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.

272 of 449 comments (clear)

  1. $949/week? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Suddenly this push for segregation makes sense - "Fools and their money..."

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    1. Re: $949/week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My son wouldn't be interested anyway. He's at the all male nursing camp.

      Not that he's interested in nursing, but as long as we're willing to force kids to do things they hate, why not start with my kid? It's just his life and all.

    2. Re:$949/week? by Stellian · · Score: 5, Funny

      Daddy, daddy, computer camp was so great, we uploaded Justin Bieber videos, we connected to Wifi while riding a pony and I even convinced a really gross dork to fix our computers ! All the girls were just like me, cool, popular, white and totally not poor.

    3. Re: $949/week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What about all of the transgender children?
      They need attend a computer camp and be isolated from all other gender identities too! So they can be ready for the real world. Which by law is also segregated right?
      Why won't someone please think of the children?

    4. Re:$949/week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm a straight man and I've worked in all-girl offices, taken all girl classes,

      So it wasn't an "all girl class" if you are a man and were in the class was it?

    5. Re: $949/week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Good thing they're all so stunning and beautiful

    6. Re:$949/week? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      Cost to high??

      Sign hear to start a student loan.

    7. Re: $949/week? by buddyglass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I force my kids to do things they hate every day. Go to bed, brush their teeth, take a bath, not stick their arms out the car window, buckle their seat belt, etc. No, I don't think "learning to program" is as important as those, just to head off that obvious response. My point is only that, generally speaking, "making your kids do things they hate" is an integral part of being a parent.

    8. Re:$949/week? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Who said that computer camps are foolish? I intended to say that overpaying is foolish.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    9. Re:$949/week? by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      Is $949/week more than comparable non-gender-segregated camps in this area charge?

    10. Re:$949/week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There used be a market for men only establishment, and before that there was a market white only club as well. If these were 'evil', 'wrong'. 'sexist' and 'racist' then surely, a girl only camp is dump, fucking stupid and SEXIST. Shut it down. I thought that shit wasn't tolerated any more?

    11. Re:$949/week? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Maybe she grew a pair after the class?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    12. Re: $949/week? by pla · · Score: 2

      Don't forget that you need separate camps for the FTM an MTFs - Not to mention the inters and pans. And of course you wouldn't want to mix preops and post ops!

      Really, if we want to make this "fair", we should put every precious unique snowflake in their own class. And spare me all this Western CisHetWhiteMaleShitlord "STEM" crap - If they want to learn computers - or for that matter, brain surgery - by coloring pictures of pretty rainbow ponies, what the hell gives us the right to impose our beliefs on them???

    13. Re:$949/week? by Travelsonic · · Score: 1

      $949/week... pfft, the computer camp I used to work at was $1200/week, irrespective of if campers were overnighting or commuting, + $400 additional to overnight, which makes sense when you consider that it's in a neighborhood where the clientele that can pay for that will, and on a college campus that probably jacks up rates figuring they can make money off of the numerous camps that want to have their activities there.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    14. Re:$949/week? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Two words: "Positive Discrimination".

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    15. Re:$949/week? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Oh god I felt my stomach churn. You're right. It's coming.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    16. Re:$949/week? by morphotomy · · Score: 1

      Three more words.

    17. Re: $949/week? by operagost · · Score: 1

      That sounds as awesome as the boys-only veterinary camp and the boys-only grade school teacher camp.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    18. Re: $949/week? by tburkhol · · Score: 2

      You do know that "computer programming" is something that anyone can do, not just a job title, right? Comparing a girls-only programming camp to an imaginary boys-only "school teacher camp" is a ridiculous MRA analogy.

      Gender-exclusive camps are nothing new. The Boy Scouts run a number of boys only hiking and knot-tying camps. Fashion and modeling camps exist and are overwhelmingly but not exclusively girls. A 'boys only' fashion camp seems perfectly reasonable, and I don't imagine they would learn about clothing design and manufacture by driving trucks over bolts of fabric.

    19. Re:$949/week? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Hey, I know we just clipped the far side of the road over there, but you shouldn't be over-steering in the other direction"

      "False equivalence, shitlord"

      *crash*

    20. Re:$949/week? by Triklyn · · Score: 2

      i think they're wondering why the people that think there is a need for an all-female computer camp don't think that there is a need for an all-female computer camp that isn't more expensive than college.

      949*52 is 49000.

    21. Re:$949/week? by quantaman · · Score: 1

      i think they're wondering why the people that think there is a need for an all-female computer camp don't think that there is a need for an all-female computer camp that isn't more expensive than college.

      949*52 is 49000.

      I don't know the typical cost for camps but that's not a fair comparison.

      A one-week camp is going to include rent and food and have a very diverse itinerary that requires a lot of set-up for each component. Plus the fact that it's a 1-week camp and a start up means there's a huge one-time overhead getting things going.

      It's just not meaningful to multiply it by 52.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    22. Re:$949/week? by NotDrWho · · Score: 2

      Here is a transcript of how I think the whole thing went down:

      Wojcicki: "My daughter doesn't like the things I want her to like. Can I pay you to force her to like them?"

      iD Tech Camps: "Absolutely! Just give us lots of money."

      Wojcicki: "Can my friends give you lots of money to force their daughters to like stuff too?"

      iD Tech Camps: "Sure!"

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    23. Re: $949/week? by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      You can force your kids to do things, but you can't force them to like it.

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    24. Re:$949/week? by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      1 week later

      My daughter still hates computers, i want a full refund or i will sue!!

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    25. Re: $949/week? by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      You're going to eat your broccoli and you're going to like it or else you're grounded!

    26. Re:$949/week? by mattventura · · Score: 1

      It's not uncommon. It's rather well-known that the SJW types tend to have more money, so businesses love to pander to them. It doesn't matter whether they actually believe in those principles or not, they just have to make it look like they do.

    27. Re:$949/week? by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Cost to high??

      Sign hear to start a student loan.

      I think you need to ask for a refund.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    28. Re: $949/week? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      It sounds like the only thing your parents did wrong was the form of motivation, not the activities. Perhaps other forms of convincing would have been better instead, but the activities you list are ones that most parents "make" their kids do. It sounds like they just used the stick too much instead of the carrot.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    29. Re:$949/week? by jason.sweet · · Score: 1

      With all this talk about males and females, you might want to clarify which pair we should grow.

    30. Re:$949/week? by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      Separate but equal didn't work previously, why is it ok when it is the left doing it now?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    31. Re:$949/week? by o_ferguson · · Score: 1

      obviously they will just hire only other women from the same camp(s).

      --
      - In Soviet Korea, only old people loose all their bases to Natalie Portman's petrified hot grits overlords.
    32. Re: $949/week? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Addicts always make up stories to justify themselves. It's _always_ someone else's fault.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    33. Re:$949/week? by rsborg · · Score: 1

      i think they're wondering why the people that think there is a need for an all-female computer camp don't think that there is a need for an all-female computer camp that isn't more expensive than college.

      949*52 is 49000.

      Uh, it's a camp, not school. More like $949*3 = $2847.

      Seriously price out other summer camps (esp. tech camps) in the SF Bay Area and you'll see that $1k isn't that bad.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    34. Re: $949/week? by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      That's a good point -- what kinds of things would you learn at such a camp that isn't taught in a standard school curriculum? Care and monitoring of living creatures, being able to move non-rigid items greater than your own weight without damage, ... ?

    35. Re:$949/week? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Cost to high??

      Sign hear to start a student loan.

      You definitely need to go to English camp.

    36. Re: $949/week? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Instead of leaping to a ridiculous extreme, why not see if there is an actual problem to address first? If you read TFA you will see that there was an issue, and it was addressed. Nothing to do with your bullshit notions of fairness or precious unique snowflakes. Just pragmatism.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    37. Re: $949/week? by fche · · Score: 1

      ... don't forget courageous

    38. Re:$949/week? by thesupraman · · Score: 2

      You should perhaps visit a Teachers or Nurses college.
      I wonder when there will be a push for more males there, as they are obviously far more heavily disadvantaged than women in tech.

      In fact you dont need to go that far, since women are over represented at College level (yes, really, go check the numbers) where is
      the male only higher education push?

      Or perhaps we should go the other way - men are hugely over represented in high injury risk/low pay jobs, such as commercial fishing, forestry
      work, and construction - where is the push to make more Women contribute to these needed areas?

      So yes, I agree with you, lets all cry for equality - but lets just remember that cuts both ways - more women in low pay/high risk jobs!

    39. Re: $949/week? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      From your ID you should be old enough to remember when nearly all vets were male, nearly half the grade school teachers were male, and close to 100% of those running the grade schools were male.

    40. Re:$949/week? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I think the spelling is part of the joke.
      I'm hoping that the joke is deliberate though and not US education.

    41. Re:$949/week? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I respectfully disagree, this is EXACTLY the same thing.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    42. Re:$949/week? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Daddy, daddy, computer camp was so great, we uploaded Justin Bieber videos, we connected to Wifi while riding a pony and I even convinced a really gross dork to fix our computers ! All the girls were just like me, cool, popular, white and totally not poor.

      Hey everybody, that guy from the 1950s is posting again.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    43. Re: $949/week? by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      Well, that just requires the right set of male-female adapters. Just don't use any dongles. . .

    44. Re:$949/week? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Nope, it is exactly the same thing. This is just as fucked up as the scouts not allowing girls, gays, or atheists, and if it gets a penny of government funding it should be treated like a Klan summer camp just like the scouts should be.

      It doesn't matter who the target group is, discrimination is still discrimination and should not be tolerated.

    45. Re:$949/week? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      You will never hear them talk about that. The reason is simple. It is not about equality and has not been for several decades.
      It is about elitism. It is all about having power over men, not having equality with them.

    46. Re:$949/week? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Separate but equal.

    47. Re: $949/week? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Addicts always make up stories to justify themselves. It's _always_ someone else's fault.

      Aren't you being a little insensitive towards their "disease" that of course they have no control over?

    48. Re:$949/week? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      If your only argument is to nit-pick the semantics of a post, then the other person has already won.

      It seemed like the particulars were the whole point of the post. If they don't add up, the whole post is meaningless.

    49. Re:$949/week? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      There is no "all boys" CS camp, so not equal.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    50. Re: $949/week? by kenh · · Score: 1

      Maybe they accept EBT as payment for the camp?

      --
      Ken
    51. Re:$949/week? by narcc · · Score: 1

      It is, quite obviously, not the same thing. The issues involved and motivation of the organizers are dramatically different.

      Try to see if you can work out the differences. As soon as you give the issue a moment's thought, it'll be painfully clear.

    52. Re:$949/week? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      It was a reference to segregation. I thought that would be obvious, but I guess not everyone thinks like I do.

    53. Re:$949/week? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Issues involved:
      girls that do not want to be around boys
      Motivation:
      put girls up on a pedestal above the worthless boys who are taking all the high paying jobs
      convince the little girls that they want those high paying jobs
      Solution:
      create a summer camp to convince little girls that the high paying job is fun which excludes the little boys

      It may sound morally acceptable since we have been being told for years that girls are somehow at a disadvantage in the tech sector, but the cold, hard truth is that they are not disadvantaged in tech and it is not any more acceptable than having an all white summer camp. In fact women who go into tech are at a great advantage over men in pay, job security, and chances of being hired.

    54. Re:$949/week? by narcc · · Score: 1

      That's a bit delusional. You may want to check your facts.

    55. Re:$949/week? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      You may want to recheck the propaganda you swallowed without a single thought.

    56. Re: $949/week? by edittard · · Score: 1

      It sounds like they just used the stick too much instead of the carrot.

      You disgusting pervert!

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
  2. And.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Somehow, I'm betting she still doesn't like computers.

    1. Re:And.. by Skapare · · Score: 1

      or maybe she doesn't like boys

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    2. Re:And.. by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Somehow, I'm betting she still doesn't like computers.

      Some rich parents have this attitude, that if their children don't do well in school, there must be a problem with the school. They can't accept that their children just don't do well in math, biology, Latin, or whatever.

      It seems here that the parents are trying to push their daughter into something where she has no interest at all. How about if they ask their daughter:

      "We would like to send you to a summer camp where you can learn something. Where would you like to go . . . ?"

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:And.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't get to be CEO by accepting reality. If you don't think you can mold the world as you want it to be, you're not even going to become middle management. Luckily for the offspring, there's enough money to make up for their parent's delusions.

    4. Re:And.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Rich parents? If only ... I know not so rich parents who behave just like this ...

      In Japan they are called monster parents, and are the nightmares of teachers and managers of young recruits in japanese companies ...
      The problem is that Japanese are not culturally prepared to deal with problem, so it has become a social problem

    5. Re:And.. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Do you have any evidence that girls are being pushed into CS? There are lots of published, peer reviewed studies where girls are interviewed, express and interest but say that they feel unable to pursue it for various reasons.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:And.. by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      Do you have any evidence that girls are being pushed into CS?

      It's in the damn summary, FCOL! Did you not even read the summary?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    7. Re:And.. by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Some rich parents have this attitude, that if their children don't do well in school, there must be a problem with the school. They can't accept that their children just don't do well in math, biology, Latin, or whatever. "

      I'm not sure it's necessarily wrong though. My parents aren't rich, but I didn't do well in math at school. I did however end up getting a first class honours degree in maths all the same though.

      The problem is that there was a massive disconnect between how the school taught and how I learnt. Throwing a textbook at me and telling me to solve 40 meaningless problems achieved nothing and I learnt nothing. When I eventually sat down in my own time however and wanted to figure out how to build me a 3D engine, suddenly all the calculus and stuff had a purpose, it meant something, it could achieve something.

      I'm not saying schools should teach 3D engine programming, but the point is that schools do very often get it wrong, they do an incredibly bad job of teaching for lots of kids. Mindless repetition of meaningless equation solving works well for kids who are capable of doing boring, repetitive tasks without asking, but some kids have a thirst for understanding and explanation, they want to know that what they're doing has some meaning, what it's for, where they'd use it. Statistics is an obvious one - teach boring stats for the sake of teaching boring stats and you'll have a problem getting through to many kids. Create a scenario whereby they're running a business selling shirts, and they need to figure out what sizes are going to optimise profit letting them know how much the overhead penalty is for creating additional sizes, and give them a bunch of data on measurements of people and you'll teach them not just the stats, but about business, about problem solving, and optionally even about team working.

      So I do agree with what you're saying, but I think we should also be careful not to give bad schools and bad teachers (which for subjects like Maths is the vast majority of them in my experience) a get out clause for their incompetence. I did well in maths in spite of my teachers at school, not because of them. It was only at university where the teachers really seemed to get how to teach, and even that wasn't a universal truth.

    8. Re:And.. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually I read TFA. I see you didn't which is why you are confused.

      Wojcickiâ(TM)s daughter at first had a negative experience, and it took some elbow grease on Wojcickiâ(TM)s part to get her to stop turning her nose up at computers.

      Once she sorted out the thing that gave her daughter a negative experience (being the only girl in a class full of boys who were not nice to her) she seems to have been fine with computers.

      Her mother identified an area where her daughter was weak. Her daughter most likely didn't like computers because she had had similar negative experiences at school. She arranged for a class for girls, and with the barriers removed her daughter changed her attitude towards programming.

      Why is this so hard to understand?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:And.. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Actually, I would have thought that she'd have loved computers, since that class would have given her unlimited potential dating opportunities while she wasn't struggling w/ Python or Perl or whatever it is they now teach in CS for beginners.

      Other possibility - she's either a bitter male hating feminist already, or a lesbian. The stuff about Computers is just a blind

    10. Re:And.. by war4peace · · Score: 2

      So... fight discrimination through positive discrimination?
      Fight fire with fire, CS edition.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    11. Re:And.. by morphotomy · · Score: 1

      Links?

    12. Re:And.. by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Some ... parents have this attitude, that if their children don't do well in school, there must be a problem with the school. They can't accept that their children just don't do well in (academic subjects).

      Maybe the school district has an entrenched jock culture and the sports team members bounce the "nerd" kids off the lockers. Or maybe the school district includes gang types and the school environment is violent. Or maybe the school district includes people whose classroom behavior is disruptive to academics (because they shouldn't be in those subjects or in a normal school, but there's no real alternative in either a serious vocational training sense or a special education sense). I went to a "magnet" high school; my local school district high school led the nation in violent crimes during the years I wasn't there. I'm sure there were people who scored just a few points lower on the entrance exam who wound up staying in their local schools and having to deal with it . . . unless their parents could afford private school.

    13. Re:And.. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      You don't get to be CEO by accepting reality.

      Or a Congress Critter, or President.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    14. Re:And.. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Some rich parents have this attitude, that if their children don't do well in school, there must be a problem with the school. They can't accept that their children just don't do well in math, biology, Latin, or whatever.

      High school math, biology, Latin? If a child has a problem with high-school level subjects, there's a problem somewhere. You don't have to be super-talented to be proficient at any high-school level topic. As long as you're not truly retarded, you can handle high school subjects.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:And.. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

      She arranged for a class for girls, and with the barriers removed her daughter changed her attitude towards programming.

      Perhaps Mommy can arrange a girls-only life for her daughter too so she doesn't have to deal with, you know, stuff.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    16. Re:And.. by quantaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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
    17. Re:And.. by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Schools should *definitely* teach 3D Engine programming. I did "poorly" in math in school. And by "poorly" obviously I mean by Slashdot standards (B-'s). But in College I got my first A+ in calculus because it was both interesting an relevant. The great thing though about teaching through 3D Engines is that you get instant feedback. If your equation is off the world looks wrong. Pop the normal and suddenly your world snaps into photo realism. You can also experiment. Tweak the falloff and watch as the image changes dynamically. It's not like programming where you usually make a tweak and then compile and then wait and it's not like a math test where you solve the equation (you think) and then a week later find out if you were right, it's instant feedback with practical results.

      What still to this day really pisses me off though about highschool math was that my Math teacher my senior year picked me as one of two students to represent the school in a math competition even though I had had him for 3 years in highschool as my math teacher and I never got an A. So he knew all along that I was one of his best students and that I was teetering just above a C but wasn't willing to find a way better engage me. Then again it doesn't surprise me, he would dock 10% from your homework if you put your name on the wrong side of the paper and another 15% if you didn't staple your paper. So in his world you should end up with a 75% on a perfect paper if you didn't follow his anal retentive bullshitery. If he was my kid's teacher and my kid "hated math" I would definitely try to find another way to engage them.

    18. Re:And.. by slew · · Score: 1

      that class would have given her unlimited potential dating opportunities...

      Are you being sarcastic?

      ...she's either a bitter male hating feminist already, or a lesbian.

      That would depending on whom a person might consider *dateable*... Or perhaps, throw in that false dichotomy to soothe a rejected soul...

      Of course, if a goal of a person is to have dating opportunities, joining a hiking club might be a better choice if you want to actually interact with people...

    19. Re:And.. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Separate but equal in the new age. Except when the girl's school is better than the mixed school or the boys only school, then it is positive discrimination to AmiMoJo

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    20. Re:And.. by Rinikusu · · Score: 2

      Devil's Advocate: I used to tell my parents I liked shit all the time when it was obvious to me that not liking shit would mean they were disappointed and/or would continue hammering whatever it was in my face all the time. See: piano lessons. So, while she may think her daughter now totally loves programming, it could just be she's going along with it to make mom happy-ish.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    21. Re:And.. by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      As opposed to the boys who go to computer camp and spend all day in meetings and screwing with

      build errors,

      "Put your shoes on correctly or you'll be late for school!"

      merge conflicts,

      "If you don't stop bothering your brother, I will turn this car around and nobody will get Coldstone."

      and management changing the requirements mid-project?

      "Kids Activity Center will be closed for the rest of the week for emergency repairs. Figure out how to keep your children occupied until Monday."

    22. Re:And.. by umghhh · · Score: 1

      Actually all from

      spend all day in meetings and screwing with build errors, merge conflicts, and management changing the requirements mid-project?

      except never stopping change of requirements is also popular in real projects (v. SW ones). That may be because it 'does not cost anything' t rebuild SW from the scratch if one so wishes whereas a bridge would be difficult to build again while its first version is standing although the building companies have means to change things on the fly too, they indeed build prototypes in scale to see how they behave etc and some managers are silly enough also to change requirements at the end of the project when the only missing thing is handing a product to a customer - also for real stuff (Berlin airport is one example).

    23. Re:And.. by Xest · · Score: 1

      I don't think your pet theory really matters, at the end of the day by just about every metric I'm doing better than most members of society (whether it's a purely selfish metric like salary, or a more philanthropic metric like charity giving, or socially beneficial metric like net tax contribution). If I had to reach that point in spite of the teachers, rather than because of the teachers, then the odds are there are a lot of people who didn't do it in spite of the teachers. That is, objectively, failure on their behalf.

      But I don't really need to argue it, god only knows the amount of businesses and universities unhappy that schools are churning out drones that are capable of A* grade repetition and incapable any kind of actual thinking for themselves are pretty well documented. Similarly, the idea that learning by repetition is the only way to learn, much less the best way to learn is also very widely rubbished by people who have actually been successful in improving teaching.

      So like it or not, it really doesn't matter if I was or wasn't lazy (I doubt I was given that I also studied another degree full time whilst working full time- that's not something a lazy person manages), it doesn't change the fact that the teachers in question failed all the same, and it doesn't change the fact that this is a problem that's being repeated by universities and businesses all across the West.

      But perhaps you're one of those hopeless teachers, and you just don't want to admit failure, because that'd mean you'd have to do something more than just turning up at 8:30am and going home at 4:30pm in between your 13 weeks off a year and throwing down a textbook to each of the kids, telling them to get on with it whilst you get back to dicking around on Slashdot rather than, you know, actually teaching.

    24. Re:And.. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      She's a kid, the only python she should be playing with is on the screen so it's far too early to call her a lesbian.

    25. Re:And.. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Think back to your school years, I'm sure you'll remember that very few of the kids even got to touch calculus, let alone do a couple of years of it. Sure high school maths is very easy in hindsight but a lot of kids didn't go near the harder subjects.

    26. Re: And.. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If you need a jump start then this career isn't for you. Almost all computer people I know Have loved computers the moment they saw or used one. They didn't need a kick in the ass.

      Who said it had to be an all-consuming passion and a future career?

      You don't send kids to Scout camp on the basis they'll all become Bear Grylls when they grow up.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    27. Re:And.. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The problem is that there was a massive disconnect between how the school taught and how I learnt.

      I'm sorry, but normal schools can't be expected to have customised teaching programmes for every pupil.

      To get that, you need to be rich or have special needs.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    28. Re:And.. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand what I was trying to say. I'll try to say it again more clearly.

      High school math is something anyone can succeed in. It's not something you need special 'talent' to learn.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    29. Re: And.. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      If you need a jump start then this career isn't for you. Almost all computer people I know Have loved computers the moment they saw or used one. They didn't need a kick in the ass.

      Who said it had to be an all-consuming passion and a future career?

      You don't send kids to Scout camp on the basis they'll all become Bear Grylls when they grow up.

      I've found many "computer people" don't really want to work with people who aren't "computer people."

    30. Re:And.. by Xest · · Score: 1

      Nope, ad hominem still irrelevant and meaningless. Please try harder.

  3. Hedy would approve by Skapare · · Score: 2

    I think Hedy would approve.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:Hedy would approve by dickplaus · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's Hedley

    2. Re:Hedy would approve by Hans+Lehmann · · Score: 1

      That's Hedly.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  4. Segregation not the answer by beaverdownunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not convinced segregation is the answer here -- if girls aren't "getting it" then a lot of the boys won't be "getting it" either...

    Besides, my junior high school computer science class 25 years ago was one-third girls and everybody learned Pascal just fine =P

    1. Re:Segregation not the answer by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, well let's give segregation an experimental try on Slashdot. A few years back, on April 1st, Slashdot featured a "girlie" motif with pink ponies. Slashdot could revive this again as a parallel site. Then after a few months, we could ask the female users on the parallel site if they like computers better now.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Segregation not the answer by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Hey, well let's give segregation an experimental try on Slashdot. A few years back, on April 1st, Slashdot featured a "girlie" motif with pink ponies.

      Haven't you heard? Pink ponies are for guys now too!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:Segregation not the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The funny bit is that the civil rights movement isn't that far out of memory, and yet these SJWs don't see the parallels. It makes clear the divide between men and women, regardless of what feminist may claim.

      Separate but equal didn't pass scrutiny in the past, and yet here we are, and that these feminist can claim with a straight face that they are oppressed and need this is the height of hubris.

    4. Re:Segregation not the answer by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Funny

      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.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    5. Re: Segregation not the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As much as I can see the argument that she felt like an outsider at an all boys camp, don't Google people work long hours? Aren't high powered executives frequently known for their devotion to their work above all else? Is it possible that this young woman has somehow come to equate computers with "why mommy doesn't come to my soccer games"?

    6. Re:Segregation not the answer by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      It sounds pretty basic but when questioned a lot of girls say that parents and teachers told them computers were not a girl's thing,

      Now that you've stopped repeating your *other* argument in the face of repeated evidence to the contrary, you go this one? I'm afraid I'm going to have to call BS on your "a lot of girls say"... citation needed on the survey you think exists.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    7. Re:Segregation not the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Based on evidence I've collected, fan art/forum avatars/etc, it's suggestive that they prefer purple, blue, or yellow ponies and not pink ones.

    8. Re:Segregation not the answer by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Troll

      Up next, white only bathrooms, and asian only programing camps.

      Straw man. I said in this particular instance it makes sense, just like it makes sense to have segregated bathrooms and locker rooms for men and women, but not for race.

      See how this argument is slightly more complex than a binary segregation = good | bad?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Segregation not the answer by msauve · · Score: 1

      "Up next, white only bathrooms, and asian only programing camps."

      Can't you think of a difference between public accommodations and private enterprises? Where's the gender equality in the NFL or NBA?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    10. Re:Segregation not the answer by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      Maybe patronising and stereotyping women is not the best way to encourage them to read your tech news site...

      Maybe not spewing anger and denial at every story about women in tech might be a good start though.

      What anger and denial? Asking for a citation when you make the claim "when questioned a lot of girls say that parents and teachers told them computers were not a girl's thing," is what you consider anger and denial?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    11. Re:Segregation not the answer by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    12. Re:Segregation not the answer by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      To be honest, that actually is kind of an interesting idea. Might as well give it a go. There are such things as all boys schools and all girls schools. Boys and girls are different, mature at different ages and in different ways, and learn differently.

      If the problem with girls getting into tech is boys, then fine. Here ya go. Design your own tech camp or school for girls or boys or other and do whatever you like. And the proof will be in the pudding. The great thing about science, computing, and technology is it doesn't matter who you are, the program or tech or whatever either works or it doesn't work.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    13. Re:Segregation not the answer by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to 'separate but equal'?

    14. Re:Segregation not the answer by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      I'm fine with that. There are men's only clubs, like Augusta National golf club.

      If private individuals want to set up a computer camp or club just for girls, go for it. More power to you, ladies. At the end of the day, your code will either work or it won't.

      And we can stop arguing about why there's fewer women in tech. Here you go. You've got your own school. If you can't get girls to go to it, or they don't like it when they get there...it isn't the fault of men.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    15. Re:Segregation not the answer by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    16. Re:Segregation not the answer by epyT-R · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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/...

    17. Re:Segregation not the answer by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      "Segregation is the answer."
      unless you are forming a group of white male heteros, then it's racist, sexist and homophobic and you will be forced to 'open your doors to promote diversity'. funny enough, my two young daughters have a healthy interest in technology and computers. How about more parents tell their kids from day one "you can do anything and it doesn't matter if you're a girl because you will still kick ass." my girls don't give a crap about the boys and aren't going to let them get in the way of what they like. Funny how instilling confidence early on can overcome those "disadvantages" you claim.

    18. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Segregation is the answer.

      No, it isn't. In the real world men and women have to work and compete together. How far into adulthood are you willing to coddle these children? We have safe spaces in college, we should expand that. It is totally normal for an adult to run from their problems and revert to a child-like state hugging a stuffed animals to cope with all the potential rapists/murderers/men and scary ideas, right?

      Company's should be segregated too because safe spaces. How else can these employees work when there are different ideas in the same work environment?

      It doesn't disadvantage boys...

      Tell me more about all those male-only scholarships.

      ...it merely helps girls get past some issues they face

      Because girls are too weak to overcome those "issues" without segregation? Good job modern feminism; arguing like the KKK because women are weak.

    19. Re:Segregation not the answer by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up (if I had mod points at the moment)

    20. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 2

      We segregate by age...

      Not really, high school and middle school are made up of different age ranges. Those ranges have more to do with protecting the younger from the older and reflect the physiological differences in the ages because of puberty.

      We segregate by ability level...

      AP classes and skipping grades. Anyone can do that so long as they excel as opposed to what is in their pants (or lack there of).

      Grouping by age is easy and accounts for 90% of students ability. For the car analogy, think Henry Ford. It is more efficient to teach the same stuff to similar education levels. However, someone can break the grouping of their assigned age if the student can excel at the higher age groups/higher learning.

      It isn't segregation it is grouping to help students and educators. Those groupings can be ignored for special cases.

      Segregating by sex is a different beast. What you are saying is that girls are too weak to be in the same class room as boys to enjoy CS. I call bullshit.

    21. Re:Segregation not the answer by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      For something to be discriminatory it has to disadvantage someone. That's why gender segregated bathrooms are not discriminatory - everyone is served equally and the segregation exists for an easily justifiable reason.

      So in your example it would only be sexist to exclude boys if there was not already a class for boys. In this case boys have privilege - they are the majority in the class, they don't face gender based discrimination from their classmates. They might have other problems, but the point is that they effectively already have a "boy's only" CS class.

      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.

      Can't win, can we? If it's extra money on top it's discriminatory because money should go into a pool for everyone. If it's the same money being divided up differently to facilitate the education of a subgroup, that's also discrimination.

      You can't argue for 'safe spaces' for some and not others while arguing for equality.

      Correct. However, as I already pointed out, boys have a safe space. It's the class where there was only one girl and some unknown number of boys.

      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.

      That doesn't work for adults, let alone children. Anyway, what message are you trying to teach here? CS isn't for girls, and you will be treated badly if you try to pursue it? You must fight against adversity and discrimination to succeed, because other people don't want to deal with it?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    22. Re:Segregation not the answer by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Oh, we already have feminists trying to micromanage men in their bathrooms.

      You can have my penis when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!

      They can take our lives but they can never take our penis!

      BTW: clutching your pearls and panicking about what random pundits on the internet are saying makes you sound especially silly especially as one of the articles in fact had a bit about a judge ruling precisely the opposite of what you claim.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    23. Re:Segregation not the answer by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In the real world men and women have to work and compete together. How far into adulthood are you willing to coddle these children?

      Until adulthood. Children can't be held to the same standards of behaviour that adults can be. Once they become adults, if they made women feel unwelcome then they will be expected to correct the behaviour. Of course it's not a binary thing that flips at age 18, it happens gradually over the teenage years, I'm just stating the principal.

      Yes, it's fine to coddle children a bit. As they get older the coddling is reduced. I don't think that's controversial - most people understand that children are less emotionally and mentally developed than adults, and can't cope with problems like adults can. That's why they are not supposed to watch adult horror movies etc. Do I really need to state this?

      Tell me more about all those male-only scholarships.

      Wrong metric. What is important is the number of scholarships going to each gender, and the effect that has on the number of students of each gender. Until men are getting less than 50% of all available scholarships and are achieving less than 50% of the academic success (number of graduates, grade averages or whatever it is you use in the US) then women-only scholarships are just reducing men's privilege, not disadvantaging them compared to women.

      Of course if it has gone too far then I'm all for stopping it. Aside from the unfairness, that money could be better spent elsewhere.

      Because girls are too weak to overcome those "issues" without segregation?

      See how you made that comment about girls? Why not "because children are too weak to overcome those issues without segregation"? You are just looking for discrimination where there is none, assuming that feminists must be pushing that agenda. The reality is that in some places boy's have their own maths classes now, because as feminists have always said this issue affects both genders but in different ways.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    24. Re:Segregation not the answer by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      What you are really saying is that if someone feels uncomfortable blazing a trail, we should pave a road for them.....The goal should be to better integrate girls into tech, not separate them into their own classes because they cant hack it with the boys. Why is it we set boys in successive crucibles and watch them burn, but not girls?

      --
      Good-bye
    25. Re:Segregation not the answer by stdarg · · Score: 2

      Segregated camps are a great idea, but these camps aren't segregated. The camp that is not a girl camp still has to accept girls, which means they still have to make it a welcoming atmosphere for girls. The girls camp does not have to make it a welcoming atmosphere for boys.

    26. Re:Segregation not the answer by stdarg · · Score: 2

      Correct. However, as I already pointed out, boys have a safe space. It's the class where there was only one girl and some unknown number of boys.

      No, that's not a safe space for boys. They still will get in trouble for doing/discussing things that offend the one girl. Even if there are NO girls in a given camp, it's likely that the material was created with at least the possibility of girls being present. Not so for the girls camp.

      Look, if you want segregated camps, then segregate them. That's fine. Segregated camps (or schools) work well.

      But learn what the word means. If one camp allows girls and the other camp allows girls, then it's not segregated by gender.

    27. Re:Segregation not the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, the problem is that you hate men and are willing to go to great lengths to rationalize it.

      There is no harm to girls being in the same class as boys. There is, however, arguably harm to boys being in the same classes as girls as we've bent over backwards to make sure that no girl is left behind.

    28. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 4, Informative

      Until adulthood. Children can't be held to the same standards of behaviour that adults can be. Once they become adults, if they made women feel unwelcome then they will be expected to correct the behaviour. Of course it's not a binary thing that flips at age 18, it happens gradually over the teenage years, I'm just stating the principal.

      If only there was a place to learn how to deal with these social interactions. With authority figures to guide and discipline bad behavior that is not conducive to learning/working... Like a school! If the boys made the girls feel uncomfortable, then discipline accordingly. Just like the real world. The difference you won't lose your job or face a law suit.

      Wrong metric. What is important is the number of scholarships going to each gender, and the effect that has on the number of students of each gender. Until men are getting less than 50% of all available scholarships and are achieving less than 50% of the academic success (number of graduates, grade averages or whatever it is you use in the US) then women-only scholarships are just reducing men's privilege, not disadvantaging them compared to women.

      Congrats, we have beyond FTM ratio in colleges. Those scholarships have done their job. Lets reverse it as you say. Males don't have the privileged in the university because they are no longer > 50%... They also make up more of the grads too!!! Academic success

      See how you made that comment about girls

      No, you made this about girls. when you said: "Segregation is the answer." and the segregation was for the sexes and how you feel girls need a safe space to learn CS from those icky boys because privilege... Context is king.

    29. Re:Segregation not the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is no good reason for a golf club to be men only

      Yes, there is. It's call freedom. That a private individual wants to have a private club is good enough reason. You are not entitled to his life or what he does with it.

      It does disadvantage women though, especially since a lot of business happens at golf clubs.

      Where and how a person, be they a man or woman or something else, conducts their business is, well, their business.

      Women not being entitled to somebody else's business is not a disadvantage. That's just them being big girls who are independent and responsible for themselves without coddling.

      And realize that even if you somehow could prohibit business being down at men's only golf clubs, or men-only golf clubs altogether, men can just find another men's only club, and move their business there.

      Likewise, men can't stop women from doing business in girl-only venues. That's equality for ya. It's what feminists wanted. Well, the original feminists anyway, not the modern "3rd wave" feminists.

    30. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      district don't generally skip students ahead if there's any way of avoiding it.

      Yes, each district has their own rules for skipping grades. There is liability to do this so they want to cover their ass if something happens. Go figure.

      As for AP classes, good luck getting into those if you have a September, October or November birthday. The standards you have to meet in order to get in are massively higher than for people with spring or summer birthdays. And if you don't get in before your 8, the likelihood of getting in at all is greatly reduced.

      Hard != impossible. There maybe some issues that could be refined but the point is: anyone is can take them. There isn't a rule for AP enrollment that says if DOB in Sept, Oct, Nov then deny else accept.

      The worst thing is that the students who get into AP or equivalent classes aren't necessarily any smarter than the students that don't.

      You are right, usually AP classes usually mean more work. But some are also more advanced concepts. So, I guess it just depends on the AP class you are taking.

      they get increased opportunities, they wind up doing better academically.

      Work hard = more opportunities? Seems legit.

    31. Re:Segregation not the answer by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They still will get in trouble for doing/discussing things that offend the one girl.

      That's not what a "safe space" means.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    32. Re:Segregation not the answer by Gryle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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
    33. Re:Segregation not the answer by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      For something to be discriminatory it has to disadvantage someone. That's why gender segregated bathrooms are not discriminatory - everyone is served equally and the segregation exists for an easily justifiable reason.

      Privileging girls by keeping boys out of some of the comp-sci camps discriminates against boys the same way keeping girls out discriminates against girls.

      Anyway, feminists have problems here too. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
      You don't see men imploring the state to micromanage women in the bathroom.

      So in your example it would only be sexist to exclude boys if there was not already a class for boys. In this case boys have privilege - they are the majority in the class, they don't face gender based discrimination from their classmates. They might have other problems, but the point is that they effectively already have a "boy's only" CS class.

      There is no class for boys.Only classes open to the general public, and now, these special girls-only clubs. They're not allowed a defined space. If you stand for equal opportunity, then you focus on ensuring both boys and girls are not shut out of the same opportunity based on their sex. No favoritism for either. At that point, if 15 boys sign up but only 3 girls do, there is really no fault to be had. It's individuals making choices for themselves. If boys don't sign up for something because 'girls are icky' what do we tell them? Right, girls should be taught the same lesson about treating boys that way. As a side note, it's normal, healthy behavior for boys to identify with boys and girls to identify with girls. Demonizing this too much leads to neurotic behavior later.

      Can't win, can we? If it's extra money on top it's discriminatory because money should go into a pool for everyone. If it's the same money being divided up differently to facilitate the education of a subgroup, that's also discrimination.

      Yes it is. That's why affirmative action is most overt example of systemic discrimination in play today. In publicly funded programs, there's a fixed amount allocated for the purpose. If any of that money is set aside for a specific sex, it reduces opportunity for the other. This includes diversion for the purpose of pressuring equal outcome (50/50 enrollment) because it starves the more numerous group from needed funds/slots, thus denying some percentage the opportunity. In private spaces, those who choose to sign up and can pay, go, and it would only be sexual discrimination if the operators forbade someone entry because of sex. Obviously, relevant discriminators should always apply. Equal opportunity does not, nor should, guarantee equal outcomes calculated from irrelevant attributes like sex.

      Correct. However, as I already pointed out, boys have a safe space. It's the class where there was only one girl and some unknown number of boys.

      ..and as I pointed out, no they don't.

      That doesn't work for adults, let alone children.

      Sure it works. You just expect perfect compliance from people's behavior and thoughts, and you want jackboots to stomp people flat for any variation from the doctrine's marching orders. That unreasonable thinking is why heavily socialist societies end up as hellholes of some sort. Equal opportunity is not equal outcome because everyone is an individual with a unique mix of imperatives, temperaments, strengths and weaknesses. The problem is that you want us believing sex has no bearing on this. You are wrong. Sex cuts right down to the DNA, making for substantial difference in physiological and psychological makeup between them. Expecting equal sexual outcome everywhere is crazy.

    34. Re:Segregation not the answer by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      If you think discussing these issues is panicky nonsense, why are you here? Since you are, why aren't you making fun of them, too? I mean, why do they care how men use the bathroom? Anyway, the huffington post and guardian are routinely quoted by slashdoters as valid sources for news, and their articles pass the submissions filter regularly.

    35. Re:Segregation not the answer by stdarg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    36. Re:Segregation not the answer by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      That's intellectually dishonest.

      Here, you recognize that there is an unfair advantage given to some students, but dismiss it because (apparently) any unfair disadvantatge that isn't literally impossible to overcome is irrelevant.

      Hard != impossible.

      Then here, you introduce the notion that the GP is talking about working harder, but he wasn't talking about that, he was talking about being at a different maturity level:

      You are right, usually AP classes usually mean more work

      Then here, you pretend you didn't even say that and state that hard work = more opportunities. But we just established that you don't need to work as hard with a different birthday. Therefore, Work Hard != More Opportunities. It's, at best, (Work Hard) * (Birthday weighting function) = More Opportunities.

      Work hard = more opportunities? Seems legit.

      People don't generally object to the work hard part! They object to the birthday weighting function. When somebody argues about it for paragraphs it is intellectually dishonest to ignore that, brush it aside, and discuss hard work as though you disagreed on that subject.

      An intellectually honest argument might involve the theory that the birthday weighting function was not as significant as your opponent believed.

      (note I'm not an American, did not go to American schools, and this talk of AP classes is about a school system with which I am unfamiliar. I am saying this as a person just watching an argument crash into walls like those children's toys that spin randomly and then go again)

    37. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      This is a really dishonest way to have a discussion. You should question whether you are using reasoning to support your conclusion, or vice versa.

      How is it dishonest? Please, enlighten me. OP was arguing for segregation to help girls with issues. Why can't those girls overcome those issues without segregation? There are already a number of girls and women that do just fine without segregation, but now it's different. Why? What is different between these girls that need segregation and the women that succeed in CS?

      I am not calling girls weak. The people arguing for segregation are making that claim. Segregation presupposes an inability to compete and interact with another group. The article is about the need for a safe space for girls to learn CS because they can't do that in integrated environments. It is based on that assumption that girls are not capable of overcoming those challenges without segregation. Who is calling girls weak when asking for segregation???

      Why don't you actually argue the point or actually demonstrate why my logic is flawed instead of a subtle suggestion?

    38. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      When you quoted me it would be nice if you actually had the second part... Here:
      "Hard != impossible. There maybe some issues that could be refined but the point is: anyone is can take them. There isn't a rule for AP enrollment that says if DOB in Sept, Oct, Nov then deny else accept."

      IOW, there is probably some things they can do to make it more accessible to those people that fall in those birthday areas, but they do not explicitly reject fall DOB applicants. Additionally: "Yes, each district has their own rules for skipping grades. ". I could have been more clear. Districts make many of their rules for class skipping and AP classes.

      My whole argument is that generally speaking, AP classes are not exclusive to one group or another. yes the people that take AP classes will have more opportunity but they do not restrict AP classes to CIS white males. Any one can get in there for the most part. Each district has its own rules and issues that could be addressed accessibility to AP classes.

    39. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      I should pay attention to the replay lines... My bad apparently I am too excited to leave work to notice whether a reply is toward me or not.

    40. Re:Segregation not the answer by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      That's not what the definition says, is it? You even quoted the most relevant part that contradicts you:

      "a place where the rules guard each person's self-respect and dignity and strongly encourage everyone to respect others."

      So talking about girls being useless at maths and unable to code doesn't seem to fit that requirement, does it?

      The purpose of safe spaces is to allow groups to discuss their issues and plan strategies without having to constantly defend their position as they would in an open space. Simply allowing people to make sexist remarks is not the purpose of a safe space.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    41. Re:Segregation not the answer by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I think your "femenists are stealing my peener" claims based on two random articles one of which contradicted your own claim is panicky nonsense. No one's stealing your willy. Frankly no one cares about it at all, so get over yourself.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    42. Re:Segregation not the answer by narcc · · Score: 1

      There is no harm to girls being in the same class as boys.

      There is demonstrable harm. That's why they have a girls-only class.

      There is, however, arguably harm to boys being in the same classes as girls as we've bent over backwards to make sure that no girl is left behind.

      Only in your imagination. Perhaps some evidence? The other side has presented more than enough. It would be nice if you had even a little to support these absurd assertions.

    43. Re:Segregation not the answer by narcc · · Score: 1

      It has been explained to you, and others, endlessly. It's been explained over and over again in every one of these click-bait threads.

    44. Re:Segregation not the answer by narcc · · Score: 1

      Where do I begin?

      Why can't those girls overcome those issues without segregation? There are already a number of girls and women that do just fine without segregation, but now it's different. Why?

      Those girls had to overcome significant barriers not faced by their male counterparts. Imagine a race where half the runners had to wear a heavy pack. Not terribly fair, is it? You're saying that there's no imbalance because one of the disadvantaged runners managed to finish the race.

      Why don't you actually argue the point or actually demonstrate why my logic is flawed instead of a subtle suggestion?

      It's flawed on its face. You know it as well as everyone else. What you want is to ignore the issue and quibble of semantics. It's not worth the effort.

      Anyhow, the disadvantages, in this case, are very well-understood. The solution is both simple and effective. No group is disadvantaged, on the contrary, this ultimately provides more opportunities for everyone, not just girls.

    45. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Those girls had to overcome significant barriers not faced by their male counterparts. Imagine a race where half the runners had to wear a heavy pack. Not terribly fair, is it? You're saying that there's no imbalance because one of the disadvantaged runners managed to finish the race.

      You imply because it is not 50/50 that there are extra barriers of entry. That is false. You also imply that if someone mistreats you (which is bad and should be punished) that the barriers to entry increase. This is not necessarily true while it can be it is not an exclusive thing. Feeling like an outsider in a group is not mistreatment.

      It's flawed on its face

      Saying it is doesn't make it so.

      ignore the issue and quibble of semantics.

      Not quibbling but I do not think the issue is as big as most seem to think it. It seems to me that females do not prefer CS as much as their male counter parts. That is not an issue if the barriers of entry are the same. There are legal frameworks in place to protect those barriers of entry and we have in fact skewed in favor of females many things in academia.

      One rich woman spending $1k a week to train her daughter to like CS is not evidence that there are barriers of entry for her daughter in CS. In fact, she is more privileged than most by being in a socioeconomic class that allows for that kind of lavish expenditures on her education.

      What legalities disadvantage her daughter from entering CS?
       

    46. Re:Segregation not the answer by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      It's not the same opportunity. Boys have the opportunity to take classes where they are with their peers and are generally accepted and comfortable. Girls did not have that opportunity, until now.

    47. Re:Segregation not the answer by narcc · · Score: 1

      You imply because it is not 50/50 that there are extra barriers of entry.

      No. That's not implied in any way by my analogy. You know this already.

      I am saying that there are extra barriers to entry because there are extra barriers to entry. These are well-understood. That you deny they exist is irrelevant. Reality doesn't care about your fantasies.

      You also imply that if someone mistreats you (which is bad and should be punished) that the barriers to entry increase.

      That's because they do. In this case, girls in the class were targeted and made to feel unwelcome. Surprise, surprise, the girl didn't enjoy being subjected to such a hostile environment and, consequently, developed an aversion to the subject as a result. As she's changed her opinion after her more positive and supportive experience in an all-girl classroom, it would seem that it wasn't computing, but the harassment, that pushed her away from the subject she otherwise would have enjoyed.

      One rich woman spending $1k a week to train her daughter to like CS is not evidence that there are barriers of entry for her daughter in CS.

      We have an awful lot of evidence. The barriers are well-established and well-understood. This specific account is perfectly in line with what has already been well-established. The outcome here was completely predictable. That you're unwilling to look at the evidence yourself does not mean it doesn't exist. You've had countless opportunities to remove your ignorance here.

      What legalities disadvantage her daughter from entering CS?

      This is a social, not a legal, issue. That you insist on conflating the two indicates that you are perfectly aware of the reality here, but have some other interest tangential to the issue here. A vested interest in maintaining the status quo or a general resentment toward women seem likely possibilities.

    48. Re: Segregation not the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So why aren't all grade schools segregated by gender?

      Isn't hard for these delicate little girls to learn anything if the mean boys are always around?

    49. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      there are extra barriers to entry because there are extra barriers to entry

      Wow, bullet proof logic there. Care to list those barriers or is that just fuzzy feel good listen and believe bullshit?

      Reality doesn't care about your fantasies.

      Reality also doesn't care about your feelings.

      girls in the class were targeted and made to feel unwelcome

      Then the instructor should have intervened if the behavior was deemed unacceptable. If the instructor felt it was unnecessary to intervene I can infer the behavior was not as bad as many make it out to be.

      You mention lots of evidence... Feeling unwelcome is not evidence. It is impossible to make everyone feel accepted, welcome, good, w/e.

      You can list your evidence for actual barriers but minor social inconveniences are not evidence. Feeling bad is not enough because anyone can feel anything with any circumstance. If it is actual harassment then yes let the instructor deal with it. If it is legal then yes let us amend the law.

      That you insist on conflating the two indicates that you are perfectly aware of the reality here, but have some other interest tangential to the issue here. A vested interest in maintaining the status quo or a general resentment toward women seem likely possibilities.

      No. I think meritocracy is a good thing. I also do not think that we need to coddle people any more than we are. I find it hilarious that you infer I have a resentment toward women because I think women do not need coddling or special treatment. My wife agrees with me.

      I have a suggestion for you. It works trust me. Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it. It does wonders for achieving your goals.

    50. Re:Segregation not the answer by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      We segregate by age...

      Not really, high school and middle school are made up of different age ranges. Those ranges have more to do with protecting the younger from the older and reflect the physiological differences in the ages because of puberty.

      Um, how many students graduate high school outside of the specified state-mandated kindergarten start date of their age cohort? Maybe a few percent at most? There may be some mixture of ages in higher grades, but mostly students are stuck in a group of students who are within one year of their age... regardless of intellectual level. Yes -- it's possible in most schools to move out of that system for particular students, but it is considered abnormal (and thus introduces excessive social problems often because it is considered so abnormal).

      It isn't segregation it is grouping to help students and educators. Those groupings can be ignored for special cases.

      Note that these are precisely the same claims that were made when white and black schools were deliberately segregated. Segregation is almost always justified as being helpful to the those who are forced to be segregated -- blacks were considered inferior, and thus obviously it would be easier on them and on their teachers to separate them out.

      Our rather rigid age segregation in most public schools results in a lot of harm, in my opinion. Look at studies, for example, on students who are born in spring vs. fall. Just because students start kindergarten at roughly 5.5 years instead of roughly 5 years often makes a large developmental difference in outcomes, even as late as high school. Then look at the outliers and see how they are affected. Age segregation may be the "best" system of segregation for educational purposes, but I think the evidence is far from as conclusive as you act.

      Segregating by sex is a different beast. What you are saying is that girls are too weak to be in the same class room as boys to enjoy CS. I call bullshit.

      I said NO SUCH THING. Please re-read my comment. I quote:

      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...

      I also in no way said that "girls were too weak to be in the same class room" -- I said that adolescent behavioral studies have shown that girls act DIFFERENTLY when in girls-only situations, and that SOME studies have concluded that there are some features which MAY have educational advantages.

      I would also note that some of these same studies have claimed that boys-only classes do WORSE than mixed classrooms. (Others have claimed no significant effect, or a mild trend to toward the opposite.)

      Pretending that adolescent boys and adolescent girls are exactly the same is ridiculous. And refusing to acknowledge that there are odd social interactions that happen between sexes during adolescence is even more ridiculous.

      I'm NOT arguing in favor of segregating by sex. I'm saying that we know classroom dynamics are altered in mixed classrooms vs. all-girls or all-boys classrooms. Just like classroom dynamics would be altered if you threw 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th graders together, compared to segregating by age. There are positives and negatives to lots of these things, and maybe we should think about them, because there are major physical and psychological differences between sexes, particularly during puberty.

      And lastly, by the way, lest you think I'm somehow prejudiced against girls here, it's precisely the opposite -- the argument that the studies I mentioned make is basically that girls often mature a little faster and could benefit from being separated from a bunch of disruptive male idiots who are still too immature to allow a place for the wisdom of their female counterparts in their (segregated) age cohort.

    51. Re:Segregation not the answer by narcc · · Score: 1

      Wow, bullet proof logic there

      Yes, yes it is. Care to take a shot at it?

      Anyhow, why do I claim there are barriers to entry? Because, there exist barriers to entry! I don't infer them based on whatever 50/50 thing you imagined. To deny their existence is to deny reality. This has been well-established. Take a few seconds, do some reading, and tell me none exist.

      Hell, even half the MRA's here acknowledge that women and girls face barriers to entry that men and boys don't face -- they just think they should "suck it up" and learn to compete on an uneven playing field (where the boys have the advantage). It's pitiful, really, but even they've managed to accept that particular aspect of reality.

      I find it hilarious that you infer I have a resentment toward women

      We've really got to work on your literacy. I did not "infer" anything. (Tip: look up the words "infer" and "imply". Note both your mistake and the fact I've done neither.) I stated, quit explicitly, that it is a likely explanation for your absurd behavior.

    52. Re:Segregation not the answer by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Straw man. I said in this particular instance it makes sense, just like it makes sense to have segregated bathrooms and locker rooms for men and women, but not for race.

      Well we've got the feminists screaming about bathroom segregation already, and how it should be unisex. And there's the starting calls for no-gender locker rooms already, and there are many feminists(anita sarkeesian, jessica valenti, and laurie penny as examples) out there pushing the racial segregation for education. So yeah, guess that's a problem now right?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    53. Re:Segregation not the answer by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It really means a place where battered women can hide from some guy that wants to find them and beat the shit out of them, but it's not socially acceptable to be so blunt that rich students have those problems too, or financially acceptable to admit there is a need for it, so other stuff gets layered on top especially when you have 20 year olds at Universities attaching politics and meaning to everything.

    54. Re:Segregation not the answer by dbIII · · Score: 1

      There is no class for boys.Only classes open to the general public

      Which by the numbers have become clubs for boys hence a niche required for shy girls, since the shy boys already have their niche.

    55. Re:Segregation not the answer by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that females do not prefer CS as much as their male counter parts.

      They used to. It was 50/50 when I was taking CS classes as the "soft" option for engineering credit and I got to see half a class of girls instead of nine out of three hundred. Some time between 1985 and now we've fucked things up and a bit of repair makes sense.

    56. Re:Segregation not the answer by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      The funny bit is that the civil rights movement isn't that far out of memory, and yet these SJWs don't see the parallels. It makes clear the divide between men and women, regardless of what feminist may claim.

      Separate but equal didn't pass scrutiny in the past, and yet here we are, and that these feminist can claim with a straight face that they are oppressed and need this is the height of hubris.

      "Separate but equal" was nonsense because there was no equality.

      You are either retarded or a neo-Nazi, but I'm repeating myself.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    57. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      how many students graduate high school outside of the specified state-mandated kindergarten start date of their age cohort? Maybe a few percent at most? There may be some mixture of ages in higher grades, but mostly students are stuck in a group of students who are within one year of their age... regardless of intellectual level. Yes -- it's possible in most schools to move out of that system for particular students, but it is considered abnormal (and thus introduces excessive social problems often because it is considered so abnormal).

      the ages is the simplest net to catch the largest group for education. Kids will have similar education , maturity, and age related factors that make it easier for educators and the students to learn. It is not perfect and if there is a better way then by all means lets hear it. The small percentage is by definition abnormal so it is reasonable to assume that they are going to have other social problems by being abnormal in this regard (I am not advocating for it but if you have a better idea to account for the 1%). Kids are not nice and are not nice to their youngers. The age groups, while not perfect, does protect the youngest. Not every kid is a special little snow flake that should advance to 12th grade by 12. It is rare and the stats (I don't have them but I would agree with you that is very substantial) reflect it.

      Note that these are precisely the same claims that were made when white and black schools were deliberately segregated. Segregation is almost always justified as being helpful to the those who are forced to be segregated -- blacks were considered inferior, and thus obviously it would be easier on them and on their teachers to separate them out.

      But your missing the point that in special cases those age limits can be ignored. What special cases would racial segregation be ignored? Calling those age groups segregation is disingenuous. The ages are not as cut and dry as racial segregation and did not have the same consequences when ignored.

      Our rather rigid age segregation in most public schools results in a lot of harm, in my opinion. Look at studies, for example, on students who are born in spring vs. fall. Just because students start kindergarten at roughly 5.5 years instead of roughly 5 years often makes a large developmental difference in outcomes, even as late as high school. Then look at the outliers and see how they are affected. Age segregation may be the "best" system of segregation for educational purposes, but I think the evidence is far from as conclusive as you act.

      Nothing is perfect. But name a different system that can account for the majority of kids that protect the youth, account for maturity, education, intelligence (for the most part), interests, etc... If we can identify areas of improvement then by all means lets do so and try something. What can we do to account for fall DOBs?

      I said NO SUCH THING.

      Yes, you are right. You didn't say that. I was not implying you directly said those exact words. My statements were more of my opinion on general of sex segregation. Read 'you' as a general in that statement'

      When you say: "the argument that the studies I mentioned make is basically that girls often mature a little faster and could benefit from being separated from a bunch of disruptive male idiots who are still too immature to allow a place for the wisdom of their female counterparts in their (segregated) age cohort."

      It sounds like the scientific racism before Brown v Board of Education. I am not going to deny the validity of those studies or whether they are right or not. But In the real world, men and women have to work together. They need to learn that somewhere and at early ages. I do not think women and girls need to be coddled and have special treatment to be successful. If that were the case why are so many successful today? Women make up the majority of college enrollment and co

    58. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      there are extra barriers to entry because there are extra barriers to entry

      Wow, bullet proof logic there

      Yes, yes it is. Care to take a shot at it?

      The homeless are homeless because they are homeless.

      If you would like to list those barriers I am all ears. Claiming they exist because they exists and others say the exist does nothing. So far the only example I have is "feeling unwelcome" FTA. That isn't a barrier.

      I stated, quit explicitly, that it is a likely explanation for your absurd behavior.

      My absurd behavior of having an opinion online? Oh the humanity, it's so absurd! You have no idea how I behave. You know nothing about me except for an opinion I have.

      Sorry, but the worst enemy of feminism today is feminists. Your absolutist explanations of my "absurd behavior" fail to account for anything beyond the rose colored glasses of ideology.

    59. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      The total number has been relatively the same. So that number is a small overall percentage.

      Some time between 1985 and now we've fucked things up and a bit of repair makes sense.

      You assume this. But this is happening in all western countries where women have freedom and choice and other progressive measures to promote women. But in more oppressive regimes like China and Iran women make up a larger percentage in CS. Why is that? Why do you assume we fucked things up when women have the freedom to choose and decide for themselves? There is nothing legally stopping them. They can choose any career path they want yet they don't choose CS. You say we fucked something up. I say women are using their independence and freedom.

    60. Re:Segregation not the answer by narcc · · Score: 1

      . So far the only example I have is "feeling unwelcome" FTA. That isn't a barrier.

      That's about as simple and easy to understand example as you can get. You deny it.

      Would you expect a kid, any kid, to do well in an environment where they're made to feel unwelcome and unwanted? It's supposed to be a fun activity, and this kid was excluded, bullied, and made to feel subhuman. You don't think that's going to inhibit their progress, relative to the other kids, leave them with a bad impression of the activity, or make them feel like it's not for them? When she's the only girl, and suffers from that harassment, what other conclusion could she come to than 'girls are welcome in computing'?

      You're beyond reason.

    61. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Would you expect a kid, any kid, to do well in an environment where they're made to feel unwelcome and unwanted? It's supposed to be a fun activity, and this kid was excluded, bullied, and made to feel subhuman.

      I guess I should have been clear and included what I said in other comments. If the behavior is deemed unacceptable by the instructor; the instructor should take disciplinary action. If that did not occur it seems to me that the "offending" behavior is blown out of proportion. Was she "made" to feel that way by the other kids or did she just feel that way because only girl? No instructor or teacher is going to let a student get harassed by others. It is the teachers job to ensure the learning environment for all pupils. If the teacher saw she was not enjoying herself why didn't the teacher do something to engage her further?

      This happens all the time (not exclusive to gender, girls, and CS) but in this instance we want segregation!?!? Over reaction much? Why is it in this instance we say that girls need special treatment and coddling?

      If the girl felt unwelcome because she was the only girl in the classroom and the other kids did nothing wrong? Then no, that is not a barrier.

      When she's the only girl, and suffers from that harassment,

      Again that second part is the important part. Did she suffer harassment? Was the instructor aware of this? Why didn't the instructor take action to stop the offending behavior?

    62. Re:Segregation not the answer by narcc · · Score: 1

      If the behavior is deemed unacceptable by the instructor; the instructor should take disciplinary action. If that did not occur it seems to me that the "offending" behavior is blown out of proportion.

      Which is, as you already know, perfectly ridiculous. The instructors actions are irrelevant.

      Did she suffer harassment?

      Obviously. RTFA

      Was the instructor aware of this?

      Who knows? It doesn't matter anyway.

      Why didn't the instructor take action to stop the offending behavior?

      Again, we don't know -- but it doesn't matter! The instructor could have removed some of the worst offenders, lectured others, gave a long talk about bullying, etc. That doesn't change the fact that the girl suffered, being ostracized and harassed (presumably) just for being a girl.

      But that's not really the most important bit. Kids are ostracized and harassed for other reasons not related to gender. You actually managed to puzzle this next one out on your own, but denied reality anyway:

      If the girl felt unwelcome because she was the only girl in the classroom and the other kids did nothing wrong? Then no, that is not a barrier.

      Again, this is nonsense. Let's say the other kids didn't ostracize or otherwise harass the girl, but she felt uncomfortable anyway because she was the only girl. Well, that's a barrier, far worse than the one imposed by that girls classmates. This one is socially imposed, reinforced in both daily life and in media (where girls interested in computing are not portrayed as normal people but as awkward and strange aberations). Being the only girl, these social cues are confirmed: "Computing really is just for boys. I, being a girl, don't belong here."

      Here's where a girls-only class most obviously helps. It tells girls, quite explicitly, that computing isn't just for boys and that it's okay for girls to like computing. This is reinforced by their classmates and the inevitable exposure to female computing role-models.

      This is not complicated.

    63. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Which is, as you already know, perfectly ridiculous. The instructors actions are irrelevant.

      Not it is not ridiculous. The instructors actions are very relevant because they are the adult and moderators of the fucking classroom. If the other students had behaved inappropriately and the instructor did nothing, you would be outraged.

      Did she suffer harassment?

      Obviously. RTFA

      The daughter said: " Everyone in the class was a boy and nobody was like me and now I hate computers even more.". That is not harassment by any measure stop making it out to be anything more than what it is.

      You also missed the other daughter FTFA: "Alba’s daughter had a more straightforward experience making an app. "

      Out of 2 girls. 1 had a straightforward experience 1 had a negative experience because she was different. Doesn't sound like extra barriers.

      No where does it say she was harassed or "made" to feel unwelcome. She felt unwelcome because she was different, yet Alba's daughter did not. It doesn't matter if there is equal opportunity if ONE girl has a bad feeling therefore we must do anything to help her and coddle her... But if it is a boy, tough shit grow a pair. You don't even care if the other students felt the unwelcome. If they were able to get over why can't this girl do the same? You assume so much by making the argument "she felt uncomfortable therefore extra barriers".

      . Let's say the other kids didn't ostracize or otherwise harass the girl, but she felt uncomfortable anyway because she was the only girl

      Then case closed there is no extra barriers just like Alba's daughter. Get over it.

      Well, that's a barrier, far worse than the one imposed by that girls classmates.

      No where in the TFA did it say that the other classmates imposed anything on her. Stop saying that.

      You want equal outcome and not equal opportunity. You have not demonstrated any extra barrier this girl faced. She had a bad feeling because she was different... So what? That is called life. Why should we change the rules because a minority of girls feel uncomfortable and need special treatment? That isn't a problem with CS, the camp, the other students, the teacher, her mother, or society. It is on her.

    64. Re:Segregation not the answer by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I care about my willy. I even give it a wash once a week to keep it pristine.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    65. Re:Segregation not the answer by narcc · · Score: 1

      You have not demonstrated any extra barrier this girl faced.

      That's a bald-faced lie.

      I'm done. You're beyond reason. Enjoy your delusions.

    66. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      The sad part. You are the one who thinks that merely having a boy in a class room is a barrier to a girl.

      At what point are you going to argue we segregate the work force because men can be a potential rapist to those poor women that need coddling and special treatment? The worst enemy of feminism is feminists.

    67. Re:Segregation not the answer by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I suggest you actually think about what you've written above, and instead of "more oppressive" substitute "just about everywhere else outside of the middle east". Is life in Indian cities more oppressive? Manilla? Seoul? Taiwan? I'm sure if you try hard you can come to some answers that you will believe instead of a kneejerk denial just because someone over 25 suggested it.
      The US IT culture (which has spread out of California and Texas to the UK etc) has really fucked this up and I've seen more women in mining, power generation and oil refining than I've seen in IT. The last thing I went to on IPv6 had fifty guys and one female who was there as a sales rep for the vendor who sponsored the event - how pathetic is that? A Christmas thing put on by a vendor had a couple of wives of the vendor's staff and that was it for female attendance.

    68. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      instead of "more oppressive" substitute "just about everywhere else outside of the middle east"

      I said: "oppressive regimes like China and Iran "... What part of China is in the middle east? Did I miss something?

      I'm sure if you try hard you can come to some answers that you will believe instead of a kneejerk denial just because someone over 25 suggested it.

      Kneejerk denial? No. I don't care how old you are TBH, I am over 25 and it has no bearing on the conversation. Or should I get off your lawn?

      Your point is predicated on us fucking something up and women not choosing for themselves. I disagree. I have worked with plenty of women in IT that had no issue. I have seen other industry cultures that were 10x worse than IT by any measure and women do just fine. Why is IT so different? Why do they need special treatment? What did we do while staring at computer screens that was so terrible that women now need special treatment?

    69. Re:Segregation not the answer by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I said: "oppressive regimes like China and Iran "... What part of China is in the middle east? Did I miss something?

      You missed that there is a trend elsewhere.

      I have worked with plenty of women in IT that had no issue

      It's not about you, it's about numbers going from close to 50% to close to zero.

    70. Re:Segregation not the answer by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Why do they need special treatment?

      They do not but they got it anyway (active discouragement) and it drove them out of an industry - removing the cultural shit that has turned IT into a sausage fest and back to normal office work is what it's about.

      The funny thing is it's likely that if you told some guy from the 1950s what you did for a living that they would dismiss it as "women's work", yet so many here make noise about how females are not fit to do such "women's work".

    71. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      You assume a lot like women will not choose fields they enjoy because if it is not 50/50 it is a systemic "push". I disagree.

      I could care less what others think of the type of work I do or what others think of me. I enjoy my work and I do not need the validation of others to be successful at it.

    72. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      You missed that there is a trend elsewhere.

      And you missed the part that even in countries that are more pro-women with more progressive policies to push women into stem than that of the US they still choose not to go into stem.

      It's not about you, it's about numbers going from close to 50% to close to zero.

      It's not about forcing women to do anything. It is about letting women decide what they want. They choose not IT.

    73. Re:Segregation not the answer by Gryle · · Score: 1

      The person I replied to (AmiMoJo) argued that women are disadvantaged by the presence of men but men aren't disadvantaged by the presence of women.Her argument implies that women are somehow inferior to men and thus need to be protected from them. It seems to fly smack in the face of the claim that the genders are equal in every way.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    74. Re:Segregation not the answer by narcc · · Score: 1

      The person I replied to (AmiMoJo) argued that women are disadvantaged by the presence of men but men aren't disadvantaged by the presence of women.

      I see. You simply didn't understand her post. There are two important factors in play here: the social belief that computing is for boys and the dominance of boys in co-ed classrooms.

      If there were one or two boys in the girls-only class, there wouldn't be a problem for the girls. Though that might be a problem for the boys, for the some of the same reasons that cause problems for the girl in the article.

      A girls-only class helps with everything here. Having a class of all (or mostly) girls helps with the social stigma. It lets the girls know that it's okay to be interested in computers. They're not weird or aberrant because of their interests. They're also less likely to be excluded or bullied for being different. Which, in a classroom with a heavy gender disparity, is pretty likely.

      If there were less of an imbalance in co-ed classrooms, a girls only class wouldn't be necessary. It doesn't need to be 50/50, just less dramatic. Being the only girl (or only boy) in a classroom can be intimidating. That's made even worse when you have issues that uniquely affect you, as is the case for girls interested in computers. When media and society tell you that computers are for boys and women interested in computing are weird or strange in a negative way (see: any TV show with a female "techie" character) you're not going to have a positive and rewarding experience. Ultimately, you'll end up with a negative impression of computing and seek out other interests, more socially acceptable for girls.

      Back to AmiMoJo's point:

      The idea is to help girls get started with CS in an environment where it won't be seen as a "boy's" thing or where there won't be pressure from ignorant parents and even teachers pushing them away from it. It sounds pretty basic but when questioned a lot of girls say that parents and teachers told them computers were not a girl's thing, so by having classes for girls it makes it a girls thing and allows them to participate.

      This should make a lot more sense to you now.

    75. Re:Segregation not the answer by stdarg · · Score: 1

      "a place where the rules guard each person's self-respect and dignity and strongly encourage everyone to respect others."

      Are you being dense on purpose? That's referring to the people in the safe space. Good God, man. Go to a LGBT safe space and tell them they need to stop bashing straight white males and start respecting them. Go to a woman's safe space and tell them #NotAllMen and that you women had better start showing some respect because respect for all is the point of safe spaces.

      I'm 100% sure you've seen these safe spaces in action, just like I have, and you know that you're just spewing absolute nonsense right now. You, I believe, are a straight white male. I'm 99% sure you've been told, prior to or during a safe space encounter, that you need to not be defensive and just listen to what people are saying. If something is offensive, ask yourself what experiences made this person be offensive to you. Etc, etc, other bullshit. I say 99% because you may have been there incognito.

      Come on. Be forthcoming with me for a few seconds. Do you honestly not know what I'm talking about?

    76. Re:Segregation not the answer by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I do not need the validation of others to be successful at it

      Of course you do.
      How else did you get that first job?
      How else do you get to keep it?
      If you are self employed how else do you get customers?


      In posts like the one above it's often best to think before posting.

    77. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      There is equal opportunity. If I have that "validation" then women have it as well.

      Subtle social pressure is not a loss of opportunity. Being in the same class room as a female does not create active barriers for that female to be successful at CS.

    78. Re:Segregation not the answer by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Just give it up instead of drunken or thoughtless posts like the above. I tried to reply without being insulting but you persist in writing drivel that is nothing but a boring waste of both of our time.

    79. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      the point is, there is no additional barriers women face in IT. subtle social misgivings is not a barrier.

      and the above post was before my morning coffee so I have no guarantee of readability of it. besides this thread has gone on for days on a tangent that may or may not be pertinent to the thread at hand.

    80. Re:Segregation not the answer by dbIII · · Score: 1

      there is no additional barriers women face in IT

      That's not a point, that is bullshit as shown by many things starting with the declining figures.
      Please sober up before posting.

    81. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      if that is not the point then what is the point of segregation?

      You don't like to give up do you?

    82. Re:Segregation not the answer by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I'm correcting your rather strange and probably deliberate errors - take your question up with those that started the thread.

    83. Re:Segregation not the answer by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Right, you are correcting me. When the topic has been lost. Congrats. Trollololololol.

    84. Re:Segregation not the answer by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I had no idea that you were so immature.

  5. I swear... by EmeraldBot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We're reverting back to the the 1800's again, this is barbaric. Would it be acceptable if a pair of white parents said that a bakery wasn't unwelcoming towards whites and therefore proceeded to buile one with a big "Whites Only" sign on the front? No, it wouldn't be permissible in today's soxiety, yet this atrocity is. Or is it perhaps okay because the two camps are "seperate but equal"?

    --
    "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    1. Re:I swear... by EmeraldBot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The hilarious part is that the mother is so completely clueless to her daughter's feelings and she can't possibly comprehend that her daughter might simply not like working with computers. What if she instead insisted her daughter became a fashion model, and upon being told that she really wanted to be a scientist, would this story support her if she denied her daughter and insisted the fashion model camp be more approachable? There's a basic incompatibility here, her daughter doesn't want to become a programmer, and her mother is laughably misguided if she can't recognize this is not going to work out. The seriously sad part is thqt this lady's an executive, which means she's supposed to be able to make long term strategic decisions; if she can't even see something as basic as this, I'd bet that's one pretty lousy executive.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    2. Re:I swear... by alexhs · · Score: 1

      Year after year, the infamous "Science: It's a Girl Thing!" ad looks more and more politically correct. They were misunderstood visionary geniuses :)

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    3. Re:I swear... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Oooh good concern trolling.

      Yay for thought terminating cliches!

      Yes, two can play at that game.

    4. Re:I swear... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here is a hint.. this has nothing to do with her daughter and everything to do with her mother.

      Clearly her mom doesn't care what the daughter wants to do, she just wants to get her name in the paper with a "positive role model" spin, which she did.

    5. Re:I swear... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2

      No, it wouldn't be permissible in today's soxiety

      You're not being fair. It wouldn't be permissible to the Yankees fans either.

    6. Re:I swear... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Well apparently your thoughts are very easy to terminate. So much so that your brain switched off and was unable to process the rest of the short post.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:I swear... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I do agree with your second paragraph, just have an issue with these stock phrases people use to label and thus discredit views they disagree with. I think it's the antithesis of discussion.

    8. Re:I swear... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      stock phrases people use to label

      I like labels. They're extremely useful for encapsulating a number of concepts and packaging them up in a single word so they can be referred to easily. In fact labels-for-things are so popular that they've got a whole label-for-things devoted to them and are called "nouns".

      Labels are useful. What the GP was doing is precisely "concern trolling" and such things are common on topics such as this.

      It's only enough to shut down a discussion for the weak minded and, frankly, I don't come to slashdot to care about people like that. Just because weak minded people might stop reading isn't any reason to not use words/nouns/labels to mean the things they actually mean.

      I think it's the antithesis of discussion.

      If that's so, then so is pointing out logical fallacies.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re:I swear... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      It's just that there are some things that are easier discussed in a room that is mostly black.

      Such as?
      I really can't think of any, and being from a continent and country where there's very few black people around, I can't ask around.
      I would really appreciate if you elaborated on your thought - for my knowledge.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    10. Re:I swear... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Imagine if you went to a meeting to discuss racial discrimination or ways to help black people at your university, and the kind of people posting about how how racism isn't a thing any more or how your association was reverse-racist against whites turned up. Imagine if you went to a feminist meeting and every time someone suggested something some douchbag stood up and started complaining that it was sexist against boys.

      There are videos on YouTube of that kind of thing happening. It's not just theoretical. Anti-feminists targeted the "depictions of women in comics" panel at some convention this year, for example. Sorry I forget which.

      Beyond simple trolling there are things that people find embarrassing. Black people might not be willing to talk about bullying in front of the people who are bullying them. A guy with testicular cancer might feel uncomfortable talking about his prosthetic in a group full of women. I don't see any benefit to forcing people to do those things in environments where they don't feel comfortable and safe out of fear of being accused of discrimination.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:I swear... by poity · · Score: 1

      Wait, I thought gender segregated bathrooms/dressing rooms came about because of conservative hangups and insistence on modesty, which is why advocacy for gender neutral bathrooms/dressing rooms is a progressive issue.

      Now you're saying gender segregated bathrooms/dressing rooms are actually progressive?

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    12. Re:I swear... by penandpaper · · Score: 2

      white students have privilege (they are rarely affected by racism)

      When it comes to the privilege argument, I find it intellectually lazy. It reduces individuals to the identity of a group. The individual either adopts the problems or benefits of the group. It also doesn't address what the individual has done for themselves.

      There are places in the US where white is a minority but white is privilege. That might fall into your rarely category but who cares about the individual so long as you can reduce them to a group and pile on all the shit of that group, who cares right? Everyone has their own problems to overcome, regardless of race.

      It is not about the problems we face it is about how we overcome those problems that determine our character.

      The biggest problem people face in the US, regardless of race, is socioeconomic IMO. Poor people are disadvantage because in the world of capitalism if you have capital you can do more. Poor have more confrontations with the police and are more likely to get shot. Poor do not get the education they deserve. Regardless of race. There are races that make up more of the poor. It has been ~50 years since the civil rights movement; The real question is do those individuals of those races have the same opportunity to break from the poor?

    13. Re:I swear... by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Association of Black Students isn't racist for only allowing black people to join."

      YES IT IS. If you form groups based on race and exclude others, its RACIST. Now the degree of harm that racism causes varies, but its ABSOLUTELY racism to exclude others based on race alone and its wrong. What is the point of forming a Black Students association? Why would it exclude people? Why would you make a group with its sole intent of being exclusionary?

      --
      Good-bye
    14. Re:I swear... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Well, you do have a point there. There are issues for transgender people and bathrooms/changing rooms, and getting rid of general hang-ups about nudity and gender is a laudable goal.

      I think simply getting rid of gender segregated bathrooms and changing rooms would not be the best way to go about it though. Given where society is at the moment, seeing other genders nude needs to be normalized first. It's like treating the symptom rather than the problem.

      The thing is, mixed changing rooms is not a discrimination issue, because no-one finds themselves without access to a changing room. No-one is disadvantaged. Even transgender people at least have a room to use, even if there needs to be more acceptance of them regardless of what is between their legs. So while it would be nice, it's not something that has as much urgency or traction as things that are discriminatory. It's not like we need to get rid of separate male/female bathrooms right now to correct some injustice, it would just be nice if we could.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:I swear... by quantaman · · Score: 1

      We're reverting back to the the 1800's again, this is barbaric. Would it be acceptable if a pair of white parents said that a bakery wasn't unwelcoming towards whites and therefore proceeded to buile one with a big "Whites Only" sign on the front? No, it wouldn't be permissible in today's soxiety, yet this atrocity is. Or is it perhaps okay because the two camps are "seperate but equal"?

      It's permissible because despite the superficial similarity these types of segregation are completely different in both motive and effect.

      "Whites only" was an attempt to exclude black people from white society.

      But girls are already excluded from computer culture in a lot of ways, so any girl trying to enter often finds herself the lone girl in a "boys only" club designed for boys.

      The objective of the "girls only" camp is to give the girls a venue in which to develop their interest. Afterwards they'll be much better suited to enter the men's only world of adult software development.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    16. Re:I swear... by nyet · · Score: 1

      Stop judging my bigotry. If I want a space where it is the only place I feel safe to be a bigot, I have the right to make such a space for myself and, of course, others!

      After all, bigotry is a natural product of xenophobia being strongly selected for in humans.

    17. Re:I swear... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It is not about the problems we face it is about how we overcome those problems that determine our character.

      Sorry, but that's just meaningless drivel. It's not just about how hard you work or how strong your will to overcome adversity it. It's about the amount of adversity you fact too, and the fact that people with privilege often forget that others are not so lucky when judging them.

      The real question is do those individuals of those races have the same opportunity to break from the poor?

      No, they don't. Privilege is just reminding some people that they have greater opportunity simply because they don't have to put up with the shit others do by nature of their gender, race, sex, sexuality or whatever.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:I swear... by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that's just meaningless drivel. It's not just about how hard you work or how strong your will to overcome adversity it. It's about the amount of adversity you fact too, and the fact that people with privilege often forget that others are not so lucky when judging them.

      Yes, why try and overcome adversity when you can sit back play identity politics and complain about the white man holding you back? I never said forget the struggles of those individuals... Quite the contrary, let me remind you " It [privilege argument] reduces individuals to the identity of a group. The individual either adopts the problems or benefits of the group. It also doesn't address what the individual has done for themselves."

      IOW, Yes, those that are not in your privilege groups have struggles to overcome. Guess what... Some of them do overcome adversary. Just like those that are in your privileged groups have adversary to overcome as well. And guess what Some of them do not overcome it. We all have struggles to deal with. Bitching about how oppressed you are as opposed to actually trying to overcome your adversary garners no sympathy from me. I like a strong work ethic. I have seen the good it does for people in my life. I have seen what happens when someone sits back and complains and has no work ethic.

      No, they don't. Privilege is just reminding some people that they have greater opportunity simply because they don't have to put up with the shit others do by nature of their gender, race, sex, sexuality or whatever.

      Yes, because only certain races, genders and identity have shit to deal with. Obviously you missed the point about why I think the privilege argument is lazy. Because you ignore the individual. Who cares about the individual because your arbitrary quotas are not met.

      The point is in the eyes of the law we are all equal shit lords. If there is a legal right that one group has that another is denied for arbitrary reasons (like gay marriage)... then yes. Lets identify it and addressed so long as it is measurable and has objective goals. But to say "privilege classes should be less privileged' is meaningless bullshit that is arbitrary.

    19. Re:I swear... by narcc · · Score: 1

      I think it's the antithesis of discussion.

      If that's so, then so is pointing out logical fallacies.

      Well, it very often is the antithesis of discussion. It's so bad these days that when I see the word "fallacy" on this and other similar sites, I know that I'm not dealing with a rational person.

  6. Hmm I wonder by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 4, Interesting


    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.
    1. Re:Hmm I wonder by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Did Sergey Brin go to computer camp?

      How about Carly Fiorina or Sheryl Sanberg?

      No, Carly Fiorina went to "How To Destroy a Corporation" Camp.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Hmm I wonder by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Maybe a computer camp with boys in it actually is detrimental. Maybe not.

      Still, I'd put a lot more faith in a segregated solution if the daughter had jumped up and down and begged and pleaded to go to computer camp and THEN come home saying "I hate computers".

    3. Re:Hmm I wonder by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Still, I'd put a lot more faith in a segregated solution if the daughter had jumped up and down and begged and pleaded to go to computer camp and THEN come home saying "I hate computers".

      Depends on what they did at the camp. I mean, if I had to spend two weeks sitting in scrum meetings I damned sure wouldn't like it either...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    4. Re:Hmm I wonder by Kartu · · Score: 2

      You should be asking "did Einstein learn physics in a class".
      Yes he did.

    5. Re:Hmm I wonder by Myrrh · · Score: 1

      And Sandberg, I believe, went to "how to ghost write lousy pseudo-feminist books" camp.

  7. And...? by LaurenCates · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:And...? by Nutria · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      I wonder if that's really the case. My two teenagers go to single-sex Catholic high schools (the public schools s-t-i-n-k) and they seem to be able to function well around teenagers of the opposite sex. (Note, though, that I don't push either into tech, and neither shows interest in it.)

      Thus, I blame parents for coddling their kids too much.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:And...? by LaurenCates · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fair enough. However, I also went to single-sex Catholic high school, but having been more comfortable around boys, the whole business made me four years' worth of miserable.

      Agreed on the coddling, though.

      --
      Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
    3. Re:And...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (Note, though, that I don't push either into tech, and neither shows interest in it.)

      Yeah, I guess so. Sending your kids to a cult brainwashing school to believe in invisible space monkeys is about as far from science and tech as you can get. Some would say that teaching children those kinds of lies about the world is not just a failure as a parent, but also child abuse.

    4. Re:And...? by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Nice troll, but you're running on false assumptions (which probably explains why you posted AC...)

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    5. Re:And...? by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

      Well put. As the father of all daughters, I would not push them into any type of all-girl camp. I want them to function in society...which consists of males and females. You are spot on with the supposed "distraction" of having boys with them. As it is, they are as comfortable dressing up and being princesses as they are playing sports or tearing down a PC with me. I see no reason to single them out by their gender.

    6. Re:And...? by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      In the workplace, people are supposed to be adult and professional and behave themselves. As a former teenage boy, I can assure you that teenage boys are, in general, jerks.

    7. Re:And...? by focoma · · Score: 1

      Have you tried reading up on the details of the Galileo affair, or even on the history of scientific contributions made by Catholic priests who weren't treated as heretics? Do you even know about Gregor Mendel and Georges Lemaître? Even a quick Wikipedia search would have cured you of your ignorance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --

      - Francis Ocoma

      Please wait while Sig Request is being processed...

  8. Wow! by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Wow! The only reason this is happening is because we've managed to fuck things up badly enough over the last two decades that we effectively have boys only computer camps currently.
    Do you go full "Dan's Brown's Body" for girls schools as well or do you reserve such an extreme reaction for computer camps?

    1. Re:Wow! by goose-incarnated · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow! The only reason this is happening is because we've managed to fuck things up badly enough over the last two decades that we effectively have boys only computer camps currently. Do you go full "Dan's Brown's Body" for girls schools as well or do you reserve such an extreme reaction for computer camps?

      Why single out computer camps? I'll feel the same repugnance if the girl in question was forced to go to fashion camp. We've spent the better part of the last 30 years convincing girls that they can do anything they want to, and now you expect us to applaud this behaviour?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    2. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... boys-only computer camps currently.

      It seems you're saying that education has been structured to disadvantage girls. As a student who saw schools in the 1980s demand feminized curricula, I disagree. The prevalence of women in universities and middle-class jobs show that the modern curriculum aids girls. In fact, the evidence over the last decade is that modern school curricula severely punishes boys.

      If you arguing the workplace is structured to disadvantage girls, you may be correct. But schoolgirls aren't in the workplace so that can't be why they hate computing. As pointed out in earlier slashdot threads, computing is an anti-social skill, which in a large part comes from students spending an overwhelming number of hours in solitary self-education to gain computing skills. In professions driven by group learning, such as teaching, nursing and medicine, women form the majority of the workforce. That would indicate what changes need to be made to computing skills classes.

    3. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have a hunch that my aversion to this "more girls need to know about computers" thing has to do with the fact that the decline of the open internet and the independent computer caused by the rise of walled gardens and the cloud perfectly coincides with the rise of "feminism" and its attempt to subvert geek culture. For a brief period, being a geek was not just acceptable but actually welcome. Now the focus is, once again, not on what we can do but on how we present ourselves to other people. The business people want their cut of the cake we made, so they're putting us down, again.

    4. Re:Wow! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      For a brief period, being a geek was not just acceptable but actually welcome.

      You are just kidding yourself and seeing local swirls of activity as a pattern that is not really there. Yes, some people liked geeks, but society as a whole never really thought much of us.

    5. Re:Wow! by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Fine then. Let's have all boys schools and all girls schools. The boys schools will be set up to teach boys in the way boys learn best. Talking out of my ass, but maybe that would involve more competitive challenges. At the girls' schools they would perhaps emphasize cooperative learning if that helps them learn better.

      Or, perhaps instead, tailor different programs to different learning styles, as there are some girls who are more competitive and some boys who are more cooperative. Then sort children into the method by which they learn best. Yes, that means that you might have a "competitive" school with 95% boys and 5% girls, but those girls will be holding their own because that's how they want it.

      Man I would have loved to have had a choice. Just give me the books and leave me alone. I'll read them, and then you can test me. Done.

      Whatever the solution, I'm pretty sure "one size fits all" is not it.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    6. Re:Wow! by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Which is fine.
      What we're looking at is a dilution of the meaning of "geek".

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    7. Re:Wow! by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      The business people want their cut of the cake we made ...

      Umm . . . is there ever any other way that "business" people make money? other than by finding a way to package and re-sell other people's creativity?

  9. like boys and sports by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the equivalent of fathers that insist that their boys play a sport. Sometimes the kid really isn't interested in computers.

    1. Re:like boys and sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sometimes both the parents and kids don't even know what the kids want to do and they just have to try some things first to find out what fits and what doesn't. The hobby that occupies nearly all of my spare time and a reasonable fraction of my disposable income was completely unknown to anyone that I knew growing up.

    2. Re:like boys and sports by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      You have to try and get past the "I don't wanna", sometimes. I was one of those kids who "doesn't like sports". Tried hockey and baseball (hated it), and my parents figured I might enjoy individual sports more than team ones, so they made me try track (liked it but it didn't stick), horseback riding (showjumping and dressage; I kept at that well into my college years) and a few others with varying success. Point is: I would never have tried those if they hadn't made me. Same with computers: if a child doesn't show much interest in programming, perhaps they'll enjoy the more artistic side of web design, or other technical hobbies. Stimulating a child means exposing them to all manner of sports, hobbies and intellectual pastimes. And sometimes it's ok to make them try something, as long as you keep in mind that's it about them, and not about your idea of a perfect childhood or spending Saturdays on the bleachers drinking beers with the other dads at little league. And of course you have to understand your child a little bid, and get good at picking activities they might like.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:like boys and sports by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Funny

      You play Magic the Gathering too?

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    4. Re:like boys and sports by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      You have to try and get past the "I don't wanna", sometimes. I was one of those kids who "doesn't like sports". Tried hockey and baseball (hated it), and my parents figured I might enjoy individual sports more than team ones, so they made me try track (liked it but it didn't stick), horseback riding (showjumping and dressage; I kept at that well into my college years) and a few others with varying success. Point is: I would never have tried those if they hadn't made me. Same with computers: if a child doesn't show much interest in programming, perhaps they'll enjoy the more artistic side of web design, or other technical hobbies. Stimulating a child means exposing them to all manner of sports, hobbies and intellectual pastimes. And sometimes it's ok to make them try something, as long as you keep in mind that's it about them, and not about your idea of a perfect childhood or spending Saturdays on the bleachers drinking beers with the other dads at little league. And of course you have to understand your child a little bid, and get good at picking activities they might like.

      The trouble with this line of reasoning is that you can use it to justify making the kid do any number of stupid things. "How do you know he won't enjoy mining for coal if you won't let him try it? No no no, not just once - it will take at least a month of working in the mines to see if he takes to it."

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    5. Re:like boys and sports by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Except that in this case she knew that her daughter had no interest in computers, but sent her anyway.

    6. Re:like boys and sports by Stewie241 · · Score: 2

      The challenge sometimes is figuring out what a child does not like something. Does he/she not like computers because the only exposure has been boring/mundane things?

      Does he/she not like sports because he/she was put in a league with kids more advanced and was not able to keep up?

      Does he/she not like math because the teacher didn't like math and didn't compel an interest?

      I can't count the number of times I've sat down to dinner with my kids and they have declared they don't like something we're eating before they've had a fair opportunity to experience it. We generally make them try at least a little bit, and more often than not, they end up eating all of it because it turns out they actually do like it.

      I completely agree that sometimes the kid really isn't interested in computers. But sometimes it is worth trying to figure out if the kid doesn't like computers because of computers, and not because of an uncomfortable social situation at a camp.

    7. Re:like boys and sports by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      +1 for individual sports. Never seems to be an option that is considered though. Sending your kid off to soccer camp is much easier. Plus individual sports tend towards expensive/elitist (track being the exception): horse riding, golf, rowing etc. Maybe you can but I've never knew of such a thing as a summer track camp. People tend to send kids away for general camps, or hockey, soccer, football, probably in that order of popularity with hockey potentially higher than general (I'm in Canada eh?).

      Mah, I liked to read. By the time I was in 6-7th grade I was reading stuff my parents didn't understand, by 9th often stuff I couldn't find a teacher that understood it. My science class was basically my teacher pointing me to the library and telling me to go nuts (I have a theoretical physics bent), or even funnier giving me the kit to play with at home "here go make yourself some hydrogen".

      I was also active though, I liked baseball but didn't like that it took up every free moment of the summer. I'd like to be able to play soccer one day then basketball the next. Then bike in the woods and throw dirt clumps at friends etc. Didn't like the structure of being on a league and forced to play 3-4 days a week (or what would have been the alternative a camp where you play different sports but someone tells you what and when).

    8. Re:like boys and sports by antdude · · Score: 1

      As a guy, I am not interested in sports.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  10. Re:not surprised by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

    Just noticed your post after mine. Yeah I agree. I've seen parents sign up their kids for baseball or whatever and the kid is stuck doing something they hate 3 days a week. Parents need to learn: just because I like something doesn't mean my kid "should" like it too whether it is food, sports, jobs, or God.

  11. Horrible and misguided by burtosis · · Score: 1

    I, along with anyone from the 21st century, should have a strong distaste for anything like this where if you swap out the groups it becomes incredibly distasteful. It's like having women only gyms but look what happens when you try to have a men only gym.
    What they should do instead is accept anyone but make it more comfortable for everyone. What about the Hispanic and black males that are even more under represented than women in CS? Why is it ok to throw them under the bus based solely on thier genitals and the perception some women dont want to associate with them (as was stated in the article)?

    I can only hope at some point people realize two things - That there really are gender differences and women in general may not be interested as much in computer science as men until the social aspect changes and that's perfectly OK - That the time to expose people to computers and technology starts as soon as they can start to talk/think. If you wait until people are already in grade school or higher the natural interests they may develop can be more easily displaced by other interests influenced by societal pressures.

    1. Re:Horrible and misguided by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      I, along with anyone from the 21st century, should have a strong distaste for anything like this where if you swap out the groups it becomes incredibly distasteful. It's like having women only gyms but look what happens when you try to have a men only gym.

      What about the Hispanic and black males that are even more under represented than women in CS? Why is it ok to throw them under the bus

      Score 10 points for disengenuous arguments! No one has thrown anyone under the bus. This camp only adds to the things available. Nothing has become less available to men, white, black or hispanic as a result of this camp.

      So, women and black and hispanic men are undrerepresented in CS. Someone's doing something about 1 of those three. Instead of complaining about how no one's doing anything about the other two, how about you actually do something rather than arguing to prevent anything being done.

      That there really are gender differences and women in general may not be interested as much in computer science as men until the social aspect changes and that's perfectly OK

      You literally contradict yourself there. If there are innate differences, then why will they become as interested when the social aspects change?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  12. and now, she hates computers even MORE by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    i hate computers, i hate boys, and i hate camp.

  13. Totaly makes sense. by rastos1 · · Score: 1

    ... she did not like computers, so Wojcicki enrolled her in a computer camp.

    Obviously, that is the right approach.

  14. Sounds blatantly illegal and discriminatory by cornicefire · · Score: 1

    Paly High is a public school. To have girls-only classes like this is a horrible act of discrimination. The public school system should be ashamed of its bigotry.

    1. Re:Sounds blatantly illegal and discriminatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Females are a majority of the population.

  15. What the hell? by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

    "My did didn't like computers so I sent her to computer camp and she still doesn't like computers. Something is wrong with the camp."

    Seriously??? My God. Somebody with that kind of mentality is a CEO?

    MAYBE YOUR KID JUST DOESN'T LIKE COMPUTERS!!!

    If your kid doesn't like broccoli, are you going to send her to broccoli camp? And if she comes back from camp still not liking broccoli, will it clearly be the fault of the camp?

    Do kids even use computers these days? I thought they did everything on their phones.

    1. Re:What the hell? by Nrrqshrr · · Score: 1

      Why are you surprised. She's a CEO THANKS to that mentality.

  16. WTF America how do you raise your kids? by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    I've got 3 boys and 2 girls and they all play and study together all day, every day, happily and productively including on their computers. My kids know mathematics is the foundation of all the cool technology they see being developed in the world and programming is how maths is applied in engineering. It is not hard, you just point out to them that if they don't own the robots the robots are going to end up owning them. Kids understand that very easily then accept what it will take to be the master rather than the pet.

    1. Re:WTF America how do you raise your kids? by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      You must not live in the America I see. Way too many kids are happy being pets, as long as they have their sex and drugs on a regular basis. The few who avoid that lifestyle still have a better chance of being slaves of the robots rather than the owners.

      Yeah, it's all going to Hell. But at least some privileged girls will go in a group with no boys allowed.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    2. Re:WTF America how do you raise your kids? by ITRambo · · Score: 1

      Some people make better parents and actually raise kids that do what's right. Anyone trusting the government to help raise their kids, expecting them to learn all they need to know at school, is heading for disappointment.

    3. Re:WTF America how do you raise your kids? by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      Yeah except the difference there is the male to female ratio is 3:2. In many CS classes it is more like 10:1. Not the same at all.

  17. Your kid just doesn't like computers by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    The YouTube CEO said her daughter had stated point-blank that she did not like computers, so Wojcicki enrolled her in a computer camp.

    I wonder if she even considered the possibility that her kid just really, genuinely, doesn't like computers and never will.

    Maybe she should try asking the kid what she does like. Hopefully she likes cars and engineering, then mom can relax and tell herself she's raised her gender-non-comfortist child well. But I pity that kid if she actually does want to go into nursing or fashion, because mom is not going to like that.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Your kid just doesn't like computers by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Problem is - her kid might like Barbie, and dolls, and have dreams about her perfect wedding, and so on. She'd like to break her out of that stereotype and get her to like things that would make girls seem equal or superior to men.

  18. Re:Entitled brats: The world revolves around them by DogPhilosopher · · Score: 1

    On a side note: Was the only guy in my class at massage therapy school and got dirty looks / took some shit from a few feminazi types who thought I was only there to "put my hands all over women"

    Cool story bro, but what we're all dying to know is.. did you get some?

  19. My daughters like computers and their boys... by fonske · · Score: 1

    ...as long as they do exactly what they say.

  20. What kind of sexist little girl is she raising? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    She didn't like the camp because the campers "weren't like me"? I guess mom taught her to discriminate against boys.

  21. The YouTube CEO said her daughter had stated point-blank that she did not like computers, so Wojcicki enrolled her in a computer camp. 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.'

    Wojcicki made her career in marketing, after studying history and literature. She evidently didn't like computers either. But now she sends her little girl to computer camp?

    Seems to me the girl wants to step into her mother's footsteps: she doesn't like computers, but she has already figured out which buttons to push to get her mother to jump.

    1. Re:why? by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Wojcicki made her career in marketing, after studying history and literature. She evidently didn't like computers either. But now she sends her little girl to computer camp?

      There's an idea -- "Mom, I'll go to computer camp on one condition: that you go with me." That should shut that down pretty quickly.

  22. Freedom of association by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    There are situations where segregation makes sense, or should at least be tolerated. For example, there is a long tradition of girls-only schools and boys-only schools. A girls-only camp? Why not. You are removing a host of complex inter-gender issues from the picture, possibly allowing the students to concentrate more on what the camp is supposed to really be about.

    However, if you accept this, there are two important principles that must be followed:

    - This is something each person should be able to decide for themselves. Do I want to send my daughter to a computer camp for girls, or to a mixed computer camp? Do I want a golf club with men and women, or do I want a golf club only for my gender? The freedom to make this decision is what "freedom of association" is all about.

    - If you allow this for one group, you must allow it for all groups. It's no good organizing a girls' camp, but forbidding a boys' camp. It's no good allowing women-only gyms, but forbidding men-only gyms. Either you believe in freedom of association, or you don't.

    Of course, if you allow freedom of association based on gender, it follows pretty quickly that you can allow it based on other criteria: sexual identity, hair color, race, religion, whatever. And that will send the SJWs into orbit.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Freedom of association by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I would go along with everything you said as long as Google were also providing an equivalent boys-only camp.

      Until then, Google are guilty of blatant sexism.

  23. Re:Gender discrimination! by cryptizard · · Score: 1

    It's different because there is plenty of opportunity for boys to go to computer camp. Literally every other computer camp is a "boys computer camp" because they dominate the enrollment.

  24. I don't like computers either by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Funny

    And I'm a software engineer!

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:I don't like computers either by antdude · · Score: 1

      I don't like computers (anymore), and I am a computer geek/nerd! :/

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  25. No kidding by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Different people have different likes and dislikes and we as a society need to accept that. Trying to force kids to like something isn't going to work. Nobody ever had to convince me to like computers, I was fascinated with them from a young age. Likewise nobody had to drive my sister away from computers, she never had any interest in them. It wasn't my parents pushing what we should do, they were extremely good about letting us choose our own path. My mom in particular was big on that since her mother had not let her choose her own career (she was told a teacher or nurse, nothing else). We are just different people, very different despite coming from the same family, yet both very happy in the choices we've made in life.

    Computer camps, or any kind of camps, are great for kids that are interested in them. However trying to set something up to force kids to like what you like is doomed to fail. If anything, it'll drive them away. Something can quickly change from "fun" to "work" when you are being forced to do it, rather than allowed to do it, particularly as a child.

  26. If some one had called for all-male camp, rioting! by mpercy · · Score: 2

    There'd be calls of sexism, racism, every kind of -ism imaginable. People would be protesting at Google headquarters.

  27. Parenting 101 by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    You *listen* to your children, help them explore what they like and dislike. You understand that your children won't like everything, and possibly not even what you like...but I guess there's the rub. Mommy's and Daddy's egos can't accept their children not being little fucking clones of themselves, so they set out to "fix" that.

    Ironically, my daughter does like to code and is a fan of STEM subjects in general. She also likes fashion ( although, perhaps notably, only in how it applies to others as she'll often leave the house in whatever is clean-"ish", sans brushing her hair ) and babysitting, neither of which holds any interest to me. But you know what I do? I make sure to encourage her interests, wherever they take her. This isn't some heroic feat. I'm not some exemplar example of parenting. I'm just some guy who has her interests at heart.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  28. "girls-only chain of tech camps" by operagost · · Score: 1

    Ooh, a "girls-only chain of tech camps" to go with the existing de facto boys-only tech camps. That fixes it.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  29. Re:Gender discrimination! by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    >> Literally every other computer camp is a "boys computer camp" because they dominate the enrollment.

    No they're not "boys computer camps". As far as I'm aware they don't limit access based on gender. Google's camp does.

      If girls don't want to go to a computer camp with a gender makeup that reflects real life (i.e. non-segregated) then its THEM directly being whiny princesses and making the problem. That behaviour should not be tolerated, much less encouraged by Google.

  30. Uhmmm... actually sorta yes by DumbSwede · · Score: 2

    Sergy Brin went to CTY a program promoted by Johns Hopkins and Princeton. Also affectionately known as Nerd Camp (and the subject of an upcoming movie).

    Our daughter is enrolled in CTYOnline and will be going to camp next year. This is a wonderful program. There is no gender/race bias and while somewhat costly, there is financial aid for low income families. However this is a tough program to be admitted to, you need to take special testing, and you better be in the top 2% of the population test score wise.

    The real education crisis here in America is that parents just expect the school to do everything for them, and don't challenge their children outside of school. Without extra study and help outside of school especially in math topics and vocabulary, no way would our child have qualified for CTY. Cut down on the TV watching and game playing. Demand a lot of reading and keep your kid at least a grade ahead in math -- that is the way to a secure future. That said our daughter still has time to play with friends and watch all the Disney movies as they come out. We just don't let her rot her brain watching TV 6 hours a day. Its not a total ban on TV, but it's less than an hour a day on average.

  31. Hello Muddah, Hello Faddah by sideslash · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hello butler,
    Hello poodle,
    Here I am at
    Camp by Google.

    Camp is very
    Highfalutin
    Cause it's all-a
    'Bout computin'.

    "Try to like it",
    Mama told me.
    If I diss it,
    Then she'll scold me.

    All the boys are
    Banned from coming
    Since Mom finds their
    Presence dumbing.

    Since they do this
    Just for funsies,
    Makes us look bad --
    Hence the shunsies.

    This is stupid
    I lack interest.
    I would rather
    Be on Pinterest.

    'Stead of sitting,
    Making faces,
    Can't a boy just
    Trade me places?

  32. I guess this could be fine...initially. by B33rNinj4 · · Score: 1

    If the camps are designed to get girls interested in tech, and give them the confidence to pursue it, I see nothing wrong with it. Sadly, it'll be co-opted by the feminist-left and turned into a "Girl Power" circle-jerk. Men and women learn and process information differently. There's nothing wrong with that, but they also need to understand how to exist in a workspace with the opposite gender.

  33. Rich people doing rich things by Myrrh · · Score: 1

    Kid hates computers? Send her to a $1000/week camp that will teach her to hate computers even more. Boy, it must be nice to be rich and from Silicon Valley.

  34. Female Worker Insects by Baldrson · · Score: 1

    In eusocial insect colonies, the workers are all parasitically castrated females.

    They are parasitically castrated by their own queen mother who uses them as cells in her extended body called the hive or colony.

    The real problem we face is that human civilization isn't as highly evolved as the eusocial insects: Civilization's components (erstwhile "humans") don't have the phenotypic plasticity that allows ontogenic paths so radically different as to permit the same genome to become either a queen or a parasitically castrated female worker depending on its upbringing.

    We must fervently work to correct this deficiency.

    1. Re:Female Worker Insects by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      I'm not too sure what you're talking about but thank you for my first erection in months.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  35. The folly of cultivating Diversity Candidates by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Promoting and developing diversity candidates is how we get disasters like HP.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  36. I knew this one was coming.. by s.petry · · Score: 1

    I fully agree with part of what you state. People may hate activities because of the time and place of activity and not the activity. That said, it's certainly not the only, or even majority, of the reason people dislike activities. Using your metaphor, I know plenty of people that hate sports but go to games because it's a social event with lots of drinking. I know plenty of wine drinkers that go to the sports bar, and plenty who hate wine and go to the same bar.

    In between the two ends of the spectrum, there are plenty of variances.

    In my opinion Susan Wojcicki is not demonstrating good parenting or knowledgeable thought on psychology. Her daughter did not like computers before the camp, so the camp would not change her opinion even if it was all girls. It may have been more tolerable because the daughter would have been able to attract similar minded girls to non computer related activities, but that is a huge leap to enjoying computers and programming.

    Some people amazingly see more to life than a career. It's that part that we should be encouraging, not the "work till you die" mentality.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  37. Missing the Point by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    FTA: "To make gender parity a reality, the two said coding needed to be better integrated into education and workplaces needed to be more flexible for parents."

    So the lemmings focused on gender but failed to see the real agenda here: making programming a requirement in K-12 education. Don't get distracted by the boobs. Look at what they're is doing behind your back. This is another attempt at increasing H1B-Visas and to get politicians to buy the notion there's a STEM shortage.

  38. Re:Gender discrimination! by Your.Master · · Score: 1

    I disagree that every other computer camp is a boy's computer camp, but I agree that it's just not a serious problem when boys are allowed into 95% of computer camps (and the same goes for a theoretical boys-only camp). People all the time do things whose gender makeup doesn't reflect real life. Girls have a girls' night out. Boys have a boys' night out. It's not a hell-worthy sin.

    It would be a bit different maybe if the all-girls camp was materially better than the camps boys had access to. But as is, I don't know how you can get worked up over it.

  39. Re:Gender discrimination! by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    >> I don't know how you can get worked up over it.

      If it was just a social/privately organized thing (like your Boys/Girls Night Out example) of course I wouldn't care, but its different when a global company like Google are sending such a message as being (in line with) their corporate policy.

  40. I would encourage some entrepreneur... by kenh · · Score: 2

    ...to open a 'Boys Only' computer camp and watch the feminists rail against it's exclusion of girls, as they should...

    --
    Ken
  41. On the right path by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    I hate computers, don't you all too?

  42. It was clear and IMHO not correct by dbIII · · Score: 1

    If you think back to your school years or meet a few students you'll find plenty of examples of people who could not succeed at the more difficult high school mathematics subjects. That's why there is more than one stream.
    A lack of motivation may have more bearing than a lack of "talent", but for whatever reason some of it is seen as too difficult for some students.

    1. Re:It was clear and IMHO not correct by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If you think back to your school years or meet a few students you'll find plenty of examples of people who could not succeed

      There were certainly people who didn't, but none that couldn't.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."