thinks that solving the problem of too few women interested in computer work being the real issue that needs fixing. I don't see this helping in any way.
Young girls need to understand that learning to code is great idea, because it opens you up to a life with much greater freedom than most other professions...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The real problem is that so many people, even here on Slashdot, are in denial of the new reality, and will stay so until it happens to them. They have this idea that, worst case scenario, they can always go into consulting or developing mobile apps. There isn't enough demand for everyone to do that now, and it's only going to get worse.
Better to take the life lessons learned from paying your dues and putting it to work doing something different once the idiocy of the development process has sucked the blood out of you.
Stuck for ideas? Get an old Yellow Pages and look through it. This will show you what other people are doing in areas you have never even considered.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Young males code *despite* it's complete LACK of coolness ...because they like it.
The counterargument to that is that Society gives boys the space to be uncool in that way. They may be ridiculed or ignored, but by the end of the movie, they either get their comeuppance on the jocks, or provide much needed assistance to the handsome ladies man who saves the planet. They never reach "hero" status, but they do reach up into the "antihero"/"sidekick"/"sage" regime.
Contrast that with girls. Geeky/uncool girls are almost never portrayed as antihero/sidekick, or if they do, there's always a "diamond in the rough"/"take of her glasses and let down her hair" transformation which changes the geeky ugly duck into the beautiful swan love interest. Take the Harry Potter movies, for instance. Frumpy Hermione Granger gets transformed by the end of the series into the va-va-voom Emma Watson.
It's not just media culture - think of the attitudes of parent and classmates. A father might shake his head in disappointment at his sports-avoiding son, but he'll eventually let him geek out on his computer. It's much less likely that a mother is going to give up on her geeky daughter - after all, how is she going to get her MRS. degree if she doesn't at least show some interest in "girly" topics like makeup? Likewise with classmates. The jocks may harass the nerdy kids in the halls, but they do give them some space once they actually reach the A/V room. The popular girls are much less likely to let up on their harassment and general social pressure - it's much more pervasive.
The type of harassment is also different. Males tend to get harassed for *being* geeks, but females tend to get harassed for *acting* like geeks. (Males, generally speaking, harass other males to assert their dominance over them. Females, generally speaking, harass other females to assert control over them.) So the response is different. Male geeks reason they can't change themselves, and (correctly) conclude that the harassment won't let up just because they try out for the football team. Females, on the other hand, are left with an "out": maybe if she stops acting geeky, or at least adopts the outward appearance of being a "normal" girl, she'll lose the harassment. So there's distinct social pressure to adopt the cool-kid fashions and play along with "OMG, Math is so stupid!", until it's no longer an act.
(General disclaimer - these are my own thoughts/opinions and are a generalization. They're not a scientific study, and of course you'll be able to find exceptions and outliers. "At my school" and "but my cousin" don't count unless you think they're something that is generalized to a majority of cases.)
It's neither fish nor fowl.
1. If you have an innate capacity, you'll pursue things constantly and "practice makes perfect".
2. If you don't have an innate capacity, you can force yourself to pursue things and, again, practice makes - well, not perfect, but better than if you hadn't practiced. It make also bring out innate capacity that wasn't originally apparent, in which case you get promoted to category #1.
The major difference between the two is that people in category #2 aren't going to push as hard or as far because they don't get the "high" that people with innate capacity do that makes people in category 1 become outright obsessive. Category 1 people don't have to be pushed - you more often have to force them to stop. Category 2 people will do what it takes, and that's about it. They may learn to actively loathe what they're doing, and given the option, drop out. Hopefully to find an endeavour where they're Category 1 types.
So regardless, you can get better than average, whether a subject draws you in or you force yourself. However for long-haul satisfaction and to become outstanding in your field, innate capacity can make all the difference.
Mother is neither an arbitrary nor a meaningless role.
Yeah, a few months ago I suggested to my coworker that we upgrade a piece of infrastructure because "all the cool kids are doing it." He looked at me like I was a moron and said, "I don't care if it's cool."
I laughed, and he was right. Not everything in the world that is good is cool. Programming is good.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I dont know man, I'm redesigning a web service built by a senior developer who certainly did not have the capacity for it.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
I put in a lot of time and effort to remain relevant having mastered three or four languages on my own. If I didn't I couldn't be employed as a programmer.
That's the thing I find particularly odd about the push for girls into CS. Feminism isn't pushing hard on the "manual labor" fields to get women accepted, so I kind of wonder when they get wind of how many certs and/or how being a perpetual student is really required to have a career where you're not simply another code monkey, how much they're going to resent the initial push in the first place.
I'm not saying men don't have this gripe; I have friends in IT (female ones as well) that just want a freaking break from the cycle of getting certs to stay employable, let alone to command a better-than-average salary.
It's not back-breaking the way that, say, being a garbage collector is, but it sure does lend itself to some serious physical stresses, and I wouldn't blame anyone, male or female, to self-select out so they can get some time to themselves.
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
And provide a little training to experienced programmers who want to learn new skills. Their faux shortage of experienced, competent programming staff would disappear in a year.
Of course, this is beyond the comprehension of a newly minted MBA or HR director. They want money-saving flashy miracles that will get them their next bonus in the next quarter, before they move on to avoid the next re-org. Solving problems is irrelevant - to be avoided if it interferes with the next crazy bonus scheme and all of its unintended consequences.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I think there was a documentary that proves that men can be mothers.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01...
Except that there is a push to get more men into elementary teaching. And there is a push to get more men in to other industries dominated by women, like nursing.
You seem to have a very strongly held opinion (at least one that's strong enough to comment about and bash "SJW"s) that is clearly based at least in part on ignorance. I'd suggest learning more - not only will it help you avoid embarrassing yourself by displaying your ignorance, but it might even help you revise your opinions.
Also, side note, one of the reasons nobody gives much of a shit about there not being enough white players on pro basketball teams is because, statistically speaking, it isn't remotely relevant. How many pro NBA players are there? Now compare that to fields like software development or IT. Which one of those groups is more relevant for the average person who wishes to achieve upward mobility and has better odds?
Additionally, you're also ignoring the fact that white people were not, historically speaking, forbidden from playing in professional sports leagues and were not harassed and threatened (at least not for their race) when they joining the leagues. The fact that you so blithely ignore historical fact, once again, says to me that you form your opinions out of ignorance. Again, I suggest learning more so that you don't embarrass yourself by spouting off your uninformed nonsense.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Utter bullshit. In 1972, women made up about 20% of computer programmers in the US. This narrative about the personal computer is a recent fabrication. In fact, women's participation in the field hit a local maximum around 1984.
There was an earlier era starting during WWII when women were the majority of programmers in the US... but it was a VERY small field during WWII, and I don't have figures before 1972 so I don't know when that changed.
Huh? Loads of people pursue careers they lack capacity for: Sports, acting, art, writing, etc.
Sure. And I can pursue to be a professional guitarist. Or porn star.
Ron Jeremy should be a beacon to you.
Do you seriously think that companies are capable of planning 15 years into the future? Most CEOs can't see beyond they next quarter's profit numbers.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Why do people think that brains are all exactly the same? Of course there are genes for intelligence- that's what separates humans from chimps after all. That a complex combination and interaction of genes, upbringing and nutrition might play a part in intellect and interest is almost certainly true. The fact that there are things under the umbrella of "intellectual disability" pretty much proves that not all brains are the same. Look at X-linked intellectual disability and try to tell me that genetics ha no bearing on intelligence.
Is that "example" really what you call "proof"? We know that physical capabilities are genetic (as in how far a person can progress is limited by their genes) yet not all professional sports players are children of the previous generation's professional sports players.
Your example falls flat on upbringing alone. Not to mention that just because something is heritable does not mean it will be inherited.
It's not about lack of interest out forcing people to like stuff. It's about giving kids the opportunity to find out if they are interested, and then making sure there are no gender based barriers in their ways if they want to pursue it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
And you assert that it has to be because of advert material focused almost exclusively (weasel words) on male demographics? You have some kind of concrete proof the advertising material came before a change in demographics?
You can theorize on the effects of advertising all you want but you have no way to quantify or even study the advertisements of the time. The only concrete historical data of the two things you just listed is "when the home computer showed up on to the scene". Which is would make a much stronger data-point for why the ratio changed.
You seem to fail to understand why people keep saying that. The only "evidence" you have of women not being able to choose computer science as a career path is that there are less of them choosing it.
"Women being predisposed to liking different things is fine but there's not enough of them liking this because they are being discouraged which is obvious because not enough of them like it."
Begging the question.
(General disclaimer - these are my own thoughts/opinions and are a generalization. They're not a scientific study, and of course you'll be able to find exceptions and outliers. "At my school" and "but my cousin" don't count unless you think they're something that is generalized to a majority of cases.)
So you think your anecdotes and screeds are different than those of others why?
If you want to talk about the expectations of capital S society (seriously society isn't a proper noun; capitalizing it makes you seem unhinged) on geeky men it is that the only way for a geeky man to redeem himself is through saving the damsel. If they don't do that they usually turn into villains (every super villain ever). Which is interesting considering this new influx of dweeby guys that think media has a huge effect on people trying desperately to save women that really aren't in danger.
that it could pay a lot of money. By the time it was offshoring and the H1-B visa program had eroded wages to the point where it wasn't true anymore (save a few math geniuses working for google/wallstreet). So once again it's something you do because you want to, which almost always pays like shit.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1 Disney has a rock-solid reputation for doing popular science right. Man in Space, Our Friend the Atom
2 The studio has become scarily good at creating strong female characters and casting them in non stereotypical roles that win over male and female audiences of every age.
3 It has been wiling to take on high-risk projects with serious geek cred. That do not crash and burn at the box office because they reach out to a much larger audience.
Wreak-It-Ralph, Guardians of the Galaxy, Big Hero 6.
you can call BS all you want.
when I first moved to the bay area, americans could find jobs in software. I saw more of a balance in the workplace back then (25 yrs ago).
today, I'm telling you (come here if you don't believe it and get a tour of any bay area software company) - its few and far between to find a US born person walking the halls or in a conference room (exceptions would be for upper mgmt; but first line mgrs are practically all foreign born).
deny it all you want. I live here, I see it and its a verifyable fact.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Only at the low-end. Programmers like these generally have negative productivity and are worth more to society unemployed than messing up things. Coders than know their stuff have no wage differences between women and men.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Indeed. And while most women have no interest in coding or engineering, those that do cover about the same spectrum in the higher competency levels. At the low end, women are more likely to just give up on something they are not good at than men. I would say that is an advantage, not a problem. The lower competency levels are a problem, not a solution and usually have negative productivity.
The point of gender equality is not to make everybody equal (that would be exceptionally misanthropic, but seems to be what some feminist factions want), the point is that if a girl want to be an engineer, she can become one with about the same amount of hurdles places in her way as for a boy. From what I hear, that is how it is and has been for quite a while at least in Europe. Sure, there is the occasional person that cannot deal with people not conforming to traditional gender stereotypes, but they do not define what is going on and can be ignored. Also sure, becoming a good engineer is hard, and it would be fatal and exceptionally unfair to girls to make it any easier for them.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
There are actually no "badass coders". There are a lot with a hugely inflated ego though. These universally tend to be a lot worse at it than they pretend or think they are.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
An "innate ability" would imply a genetic cause, which as we know from experience doesn't exist.
No, it would not. Unless you are a physicalist and that is a religion, not science. Also it ignores reality, as quite a few people show "innate ability" for specific types of things early on. (Most don't, but that is besides the point...)
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The "brain" explanation cannot hold water. It basically says things are randomized, and otherwise people come into the world as blank slate. That ignores the complexity of what is going on and how the brain adjusts to what people want to do and do (not the other way round). Face it: People are quite more than just the hardware they are running on. For example, everybody that watched children grow up and really looked knows that children come into the world with a personality. There is no way that results from some randomized biological process.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You still suck at math. You have completely missed what abstraction level this discussion is on.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Same here. And I know quite a few people that do it from time to time only and are exceptionally good at it. The thing is that this is not about concrete areas, but abstract skills like analytics, modeling complex systems from components, etc. And these are not rooted in any physical artifacts science has identified so far.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Your 2. does not match my observations for coding. Sure. writing simple lines, you get better at. But designing interfaces, more complex structures, etc. practice does seem to make absolutely zero difference for most people. Either they have it, then practice helps them polish it. Or they don't, then they will never get it. Complex skills require talent, and talent cannot be learned. One effect is that you can boost your intelligence score somewhat by practicing, but you can never boost it more than a certain amount.
There is one exception: Skills that do not require insight, just experience. Like normal cooking, simple mechanical work, etc. These follow recipes and recipes can be learned and following them can be perfected by practicing. Programming is not something where you can follow recipes and will not be in the foreseeable future, if ever. All engineering on actual engineer-level cannot be done without talent, insight, education and experience, why would coding be any different? Those that lach these qualities will always be hacks, and there are a lot of hacks around in coding.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Actually, what the historical data shows is that when a very small group only was involved with computers, gender did play less of a role. That is completely meaningless as basis for a generalization.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
First Auto repairs on an actual trip were directed and managed by a woman (Berta Benz). Sure, she did use craftsmen to do them, but she told them what do to.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Most actually can see to the end of the year where their bonuses are allocated...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I fully agree on the denial here. Sure, some people can do coding, system administration, etc. at 50 and older. But when you work with them you find that they really know their stuff. There are quite a few IT people and coders with decades of experience that are still not good at it. In fact, they represent the majority. It is like these people only jump from hype to hype and never master anything. At some time they then stop being able to follow the hypes and stay unemployed.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
That is BS. If you torture the numbers long enough, you can get them to tell you anything. But actually competently done statistics show that the gender pay gap is at or below the statistical margin for error. Or course that does not mesh with the agenda of some groups.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It is this BS "all must be equal". Equality is not a goal to strive for. Equal opportunity is. So if 90% of girls are not interested in coding or generally in engineering, so what? As long as the 10% that are can go into these fields, everything is fine. Same the other way round. Most men would not become kindergarten teachers or nurses, but as long as those that want to can, everything is fine.
People make different choices in life and gender is one influencing factor. Ignoring it will not make it go away.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Indeed. The reason is of course that these people have nothing positive to contribute, but found a profitable parasitic existence. They are not going to give that up if they can help it.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
That goal _is_ bad. What they should want is more capable people in CS, and gender should not even be a consideration.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Girl culture doesn't find coding cool and never will. You're going to have to create a subversive counter culture that is contemptuous or indifferent to mainstream girl culture... and then indoctrinate as many girls into it as possible.
Don't like the terms? Fuzzy wuzzy them up if it makes you feel warm inside. But that is what you'd have to do... unless you want to just accomplish nothing. Which is fine too I guess so long as you stop wasting taxpayer dollars to do it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
There is a "shortage" the same reason there is a chronic "shortage" of doctors and nurses here in the public sector. They do not find locals willing to work for the pittance they want to pay.
Steve Pinker has documented that across all recorded societies, there is a pattern of men being more interested in things, women in people, thus eliminating the idea that this difference is caused by society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
Programming and IT in general are definitely on the extreme thing end of the spectrum, and thus attracts less females, and will continue to attract less females in spite of Disney and Googles "noble" efforts.
This is just incorrect.
Please read The Blank Slate by Steve Pinker, or at least check out some of his lectures or debates online.
For example, everybody that watched children grow up and really looked knows that children come into the world with a personality. There is no way that results from some randomized biological process.
[citation needed]
I think you'll find that this is precisely what the available data is showing. If it is not our biology that determines personality, and we are born with innate personalities, what then IS "personality". A ghost in the machine?
And that's the difference between 30 years of experience, and 1 year of experience repeated 30 times :-) Get burned by too many of the latter ...
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Ahh I was (incorrectly) presuming you were talking about offshoring.
I agree that more first gen. immigrants are coming into software within the US.
As long as they are truly competing on an actually level playing field (i.e they don't get concessions over locals and any other artificial advantages in the hiring decisions) I don't actually see that in itself as a bad thing. The real question is, is it actually level?
Don't forget that the US was built by and is mostly comprised of families that were themselves immigrants only a few generations ago.
I note all these comments about whether or not girls are "interested" in it. But: 1. do you know WHY some may not be interested? Are you absolutely sure that cultural factors have nothing to do with it? 2. perhaps more importantly, there are some who ARE interested. Do you agree that a discrimination-free (actually meaning, "same as what 'boys' get") environment should be given to them? You better. 3. assuming someone is not interested because they are a girl, no matter what you think about how many or few are interested, and then acting on that assumption, is a form of discrimination/prejudice in its own right. Do you agree? You better.
I'm the one who feels too strongly? You're the one that took four paragraphs in response to my three sentences, to expound on how obviously more enlightened and superior you are. I guess you schooled me.
Let me tell you, I'm so glad that your academic aptitude has allowed you to be so incredibly perceptive as to notice that "nobody gives a shit" about there being no white players on an NBA team. No shit. That was the fucking point, Sherlock. Do you need a gold star or something? Would that make you jump up and down and clap like a seal?
My whole point is how stupid it is for the politically correct to push people into fields that they don't care about, or nitpick about some perceived "imbalance", when it suits their personal agenda.
But you've outed yourself as someone with a childlike propensity to over-anxiously deliver social justice, and obvious the SJW tag hit a nerve. If the shoe fits, wear it.
How many times did you just label me "ignorant" and my observations "nonsense" and suggest I need an "education", you obnoxious, insufferable twaddling self-righteous douchebag?
Oh, and regarding the NBA teams, you've outdone yourself. Congratulations, you're also a closet racist. Besides the fact that you completely missed the point, the fact that blacks were in fact banned from teams decades ago has fuck all to do with the team lineups of today. You're right on one count -no one cares. I certainly don't give a shit, I don't even like basketball. But your reasoning for why you think no one cares reveals your own ignorance and racism. If you truly believed in racial equality, then you'd want the pendulum to hang in the middle. Swinging it from one extreme end all the way to the opposite end is not equality, as there would still exist a disparity; and yet you believe that this is why it is the way it is, and why it should be.
Historical banning is not why NBA teams are mostly black (hello, Baseball ring a bell? they were banned from that too), it's because white people simply don't gravitate towards playing it as much. It's no big deal.
Back to our original subject, it's the same reason there are fewer women are in IT, they're not being discouraged from it, they just don't really find it that interesting as compared to males, and trying to force them into it, citing some kind of bias is at work, is stupid. This is the politically correct agenda I mentioned. I work in IT, my boss is female. She certainly wasn't discouraged from working in IT. And she's a good boss. But she chose to work in IT, she wasn't pushed into it because of some bullshit perceived injustice.
Go educate yourself before you start smugly handing down that tripe to others from your lofty pulpit. But don't rush, I think you'll need several years at least.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
The scientifically sound answer at this time is: We do not know. Hence all arguments assuming a specific model are flawed. Some sort of "ghost" looks pretty good though as the pure physical explanations have major flaws in them. Not even explaining "life" purely as a physical phenomenon looks convincing these days. Otherwise we should have been able to synthesize it quite a while ago. Instead, all attempts to do so consistently fail as have all attempts to create human-like intelligence. That should tell you something.
Also "citation needed" -> "experience with the real world needed".
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I see, it's not just ignorance - it's willful ignorance that forms the basis for your factually incorrect opinions, and when challenged on your ignorance, you lash out incoherently.
I'm sure you imagine you have a point - given that your stated opinions have no basis in fact, you probably imagine all kinds of crazy things are true. Please also feel free to imagine that you've put me in my place, if you like. I certainly don't see any point to continuing this discussion; I won't try to reason with someone clearly lacking it.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Also "citation needed" -> "experience with the real world needed".
Spoken like a true denier of science.
Right? No not literately. besides the bottom of the programming market is about to fall through once the rest of the worlds children catch up. It looks like they were about 10 years behind in having kids grow up with computers. Those days are long behind. I fucking hate techogly in grade school, give them paper and penicls and have them write and do math for years in-till they are masters at it. That is all. Does anyone realize there are about a million other jobs besides programming? Does anyone realize 99% of companies use the same software?
Programmers who got their first computers as adults don't exist. If you were a real programmer you'd know that.
So where did the first computers come from?
They were built by people most of whom are dead now. Their programmers likewise no longer exist.
That depends on what you call a "computer". If the end user cannot program a digital device, is it usefully a "computer" in the sense of a tool to prepare for a coding career? A microwave oven, by this measure, isn't a computer. Nor is a video game console or an iDevice. It's plausible to reach 18 even in today's connected world while owning only such locked-down devices.
I'm sure it was incoherent to you, my earlier point was as well. I have no problem with someone with a difference of opinion, but you were nothing but derisive, and backed up *none* of your "facts" with a valid source.
But I agree, there's no point in us taking this any further.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.