Slashdot Mirror
Learn-to-Code Program For 10,000 Low-Income Girls
theodp writes: In a press release Tuesday, the National Center for Women & Information Technology (NCWIT) announced it was teaming with Lifetime Partner Apple and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on its Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) Commitment to engage 10,000 girls in learning computing concepts. "Currently, just 25 states and the District of Columbia allow computer science to count as a math or science graduation requirement," explained the press release. "Because boys get more informal opportunities for computing experience outside of school, this lack of formal computing education especially affects girls and many youth of color." HUD, the press release added, has joined the Commitment to Action to help extend the program's reach in partnership with public housing authorities nationwide and provide computing access to the 485,000 girls residing in public housing. "In this Information Age, opportunity is just a click on a keyboard away. HUD is proud to partner with NCWIT to provide talented girls with the skills and experiences they need to reach new heights and to achieve their dreams in the 21st century global economy," said HUD Secretary Julian Castro, who coincidentally is eyed as a potential running mate for Hillary Clinton, whose daughter Chelsea is the Clinton Foundation's point-person on computer science. Last year, Chelsea Clinton gave a keynote speech at the NCWIT Summit and appeared with now-U.S. CTO Megan Smith to help launch Google's $50 million girls-only Made With Code initiative.
Everyone deserves equal opportunity, right?
How come sexual discrimination seems to be a one way thing with the political classes? Can you imagine the fuss and uproar if someone dared suggest a National Center for Men & [insert vocation with not many men here]? I'm sick & tired of this hypocritical social engineering.
Inch by inch, the social justice warriors are getting closer to the truth that boys dominate these fields because of all of their informal experience. Why? Because boys tend to be more willing to go against peer pressure and do what interests them. Male nerds and geeks may resent peer pressure and bullying, but they'll stick to what they like. Never met a single boy who took the attitude that he couldn't pursue his hobbies because of peer pressure unless those hobbies were things you don't mention in polite society (and maybe even make the avante garde squeamish).
No, girls don't need "more pushing." It would be a problem if a family let the sons fire up an IDE, editor + interpreter, etc. and told the girls that that was forbidden for them. I can pretty much assure you, that in the vast majority of American households, even religious ones, that doesn't happen. What naturally happens is that the boys will say "this is cool" and try it out and the girl will make all sorts of excuses ranging from lack of interest, to what would her girlfriends think.
And no, boys by and large don't put pressure on girls to not share hobbies with them. I've never met a red-blooded male who thought a generally feminine female who shared most of his interests was a bad thing.
Clinton Global Initiative is all you need to know. Why not 4 years ago, 6 or even 10? We're in an election cycle, this is now just a campaign talking point and to deflect criticism away from deleting e-mails, taking money from foreign governments and overall credibility. "Hey look we do something good."
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
But hey, look at the bright side. Maybe the low-income girls will accept a low enough pay that they'll be able to undercut the H1Bs brought in by Silicon Valley. Go America!
Hi, gentle reader.
You saw the summary on Slashdot's front page. You knew what the comments would be. Why did you go ahead anyway and click through?
Did you expect an adult discussion of gender issues on Slashdot? Did you expect an interesting back and forth discussion about whether this will help with various issues to do with women in tech, or if other issues need to be resolved that are of more import, or anything like that?
If so, did you miss the dozen or so other articles in the last year that dealt with similar articles, where the comments section was flooded by knuckleheads from /r/KotakuInAction? Where almost every comment that tried to discuss sexism was modded down out of view, and every comment disclaiming sexism exists or demanding Slashdot ban the subject from their front page modded up.
If ever there was a sign we need a different approach to Slashdot moderation, it would be this. I just don't know what that approach is. Slashdot's broteam is toxic, too effective at shouting down voices who want to discuss serious issues. How to deal with that in a way that doesn't have equally bad side effects is a discussion we need to have.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Not until the misdeeds of the parochial and bigoted past are properly atoned for. Which, of course, means "never".
The only way to argue against the obvious sexism here in the current political climate of the USA is by saying it is ineffective — appeals to fairness will not get you past the establishment raised by the educators like Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers.
It has been observed, that "marrying down" costs a woman as much as $25K per year so, instead of saying it is unfair to men, try arguing that the women will be better served by there being more educated men for them to marry...
And hurry, because — with the ancient definition of "marriage" rapidly evolving nationwide — even that argument may become obsolete within a generation.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"Currently, just 25 states and the District of Columbia allow computer science to count as a math or science graduation requirement,"
Unless the 'Computer Science' courses these students will be studying is Knuth-level algorhythms, they should take the Math classes. Learning how to 'code' is vocational education, and the math background will be of more value.
>> Google's $50 million girls-only Made With Code initiative
Somewhere inside Google someone made the decision that a near-future class action targeting Google about its lack of women (whatever the number is, someone will be annoyed until it's at least 50%) would cost a lot more than $50M, so there's the budget.
That way they will be used to the low incomes that developers get competing with people on H1B visas
Spoken by an anonymous troll.
I really do not get the drive to get "girls" to code, especially from an organization that took a lot of money from the Sauds.
What's the end game of so many coders?
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
We don't need a sexist training program. We don't need more computer programmers - we need better ones. Society would be better off if the money were spent for training in healthcare professions.
Exactly. Programming courses - which is what these are - follow under the business category in high school. It's not computer science. Stop pretending this is anything other than programming. It does not replace math or science - not even close. Need to drop the stupid STEM acronym and go back to Science and Engineering.
Out of this 10,000 we got 1 programmer. See it works.
If pre-algebra, aka, 6th grade through 8th grade study counts as math for high school graduation, the basic use of logic structures for loops and control in programming may as well count too.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Stop trying to force CS on girls. I have eight computers in my house. My son and daughter both teens, have free reign with half of them. Guess who wants to edit skins on a computer for a game and who wants to watch Netflix and text their friends? Encourage kids who are interested, but stop this nonsense. Trying to make everyone a programmer is like trying to make everyone an athlete. It's not going to happen.
This is only true for Western countries. In many other cultures women are dominant in engineering and computer science. For example, Iran (70 percent), Philippines (52 percent), Thailand (51 percent) and Kazakhstan (50 percent).
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.unescobkk.org/educa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Therefore, it is a cultural thing and I doubt that it will improve any time soon. First, most programs address people at the end or after school. Then it is too late. If you want to "fix" it, you should start changing education in nursery and primary school. And yes, you should stop offering them dolls and fostering stupid girlie behavior, like "oh cool shopping".
BTW: In eastern European countries the percentage of women in STEM was higher during "communism", as they do not indulge in such "being a toy"-stuff. however, since the end of "communism" this changed, due to new/old role models emerging.
Why not learn to wire a house or install plumbing? Why is every program trying to over-saturate IT? I believe the construction industry is a boys only club as well.
Why don't these poor, hard done by 'youth of color' (LOL) LEAVE and go and live in the country of their ancestors?
They could do one or the other, but not both. The country of their ancestors, for the last 10 or so generations is the United States.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
No push to train low income girls to become mechanics, welders, machinists, or sort of manufacturing skills?
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
I was listening to NPR the other day, and this story popped up: Examining Race-Based Admissions Bans On Medical Schools .
The short version is; certain states have ruled that colleges are not allowed to consider race as part of their admissions criteria, and medical schools are noticing that black and latino graduation numbers have decreased since then.
The intent was to focus on merit-based evaluations. Seems noble, right? We want the best doctors we can get. However, the effect appears to be to reduce the number of minority students admitted. This, of course, has people outraged, and scrambling to find ways to work around the system - like sending recruiting teams to primarily-black or latino high schools, and hoping that will increase the applicant numbers.
What shocked me is that everyone is dancing around the race issue (and only certain races; not, for example, Indian or other asians). Everyone agrees the minority graduation numbers have dropped because individuals from a given group don't actually meet the admissions criteria. They're not qualified to be students or doctors. That apparently hundreds or thousands of people's failing grades were ignored because of their race. That prior to the no-race rule, doctors, in this case, were not necessarily the most well qualified individuals for the job. In fact, some significant percentage of them should not have been allowed in.
This trend isn't new either. When I was a lifeguard back in the 90's, the requirements changed from being able to swim a specific distance in a certain time, to removing many of these fitness requirements altogether. The reason? It was apparently unfairly eliminating people with poor physical ability or handicaps. The new focus was to do all the lifeguarding from the side of the pool: hooks, ropes, and life preservers.
Heck, just last month there was a minor kerfuffle about fire departments force- and expedited-promotions of minorities over whites.
I can't help but see this girls-only computer science focus being another of these sorts of ill-considered plans, where capability takes a back seat to minority inclusion and political correctness. Sure, it's not as vital as our doctors, firemen, and lifeguards, but it's the same line of thought. In our rush to be politically correct and all inclusive, we mistake equality for equally fair, and it serves no one well except those promoting our differences.
Am I the only one who thinks this is crazy? Like Harrison Bergeron crazy? I can't be the only one, right?
Just curious, because learning to code is simple if you have a computer. There are tons of free courses, development platforms, etc... offering MORE courses seems pointless, and misses the fact that there is plenty of access to education online.
So... in my mind, any effort to educate the masses (of any sex) comes down to providing that access through hardware. Not tablets (geez, useless as anything but an aid through which you might view books or videos), but desktops or laptops (laptops are more useful if accompanied by a dock and extra monitor), which will provide a decent development environment, and broadband access.
Educational guidelines, providing languages and technology tracks for students, based on a particular field of study in computer science would also be nice, as well as a central site where access to ALREADY FREE tutorials and courses can be searched and rated, as well as grouped under those lines of study. This provides assistance to everybody, not just some finite amount of students, or students of a particular sex or race. A section devoted to coding competitions (not just hosted there, but worldwide) would also go a long way to encouraging young developers.
Once such a site is established, then work on arming students with real, physical tools to make full use of it. This is where I'd spend the rest of the money. Deciding who gets those tools is more difficult. Some sort of basic aptitude in problem-solving skills and a grasp of basic programming concepts, as well as a genuine interest in the field of study should be prerequisites.
These things should be no-brainers, but what gets lost in all of these efforts directed at special groups is that they are battling cultures and often fail to provide a true path to success (i.e. they go for quantity over quality, only making the situation more dire for those that are good, because they have to fight the perceptions employers have of their 'group' as a whole).
Now, if you can start turning out good quality programmers, as an organization fighting discrimination, you have to educate employers (or set an example, I'm looking at you, Google, and your "do as we say, not as we do" example). That's not a program that targets 10,000 low income girls, though. It's a program that targets employers and benefits everybody.
Having outlined my course of action... where does the money go in these programs? I get the feeling most of it goes to a redundant effort to create online courses, which are provided to a fixed number of individuals (why? because reasons, that's why!), while a bureaucracy swallows up the money and touts its success. It seems ridiculous - because it is, but that is the logic employed by way too many of these sort of organizations. It looks good in sketchy press releases that contain virtually no real information, outside of the stated "goal". Hopefully, I'm mistaken. I'd love to see underprivileged kids (no matter the sex or race) get decent computers and given encouragement to learn computing skills (beyond playing video games), but the cynic in me knows better.
Nope, what the average coder can do can be done cheaper overseas or through fairly simple AI algorithms backed by massive crowd-sourced data sets, something similar to methods used by Google in in Goolge Translate or in its reCaptcha systems.
It will be very interesting -- and I think they should do a follow-up (but I'm not holding my breath) -- to see how many of these girls are still coding at all in 5-years time and how many are earning a living from software development 10 years from now.
licet differant, aequabitur
Since the aid is targeted at one gender, all the comments so far are complaining about that aspect. However, the bigger problem is _how_ this is being done, not _to whom._
I have about 20 years' experience in what you could loosely classify as "systems" work, so I'm not a developer. I script, I automate stuff, and do development-y things sometimes, but I don't write software. However, I do see the output of developers on a regular basis because most of my job is systems integration these days. Putting someone through a coding bootcamp is not guaranteed to generate good results. At best, you'll usually get someone who is somewhat familiar with the basics of whatever framework/ecosystem they were taught in, and the result produced may run. However, someone with enough experience and interest in the field will produce much better code in the long run. The non-bootcamp person is more likely to question why that library-based database call they made takes a minute of CPU time to run a query, whereas the bootcamp person will just order another CPU core and 48 GB of RAM with their VM.
Remember MCSE bootcamps from the late 90s? There are now adult versions of these "teach girls to code" bootcamps being offered to much the same target audience. They promise 9 weeks or so of intense study will make you a "web developer" or an "app developer." The world doesn't need thousands more people who know a little Objective-C or Ruby on Rails...if we want the profession to succeed, we need to invest in real education.
Trying to get kids interested in being more than content consumers is a good thing, but treating any of this as a fix to the problems we have with skills is disingenuous.
So I give them 10,000 low income girls, and they teach me to code?
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Classist? Because by making a program like this available to children who live in low-income households is somehow unfair to kids from wealthy families?
I'm glad you brought up this absurdity. It's easy to see how poor children have fewer opportunities than wealthy children. We create programs like this to partially redress that imbalance. Makes sense, doesn't it? There are barriers imposed on the poor children that wealthy children don't have to overcome. Now we just need to you to see just a tiny bit further and realize that women and girls also face barriers that men and boys do not face.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Every industry is filled with emotionally stunted people.
If you don't believe that, spend your lunch every working day this week asking your peers about their problems. At least 20% (and I'm being generous here) will be people who can't be bothered to get out of their own way to fix their problems.
I've met sexist men, yes, but I've also met groups of women in the same environment that had a peer support group for being on the Atkins diet (which in that group turned its members miserable).
In one office I worked in, I had one man borderline sexually harass me, and one woman openly try to turn everyone against me (I found out about this because everyone else liked me better than her).
Point is, and I should really make this my sig: if normal people knew how to deal with problems, we wouldn't -have- problems.
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
Why is there no outcry about the under representation of girls for Selective Service?
https://www.sss.gov/fswho.htm
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
If I see one more article about STEM and young women I am gonna scream like a little girl. Coding is a high-risk career. It may pay relatively well out of college, but beyond that it is NOT a better choice than any other career. Burnout, agism, offshoring, wrist injuries, long hours, investment bubbles, etc. etc. etc. make it a risky career choice. At its best it's a stepping stone into something better, but so are a lot of other fields.
Table-ized A.I.
Because boys get more informal opportunities for computing experience outside of school,
What is that supposed to mean? Both boys and girls use technology equally outside of school as far as I can tell, in terms of access to technology or use of family laptops...
The only thing I can THINK the mean by this, by the very indirect wording, is that boys play more games. Specifically Minecraft. If that's so, say that,
But, I'm not sure Minecraft is truly a direct bridge to programming some seem to think it is... other games are actually a hinderance to learning to program, rather than a help - anything that absorbs time is to some degree taking away time you can learn to use to program.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When my daughter's guidance councilor recommended that she do the pre-med requirements in college and go to medical school, I rejoiced.
You rejoiced that she probably now will not join and industry with the greatest ability at any point in history to have someone work on what they want, with who they want. Sad.
STEM fields are being offshored
Only the crappy work where the quality of results do not matter; who wanted those jobs anyway?
the working conditions suck
In what way? I'm a consultant, I get to choose the hours I work and take as much vacation as I like. In a job I actually enjoy doing.
The work conditions only suck if you allow them to suck. At this point anyone who is good at programming, especially a female, can write their won ticket.
the profession is filled with bullies and misogynists.
Let me take a guess - you are in California, right? Because I've seen that there, but pretty much no-where else. Businesses do not have time for such people as they are inherently unproductive.
And again, you can choose who you work with so simply do not work with those people. From what I have seen over decades, they are a tiny minority of the actual people you can work with.
By the way, if you actually had a problem with misogynists, you would be quaking in your boots at the thought of her entering the medical profession - where inherently most women are assumed to be nurses... What makes you think that field is not a thousand times worse than the tiny world of problems you know?
What makes you think the job will suck less, not more, when the stress of being a doctor is so incredibly high? What makes you think she will not be living under the cloud of med school debt for five decades as the amount of money doctors makes declines? Are you not rejoicing at the career equivalent of being sent to the front lines in WWI?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Are you sick of Slashdot's Bolshevik bullshit yet?
I'm a Bolshevik, you insensitive clod.
Slashdot's commentaries on gender issues in tech read more like an Onion parody than reasoned discussion. The investment of new dollars in STEM education for poor girls is a wonderful thing. (Frankly, the investment of *any* dollars into education for low income kids is marvelous). The desire among so many here is to just analogize from your own experience and ask "I did it, so why can't X"? It's hard to describe the number of problems with that line of reasoning. But here are a couple of thoughts that maybe can elevate the discussion.
First, there is massive confirmation bias going on. The fact that the system selects people that look like you (and, frankly me) to be successful is not evidence that the system is fair for everyone. Every time some successful person says, "well, I scored well on X test,and look at how successful I am," I just want to shake them until they realize that correlation (i.e.,only people scoring well on X test get into Y job) does NOT imply causation (I am successful at Y job, therefore X test is important.) Because if the entire pool of people at Y job is comprised of good test takers, then only good test takers will become successful.
Second, the fact that you yourself (or someone you know) achieved success against overwhelming odds (whether it be poverty, lack of opportunity, gender, race, whatever) does not mean that there are no barriers to entry into STEM. How many disadvantaged people need to be turned away for every amazing overachiever before we decide that maybe the system is broken?
Third, how can everyone on a site that claims to be nerds completely ignore the scientific evidence of how internalized gender stereotypes affect the decision of women to go into STEM? Why is it that women do worse on standardized tests when you remind them of their gender? There are really fascinating issues going on here that get completely ignored in the Slashdot group think. Frankly, I can't tell if it's just the trolls winning, or if Slashdot's blind spot really is a metaphor for what goes on in tech generally.
...they don't want to. This won't change that in any significant way.
How often does it have to fail for our lawmakers and beancounters to finally get it through their skull: YOU CANNOT SIMPLY "MAKE" PROGRAMMERS!
It's not law or BA where any monkey can get a degree by rote learning. The very last thing the industry needs is another batch of cargo cult programmers (you know the kind, the ones whose programming style follows the steps
1 google problem
2 copy code
3 paste code
4 make more or less random code changes to "adapt" code to your task.
5 hit "compile" button
6 if it does not compile, resume at step 4.
We have enough of those idiots already. We don't need more. Why not dump them into some law or BA school, at least they can't turn out any worse than what we already have.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...the truly sexist programs are arriving. Before these kinds of programs just went to the people who needed them. Now they're going to the gender they think needs them.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
What about low income boys
Everyone deserves equal opportunity, right?
The lead sponsor of this program is the National Center for Women & Information Technology (NCWIT) .
Because boys get more informal opportunities for computing experience outside of school, this lack of formal computing education especially affects girls and many youth of color.
That doesn't exclude others from sponsoring similar programs for low income boys.
Is that a cricket I hear chirping?
This is amazing news. We have, apparently, eliminated low income families with boys!
Half the population down, the other half to go!
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Good, so now I can tell them what I'm doing, instead of 'Important computer stuffs' when they go and make me a sammich.
It's interesting that retention is one of the key problems the NCWIT calls out in their study, where they claim a 56% departure rate of women from the field, and yet they have no solutions to offer.
The network of male overlords want to eliminate all their male competition: (e.g. like schools of fish or one of the main points of Dr. Strangelove). Since the technocracy is rising, they can soon rely on robots for all the heavy lifting -- their only problem remaining is the maintaince and programming of the robots and systems they don't want to be bothered with -- so they still need some annoying technical people around. At the moment they're mostly male. :( Not good if you're trying to be the last man on earth!
Conclusion: if the goal is for the males that are now in power (or their great-grandsons who will be in power) to be the only males on the face of the planet: then for everything to keep going they must somehow inculcate females to code and eliminate the need for all (other) males entirely.
Low-income girls would be a nice controllable group to start with.
These stories will stop when they stop getting 200+ comments. Don't feed the trolls.
It seems to me that "computer science" classes should not count towards either math or science High School graduation requirements (which are fairly low in most schools). Even, based on sample questions on the test, the AP "Computer Science A" test is not much "science" (or, "math"). Instead, it's more of a shop/trade class and should be entitled "Computer Programming A".
This isn't to say we should not teach computer programming in High School - we should and there should probably be a required semester class in it. Just don't call it "science" -- that's both a misnomer and likely to actually turn off some students who would be fine technicians.
Even many Computer "Science" BSc curricula are very light, within CSxxx classes, on anything resembling science or math, but at least they usually contain some courses that touch on such things as analysis of algorithms (I guess I could consider that science, although it strikes me as being more like math).
Of course, that's not as bad as elementary and middle schools that have "Computer Science" classes that turn out being about how to use Excel and Word.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
You're arguing with someone who says "STEM fields are being offshored, the working conditions suck, and the profession is filled with bullies and misogynists" right after saying it's great their daughter is going to med school. There ought to be a cymbal crash there.
What language will these girls be learning? If it's javascript, php, python, or ruby, that's great. If it's Go or Swift, then this immediately reduces to a novel form of corporate welfare as Google and/or Apple get the government to pay for training their next generation workers
Teenage male sees computer for first time and asks, "What can I make the magic box do?"
Teenage female sees computer for first time and asks, "What can the magic box do FOR ME?"
Most males are goofballs. They like to play, without a goal in mind, just for their own amusement.
This happens to be an excellent way to learn computers.
In contrast, most women want that immediate payoff. They don't seem to like to solve difficult puzzles without getting some kind of sensory/emotional cupcake.
This isn't a good way to learn computers. There is nothing emotionally gratifying about them. No cupcakes.
These traits are not universal, but as many here who've tried to teach women software development and computers have noted, there's a strong statistical tendency in this direction.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
...before women will finally be 'equal'?
In my experience, women typically don't want programmer jobs as much as they want the perks and benefits of the job (high salary, benefits, etc)...
Ken
Therefore, it is a cultural thing and I doubt that it will improve any time soon.
We already have a flood of bad programmers, why do we want more? Your "facts" only show that there is more demand or more monetary desire for women in STEM in those other countries. More modern research is showing that the percentage of women who actually WANT to do STEM is actually very close to what the USA has for current percentages. It's also a note of interest that the percentage of women who want to do STEM is identical in all countries and cultures.
The initial research was done by a collaboration of some very prestigious universities, but they did say that while they feel confident in their findings, more research from different angles must be done on the subject.
We don't need more STEM, we need more good STEM. Don't push women into the fields, just don't hold them back. While we at it, lets get rid of this surplus of idiots.
Meeting once a month. It is free. Roughly 10-20 members. I learned plenty there. It is very interesting since the members come from all kinds of backgrounds. The techniques an methods of C++ developers vary tremendously. What has this to do with this article? Simple, in all my years in this group I did not see a single parasite there.
You are right in that that pushing people into STEM does not help them, the companies they work for, and us. Already are many students studying CS for the wrong reasons. They do not like programming and they do not like working intensely on problems.
This is only true for Western countries. In many other cultures women are dominant in engineering and computer science. For example, Iran (70 percent), Philippines (52 percent), Thailand (51 percent) and Kazakhstan (50 percent).
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.unescobkk.org/educa... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Therefore, it is a cultural thing
What leads you to believe that? All you've done is display a link between "countries with fewer rights for women" and "women in STEM/CS". This would lead a rational person to believe that when women have more options they exercise them (like in the west). When they have fewer options they are stuck with STEM/CS.
and I doubt that it will improve any time soon. First, most programs address people at the end or after school. Then it is too late. If you want to "fix" it, you should start changing education in nursery and primary school. And yes, you should stop offering them dolls and fostering stupid girlie behavior, like "oh cool shopping".
And you know for sure that this does not happen in those countries you listed? As far as I know of those cultures, they treat women much much more different than they do men, including toys and such.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Sure, why not do it, just don't try to fake the results or parade the hand full of exceptions you find, in front of the media, if the results are otherwise disappointing. All it takes to learn code, for any human, is the will to learn and an computing device with access to MIT's Scratch website and the Khan Academy etc. The difficulty is in transmitting to the student a genuine appreciation of why trying to learn the subject will empower them, and the confidence to believe that they are capable of doing so. This is increasingly harder to do in a world and Internet full of eye, ear and brain candy that will keep their minds sated and distracted while otherwise leaving them intellectually malnourished.
First, not all listed countries induce restrictions on women. Second, the restrictions do not apply in education. Albeit in Iran Theology is off limits in Iran, they can study almost everything if they want to. Iran is not Saudi Arabia. In addition I had the pleasure to talk to different Iranian Women on a conference in Germany which point out different causes for the differences in selecting topic. In their culture, engineering is not considered a man thing. While I find that weird, it is part of their culture. And this is very different to our culture.
Yes they do, however, in another different than ours. anyway, to change the reputation of STEM topics (without Biology and Pharmacy which are already a women dominated fields) in the public and show our daughters that STEM can be fun for them.
Eh a few points - first I couldn't find any source for that 70% figure in Iran in your linked articles. Second if you're using any of those countries as your model for gender equality you've clearly never lived there and know very little about them. Thirdly nobody's breaking down Kazakhistan's door looking for quality engineers.
As for the communist thing, I recall reading an interview done with women working on a construction site in somewhere like Cambodia - they were well able for the work but complained constantly that they'd much rather be at home doing the cooking and cleaning. Likewise in Russia, women have no time for feminist screeds - they're quite happy staying at home looking after the kids. In my opinion women are quite capable of successful work in IT, engineering, the sciences and what have you, they mostly just don't want to, regardless of the culture.
Which brings us right around to the elephant in the room, the fact that feminism has no reproductive strategy. The only way that feminism could result in a semi functional society would be for all children to be collectively raised in private or public facilities. Such an environment is very unlikely to have a positive outcome for those children but regardless - their parents likewise usually don't like the idea and never will.
So once again, we find feminism coming up against reality and losing badly.
Classist? Because by making a program like this available to children who live in low-income households is somehow unfair to kids from wealthy families?
If you're a rabidly elitist right winger (i.e. the typical slashdot reader) then anything which threatens that elite is labelled as class warfare. It is an attempt to ironically take a Marxist term and use it against egalitarian left wingers.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
This has gone far enough, time for a backlash - I won't employ women in the future.
That's a bit weak. Shouldn't you be treatening to rape and torture to death any girl who dares to use a computer? What sort of a half-arsed bigot are you?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
My post was not about gender equality. First, because the initial article is on a program which is intended to increase the number of women in programming. Second, I really do not know what this gender equality thing is. We have regulations stating that all humans have the same rights. So the term is redundant, as human equality includes gender equality. However, it is used regularly and everyone has a different opinion what it actually comprises. So no I do not post on that.
The 70% of women in Iran is stated in "Under the Islamic Republic of Iran" fourth paragraph. But beside that, I had some interesting talks with Iranian computer scientists on a conference in March in Germany. They explained that with a factoid that in Iran engineering and CS are not a guys thing. They rather study other topics including theology. They are, as those two stated, more interested in their look than in technical gadgets.
For western ears that sounds totally odd. However, it allows the conclusion that STEM interests are not a biological determined thing and are induced by culture. Therefore, if you want to change it you have to look at these cultures and how that came into existence. Then you can come up with a plan that works.
On a side note: I do not think that it is necessary to lure women into STEM. While industry believes that all these women are potential programmers, they would not be very good ones if they are not interested in the topic. What they do not understand that a potential programmer is not the same thing as a real programmer. It is like being an athlete. We are all potential athletes, however, most of us suck in that field.
In short: More women in STEM by luring them in will not result in more women and more capable programmers in the field.
First, not all listed countries induce restrictions on women.
One doesn't. The others do. You've simply displayed a link between lack of womens rights and their propensity for CS. Well Done!
Second, the restrictions do not apply in education.
There's no restrictions in the west either.
Albeit in Iran Theology is off limits in Iran, they can study almost everything if they want to.
Just like the west.
And you know for sure that this does not happen in those countries you listed? As far as I know of those cultures, they treat women much much more different than they do men, including toys and such.
Yes they do, however, in another different than ours.
Their young girls have fewer choices than western young girls. Western girls have many more choices, and are *encouraged* from birth to believe that they can do anything they want to, so they go ahead and do whatever they want to. "Follow your heart" is a western expression for kids, not a middle eastern one.
anyway, to change the reputation of STEM topics (without Biology and Pharmacy which are already a women dominated fields) in the public and show our daughters that STEM can be fun for them.
My point still stands: When young girls (like in the west) are told they can do whatever they want to they avoid CS like the plague. When they are not given a choice they can be found in CS. Did your Iranian friends forget to tell you that they didn't get to choose their major; that their parents did? Or is that a fact you conveniently "forgot"?
FWIW, I'm from a culture closely related to the eastern and middle-eastern ones, and the way it normally goes is that the parents choose on their childs behalf, for everything from spouse to college major. Next time you meet with your friends ask them about it - I very much doubt a culture with arranged marriages does not have parents arranging the majors too.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Second, I really do not know what this gender equality thing is. We have regulations stating that all humans have the same rights. So the term is redundant, as human equality includes gender equality.
Equality of outcome or opportunity? Because one is commusm and the other is rational.
They explained that with a factoid that in Iran engineering and CS are not a guys thing. They rather study other topics including theology. They are, as those two stated, more interested in their look than in technical gadgets.
I'm not especially familiar with the engineering and IT environment in Iran, and I seriously doubt you are either, so before leaping to conclusions I suggest that a closer look into things like Iranian IT and engineering job security and career tracks might be helpful. Let's not take a backward Islamic theocracy and try to compare it academically with civilised western democracies, apples to apples and all that.
However, it allows the conclusion that STEM interests are not a biological determined thing and are induced by culture. Therefore, if you want to change it you have to look at these cultures and how that came into existence. Then you can come up with a plan that works.
More importantly, a plan that women find appealing, and good luck with that.
More women in STEM by luring them in will not result in more women and more capable programmers in the field.
And yet you just got done saying you can socially engineer women into going into STEM fields.