Boot Camps Introducing More Women To Tech (dice.com)

Nerval's Lobster writes: A new study from Course Report suggests that boot camps are introducing more women to the tech-employment pipeline. Data for the study came from 769 graduates from 43 qualifying coding schools (a.k.a. boot camps). Some 66 percent of those graduates reported landing a full-time job that hinged on skills learned at the boot camp. Although the typical "bootcamper" is 31 years old, with 7.6 years of work experience, relatively few had a job as a programmer before participating in a boot camp. Perhaps the most interesting data-point from Course Report, though, is that 36 percent of "bootcampers" are women, compared to 14.1 percent coming into the tech industry via undergraduate programs. Bringing more women and underrepresented groups into the tech industry is a stated goal of many companies. Over the past few years, these companies' diversity reports have bemoaned how engineering and leadership teams skew overwhelmingly white and male. Proposed strategies for the issue include adjusting how companies recruit new workers; boot camps could also quickly deepen the pool of potential employees with the right skills.

Comments

Friday on the east coast

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Friday on the east coast, so I guess we are back to Feminism Fridays.

Re:Friday on the east coast

[Anonymous Coward]

Leftist Libtards rejoice! Let us march towards the radiant socialist future together!

Re:Friday on the east coast

[Anonymous Coward]

Possibly related: http://www.reuters.com/article...

Re:Friday on the east coast

[Anonymous Coward]

150% of the GDP is being thrown into "getting girls into tech".

The extra 50% is coming from slavery - mostly by white males.

Re:Friday on the east coast

[Anonymous Coward]

Vote for Trump. He loves Women. He loves the woman people. His wife is a woman. He has thousands and thousands of women working for him. Their leaders are too smart for our leaders, except those in this thread. HE WILL MAKE YOUR ANUS GREAT AGAIN!!!

Re: Friday on the east coast

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be so time to start counting penis and vagina all you social justice warriors. Please send in your totals from the Dice office today.

A message from PAVA, Penis and Vagina Accountants.

Re:Friday on the east coast

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, I need a cut and paste comment for these "More women in Tech" stories, and all it would say is "NOT THIS FUCKING SHIT AGAIN".

Why not...

Boot Camps Introducing More $MINORITY To Tech
Boot Camps Introducing More Irish midgets To Tech
Boot Camps Introducing More Quadriplegics To Tech
Boot Camps Introducing More OtherkinTo Tech
Boot Camps Introducing More AssholesTo Tech
Boot Camps Introducing More Anal Fisting Enthusiasts To Tech

Re:Friday on the east coast

[NotDrWho]

"Attention team. I know all of you have been programmers for years, and hold Bachelors and Masters degrees in CS. But you're also all male, and that's a problem. So to improve diversity on the team, we're bringing in Janice here. Janice is an formerly unemployed housewife who took a 12-week programming bootcamp. She'll be helping us with out new phone firmware update. Say hi to your new team Janice."

"I can Ruby on Rails!"

"Great, Janice. She'll be in charge now guys. And remember to treat her with respect and not make any remarks around her that could be interpreted as threatening, intimidating, or in any way hostile."

"Does she even know what a firmware update is ?"

"HE'S MAKING ME FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE!"

"You're fired, Johnson!"

Re:Friday on the east coast

[Anonymous Coward]

SJW Friday! Woo! I'll get the popcorn.

Re:Friday on the east coast

[DiscountBorg(TM)]

"I'm gonna straw-man 'diversity' to pretend it means hiring people who aren't qualified. Look at how stupid and oversensitive women are.

Y'all better listen quietly and agree with me, or you're an SJW"

FTFY

Re:Friday on the east coast

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm going to assume you're a pussy-ass mangina-wielding white knight, who has to assuage all his evil-white-male guilt by out-yelling everyone else at the "ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS!" rally.

Shouldn't you be down in the ghetto apologizing, white male oppressor?

Re:Friday on the east coast

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm gonna straw-man 'diversity' to pretend it means hiring people who aren't qualified.

The problem is that it isn't a straw man argument; it's a valid criticism. Oh, and I don't care if you don't want to admit it.

Re:Friday on the east coast

[DiscountBorg(TM)]

You're right, diversity as meaning hiring unqualified people is not a straw man.. it's an anti-intellectual conspiracy theory, us vs those horrible universities who shut us out.. and it's supported with fringe evidence from outlying cases.

I don't admit that chemtrails have any bearing on my health either.

Re:Friday on the east coast

[DiscountBorg(TM)]

"Shhh...someone at AVFM told me 'mangina' was a dire insult.. weapon deployed! Impact in 5..4..3..2.. *fizzle*"

(because the best way to prove you like women is to think that "pussy" and "mangina" are insults) Can't say I feel guilty about anything. Your rage might indicate you've some subconscious guilt though.

Re:Friday on the east coast

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic.

If you are, you can keep being sarcastic until you are called sexist for some reason that doesn't even make sense or hauled into HR over a microaggression.

My moment was when somebody with absolutely no technical knowledge declared to me that had a woman been hired for my (rather unique sorta-programmer) position, then the 3rd party piece of crap closed-source proprietary software I wasn't even involved in deciding to purchase or use would not have any of the bugs the vendor was refusing to fix.

And I'm a trans woman :(

It's just that I dress as a boy and go by my boy name (even though I look like a woman, which is confusing for many, upon learning I'm a "he," especially people who know me outside work, but hey, I didn't choose to be born in a transphobic world where even the SJWs are transphobic) for practical reasons. (I like not being homeless. Call it a quirk.)

I was lucky that was before this SJW shitstorm, and that person likely isn't an internet drama queen, either. Had that happened during the past few years, I'm sure somebody would have posted the worst problems somewhere on the internet and I'd wake up to find myself crucified by the media as yet another misogynerd preventing women from programming computers.

Sound far fetched? I'm sure it does to you now. That's cute of you.

I actually mentor women in programming. Do you? I'm trying to solve the problem. Are you?

Not in 2 years for me, though. I'm tired of being presumed to be a sexist, and I'm tired of reading about how sexist the field I love is. Most likely commercial fishing for me, but I haven't quite decided. It just has to be something that nobody in a million years would push women into. In fact, after reading an article linked in a previous discussion about two young women who have an owner-operator business going, I was encouraged by the positive attitude of the article, hence my interest in commercial fishing.

Re:Friday on the east coast

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, the Janice story guy erased his signature which used to say something like "SJW's expect you to sit quietly and agree with them"!

And asks them

[Anonymous Coward]

And asks those women, DO YOU LIKE MY GREAT BIG COCK?!

Unless they're fat.

Re:And asks them

[Chrisq]

And asks those women, DO YOU LIKE MY GREAT BIG COCK?!

No, that's the poultry farming boot-camp.

Re:And asks them

[Anonymous Coward]

And asks those women, DO YOU LIKE MY GREAT BIG COCK?!

No, that's the poultry farming boot-camp.

ROFLMAO

Touche monsieur.

All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Any initiative that results in fewer white males is a good initiative!

Re:All right!

[epyT-R]

Yay for racist and sexist social justice policy!

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

I just can't wait till women expect reparations from us. Oh wait....

Re:All right!

[narcc]

It takes a special kind of person to see celebrating greater diversity as celebrating the decline of another group.

I don't understand it myself. What's wrong with increasing diversity? Is it that you feel threatened because you think you can't compete in the job market? Are you afraid of interacting women and minorities? You strongly imply that white males are being attacked or otherwise oppressed and that some unnamed other takes pleasure in causing that harm.

Do you remember that "pac-man" pie chart of religious affiliation in the US? The one where the largest piece is saying "help, we're being oppressed!"? Your comment reminds me of that.

It's really easy to be a Christian in the US. You're in the majority. There are even social benefits that come simply from self-identifying with that majority. Though, as many atheists know, there are also social consequences for those on the outside. The larger group benefits from something called "privilege".

I couched that in religious terms for your benefit. It's easy to see that Christians in the US are not, in fact, being oppressed and that they enjoy numerous social benefits. It's also easy to see why atheists often need to hide their beliefs to avoid discrimination or other harmful conflict. It should be simple to understand (and acknowledge) the concept of privilege in this context. That should bring us a step closer to understanding the privilege that straight white males enjoy. (If you're still having trouble, add additional characteristics like 'tall' and 'attractive'. Don't those guys surely have it easier that you? Why do you think that's the case?)

That brings us back to your post. Do you think that by elevating atheists we necessarily hurt the religious? Shouldn't they be just as free to express their views and Christians, without fear of social repercussions? Don't they deserve equal treatment and opportunity?

Are those atheist groups interested in oppressing Jews, Hindus, and other religious groups? Obviously not. For the most part, they just want a "safe space" where they can meet with others who share the same beliefs without facing the nasty social consequences they would otherwise. They want society as a whole to stop discriminating against them, and thus do community outreach. Inexplicably, some Christian groups see this as an assault. Doesn't that seem foolish? They're not under attack just because another groups doesn't want to suffer discrimination at their hands!

They shouldn't need to hide their atheism any more than a girl should need to hide her gender playing an online game as folks like you insist they should. They should be afforded safe spaces where they can focus on learning without the continual sexual comments, pick-ups, and challenges to the authenticity of their interest in the subject they face in a typical male-dominated classroom. Adding opportunities for others doesn't reduce your own opportunities any more than opening up an atheist club diminishes Christian churches.

In this case, it's even simpler than that. These aren't "for girls" boot camps. Women just feel more comfortable in these environments and thus are more likely to participate. This is reflected in the enrollment statistics. Yet, just because they're not behaving like you believe they should (by staying out of tech) you see this as an assault on white males. That is, the majority group. The Christians of the industry, if you will.

You're not being oppressed. No one is out to get you. You're terrified by a monster under your bed. It's time shine a flashlight under there and face reality. There's nothing there. It's all in your imagination.

Re: All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look kids, an SJW. Grab your cameras for pictures and then take notes. Learn to understand how they are so you can defend yourself against them.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think many of us likely think women shouldn't be in tech. I don't. Hired many women myself, in fact, more than men. There have been plenty of articles about code camps and other things that are girls only. If you can't see reverse discrimination when it slaps you in the face, you're just as bad and a SJW.

Those of us in tech just want people to go into tech because they are passionate about it and love it. For the same kinds of reasons I got into it as a kid and not because it's being forced on them. Most of us have known women who got pressured into STEM degrees and didn't belong. AT. ALL. Those that did, did. I see lots of interest in tech from the girls in my family and I hope it continues, but if they'd rather do something else, that's what I want them doing. For the same reasons it's ticking me off that industry and schools are trying to force coding on everyone, not just girls... very few people have the aptitude to be good at it (men included).

Re:All right!

[NotInHere]

Not the original AC, but still answering.

Women just feel more comfortable in these environments and thus are more likely to participate.

So, you applying stereotypes here? You assume that women are so weak and fragile that they must be forced to decide to work in tech? Can't they decide for themselves?

Adding opportunities for others doesn't reduce your own opportunities any more than opening up an atheist club diminishes Christian churches.

In fact, I'm even fine with "girl" boot camps and so on. I really don't care whether they exist or not. Just don't cover all of tech news with these SJW things. What would you say if the new york times had an article about atheists every day, the finance part about how "atheists are the unknown potential", the culture part about "art hall announces atheist exhibition", the main page about atheist boot camps?

The second reason why I don't like these SJW "lets have more woman workers" initiatives is because they mainly stem from companies wanting to lower salaries for their engineers by changing the market, having a common source with the H1B lobbying those companies do for the same reason.

Instead of yet another codegirls.org initiative, google has a very simple way to do something to fight against sexism. Their vast ad network delivers not just malware, it also serves as the platform for many sexist ad campaigns or ad messages. Why don't they use their influence to get rid of sexist ads? This surely isn't the only sexist aspect of society, but it wouldn't just cure symptoms.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes a special kind of person to see celebrating greater diversity as celebrating the decline of another group.

I don't understand it myself. What's wrong with increasing diversity? Is it that you feel threatened because you think you can't compete in the job market? Are you afraid of interacting women and minorities?

A person who disagrees with the diversity rhetoric is not necessarily doing so because they feel threatened. In my case, for example, I see two main reasons to oppose it:

(1) Many of the claims made by the supporters of diversity are irrational claims. See, for example, http://www.ams.org/notices/201409/rnoti-p1024.pdf. An individual who values logic and rational thought should be expected to oppose such claims.

(2) The benefits of diversity are not really apparent to me, but I am increasingly pressured to help to increase diversity. In that sense, discussion of diversity is an annoyance that takes time away from other endeavors. In particular, many individuals read Slashdot as a form of entertainment. The discussion of diversity diminishes that entertainment.

You strongly imply that white males are being attacked or otherwise oppressed and that some unnamed other takes pleasure in causing that harm.

Do you remember that "pac-man" pie chart of religious affiliation in the US? The one where the largest piece is saying "help, we're being oppressed!"? Your comment reminds me of that.

It's really easy to be a Christian in the US. You're in the majority...

You seem to be jumping to unwarranted conclusions here. (See point 1, above.) The people who are opposed to the diversity rhetoric are not necessarily white male Christians.

Though, as many atheists know, there are also social consequences for those on the outside. The larger group benefits from something called "privilege".

I couched that in religious terms for your benefit. It's easy to see that Christians in the US are not, in fact, being oppressed and that they enjoy numerous social benefits. It's also easy to see why atheists often need to hide their beliefs to avoid discrimination or other harmful conflict.

I, in fact, happen to be atheist. I have always been very open about my beliefs, even though I spent most of my life living in a conservative religious community. Although I did receive some harassment for my beliefs, you greatly exaggerate it. For example, I never needed to "hide [my] beliefs to avoid discrimination or other harmful conflict" while I was growing up.

Re:All right!

[starworks5]

Its not as if the industry is setting up gender quotas and free schools specifically for women, the pew study indicates that women have a 2 to 1 advantage in odds of being hired in tech. They see some discrepency in the population figures, and think that any disparity is due to some 'oppression', instead of people choosing to do what they want, in reality its the older devs lot who are discriminated against.

There ought to be a distinction made between computer scientists and computer artisans, these bootcamps are really quite shitty and churn out the worst talent. What I've noticed is that most of the female positions in the 'tech' industry aren't in 'technology', they are in fields that USE technology and not PRODUCE technology, especially the disproportionate numbers of them in 'evangelist', HR, outreach, community managers, business, etc.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

The larger group benefits from something called "privilege".

It's not being the larger group that gives people privilege. It's preferential treatment that does that. In tech, at present, that's quite clearly in favour of women.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

You fear Christians, thus you hate them.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

We're tired of having to work around lame rhetoric like yours. People with an agenda are not good problem solvers. You are not a good problem solver. Your strategy and only value is that you can create problems that will make people listen to you, an expert on the problems you pulled out of a hat. All that is ever going to create is more "useful idiots" who create more "useful problems" which keep people from working on actual problems.

If women want to do the job, they need to do the job, not change the job until it suits them. Before this whole "third wave" feminism onslaught, most men in tech were not opposed to having more female colleagues. As you said, why would they? But the women just would not come. Instead, the feminists started showing up and demanded that we come to them, change ourselves so that more women would want to join us. Well, that's not them joining us, that would be us joining them.

The women who are in tech and made it on their own are proof positive that there is no fundamental obstacle to women in tech, but you are in fact erecting a huge obstacle: The impression that tech needs to change to accommodate women devalues the work of any woman in this field. Personally I now steer clear of women coworkers. The risk of triggering a feminist is just too big.

atheist groups [...] just want a "safe space"

I assure you that they definitely do not want that.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not being oppressed. No one is out to get you.

This rings a little false when the #killallwhitemen tag is trending on Twitter.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the that there are no real barriers keeping minorities out of Tech. None of the so called barriers have kept ass poor asians from basically dominating by working their asses off, so much so that they are grossly over represented statistically speaking. Or the Indians, etc. I'm a half indian woman in the tech sector and feel no barrier that I couldn't overcome because tech interests me, robotics interests me, programming interests me. Because I was interested I learned and got very good at my interests. Now I pursue those interests for work.

I would hate for someone to judge me by the color of my skin or my sex. When my father emigrated here from India, that was what he was most excited about, a place where people would not judge him by his skin or the class he was born into.

I love diversity, but there is no need to force it, Most people don't want to become programmers, even less women want to become programmers and there is no problem there, no real artificial barriers keeping anyone out.

As a side project I recently programmed a game with some of my younger cousins, we used the unity engine and i was absolutely blown away at just how accessible it was. It was fabulously easy to manage the project even though I had no prior experience and my programing experience wasn't gaming related.

Literally anyone who is interested can grab Unity and run through some tutorials and learn to program. My cousin is doing it now by herself because it was just too easy. She is now thinking of programming as a career because she enjoys it. There is no barrier. It is mostly a private experience and there is nothing wrong with that.

I love diversity because I'm part of it, . To me diversity just means everyone gets a chance, an opportunity. It has nothing to do with counting indians, blacks and hispanics. To me that is emphasizing racism. I've experienced it too, people think because i'm dominantly Indian in appearance I'm a H1B worker. I want to get away even further to a truly color blind, sex blind society.

These bootcamps are sold as "Get respect and Money with computers" I know because I've seen two friends go through them. In the end two of them found out that programming just isn't something that they like to do, even for money. One did, but she was already pursuing programming on her own. I'm all for the bootcamp opportunity, I just wish that the ones getting press weren't sexist and racist. I really feel bad for my male white cousins who are automatically disqualified from childhood because of their gender and skin.

I do wish we'd just get a story here about coding education that wasn't tied to gender. I can see how it would feel like it's being foisted upon us to try to make sure i'm at least a little guilty for being half white, gods help us if i was male too.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot. There are a limited number of jobs. What do you mean by "diversity"? Fewer white people? Genocide? You're obviously so stupid that you don't even know what you mean - you're talking about genociding white people. "In whole or in part". That's genocide.

Why don't non-whites want to live in their own countries? Because THEY think white countries are better, that's why. I wonder why that would be? Could it possibly be because of - gasp - white people?

There are a limited number of jobs, and women are now being given special treatment (as have useless non-whites for the past fifty years), which means fewer men are getting those jobs.

So yes, we ARE being oppressed.

Re:All right!

[AmiMoJo]

Is it that you feel threatened because you think you can't compete in the job market? Are you afraid of interacting women and minorities?

Sadly, the answer to both of these is "yes". At the more extreme end you have the "red pill" people, who honestly seem to think that all women and minorities are out to get them. In their minds they are just waiting for an opportunity to make a false rape or racism accusation, to drive the white man out. All women and minorities in anything but menial or "traditional" jobs are just diversity hires who stole jobs from white guys.

Seriously, this is how those guys think:

https://manboobz.files.wordpre...
https://hailtothegynocracy.fil...

Do you think that by elevating atheists we necessarily hurt the religious?

Yes, because they consider not being able to inflict their personal beliefs on others to be harm. Being forced not to discriminate against gay people, for example, is oppression to them. To be fair it's true that they are not allowed to enact their bigotry in certain situations, it's just that they fail to realise that the same rules protect them too. They have privilege, so they don't see the value of those rules because they don't need to rely on them.

Re:All right!

[serviscope_minor]

A person who disagrees with the diversity rhetoric is not necessarily doing so because they feel
threatened. In my case, for example, I see two main reasons to oppose it:

I don't even know where to begin with that one. Apparently you think *lack* of diversity trumps ability, which is even more stupid, frankly.

A clue: the point about diversity is you can get talent from the ENTIRE population, rather than one sub-group chosen by various strange social reasons.

(2) The benefits of diversity are not really apparent to me,

Then you've spent little time thinking about it. See above paragraph.

You seem to be jumping to unwarranted conclusions here. (See point 1, above.) The people who are opposed to the diversity rhetoric are not necessarily white male Christians.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of an "analogy". Or reasoning about other systems with similar pressures.

Although I did receive some harassment for my beliefs, you greatly exaggerate it. For example, I never needed to "hide [my] beliefs to avoid discrimination or other harmful conflict" while I was growing up.

Great! I like how assume that your experience is representative of the entire world for in analogy, therefore the analogy is wrong therefore there isn't a problem with diversity in tech. I also like how you do this after banging on about rationality and logic above.

It's interesting, I think that the people who mention "logic" and "rationality" in posts often seem tobe the least able to use either.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

> I think that the people who mention "logic" and "rationality" in posts often seem tobe the least able to use either.

you've been spotted

Re:All right!

[serviscope_minor]

Seriously, this is how those guys think:

[... the first poster...]

I like how the poster is implicitly condemning the existence of non-sexual freindship/mentor relationships.

Speaking of mentorship, it's a good job it's just people shouting from the sidelines though. I'm glad there's no one famous in the FOSS community, (for example Eric S Raymond to choose a person at random) making completely unsubstantiated claims that roving groups of wild feminists from the defunct Ada Initiative are trolling conferences hoping to bait some poor man in order to make fake claims of harassment, and then declaring that any backlash against all women is deserved because all women deserve it---and therefore you should never mentor any evil harpies^W^Wwomen.

I mean I'm really glad we don't have people like that around.

Re:All right!

[AmiMoJo]

Wow, +5 insightful and then the MRAs turn up and mod bomb you down. Slashdot's meta-mod system doesn't seem to be capable of preventing this.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

You have restored some of my faith in the slashdot community.

Re:All right!

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

It takes a special kind of person to see celebrating greater diversity as celebrating the decline of another group.

I honestly don't think that's what riles them up, I think it's that we see these stories once or twice a week, every singe week, and some people just get tired of it.

I'm all for women in tech, I think it's a good thing, but I admit sometimes I also get tired of the frequency at which these stories appear. (And I speak as a guy in a tech field who works in a building that's about 75% women-populated, so this whole "women are in tech!" is not exactly a revelation from on high.)

Women aren't some weird life form that scientists have just discovered, and we all know that more and more are getting into tech-related fields. That's fine. There's no need to report on it as if this is some amazing new event, unprecedented in history. If anything it just serves to differentiate their involvement and make it seem unusual.

Yes, there are some guys that feel threatened by it, but I think it's the frequency of these stories that annoys people, not so much the content.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

As a side project I recently programmed a game with some of my younger cousins, we used the unity engine and i was absolutely blown away at just how accessible it was. It was fabulously easy to manage the project even though I had no prior experience and my programing experience wasn't gaming related.

Literally anyone who is interested can grab Unity and run through some tutorials and learn to program. My cousin is doing it now by herself because it was just too easy. She is now thinking of programming as a career because she enjoys it. There is no barrier. It is mostly a private experience and there is nothing wrong with that.

I love diversity because I'm part of it, . To me diversity just means everyone gets a chance, an opportunity.

Your cousin clearly has an interest, an attitude, and a burgeoning passion of computer programming / software development. I think most of us began along a similar vein though back during the early 1980s it was mostly self-taught by necessity without benefit of existing code libraries or frameworks. If she decides to turn this hobby into a career, she can build a portfolio of projects to show potential employers or clients. I agree computer programming is by its nature an egalitarian and meritocratic career if the meddling SJWs and HR departments stay out to the way.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

A person who disagrees with the diversity rhetoric is not necessarily doing so because they feel
threatened. In my case, for example, I see two main reasons to oppose it:

I don't even know where to begin with that one. Apparently you think *lack* of diversity trumps ability, which is even more stupid, frankly.

You're jumping to conclusions. Just because the poster is opposed to diversity rhetoric does not mean that they think "lack of diversity trumps ability". At no point in the argument did the poster argue for less diversity. Instead, the poster claimed that the arguments for diversity are not compelling. Many of us simply don't care about diversity, one way or the other, but the diversity politics is interfering with other things that we do care about. (In particular, the poster claimed that it was interfering with his fondness for rationality, and with his desire to read entertaining stories on Slashdot.)

Although I did receive some harassment for my beliefs, you greatly exaggerate it. For example, I never needed to "hide [my] beliefs to avoid discrimination or other harmful conflict" while I was growing up.

Great! I like how assume that your experience is representative of the entire world for in analogy, therefore the analogy is wrong therefore there isn't a problem with diversity in tech. I also like how you do this after banging on about rationality and logic above.

It's interesting, I think that the people who mention "logic" and "rationality" in posts often seem tobe the least able to use either.

Look, neither of you have facts to back up your claim, but the poster's anecdotal experiences seem to contradict what was being said. The poster never claimed that his "experience is representative of the entire world". Instead, he was questioning the claim that atheists in the US "need to hide their beliefs to avoid discrimination or other harmful conflict".

One person made an unsubstantiated claim, and another person questioned it. The next step in the argument is for somebody to provide some factual evidence to support one side or the other.

Re:All right!

[Hognoxious]

Apparently you think *lack* of diversity trumps ability, which is even more stupid, frankly.

You either didn't read the post you're replying to, or you're replying to a post you didn't read.

I see nothing in his post to support your claim.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's kinda funny how his second point actually proves the original claim because it is a perfect example of 'feeling emotionally threatened' and the first, on 'randomness trumping diversity' has little to do with the actual claims but interpreting it as such is a great example of missing the forest for the trees.

I guess I'm just bemused how these people who gripe about SJWs keep throwing around really obvious arguments as if they are things we've never heard of before.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

In particular, many individuals read Slashdot as a form of entertainment. The discussion of diversity diminishes that entertainment.

Aside from that being a perfect example of feeling emotionally threatened, it seems that what you're saying is that /. should be an echo chamber that sticks to what the 'many' think is entertaining. Gotcha.

Re:All right!

[penandpaper]

Anyone disagreeing is now an MRA? What about the flip side, instantly modded +5 insightful; an overly worded straw-man. I should just call those that modded him insightful as vapid SJW feminists, right?

Yes, the /. modding system is flawed. Yes, -1 troll is used as disagree by many. However, to use a brush so large to paint everyone that disagrees with the sacred cow of identity politics is an MRA is laughable.

I think that is one thing that I absolutely hate about modern feminism. They claim moral superiority on everything and if you disagree and dismiss any claim.

A woman disagrees; just wants male attention, brainwashed, internalized misogyny, all the above!
A man disagrees; just an MRA, rape apologist, privileged, moral degenerates, misogynists, all the above!

Equal opportunity, we have it. Or are you going to try and convince me that a male being in the same room as a female is oppressing her ability to learn CS.

Re:All right!

[penandpaper]

and if you disagree /insert insult here/ and dismiss any claim.

damn you brackets!

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: finding it annoying because of the frequency of these stories: That's probably just because /. is a sausage-fest.. If a significant percentage of visitors to this site were affected by this issue, it would be another story

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

In particular, many individuals read Slashdot as a form of entertainment. The discussion of diversity diminishes that entertainment.

Aside from that being a perfect example of feeling emotionally threatened, it seems that what you're saying is that /. should be an echo chamber that sticks to what the 'many' think is entertaining. Gotcha.

If an individual says that "discussion of diversity diminishes that entertainment", it sounds more like they're being annoyed than "emotionally threatened". How did you come to the conclusion that they were emotionally threatened?

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with increasing diversity? Is it that you feel threatened because you think you can't compete in the job market?

I have no issues with getting a job. My issue is constantly cleaning up after other horrible programmer messes. Programming is a power curve with 80% below average. Programming also have negative scaling as you add more programmers. The more programmers, the more mess and the longer stuff takes. The best situation is a few really good programmers. you know that "10x" programmer "myth". The actual research shows a 100x difference, but they changed the title to "10x" because most people would think it's too unbelievable.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone mod this up. Anyone who has read past serviscope posts (or just the ones in this thread) can see that this is a quintessential example of projection.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

really obvious arguments as if they are things we've never heard of before.

Perhaps you keep hearing the same arguments because you never actually address them. Snarky comments and vague assertions make poor rebuttals.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can claim a problem with moral superiority but when you say "are you going to try and convince me that a male being in the same room as a female is oppressing her ability to learn CS" it shows you aren't really even bothering to understand what it is you're angry about, because nobody has ever suggested that anywhere.

And yeah, SJW and MRA get thrown around too easily, but if you employ the arguments of an MRA, you're going to get labeled as such, and vica versa with SJWs. That's kind of how in-group out-group behavior seems to work.

Last, it isn't too hard to look through this thread and find plenty of posts denigrating women as stupid or incapable or inferior.

Re:All right!

[david_thornley]

The fault, if any, doesn't appear to be with the hiring companies. Some of them probably are unfriendly to women, but most seem to accept women just fine. If, as I suspect, there are unequal opportunities, it's happening before the women enter the workforce. Things like this boot camp and other attempts to encourage more girls into the field will tell us more.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps it's because the purported 'arguments' keep twisting diversity into foolish things that almost nobody on the side of diversity is even arguing. Maybe a proper rebuttal ends up being the same as what happens when you try to rebut a creationist who is out to tell you how the liberal universities are excluding him, and how bad off he is, while won't give up on his straw man of evolution--a waste of time.

Re:All right!

[narcc]

To:

Are you afraid of interacting women

You replay with a solid 'yes':

Personally I now steer clear of women coworkers. The risk of triggering a feminist is just too big.

Interacting with women in the workplace is pretty easy. All you need to do to is behave like a professional and treat them like human beings. It's that simple. No special treatment or changes in behavior should be required.

Or does that require a change in your behavior? Do you find that need distasteful? The fact remains: if you're not acting like a professional, you're a problem for all of your coworkers and your employer.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Small articles now and then on issues regarding women in tech that are optional to read, that he disagrees with, and, he's 'annoyed' because they 'diminish' his ability to feel entertained, as if the 'many' can't be entertained on /. because of articles like this! ..yeah, that's feeling emotionally threatened.

Re:All right!

[penandpaper]

shows you aren't really even bothering to understand what it is you're angry about, because nobody has ever suggested that anywhere.

It has been argued, as quoted below.

From GGP:

These aren't "for girls" boot camps. Women just feel more comfortable in these environments and thus are more likely to participate.

Other posts on ./ had similar reasoning in the discussions and topics. A girl feels uncomfortable therefore segregation/special treatment.

Feelings are more important than equal opportunity.

look through this thread and find plenty of posts denigrating women as stupid or incapable or inferior.

Welcome to the internet. The Eternal September is a long and harsh mistress indeed. The irony, the ones arguing for special treatment of women presuppose women's inability to succeed on their own. How droll, isn't it.

Coward calling me angry. rofl. Good one. Now, kindly fuck off or log on if you want a discussion. :)

Re:All right!

[DiscountBorg(TM)]

Glad to know there's some sanity left on /. these days. Can't say I've ever had any issues with women in IT positions either. Not surprisingly when there's mutual respect, there's no real problems.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay for racist and sexist social justice policy!

Check your privilege shitlord!

How dare you suggest that people be judged by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin! You probably also refuse to acknowledge the binary races of white people and colored people^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeople-of-color.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't see the opportunistic omission in that sentence of yours I quoted? Here's a hint:

So.. you concede that the internet is shitty.. and with the pathetic attitude toward women rampant even throughout this site.. the thing that -really- pisses you off is that some women can learn about tech in peace.

What a trivial thing for you to worry about by comparison. How beyond petty! What was that about whose 'feelings' again?

So you know the score, yet you're angry about solidarity or cooperation because that "presupposes women's inability to succeed on their own." Nice one with that brilliant, individualist, philosophy-capsule from the MRA dept!

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

What nonsense is this??

White isn't a race. White is the absence of race, just like male is the absence of gender.

Re:All right!

[penandpaper]

you concede that the internet is shitty.. and with the pathetic attitude toward women rampant even throughout this site.. the thing that -really- pisses you off is that some women can learn about tech in peace.

Oh, look a white knight to defend the honour of women online everywhere! As if, only women are mistreated online? despite some reports to claim the contrary. Could you please, remind me what stopped women from coding before? Must have been that Star Wars poster. Which is more demeaning, one who thinks women are strong and capable enough to enter CS without special treatment or the one who thinks they need a safe space from Star Wars posters and men.

So you know the score, yet you're angry about solidarity or cooperation because that "presupposes women's inability to succeed on their own." Nice one with that brilliant, individualist, philosophy-capsule from the MRA dept!

If you protect the rights of the individual you protect them for the collective. The narrative passed on by you and others ignore the individual because Cultural Marxism and identity politics.

Keep trying to convince yourself that I am just an angry MRA meanwhile feminism becomes its own worst enemy.

  I pity you.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Small articles now and then on issues regarding women in tech...

The Slashdot articles on women in tech aren't "small". They appear to be about the same size as the other articles. And by "now and then", you mean multiple times a week and sometimes multiple times in one day.

It looks as though you're trying to pretend that these articles are less annoying than they actually are.

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

In my opinion your strongest moments were when you stuck to "white knight" which I guess is insulting if one identifies as an MRA or a PUA?

It was less strong when you broke out the right-wing conspiracy theory about cultural marxism--perfect for metapedia, the armchair sociology equivalent of creationism. I guess it must feel pretty cold over there, being ostracized from mainstream academia.. clearly proof you're on the right track!

And since you're fine with the internet being as it is, it's pretty hypocritical for you to complain about it.

Feminism is doing just fine, which of course, is why you're pissed off, but your tears are kind of delicious and sweet ^_^

Re:All right!

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on your definition of "acting professional", it can be very anti-creative. People need to be able to be themselves, mostly. Of course it's not like being at a party and doing/saying whatever comes to mind, but people should be able to have "fun" at work. You also need at least some ability to vent.

Re:All right!

[beastofburdon]

I'll accept that they are genuine when they start advocating for gender equality in other male dominated industries like deep sea fishing and garbage collection. Until then it is an obvious grab for power at the expense of others. In other words "give me your safe, high paying job that you worked hard to get and you go work the dangerous, low paying job that I don't want, because glass ceiling!"

Re:All right!

[narcc]

Think, for just a few moments, about why your argument isn't convincing to anyone. It's better if you figure this out for yourself.

give me your safe, high paying job that you worked hard to get

You imply here that women don't work hard to get those safe, high-paying, jobs and that they're forcing men in to dangerous low-paying jobs. This tells me a couple things: First, you don't think women are as capable or hard-working as men. Second, you're afraid that you can't compete in a job market that doesn't marginalize women.

The facts are that women face artificial barriers not faced by men, meaning they need to work harder than men to reach those safe, high-paying, positions. Attitudes like yours, such as believing women to be less capable, contribute to those barriers. The glass-ceiling is so named because it's an invisible barrier, imposed by regressive attitudes, not written rules, that keep women from reaching the same heights.

Let's try an example: We have two candidates for promotion, Alice and Bob. Alice is the obvious choice, having both seniority and better numbers than Bob. Bob's no slouch, being a hard-worker with decent numbers. Alice and Bob both have families. People wonder why Alice even wants the promotion as she has kids at home. At the same time, they hope Bob gets the promotion as he's a good family man who could use the pay raise. These regressive attitudes regarding traditional gender roles give Bob an edge over Alice -- even without the blatant misogynistic attitudes you express.

This isn't complicated.

Re:All right!

[beastofburdon]

You imply here that women don't work hard to get those safe, high-paying, jobs and that they're forcing men in to dangerous low-paying jobs. This tells me a couple things: First, you don't think women are as capable or hard-working as men. Second, you're afraid that you can't compete in a job market that doesn't marginalize women.

No, I do not imply such. I imply that is what the SJW's, such as feminists, want.
I do not think that women are less capable or hard working in the tech industry, they are just far less inclined to want to enter it.
I have no issue at all with competing with anyone as long as the playing field is kept even. Incentives for hiring a woman or a minority (lets not confuse women with minorities like you dumb fucks always do) do not allow for an even playing field.

The facts are that women face artificial barriers not faced by men, meaning they need to work harder than men to reach those safe, high-paying, positions. Attitudes like yours, such as believing women to be less capable, contribute to those barriers. The glass-ceiling is so named because it's an invisible barrier, imposed by regressive attitudes, not written rules, that keep women from reaching the same heights.

No, they don't face artificial barriers not faced by men. They once did, but they haven't for well over a decade, especially in the tech sector. In fact, a woman applying for a tech job is far more likely to to be hired than a equally qualified man, and will have a higher salary than the man would have.
If there is any remnant of a "glass ceiling" it is due to differing priorities and behavior between men and women. Men and women play politics very differently and that could be an advantage or disadvantage to them based on who is their boss.

Let's try an example: We have two candidates for promotion, Alice and Bob. Alice is the obvious choice, having both seniority and better numbers than Bob. Bob's no slouch, being a hard-worker with decent numbers. Alice and Bob both have families. People wonder why Alice even wants the promotion as she has kids at home. At the same time, they hope Bob gets the promotion as he's a good family man who could use the pay raise. These regressive attitudes regarding traditional gender roles give Bob an edge over Alice -- even without the blatant misogynistic attitudes you express.

I see you have to imagine your misogyny. I can't say that I'm surprised.

You're right, it isn't that complicated. You are just incapable of seeing through the veil that has been pulled over your eyes, and our extremely powerful instinct to always protect women and children isn't helping you much with that. In order to see reality you have to be able to step back and question your beliefs, even your instincts.

Re:All right!

[narcc]

No, I do not imply such. I imply that is what the SJW's, such as feminists, want.

You're deeply confused. Try reading that section again.

No, they don't face artificial barriers not faced by men.

Nonsense.

They once did, but they haven't for well over a decade

At least you acknowledge those barriers exist! Now, what do you think changed? How were those barriers universally lifted in the last decade? As far as anyone else can tell, things are the same as they were in 2005.

You are just incapable of seeing through the veil that has been pulled over your eyes

Lol! It's a conspiracy, man! They've been, like, lying to you about everything. The truth is out there!

Do you hear yourself?

Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right after tech boot camp is logger bootcamp then deap sea fishing.

Re:Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

After that they finish the series with a rally in D.C. to lobby Congress to finally include women in Selective Service.

Re: Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

How much more of this silliness can we take? Girls statistically don't like to code. Period.

Enough with the moronic statistical outliers. (Some men want to be flight attendants, but it's not generally a dream job).

Why are we engaged in these massive social engineering projects to push girls where they don't want to go? Boys don't get pushed. They code alone in their rooms. It's a rare female that does.

Stop the madness.

Re: Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's to keep us busy worrying and policing each other's thoughts instead of dealing with the 1%. Occupy Wallstreet stopped being able to organize after a bunch of people advocating Social Stack politics started infesting the movement and made people argue over who was allowed to have a voice in the movement.

Re: Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Geez. I know a lot of statistical outliers then.

Re: Yes.

[CristalShandaLear]

So in your purview, it's not worth the price of tea in China to find the few who do? You see it less as something girls don't want to do versus something girls are discouraged to do. I, for one, believe it's the latter. But then, I'm a black woman who codes who didn't even learn until past 35 so what the hell do I know anyway?

You can start by calling us women. Especially after we're 18.

Re: Yes.

[beastofburdon]

If you are interested in it enough then you are going to pursue it. You have made me curious though. Who and what discouraged you? How did you overcome your discouragement?

Re: Yes.

[CristalShandaLear]

It was always things that seemed benign, but in hindsight were pretty discouraging. Mind you I'm in my 40's now but I remember in high school being scheduled for a class that taught basic logic and being unregistered and sent to the secretarial course - without my having been asked. Because girls weren't supposed to take that class anyway.The teacher "knew" it was a mistake because I was the only girl in there. This was mid to late 1980's.

What changed it all for me was actually having a computer at home and wanting to know more and do more. And having a husband who knew as little as I did - we tackled quite a bit together although I think learning C++ may have contributed to our divorce.

At any rate, I'm just saying, it's important to just let girls be and discover and grow. You'd be surprised how many girls are getting the same messages in 2015 that I got in 1980-something. If only everything "for us" wasn't pink or purple.

Re: Yes.

[beastofburdon]

Interesting. I was about a decade behind you in school and didn't see anything like that happening, nor hear about it from others. I have no doubt that your story is true, but attitudes change faster than people think. It certainly was an issue in the 80's, but that has changed and not in the last few years. It changed early in the 90's, shortly after more women had to enter the workforce due to the lowering of real wages. I do not doubt that there are still small pockets where this still exists, that happens with every social change, but they are very few, and the media pretends that those few are the norm to whip people into frenzy for profit. It is also being used for control. If you make all the men feel guilty about being men then they are easier to control, see Catholicism if you want another example of this tactic.

Overwhelmingly White?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really?

When I'm at work and I take a look around, I can see:

White guy, Chinese guy, Indian guy, Indian guy, Indian guy, Indian guy, Indian girl, Indian guy, Indian guy, White girl, White guy, Indian guy, Indian guy, Indian guy, Black guy.

But, quite frankly, I don't give a crap. All I care about is if my co-workers con communicate effectively and do a good job. I'm getting pretty annoyed with this social justice warrioring in the tech culture.

Re:Overwhelmingly White?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you hear? They made Asians honorable whites as soon as they demonstrated a study and work ethic.

It's like "white hispanic", whatever label is most convenient for the SJW narrative of the day.

Re:Overwhelmingly White?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not comment on these articles, it's the best thing to do.

Re:Overwhelmingly White?

[Anonymous Coward]

overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly right!

Re:Overwhelmingly White?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think appropriate negative comments help as well. Dice wants to wave the pom poms and they probably don't care if there's an apathetic crowd. If there's some booing/whistling/hissing there's a small chance they'll listen and stop.

Re:Overwhelmingly White?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even better, it's fine that they make more than whites do, nope, no problems there. It's clearly the evil white people.

Re:Overwhelmingly White?

[Anonymous Coward]

White guy, Chinese guy, Indian guy, Indian guy, Indian guy, Indian guy, Indian girl, Indian guy, Indian guy, White girl, White guy, Indian guy, Indian guy, Indian guy, Black guy.

I used to work in a place like that. The window stuck in the open position.

Re:Overwhelmingly White?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, in my group, we have a white guy from Africa, a black guy from America, a Chinese guy from the UK, an English guy from China and an Indian guy from Africa. Clearly, this means that the Hispanics must oppressed.

Re:Overwhelmingly White?

[narcc]

If there's some booing/whistling/hissing there's a small chance they'll listen and stop.

Don't be ridiculous. They want just one thing: page views.

Do you know why they post stories like this so frequently? Because it gets people to click, comment, and check back for replies. Stories like this keep eyeballs on the site. The more you boo/whistle/hiss the happier the overlord's become. They made the right decision. "Look at how many people commented! Look at that bump in page views! Our advertisers will be pleased!"

You've played right in to their hands.

Disparity in other fiels

[Anonymous Coward]

Know what other fields are overwhelmingly male-dominated? Mining. Law enforcement. Personal security. Emergency services. Construction. Garbage collecting. Won't feminists try to fix the gap there? Nah, of course not... they only want the safe, well-paid, glamorous jobs.

Re:Disparity in other fiels

[Anonymous Coward]

Short order grill cooks, too. Not that I don't see women doing it but it's pretty rare.

ATTENTION PEOPLE OF SLASHDOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not comment on these articles or they will continue forever.
Pass them by. If you agree, reply with the code word "GIBLETS"

Re:ATTENTION PEOPLE OF SLASHDOT

[Anonymous Coward]

GIBLETS

Re:ATTENTION PEOPLE OF SLASHDOT

[Anonymous Coward]

PIGLETS.
No wait APPLETS.
No...umm...PIKELETS.

There are too many P's and E's in the above. We need more diversity. How about
FIGLATS.
No wait ACKLETS.
No...umm...PIKULETS.

Ahhhh much better. Except still too many T's.

Re:ATTENTION PEOPLE OF SLASHDOT

[Stormwatch]

GIBLET MONI PLOS

Re:ATTENTION PEOPLE OF SLASHDOT

[Anonymous Coward]

Shitty flamebait yes, but it still beats the long string of bitcoin articles we used to get hands down.

Re:ATTENTION PEOPLE OF SLASHDOT

[GuB-42]

Where are the mooing, haikus, and apk when we need them?
It's all systemd's fault anyways.

Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Prepare for Slashdot's mostly white Mens Rights/Libertarian audience to start whining about getting non-whites/females interested in tech fields that needs more workers.

I think what a lot of people on her miss is that there's a cultural aspect as to why some women aren't inherently interested in pursuing IT. If we stop forcing young people to play with barbies and dolls and try to get everyone interested in science, tech, space, and other things males are mostly associated with, we can make some progress in this area. Not sure if "boot camps" are a good idea though.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Except playing with barbies has nothing to do with this. It has been tried and failed miserably.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

fight on sjw. It's probably society's fault right? It's not like these 'under served' groups can make the conscience decision to learn on their own. Praise Allah for people like you.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like as a kid when I had to *gasp* go to the public library and find the section of computers hidden deep within the dark and scary dungeon full of little girl eating monsters? Yeah, exactly. The internet contains everything any would ever want to know and the best part, the internet doesn't care if you're male or female.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd hardly call myself an "sjw". As a general rule of thumb, people who use that term are typically feeble minded.

Culture certainly has a lot of blame in this. And you can't say that people can make "conscious" choices for themselves, because most people can't think for themselves. Just look at how many people follow the great scam that is religion.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

people who use that term are typically feeble minded. [...] Just look at how many people follow the great scam that is religion.

Exactly, people need to focus the real issue here: The Patriarchy.

Clearly this is a culture that allows problematic shitlords to have the audacity to ask someone out for coffee while in an elevator, wear a tacky shirt received from a close female friend while landing a spacecraft on a comet, or make crude jokes about forks and dongles in a conversation with a peer. Now if you will excuse me, I find this topic of conversation triggering and must retreat to my safe space.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

If we stop forcing young people to play with barbies and dolls and try to get everyone interested in science, tech, space, and other things males are mostly associated with, we can make some progress in this area.

Why the focus on tech? Why don't we push more women into other male dominated jobs: sanitation workers, fishing, construction work, mining, plumbers, farmers, truck drivers, garbage collectors, roofers, short order cooks, loggers, prison guards, etc. You know, all the shitty, dangerous, often low-paying jobs that are overwhelmingly male dominated.

If we're going to have equality, let's do it right: let's make male and female life expectancy and occupational risks the same.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

In my country we actually are for some of those jobs, but what happens then is that the meninists pre-emptively declare that 'women shouldn't be doing those jobs because they are physically incapable of doing them', and of course they also complain whenever women report sexual harassment or we try to do something about it.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, who cares.

I'm already making preparations to leave the field for good. It would be one thing if this whole shitstorm were positive: encouraging women to major in CS, encouraging women to seek mentors.

I mentor women. Do you? I'm actually doing something about the problem. Are you?

You damned well know this is not about diversity. This is about shitting on geeks because we do things with the magic calcu box that you can't even begin to grasp.

Here's a big problem I run into constantly. Once I get a woman to the point she has enough knowledge to begin filling in the gaps on her own and really becoming a productive programmer, some gaslighting asshole manager chases her out.

If you SJWs really cared about diversity, you'd be shitting on the gaslighting asshole managers. You don't. Instead, you shit on geeks. You know, it really does hurt my feelings to be called a sexist and a racist. It really hurts my feelings when you presume that I don't want women programmers or think women can program. It really hurts me that you've concluded, even though you know jack shit about programming or computers yourself, that because of the gender I as assigned at birth that I must be a sexist.

It hurts me even more that you ignore the gender of the body part between my ears. It confuses and hurts me that you've somehow managed to convince everyone on this site and the red site that your SJW bullshit is somehow going to have my back when I'm finally able to complete my transition and live as a woman. If your SJW bullshit were anywhere near authentic, you'd give me a way to complete transition without needing to change jobs, recognize me as a woman, and help me stay in tech.

I want to fight the good fight, but that's not what this is about one bit, and you know it.

I cannot change the gender I was assigned at birth. I cannot change the skin color I was born with. I need to change jobs anyway to complete my transition. I can change career, too, while I'm at it.

I don't think I need to worry about you SJWs shitting all over commercial fishing, at least not for "diversity" reasons. In fact, there are women on fishing boats because there hasn't been a concentrated siege campaign in the media portraying fishers as sexually harassing misogynists. So, off to a fishing boat for me. There are just a few loose ends for me to tie up over the next two years.

tl;dr Congratulations, you SJW weenie, but you've successfully scared this woman out of tech, because she was assigned the male gender at birth and has grown tired of being called a sexist on that basis.

Re:Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Prepare for Slashdot's mostly white Mens Rights/Libertarian audience to start whining about getting non-whites/females interested in tech fields that needs more workers.

First, we don't need more workers. We need more SKILLED workers.
Second, the article is a pile of bullshit designed to make it sound like this one company's Boot Camp programs are just as good as having an Undergraduate Degree. It's not even an article.
Third, you should be more concerned that women are attending crappy boot camps at a 3/1 ratio as compared to getting a solid Degree.

If we stop forcing young people to play with barbies and dolls and try to get everyone interested in science, tech, space, and other things males are mostly associated with, we can make some progress in this area.

Girls are indeed often pushed by parents and the other into playing 'house', and discouraged from more 'Brainy' activities.
But it's just as bad for the boys, who are often pushed into playing sports, racing cars, and also discouraged from more 'Brainy' activities.
The boys, however, are less likely to care nearly as much about being a Social Pariah. So the numbers start to skew a little bit... but not all that much. When you look at the Honors programs and numbers of "Brainy Kids", they are still pretty evenly split between girls and boys.

The real difference happens right around age 18, when the girls start getting pregnant. Over half the women end up with kids, and most have more than one.
Pregnancy causes massive changes in hormone levels and brain chemistry, and put bluntly it often turns a women (at least temporarily) into an irrational bundle of wildly varying emotions. Some have severe depression, many have Morning sickness, and all of them tend to get 'scatter-brained'. This has a very significant impact on Education and Careers. Even if an employer is excellent about dealing with pregnancies, the women have a much harder time continuing an education or developing skills to advance their careers.
Stack a couple more kids in after the first, and you end up with a situation where a large number of women are trying to get back to a Serious job or Degree after having been 'out of the loop' for a long time. That isn't easy for anybody. In a lot of cases, they only end up returning to work when the kids are starting school, and only if the husband isn't making enough to support them on his own.

tl;dr - The only way we'll ever see a true parity in the workforce is if women stop having babies, or if we force men to stop their Education and Careers while their "baby momma" is also out of action.

Stiletto camps?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's have gender-appropriate footwear: that should probably be "stiletto camps".

Not just women

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen a lot of niggers in these camps too.

The camps might be the solution to SJW bingo that we've been looking for.

Re:Not just women

[Anonymous Coward]

This is 'insightful'?

Fuck slashdot.

Re:Not just women

[Anonymous Coward]

*shrug*

It may just be meta-moderation.

If more comments like this one show up and are modded well, it will keep people from joining in discussion, thereby making "diversity" topics the ghetto of Slashdot.

Re:Not just women

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, well going by the modding in this thread so far, apparently only SJWs care about diversity now.. interesting how some people who point fingers and accuse others of creating echo chambers just really want to make one too.

You get these kinds of contradictions in strong political groups with insular rhetoric: like the whole free speech debate where people who want the freedom to speak will happily diminish others' in the process

Alternate headline

[Anonymous Coward]

"Boot Camp Graduates Who Learn Python Earn More."

(captcha: "fellatio" ...that's a new one)

Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally as an employee in the field it would be logical for me to be against these things as they increase the supply of labor which drives down my salary theoretically.

But being a long time employee in the field, I know it doesn't work the way these people think it works. You can't just pop in to your local coding boot camp after working for 10 years as an apartment manager or secretary and start crapping out code.

Somebody who grew up spending countless hours nerding out and went from hobby->job will almost always be leaps and bounds better than someone who went into software/IT as a career as if it's just like going to a heating and air conditioning school. "I'll spend 6 months learning how to do Javascript and Ruby and then I'll go get a $100K job!" Right.

I for one welcome our new narrowly educated, technically sparse "programming" overlords.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

With special Social Justice googles and code of conduct you can pretend that god-awful code churned out by the recent quota-hire and darling of the diversity programme is actually genius. If you disagree, you're a racist/sexist.

./nerval.sh 5

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not easy being green... in today's highly competitive tech industry (which you are assumed to be part of and care about to the exclusion of all else).
I am not a script, I am a man (or woman with equal likelihood)!
Shill? More like "thrill", amirite?
QOTD: "It's time to roll the dice[dice.com]!!!!"
This one weird trick will suck in /.ers every time.

Re:./nerval.sh 5

[Anonymous Coward]

I was actually surprised that this wasn't submitted by that script called "theodp".

Glad I'm Disabled

[Anonymous Coward]

As a middle aged, white male who's invested more than twenty years into computer engineering/computer science and started at an early age (eleven)... I'm starting to feel like the only reason I have a job these days is that I'm in a wheelchair and can be counted as a diversity hire. The rest of you non-female, non-disabled, non-transgender, non-homosexual, non-whatever need to get the fuck out.

Seriously, this shit is getting old. I hired more female developers at my last job than male. One of which was one of the best developers I've ever worked with. I helped a good friend who's black learn to code and he's not making a quarter million a year (way more than me). Can you even imagine if you started a "code camp" for boys only what kind of backlash you'd get. White males are the one and only group that it's not PC to form a group to support their interests.

Re:Glad I'm Disabled

[Anonymous Coward]

non-transgender, non-homosexual

Fuck you. Just fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.

Why the fuck do you fucking dipshit idiots think anybody wants homosexual men or trans men and women to succeed. There is active discrimination.

They want cisgendered women only. They want lesbian women only. They want womyn-born-womyn only.

Fuck you.

Re:Glad I'm Disabled

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, using next to nothing but obscenities does not help with whatever illogical thing you're tiny brain is trying to put into words. You also fail to recognize irony. Reading comprehension will help... now go back and read the comment again before you start spouting your foul mouthed nonsense. What you really do not understand is that I (the previous commenter) could care less if you are black, white, male, female, trans, hermaphrodite, etc.

The reality is that I am literally the most discriminated against person you have ever met... I've been shit on by all the mentioned groups because of my disability (including other people with disabilities). I do not want to get into why this is, only that this is the case.

Re:Glad I'm Disabled

[Anonymous Coward]

It just finished the last step of the operation. Where they sucked out half his (now her's) brains.

Re:Glad I'm Disabled

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't use call her it. I'm very supportive of transgender people even thought they've often hurt or otherwise treated me like crap. I happen to be "trans" in a different way (hence my comment about being discriminated against by everyone). It's another example of exactly the kind of discrimination she's referring to where one disenfranchised group feels the need to turn around and do it to another.

Beware the (cast)ing couch!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do they teach that in "boot camp"?

Of course it's mostly white...

[Shadow of Eternity]

It's ALWAYS going to be mostly white as long as people keep making other races "white" to prop up the agenda they're pushing.

Re:Of course it's mostly white...

[sociocapitalist]

It's ALWAYS going to be mostly white as long as people keep making other races "white" to prop up the agenda they're pushing.

Haven't you heard? [insert colour here] is the new white!

I'd just like to say...

[msimm]

I'd just like to say...fuck dice. And their shitty "stories".

*drops mike*

Re:I'd just like to say...

[PvtVoid]

*drops mike*

Who's Mike, and why would you want to do that to him?

Dice doesn't give a crap...

[msimm]

They don't work in IT. If they did they wouldn't write the clap-trap they do. I've never seen a more balanced profession and yet they bemoan it like they understand something we're all missing. Get off your high-horse Dice and worry about something other then your short term page hits.

Re:Dice doesn't give a crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what it's like in the valley (don't want to either, that rat race is not appealing to me)... but here in the midwest, about the only thing tech people really care about is that you know what you are talking about and don't hinder the team. I've worked with an incredibly diverse mix of people over my career.

Re:Dice doesn't give a crap...

[david_thornley]

What is the balanced profession you speak of? I've been in several software development shops over my career. In none of them, at any time, were there as many women as men. In some cases, the disparity was very large. There are statistics showing a lot more male than female developers around here.

The more nearly gender-balanced workplaces I've been in were back a fair number of years, and when I was young nobody was pushing girls into programming (partly because very few people had access to computers). Something appears to have happened to change the ratio.

I have to stop patronizing this site.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wanted to simply escape for a few minutes from my anxieties about unemployment and, boom, "newsfornerds" becomes yet another source of irritation.

Fuck you, slashdot. I'm out.

Cue SFSR comments

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the SFSR or "anti-SJW" movement, so predictably trolled.

Re:Cue SFSR comments

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the SFSR

San Francisco Samoyed Rescue?

Soviet Federative Socialist Republic?

Santa Fe Southern Railway?

Shipfitter, Ship Repair?

or "anti-SJW" movement, so predictably trolled.

I see what you did there: attempt to silence criticism by pretending that your SJW agenda is just trolling.

They teach you well in neo-Marxist propaganda school.

Re:Cue SFSR comments

[Anonymous Coward]

attempt to silence criticism by pretending that your SJW agenda is just trolling.

False alarm, everyone! They were only pretending to be retarded.

So is Slashdot & Sourceforge still for $ale?

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

Tradeoff is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Increasing "diversity" (read: instituting gender or skin based racism) is bad when you do so by reducing the quality of people you are working with... No-one is "threatened" by diversity, most welcome anyone who is a pleasant and effective co-worker.

But again, "diversity" is not welcome at the cost of losing touch with reality that work needs to get done.

Which is why the code-camps are a good step, because more women attend them and thus it increases the quality of women hires.

Posting anon because obviously I would be doxxed and/or murdered for these thoughts should I reveal my name.

Re:Tradeoff is bad

[serviscope_minor]

Increasing "diversity" (read: instituting gender or skin based racism)

Increasing "diversity" (read: shit I've just completely made up...

At that point, your premise is invalid. Therefore any arguments based on that premise have no bearing on anything except your invalid premise.

IOW you can prove anything you like by picking the correct axioms. If you're making an argument about the real world and your axioms are clearly contradictory with something in the real world, then making such arguments is a waste of time unless you're actively trying to deceive people.

Re:Tradeoff is bad

[majid_aldo]

code camps are a good step? if you represent the slashdot groupthink then code camps are factories of cheap labor.

Re:Tradeoff is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

So what YOU are saying is: Hiring someone based on the color of their skin or what's between their legs is more important than hiring them because they will make contributions to the team?

Are you a complete fucking retard, or do you just play one on Slashdot?

Re:Tradeoff is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Awful lot of smug fancy talk there. Unfortunately, for said smugness, he made nothing up. At my company you are paid $X for referring a candidate, and paid $X*2 for referring a "URM" (under-represented minority) candidate.

There are other hiring and policy incentives to hire URMs. Now, since URM status is defined by race and sex and the analysis or "study" of those things is used to determine said policies, I find it risible that you are claiming there isn't "gender or skin based racism" at play here.

By all means there's no equivalence to stronger forms of racism, and most certainly promoting the hiring of someone based on sex or skin color is not the same as burning crosses or lynching. But his point was sound and defensible. Your reply, on the other hand, reeks of smug self righteousness and effete prattling and carrying on.

Re:Tradeoff is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

is bad when you do so by reducing the quality of people you are working with

So explain how this article does that, or advocates doing that, will you?

What they are talking about is, turning out more qualified, QUALITY programmers, who happen to be women. Seems like something you'd be all in favor of, no?

Nobody's arguing "you should just hire anybody with a vagina, regardless of ability." NOBODY. IS. ARGUING. THAT. Except you, I guess.

Re:Tradeoff is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Try reading the entire post. Wait, hold on, you might not be able to understand that, let me try something else. TRY. READING. THE. ENTIRE. POST.

Re:Tradeoff is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

All quality programmers I've ever met or read about were self-taught. Everyone else falls into the "meh" category. Many self-taught programmers did get education on the subject, but that only furthered their already pre-existing skills. You can't have quality without passion and desire. The really good ones have a strong intuition.

If these women are getting jobs after these bootcamps because HR wants them to have certain keywords and check-boxes in order to get hired, that's a sad state of hiring. If these women are getting jobs after bootcamp because they otherwise couldn't effectively do their job, then we just introduced a bunch of cheap disposable labor and I feel sorry for them when they get treated like a replaceable cog.

Too many "competent" people

[Anonymous Coward]

We need more diversity. It should be 50% incompetents.
^^^
This is called proof by counterexample. When you're done arguing fantasies of equality for all in a job that requires precision and logical thinking I recommend you look it up. I have no problem with everyone being given equal opportunity, but at the end of the day I want the most competent person to get the job.

Re:Too many "competent" people

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you! Anyone in this industry that's had to navigate the nightmare that is the hiring process of recruiters and HR loonies knows how dangerous it is to put an (noble) idea like diversity into their brainless heads.

Re:Too many "competent" people

[KGIII]

Equality is about equal opportunity. Somehow it has been bastardized into expecting equal outcomes. Trying to force it is just stupid and will result in lower quality and yes, this applies to things like trying to force men into a field. Let people do what they want. Let people try anything, give them the freedom to dream big and swing for the fence. Code camps are fine but they should be open to anyone, anything else is discrimination.

Judge by what they do, not by what's between their legs, who they sleep with, or the color of their skin. This is not a complex subject. We're just making it complicated because people are unwilling to accept that equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes. Life's not a mathematical equation. There are many variables. If there's something preventing someone from having an equal opportunity than fix that. Stop trying to ease symptoms without curing the cause. First, determine what (if any) causes there are.

Re:Too many "competent" people

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Equality is about equal opportunity. Somehow it has been bastardized into expecting equal outcomes.

Bingo. A lot of people confuse those two things, with predictable results.

Re:Too many "competent" people

[AthanasiusKircher]

Judge by what they do, not by what's between their legs, who they sleep with, or the color of their skin. This is not a complex subject. We're just making it complicated because people are unwilling to accept that equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes.

I agree with you that there is too much emphasis on equality of outcomes, rather than causes of potential inequality in the input.

However -- the thing is, it IS a "complex subject," because people do have biases, often whether they actively think about them or not. People also are cognizant of social norms and expectations, which can shape the way we act -- not in a nefarious evil sexist or racist way or whatever, but just because it's "what we used to." Social organization can then reinforce these systems, again often inadvertently -- maybe the "different" person doesn't join in as many social activities that other people at a company do, because there are cultural differences or because the one woman on the team feels weird hanging out in the bar with all the guys or whatever. But those social activities outside of the job often are where connections are made, networking is done, etc.

I'm NOT saying all of this is relevant to TFA and this specific situation. But it's very easy to say, "We just need equal opportunity -- that's fair." It's a very different thing to modify social and cultural norms to allow for the realistic possibility of equal outcomes.

Life's not a mathematical equation. There are many variables. If there's something preventing someone from having an equal opportunity than fix that. Stop trying to ease symptoms without curing the cause. First, determine what (if any) causes there are.

Absolutely agree.

Let's take an example outside of the present debate on women in IT. How about men in nursing? There aren't any significant barriers keeping men out of nursing. There are organizations devoted to increasing the number of men in nursing. It's a lucrative profession, and there are lots of predictions that we'll be facing a nursing shortage in coming years. So why aren't there more unemployed or underemployed men training and taking these positions??

In this case, the answer seems mostly to do with expectations about gender roles for caregiving. Now, according to your standard of "equal opportunity," we shouldn't be worried about the lack of men in nursing at all -- they have equal opportunity to get jobs, so there's nothing more to discuss. The system is "fair."

But is there room for improvement? For example, what are the consequence of the attitudes that have caused the lack of men in nursing? There's the general expectation that women should do more caregiving, which often leads to a lot of family tension, particularly now that many women need to work AND take care of kids or elderly parents or whatever. There's the actual lack of qualified nurses that could cause a crisis in coming years and which is preventable if these attitudes are changed. There's the weird gender role thing that still seems to assume a man in a hospital must be a doctor, while a woman is likely a nurse -- which carries all sorts of bad stereotypes about qualifications, knowledge, etc. between the sexes. I still have heard even young people remark specifically about a "female doctor" or even a "lady doctor" as if the gender is important. Why, if everything is equal and it shouldn't matter? (These sorts of things regarding nurses also get reinforced in popular culture all the time, where just about any portrayal of male nurses in movies or in television is used for comedy or ridiculousness.)

So, while there may be "equal opportunity," the system ends up with unequal outcomes due to various social pressures -- some of which also tend to cause more harm than good. Similar pressures tend to keep men out of childcare, particularly for small children. (Some daycare centers clearly discriminate against men, mostly because parents demand it

Re:Too many "competent" people

[rane_man]

Equality is about equal opportunity. Somehow it has been bastardized into expecting equal outcomes. Trying to force it is just stupid and will result in lower quality and yes, this applies to things like trying to force men into a field.

I work in a school where a few people are eagerly trying to get more girls into coding. I think that's awesome. All kids, male or female, should know more about technology--if only to have a better understanding of the world in which they live. Unfortunately, in coding and/or electronics classes, the girls often dumb themselves down to be more appealing to the boys. This leads to the creation of girls-only classes, so girls can work without distractions. These classes ultimately get maybe one or two sign ups, and rather than admitting it's a lack of interest, people further the idea that girls don't KNOW they want to be in tech.

So, basically, down at this level we're saying all girls want to be coders, and if they don't make it, it's the fault of boys. Or the fault of teachers, who didn't figuratively beat them into submission and essentially force them into liking tech. Heck, when I was a kid I had a great arm and could throw with the best of them. My dad dreamed I'd play in the majors some day...but, at some point, he had to accept that sports weren't my thing.

Re:Too many "competent" people

[DiscountBorg(TM)]

That's argumentum ad absurdum, which isn't inherently good or bad, it just depends on whether or not the issue is adequately represented.

For example, if out of two hundred applicants ten are more than qualified, diversity doesn't lead to lower quality applicants. 'Best' can depend on subjective things like how you tickled the interviewer's fancy or whether or not you woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

Re:Too many "competent" people

[Anonymous Coward]

Judge by what they do, not by what's between their legs, who they sleep with, or the color of their skin. This is not a complex subject.

I agree with the your sentiment, but I couldn't ignore this error: You say "judge by what they do" followed by "[not] who they sleep with". Who someone sleeps with falls neatly into the category of "what they do".

Re:Too many "competent" people

[david_thornley]

I suppose you've read a study in which scientists used their Equal Opportunity meter on all sorts of people, and found them to be about the same?

We can't actually test for equal opportunity. As a male straight cisgendered middle-class white guy of English and Swedish descent, I'm really handicapped in discovering equal opportunity, since it's really hard to discern one's own advantages. ("Privilege" is a loaded word here, but the world has treated me pretty much like it should, allowing me to excel or not based on my own abilities and effort. The world doesn't treat people with certain differences nearly as fairly). .I don't know what's usually said to teenage girls. We can test for equal outcomes. Historically, when the outcomes have been unequal, there's very frequently been unequal opportunities. It's normally worth investigating.

If we provide a lot of help for the group with lower outcomes, we can see what happens. Will this actually increase the number of women in software? Will this increase the number of women in software for five years? At what ages does encouragement do the most? Eventually, we'll know the situation in some detail, and we can decide what to do then. I consider these things to be the way to start determining whether there is inequality of opportunity and, if so, where it comes from.

Re:Too many "competent" people

[narcc]

. How about men in nursing? There aren't any significant barriers keeping men out of nursing.

But there are, as you point out:

In this case, the answer seems mostly to do with expectations about gender roles for caregiving.

Which is why we have things like

organizations devoted to increasing the number of men in nursing.

So why aren't there more unemployed or underemployed men training and taking these positions??

In this case, the answer seems mostly to do with expectations about gender roles for caregiving.

Adding:

There's the weird gender role thing that still seems to assume a man in a hospital must be a doctor, while a woman is likely a nurse -- which carries all sorts of bad stereotypes about qualifications, knowledge, etc. between the sexes.

Why does this nonsense persist?

(These sorts of things regarding nurses also get reinforced in popular culture all the time, where just about any portrayal of male nurses in movies or in television is used for comedy or ridiculousness.)

Everyone seems okay with this, but when you apply the exact same reasoning to women in tech ... ugh...

Re:Too many "competent" people

[KGIII]

Where do you draw the line, ethically, with utilizing humans as science experiments? I won't even bother arguing that social sciences, as practiced, are not science but there's that to consider if you want to be honest with yourself. I think I was pretty clear about my position - there's no science here (no ethical science, at any rate - if any at all) so why you would think I'd advocate for using the scientific method to determine equal opportunity is a bit strange. I'm quite sure that the human is not something that can be entirely accurately quantified. Instead, we need reason. Not that kind. We need reasonable opportunities for everyone, regardless of their innate traits. Everyone should be allowed to swing for the fence and try to accomplish their dreams. To do that, we first need to realize that not everyone is going to reach those goals and that there will be lots of failures along the way.

Re:Too many "competent" people

[KGIII]

I should have said "what they do scholastically and professionally." ;-) You knew what I meant though, I hope.

Re:Too many "competent" people

[KGIII]

Someone, in another reply, was talking about how this was an acceptable science experiment. I'm not sure we should be doing science that way. Forcing data doesn't seem to be a good method for science, at any rate. Humans are not some group to be controlled like this.

I've not yet given the above much thought and I'd not thought about it previously. Pardon my terse reply but, frankly, I'm not sure what to think - at this time. I'm unwilling to jump to conclusions without more thought and without being able to articulate it better but there's something that you, too, may have overlooked. What are the ethics of these things?

Aside: I use ethics, the word, intentionally. To me, morals are absolute while ethics are typically absolute but are subject to change, e.g. situational ethics. Both are, of course, subjective.

Re:Too many "competent" people

[beastofburdon]

Or which person helps maintain the diversity tax breaks.

Re:Too many "competent" people

[david_thornley]

Using humans as science experiments? In this case, a class of experimental humans is getting an opportunity they didn't have before, that might lead to something in the future. What's unethical about it?

What I'm concerned about is artificially restricting people from using their innate traits to best advantage. This means that we find out what the opportunities are actually, and what barriers people have in the way. We use what information we have or can get. Obviously, given certain opportunities, some will swim and some will sink. This will be true whether or not we attach ten-pound weights to black people, but that isn't fair.

You seem to be figuring that the status quo is reasonably close to the best possible solution, and I don't believe that.

AniMoJo has gone shopping

[Hognoxious]

Why? Do you assume that all women fit into your prostitute fantasy?

I will add that the phrase "boot camp" is an insult to all those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki due to US imperialism and should be replaced with something less militaristic.

Re:AniMoJo has gone shopping

[Anonymous Coward]

the phrase "boot camp" is an insult to all those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki due to US imperialism and should be replaced with something less militaristic.

They are studying hard to get a job, not going to war. People need a safe space where they can focus on their work and not be harassed by privileged majorities. We should call these training opportunities something less offensive like, Concentration Camp.

Re:AniMoJo has gone shopping

[serviscope_minor]

Why? Do you assume that all women fit into your prostitute fantasy?

u wot m8? Also, why did you put a missspelled version of AmiMojo's name in the subject line? Are you one of those mythical SJWs I keep hearing about for whom no smear is too low for them to stoop to?

I will add that the phrase "boot camp" is an insult to all those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki due to US imperialism and should be replaced with something less militaristic.

I think I will call this "cargo cult satire". You've observed satire being done by other people and you have seen the motions which they go through and the steps they take. However, not understanding the underlying reasons means you are doomed to simply go through the motions while having no effect whatsoever.

The result of *that* is actually quite funny, for me at least :)

Re:AniMoJo has gone shopping

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Do you assume that all women fit into your prostitute fantasy?

No. I'm just assuming that some SJW will find offense with the term boot camp because of "US imperialism" and "US militarism". I was alluding to that sarcastically. And, voila, you prove me right.

As for my "prostitute fantasies", they actually involve men in boots, not women in stilettos.

Re:AniMoJo has gone shopping

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone typos a user name and you fly off the handle? Its not even your user name, well at least the one on the account your posting to right now.

Chill out already.

Re:AniMoJo has gone shopping

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who writes a sentence like this

Are you one of those mythical SJWs I keep hearing about for whom no smear is too low for them to stoop to?

is in absolutely no position to throw their tampon over one misspelled letter in a shitty name.

Re:AniMoJo has gone shopping

[Anonymous Coward]

the phrase "boot camp" is an insult to all those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki due to US imperialism and should be replaced with something less militaristic.

They are studying hard to get a job, not going to war. People need a safe space where they can focus on their work and not be harassed by privileged majorities. We should call these training opportunities something less offensive like, Concentration Camp.

In all my years of professional work I have only once encountered a situation in which a woman was immediately mistaken for being subjugated to a man. It was on a military base when both the female solider and the male civilian wore civilian clothes. I corrected the officer about his assumption by simply saying "You should speak with the corporal about access requirements while we are on base deploying the system." I had very short hair while she had her hair tied up on her head so maybe that led to the mistake.

10 types of people

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 10 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary and those that don't. This is all that matters in tech.

Tech jobs aare perfect for women

[Anonymous Coward]

No physical labor required and they can spend 90% of the day being unproductive gossiping with cube-mates.

Re:Tech jobs aare perfect for women

[Chrisq]

No physical labor required and they can spend 90% of the day being unproductive gossiping with cube-mates.

... while their male colleagues spend 90% of the day being unproductive and posting to Slashdot .... oh wait, back to work!

Bad taste

[zmooc]

This whole females-in-tech stuff leaves me with a rather bad taste in my mouth. We're discussing this as if we're discussing an increase in population of an endangered specifes. It's not. I think we'd all be better off if girls in tech would be treated as normal human beings. Celebrating each girl entering the field as if she's something special is really very sexist. In that regard I'm glad this was not the result of some strange get-more-girls-in-tech bootcamp but just a regular normal unisex bootcamp. I find it rather unfortunate, though, that girls are once again singled out as being something special.

Cannot we just quit discussing this situation in order to create a neutral playing field in which girls don't have to feel like they're something special, simply because they are not and should not be. It's not professional. It's sexist. It really shouldn't matter if programmers have tits or dicks nor should it matter if the number of males is somewhat equal to the number of females. The only thing that should matter is that neither sex should feel reserved about working in a certain sector. And I'm not so sure all this extra exposure for girls joining the sector is helping...

Re:Bad taste

[Anonymous Coward]

The ironic thing is that all this focus on "women in tech" seems to be forcing the women who are actually good at tech out of the field.

It's admittedly a small sample size, but all the women I knew who were great at programming have since left the field because they're increasingly uncomfortable with the whole "diversity" crap and they want to be respected for being good at their jobs and not just for being women.

So we're forcing out the good women techs and replacing them with women who just want to be fawned over because they're women, not because they're skilled.

Re:Bad taste

[gay358]

These diversity campaigns that are forced down our throats are very annoying and can make the workplace hostile to me. Why should I feel guilty if members of some minorities tend to be less interested in technology than I am, just because I happen to be a white male? As far as I know, I haven't done anything to keep them out and I have instead helped many women and non-white persons. Should I quit my job or commit harakiri? Or am I redeemed, because I also happen to be a gay (and thus a member of an oppressed minority), unlike those privileged heterosexual women?

Re:Bad taste

[Anonymous Coward]

Should I quit my job or commit harakiri? Or am I redeemed, because I also happen to be a gay

Well, you're a borderline case. We'll let you claim Oppressed Minority status only if you choose one of the following Redemption Options:
- Be a Flaming Fucking Queen. Just being gay isn't enough, you need to be In-Your-Face gay. You'll need to adopt a false lisp and be sure to prance, don't just walk. You don't get to be Oppressed if nobody knows you're gay.
- Get "gender re-assignment" surgery. That way you won't be gay any more, you'll be a 'Straight Trans'. Trans are, by definition, Diverse and Oppressed, so you'll fit in nicely.
The only way to get around these two options is to get married to your partner in a very public, media-heavy ceremony, and then Constantly remind everyone around you, in the most annoying way possible. Large, high-gloss pictures of your ceremony affixed to your office/cube walls are a must, with at least one (front and center) of you kissing your partner. More tongue is better. Be sure to wear a large, flashy wedding ring/band, preferably with some sort of 'gay pride' symbol on it, or alternately you can wear some sort of ostentatious medallion around your neck. Be sure to have plenty of Pride stickers on your vehicle, briefcase, and desktop background, in addition to a reference in your email signature.

Re:Bad taste

[Anonymous Coward]

You are only redeemed if you toe the party line. Once you disobey you are oppressing women, probably more so because you are gay!

Bringing more women and underrepresented grps into

[jez9999]

... the tech industry is a stated goal of many companies. Because reasons.

Over the past few years, these companies' diversity reports have bemoaned how engineering and leadership teams skew overwhelmingly white and male. Because reasons.

Makes perfect sense.

[sabbede]

Tell women they'll get a cute pair of boots and they'll go anywhere. [/teasingmygirlfriend]

Media driven SJW propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks to Obama and his divisive racist and sexist agenda.

Re:Media driven SJW propaganda

[DiscountBorg(TM)]

Are you sure you aren't creating the divisiveness? Easy to point fingers.

Re:Bringing more women and underrepresented grps i

[zm]

Women are also severely underrepresented in mining, oil drilling, heavy equipment operation, fishing, logging, plumbing, transportation and garbage collection. We should work hard to encourage more women to take these well paid jobs.

Crap post.

[LWATCDR]

1. This is a Dice.com post.
2. Boot-Camp? Can you think of anything that is more male centric than the term Boot Camp?

Meanwhile men with PhDs from schools like MIT...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are staying home and changing their kid's diapers while women with "Boot Camp" training get the jobs...

I'm one of them. My brother is another... Says something about our societal values on education.

Maybe women are smart enough to avoid tech.

[Anonymous Coward]

I always wondered if just maybe women have enough brains and objectivity to avoid tech.

Horror stories abound about the tech workplace from hours to career advancement to job security. There are plenty of good reasons to avoid a EE degree. Who really wants to be in a field where your career within your degree reaches a dead end with no further advancement after 10 years (the only way up is management)? A field where 20 years of experience is as much a liability (you cost too much) as an advantage.

It would not surprise me to hear that people look at the work situation in tech and say "Umm, no, I'll train to be their boss." or choose another field.

Re:Maybe women are smart enough to avoid tech.

[Joe_Dragon]

Or they are better off working mc's with Welfare then working mc's with student loans.

Re:Meanwhile men with PhDs from schools like MIT..

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who has a PhD, especially from MIT, should have a Federal Minimum Income of $250,000/year.

introduce them to H1B visa holder

[Anonymous Coward]

who they will train and get laid off.

Gender equality takes place ONLY on the unemployment line thanks to our government.

Re:Meanwhile men with PhDs from schools like MIT..

[Anonymous Coward]

[Citation needed]

Over 72% of the population is white

[Zeorge]

It'll take awhile to level that out. So, just rounding to make it easier and assuming 50/50 splits on race we have:

36% white male
36% white female
6.5% black male
6.5% black female
4.5% mixed male
4.5% mixed female
2.5% asian male
2.5% asian female

And then we have a really small amount of Native American/Alaskans/Hawaiins/etc...

So, when we read these articles on how there is too many white males or whites in general in any job, we have to normalize for the existing populations.

Over 70% of the population is white

[Zeorge]

And, depending who does the counting white can be composed of Caucasian and Hispanic. Or not.

All that gender-specific things like this do......

[mark-t]

... is perpetuate the idea that women still need to somehow be treated differently than men, which is wholly counter-productive to the genuinely respectable goal of gender equality.

If we want women to be treated as equals in society then people had bloody well better just start treating them as equals... That means that we need to stop fucking focusing on things like disparity in genders in particular fields where there is no technical reason that such disparity should exist. If it does still exist when society is simply treating men and women the same anyways, then who the fuck cares? Stop worrying about stuff that shouldn't matter in the first place and just treat every human being you encounter with the dignity and respect they deserve. Nobody can ask for more than that.

Oh goody...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we evil white guys can compete with the pre-anointed female contingent along with the outsourcing and the H1B visa invasion. Fuck this profession. Starting my own company called White Guys Only. I'll register it as a "Woman Owned Distressed Business" (yes, a real government classification) so I'm immune to most of the laws the rest of you have to deal with and hire whomever the hell I want. Racist sexist nitwits. How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that every sex and every race should be equally talented (or interested) in a particular field of endeavour?

Re:Oh goody...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on buddy!

Re:Oh goody...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh you're crazy dude!!

Re:Oh goody...

[Anonymous Coward]

What you mean evil white guys? HEY! "Black lives matter asshole!!" = all in caps but SD wouldn't let me...

How does one boot camp prepare you for anything ?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're a boot camp away from being employable, maybe employer's should hire you and offer a training.

Re:All that gender-specific things like this do...

[david_thornley]

In reality, people don't treat women and men the same. People don't treat boys and girls the same. I don't think they ever have or ever will.

Re:Meanwhile men with PhDs from schools like MIT..

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who has a PhD, especially from MIT, should have a Federal Minimum Income of $250,000/year.

That's definitely not true. Most PhD's in the sciences get positions as "postdoctoral students", which only pay $40,000 to $50,000 per year. See

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/10/04/glut-postdoc-researchers-stirs-quiet-crisis-science/HWxyErx9RNIW17khv0MWTN/story.html

Re:All that gender-specific things like this do...

[DiscountBorg(TM)]

Yes and maybe that's the point. Some say that just addressing this issue perpetuates it. But if you want equality, you're never going to have it if you put your fingers in your ears and pretend this doesn't happen.