Slashdot Mirror
Girls-Only Computer Camps Formed At Behest of Top Google, Facebook Execs
theodp writes: Reporting on Google exec Susan Wojcicki's appearance at DreamForce, Inc.'s Tess Townsend writes: "The YouTube CEO said her daughter had stated point-blank that she did not like computers, so Wojcicki enrolled her in a computer camp. The camp made her daughter dislike tech even more. Wojcicki reported her daughter came back saying, 'Everyone in the class was a boy and nobody was like me and now I hate computers even more.' So, mom called the camp and spoke to the CEO, asking that the camp be made more welcoming to girls" (video). Fortune reported last July that it was the urging of Wojcicki and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg that prompted iD Tech Camps — which Wojcicki's and Sandberg's kids had attended — to spin off a girls-only chain of tech camps called Alexa Cafe, which was trialed in the Bay Area in 2014 and expanded to nine locations in 2015. Earlier this month, Fortune noted that Wojcicki's daughter attended the $949-a-week Alexa Cafe summer camp at Palo Alto High, which was coincidentally hosted in the multi-million dollar Media Center (video) that was built thanks to the efforts of Wojcicki's mother Esther (a long-time Paly journalism teacher) and partially furnished and equipped by sister Anne (23andMe CEO) and ex-brother-in-law Sergey Brin's charitable foundation.
Did Sergey Brin go to computer camp?
How about Carly Fiorina or Sheryl Sanberg?
What is "computer camp" all about anyways? dumping your kid somewhere so you can have some time to yourself?
Maybe Wojcicki should ask her daughter which "camp" she wants to go to if any!?
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
Some women (like Sandberg, who I'm fairly certain wasn't raised in girls-only environments) push for this sort of thing, neglecting a vital truth of the matter: the workplace requires just as much in the way of soft skills as it does hard ones.
If it's true that boys are a "distraction", or at least "different enough" to be a problem* then girls-only camps serve only to kick the can down the road: girls don't know how to deal with boys. So what's to happen when they go into environments with boys? They get disappointed and leave.
*which, if the environments are so hostile to women, why are we setting girls up for failure by asking them not to worry about it instead of training them from a young age to deal with it and make it more natural? Or for that matter, teach boys that it's natural for girls to be in this environment either?
(Yes, I know as well as any of you that these "progressive" measures are not about equal rights for anyone but about flooding the marketplace of job applicants and driving down wages. But Slashdot seems to not be getting that feel-good crusades like this one aren't rooted in practical concerns.)
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
If it's sexist to girls to keep them out of computer science classes, then it's sexist to boys to keep them out of computer science classes. If girls feel uncomfortable being the odd ones out, then, being equally human, the same thing can be said for boys who are not allowed to have their own spaces to pursue the same interests. Therefore funds should be divided to service both camps. Any other position is sex discrimination. If funds are being diverted from classes where everyone is welcome to classes where only those with certain traits are welcome, especially traits that are argued as not being relevant in the first place, then that's systemic discrimination against those who are not welcome. You can't argue for 'safe spaces' for some and not others while arguing for equality. We're either all entitled or Either we're all entitled to 'safe spaces' or none of us are.
I have a better idea. Leave the camps open to everyone. This way kids learn that life is about getting long with the opposite sex, and that society is not obligated to isolate them from those they find 'uncomfortable' for whatever reason. If girls choose to opt out where they can't get privileged treatment, then that's a character flaw they need to work on. After all, this is what we tell boys (and men) all the time.
Segregation is the answer. Sometimes groups need a space where they can be away from the things that are giving them problems, with the goal of later re-integration.
You heard it here first. Up next, white only bathrooms, and asian only programing camps.
We already segregate in education.
We segregate by age, often sorting kids into arbitrary "boxes" depending on their birthdays. It's usually quite difficult and disruptive to break out of age segregation in the public school system.
We segregate by ability level, placing students in "honors" classes or better "sections" of students, which has both benefits (teachers can tailor lessons more) and drawbacks (once a kid gets sorted in the "lower" section, it can be difficult for him/her ever to catch up to the higher section, even if very motivated and a "late bloomer" in terms of interest/ability).
These types of segregation are based on particular beliefs about age-based schemes of development and supposed goals of tracking based on previous student performance. They're well-accepted as legitimate, but obviously they fail to provide the best benefit in many cases of particular students.
The question about segregation is whether or not the overall differences justify the separation. Generally, the differences in black and white humans, for example, would NOT justify separate bathrooms (obviously).
We know that boys and girls develop physically, psychologically, socially, and intellectually on somewhat different timescales as adolescents. We know that adolescence is often a time of heightened sexual tension and awkwardness, which can result in significant differences in behaviors between segregated sex groups vs. mixed ones. We have studies that have shown both benefits and drawbacks of segregating sexes in education -- for one example, adolescent girls often are more deferential or less likely to assert their own opinions in a mixed group compared to an all-girls group. This can impact whether girls speak up to ask questions or to offer their opinion in class exercises, etc.
So, the question is not whether we should allow segregation -- we already allow segregation according to some schemes based on broad criteria (like age). If we got rid of age segregation and went back to a "one-room schoolhouse" model, it would inevitably be beneficial to some students, fo example. (Many private schools and Montessori-based schools take this approach, having classrooms that span 2-4 "grade levels," which often benefits both the young kids, who learn by watching older kids, and the older kids, who reinforce their knowledge through teaching and explanation.)
The question is whether the differences in behavior, interest, and educational quality coming from segregation by sex in this particular education context are enough to justify the separation. I don't know whether they are or not, but acting like "all segregation is bad" or refusing to acknowledge that we already do it is needlessly inflammatory and unproductive.
Why does it make sense? By saying that you invalidate the feminist argument that differences between the two are simple social constructs that need breaking down.
Oh, we already have feminists trying to micromanage men in their bathrooms.
two random google hits..
http://www.theguardian.com/com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Seems simple enough to me. The girl will have a wildly unrealistic idea of what being a software developer is like, so that when she enters the working world, she will be totally disillusioned and hate it, and have to re-focus her education in her mid 20s.
As opposed to the boys who go to computer camp and spend all day in meetings and screwing with build errors, merge conflicts, and management changing the requirements mid-project?
I stole this Sig
I can't. Please explain it to me. Why is female-only education acceptable, but male-only social space not acceptable?
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Yes it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"A place where anyone can relax and be fully self-expressed, without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe on account of biological sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, cultural background, age, or physical or mental ability; a place where the rules guard each person's self-respect and dignity and strongly encourage everyone to respect others."
"The concept originated in the women's movement, where it "implies a certain license to speak and act freely, form collective strength, and generate strategies for resistance...a means rather than an end and not only a physical space but also a space created by the coming together of women searching for community.""
So, a place where boys can be fully self-expressed... that means if they want to openly talk about how mean girls are for rejecting them, or talk about how useless girls are because they don't know math and can't code, or whatever... they can do that without feeling uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe. They can speak and act freely. They can form collective strength (meaning... boys against girls). They can generate strategies for resistance, which could be political or social... so stuff like talking about how women "trap" men with pregnancy or rape accusations.
You think that sounds crazy? I've seen safe spaces for women and LGBT people, and yes, absolutely fucking crazy things are said there. But that's what it is.