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.

70 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: 4, Funny

      Good thing they're all so stunning and beautiful

    5. 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.

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

      Maybe she grew a pair after the class?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. 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???

    8. 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.

    9. 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*

    10. 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.

    11. 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.
    12. 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?
    13. 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'
    14. 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!

  2. And.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. 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!
    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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)
    7. 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. . . .
    8. 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
    9. 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
  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

  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 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...
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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/...

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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
    15. 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.

    16. 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
  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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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?

    5. 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
  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 Kartu · · Score: 2

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

  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.

  8. 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 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...
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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.

  11. 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.

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

    And I'm a software engineer!

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  13. 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.

  14. 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.
  15. 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.

  16. 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?

  17. 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