Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Etsy Hacker Grants Support Female Programmers

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the glass-coder-ceiling dept.

Education 211

samazon writes "Online retail shop Etsy announced a living-expenses grant program for women interested in attending the free Hacker School 3-month programming course. The program is hosted in various New York locations (NYU and Spotify have both hosted sessions) and not only is Etsy offering $5,000 grants to ten women who are accepted into the program, they're also hosting the summer course, and have offered enough space to double the class size to 40 students."

cancel ×

211 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So... (3, Funny)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 2 years ago | (#39651185)

Can they teach my girlfriend how to play Starcraft?

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39651693)

I think it is always played using your hands.

It's gender discrimination ! (5, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#39651931)

Why only the women are getting the benefits?

What about the men?

Etsy doesn't care about their male customer any longer, does it?

Re:It's gender discrimination ! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39652483)

Because women don't have male privilege.

Re:It's gender discrimination ! (5, Insightful)

robwgibbons (1455507) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652815)

Men don't have female privelage.

Re:It's gender discrimination ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39653581)

Probably because it doesn't really exist.

Re:It's gender discrimination ! (4, Insightful)

LoudNoiseElitist (1016584) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652877)

Please explain to me the "male privilege", especially as related to education.

I remember my senior year of high school. Out of the the hundreds of college scholarships that were offered, only 10% of them were applicable to white males. We don't all come from families that owned land and people, mind you.

Re:It's gender discrimination ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39653057)

Racists have a hard time understanding that everyone with the same color skin are not the same.

Re:It's gender discrimination ! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39653007)

Funny how there are always two side to "Feminism".

One side says "Feminism isn't some extremist theory about patriarchy and male privilege: it's just the desire for equality, who could be opposed to that"?

But when you point out that some things go beyond formal equality, the other side says "Of course formal equality is not the point, since we have to deal with thousands of years of patriarchy and male privilege".

People make fun of the far left, but dig deep enough and they are the ones dictating most of our political discourse.

* puts on sundress and matching shoes * (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39651241)

Hey I've been out of work for 6 months and I'm not above going tranny

Sexism (4, Insightful)

AntiBasic (83586) | more than 2 years ago | (#39651275)

Who cares what sex the code comes from? I want the best possible, not because it's from a woman.

But such is the way of "progressives"

Re:Sexism (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39651415)

Aren't jackass anti-progressives such as yourself usually the first to whine, "but it's their money, they can do what the want with it"?

Re:Sexism (2)

HunsV (2615715) | more than 2 years ago | (#39651695)

Is someone who's anti-progressive automatically a jackass?

Re:Sexism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39651719)

Nice try. Strawman argument. I see you couldn't answer his question.

Why are women getting free stuff?

Isn't that "SEXIST"?

Nobody is stopping women from becoming programmers, except THEMSELVES.

It must be all those super-macho 'sexist' male programmers, keeping them out of it somehow.

Asshole.

Re:Sexism (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39651847)

Asshole

Well at least you admit it by signing your posts that way.

Re:Sexism (4, Insightful)

thesupraman (179040) | more than 2 years ago | (#39651741)

I suggest you put you knee back in its jerk, and consider for a moment how you would feel
if they were to offer a grant that was only available to men..

Reverse discrimination is no better than discrimination.

Make sense now?

Re:Sexism (4, Insightful)

HunsV (2615715) | more than 2 years ago | (#39651879)

I must argue strenuously against the idea of "Reverse discrimination." There is only one kind of discrimination. "Reverse discrimination" was invented by people who wanted to imply that some people are more worthy of discrimination than others, which itself is discriminatory. It is a perversion of the social outrage that rightly exists against discrimination.

Re:Sexism (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652883)

I agree with you in essence, however, "reverse discrimination" is simply a useful term to give more information about the type of discrimination that is happening. It is all discrimination, as you say.

Re:Sexism (0, Flamebait)

Arcaeris (311424) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652055)

If 51% of the population is women, and women have an equal rate to become programmers as men, 51% of programmers should be women.

But we all know they're not.

So what is the cause of the lower-than-expected rate of female programmers, and what can we do to fix it? This is the same thinking for any minority group that is under-represented. This isn't "reverse discrimination," it's correcting for an error that has come about due to likely social, cultural, and other roadblocks that shouldn't exist.

If you think that it's not because of any such man-made roadblocks, then you must be saying that women/blacks/hispanics aren't smart enough to be programmers (which makes YOU the sexist or racist) or that they don't want to be programmers (which is wrong, just ask them).

Apply this thinking to the low rates of minorities in various job types/universities/C_O positions, etc., and you might start to see where us "progressives" are coming from.

To say that the cultural and social oppression of a minority group (discrimination) is the same as trying to counter the results of that oppression is just ridiculous.

Re:Sexism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39652153)

I think you made a vital mistake when you stated, "women have an equal rate to become programmers as men,". Is there any evidence of this?

Re:Sexism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39652339)

They don't. That's the point.
Whether or not they would have an equal inclination to become programmers were the selection bias of the field to be removed is the important part. And we're not going to find out without either a very large and potentially very immoral trial or removing the bias of the field.

Re:Sexism (1)

robwgibbons (1455507) | more than 2 years ago | (#39653267)

Countering a sexist selection bias with an opposite sexist selection bias is still a sexist selection bias.

Re:Sexism (4, Insightful)

story645 (1278106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39653055)

Women used to make up %40 of CS students in the 1980s (Camp 2001 [cmu.edu] ) and make up on average a little over %35 of Israeli undergrads in CS ( Vilner 2006 [uleth.ca] ) and vary all over the globe [techrepublic.com] . This indicates that the current US rate of about %20 is due to culture because if there was something biological going on, then the rates around the world should be roughly the same.

Re:Sexism (2)

IceNinjaNine (2026774) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652377)

If 51% of the population is women, and women have an equal rate to become programmers as men, 51% of programmers should be women.

But we all know they're not.

Cite?

So what is the cause of the lower-than-expected rate of female programmers, and what can we do to fix it?

A hypothetical problem which may or may not exist.

It needs "fixing" why?

And considering your venue, the argument had better be fucking sound.. as in QED knockout punch sound, not I'm an emo-bitch social justice wannabe sound.

This isn't "reverse discrimination," it's correcting for an error that has come about due to likely social, cultural, and other roadblocks that shouldn't exist.

Apply this thinking to the low rates of minorities in various job types/universities/C_O positions, etc., and you might start to see where us "progressives" are coming from. To say that the cultural and social oppression of a minority group (discrimination) is the same as trying to counter the results of that oppression is just ridiculous.

Yes, because forty years of affirmative action has leveled the playing field.

I'm a Democrat wtih Libertarian leanings, and an engineer to boot. You so-called progressives have no game.

Anecdote alert (hey, at least I'm honest about it): I've worked with a number of highly skilled female software engineers, most of whom seemed to be math majors back in the day. Some were brilliant. Nearly all left the field after five years or so to raise a family, or to do something else more gratifying than working in software, thus becoming "non-current" in technology. And most of them didn't want to come back anyway. This may skew your politically correct numbers if you were to account for this.

Tell me, do you advocate research as to the lower numbers of men in nursing or primary school teaching (a.k.a. the "Pink Ghetto")?

Re:Sexism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39652475)

There are very few Asian Americans in the NBA.

If you think that it's not because of any such man-made roadblocks, then you must be saying that Asians aren't tall/atheletic enough to be professional basketball players (which makes YOU the racist) or that they don't want to be NBA stars (which is wrong, just ask them).

Re:Sexism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39652549)

We see where the "progressives" are coming from; but a lot of us think it's misguided.

First, there might be a testosterone factor wrt to programming. Further study is needed. If that turns out to be the case, trying to increase the number of female programmers is like trying to get more girls to sign up for field hockey.

Race is a separate issue. There probably are residual social and economic factors from the days of true discrimination which are holding minorities back. Many of us would hold that more discrimination is not the answer to discrimination. It creates an expectation that you don't have to work as hard. It also taints the "brand" of minorities (guy in next cube isn't White, people are thinking he got there because of af action and is less qualified).

Finally there's another reason to avoid pushing people in these directions that you probably haven't thought of. The demand for software professionals might be transient. If you train a bunch of minority children into the field now, they might get on the train just in time for it to stop. There's no guarantee that what's hot now will be hot when they're enterring the workforce.

IMHO, disadvantaged groups are better served by a program of strong academic fundamentals that translate well into any new fields that might develop. Reading, writin', 'rithmetic. If you can make it through Calc BC, the jPad 3000-mark 6 supercluster development platform will only take you a few weeks to master.

Also, minorities are in school systems in regions with low property values. Since school are funded by property taxes, hopefully they are finding a way to avoid trouble (by funding statewide?) YMMV. Then, don't get me started on teacher tenure and merit pay. If I couldn't fire a bad programmer, my software would probably work as well as the public school system.

Re:Sexism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39652561)

I agree. There should equal number of whites that can run a marathon as well as blacks. So we should prefers whites to blacks, when we select a team for the Olympics. This would encourage more whites to take up running and sort of level the field for everyone

Also we need to encourage men to take up nursing, day care, teaching and prostitution. When hiring for one, men should be given preference.

Re:Sexism (1)

HunsV (2615715) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652583)

Women have the same opportunity to get degrees and certifications in IT-related fields that men do. They CHOOSE not to of their OWN ACCORD. It was that way when I was in junior college, and again when I was in a 4-year university. The distribution would always look something like 27 men, 3 women. The registration system for both schools lets you sign up for whatever class you are eligible to take based on prerequisites, as long as there are open seats. If you are a woman, and you try to register for C++, it doesn't say "please don't try to register for this class because you're a woman." (Unlike certain grants offered by certain companies, which will say, "please don't try to apply for this grant if you're a man.") It just lets you register, regardless of your gender, because that's, you know, fair, and exactly as it should be. This is not a case of 51% of comp sci graduates being women, and then being turned away from jobs based on their sex. This is a case of the vast majority of women simply choosing not to sign up in the first place. They are making this choice of their own free will. To deny these grants to men is sexist. It places more value on women than it does on men. These assholes at Etsy would gladly collect profits from a man who sells on the site, but then turn around and tell him to go fuck himself if he asked for grant money. It's completely stupid.

Re:Sexism (0)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652929)

Women have the same opportunity to get degrees and certifications in IT-related fields that men do. They CHOOSE not to of their OWN ACCORD. It was that way when I was in junior college, and again when I was in a 4-year university. The distribution would always look something like 27 men, 3 women.

That's because women were CHOOSING to have NOTHING to do with YOU.

Re:Sexism (2)

robwgibbons (1455507) | more than 2 years ago | (#39653375)

That is such a bullshit excuse of a theory. If a person sincerely chooses their career path based on other people she associates with that industry, rather than her own goals and desires, she deserves where she ends up. I took drama in highschool regardless of the stigma associated with it and the "weird" types I met in the course, because I was interested in the program and what I could gain from it. If someone sits down, deeply thinks about their values and what they want to do with their lives, their decision is their own. Chauvinism is a problem in any industry, and to say it has any more impact on the tech industry is disingenuous. If there's any social reason why women don't do tech, it's because GEEKS are unappealing. Not MEN.

Re:Sexism (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39652627)

As a man who makes their living in software, I've decided the fact that there aren't more women programmers as a sign that women are more intelligent than men.

Re:Sexism (4, Insightful)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652685)

If 49% of the population is men, and men have an equal rate to become nurses as women, 49% of nurses should be men.

But we all know they're not.

Re:Sexism (4, Insightful)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652869)

So what is the cause of the lower-than-expected rate of female programmers, and what can we do to fix it?

Needs "fixing" why? I see no evidence that women who want to become programmers are denied the opportunity.

Why is it that nobody gives a shit about the lack of male teachers?

Re:Sexism (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39653117)

You don't understand. Every good thing that happens disproportionately to men is evidence that we live in a sexist patriarchal society. Any scientific evidence that men are better at something than women due to innate differences is evidence that even scientists are corrupted by sexism.

Every bad thing that happens to disproportionately men (or good thing that happens to disproportionately women) is evidence of men's stupidity, women's greater ability, or men perversely preferring this state of affairs. Any scientific evidence that women are better than men at something is just the scientific truth, which won't go away just because men don't like it.

Consider it a Feminist version of Bayesian updating.

Re:Sexism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39652909)

This isn't "reverse discrimination," it's correcting for an error that has come about due to likely...

FFS! When will we stop trying to fix crap we broke with more crap! When will we end the entitlements, the subsidies, the regulations, the "corrections"? All of which would never be needed if we would just keep our G-d damn hands off of this stuff in the first place. I swear, we are the stupidest creatures on this planet.

Re:Sexism (1)

AntiBasic (83586) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652983)

You're not "progressive." Your "progress" is discriminatory and painfully ignorant. Again, no one answered my original question about the quality of the code.

Way to be ignorant liberals. Again, I don't care who wrote it so long as it's the best.

I'm sure you liberal idiots would be marching with pitchforks if some company did a male only programmers retreat. I'm sure you also defended Augusta for their male only policy right?

Inb4 conservative

Re:Sexism (3, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39653303)

Your a sexist. You want get women making as much as men? You want to have as many females in traditionally male dominated jobs? Convince the female population to buy things for men just for the chance that they might get the opportunity to sleep with them. Convince women that paying for men to live is a good idea, and that the men that stay at home are doing 100s of thousands of dollars worth of labor.

PEOPLE are lazy. Half of our population is taught from birth that they CAN get a job and work if they want a good life. The other half is taught from birth that they MUST get a job and work if they want a good life. Denial that the extreme correlation between being taught that they CAN/MUST have a job and whether people actually do have a well paying job flies directly in the face of all evidence.

Times are changing. All the way into my thirties, a woman who stayed home was a 'housewife' (or 'homemaker'). A man that stayed home was a 'bum'. Today, we see a little more acceptance of men who stay home while their wife works, but not nearly the acceptance that we see of women in virtually any traditionally male job.

Re:Sexism (0)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652337)

Dude, giving a tiny grant to a group traditionally underrepresented in a field is not discrimination, neither reverse, forward or sideways. I think you and I will survive the terrible persecution of having to suffer a few women being able to attend a programming class.

Re:Sexism (1)

HunsV (2615715) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652631)

Yes, it is discrimination. If a woman wants to learn how to write code, she already has precisely the same access to resources that she would if she was male. If she wants to sign up for classes, no one is going to stop her. Since the women who want to learn to program have no greater barrier to taking classes than men do, they are in no greater need of any grants than men are, and the grants should be distributed based on actual merit, rather than something the recipients are born with and therefore have no say over. Treating people differently based on how they're born is a great way to define discrimination.

Re:Sexism (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 2 years ago | (#39653097)

You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word 'discrimination'.

Re:Sexism (1)

petsounds (593538) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652735)

I suggest you put you knee back in its jerk, and consider for a moment how you would feel
if they were to offer a grant that was only available to men..

What? They are offering a grant to only one gender. Discrimination based on ANY gender (or race) should be quickly shamed for what it is -- favoritism based on arbitrary physical qualities of the person. You're basically arguing that this is reparation for a systemic advantage by males. That only serves to *enforce* a gender divide. Fix the educational system, fix the cultural bias, but this doesn't fix anything. The courts have repeatedly turned down the notion of affirmative action, and philosophically this kind of thing is no different.

Re:Sexism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39652993)

I suggest you put you knee back in its jerk, and consider for a moment how you would feel
if they were to offer a grant that was only available to men..

What? They are offering a grant to only one gender. Discrimination based on ANY gender (or race) should be quickly shamed for what it is -- favoritism based on arbitrary physical qualities of the person. You're basically arguing that this is reparation for a systemic advantage by males. That only serves to *enforce* a gender divide. Fix the educational system, fix the cultural bias, but this doesn't fix anything. The courts have repeatedly turned down the notion of affirmative action, and philosophically this kind of thing is no different.

That's his point. If it were a male-only grant people would yell "sexism!", but being female-only is fine. Women either are equal to men and require no special protection or are inferior to men and require special grants (or are superior and men should get special protection, but nobody advocates that).

Captcha: thanks. Aww, /., no problem, it wasn't even a clever comment or anything.

Re:Sexism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39651791)

Don't think that was his point, you progressive ass hat.

Re:Sexism (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39651417)

Having women in science/tech/engineering/math (STEM) programs is good for the women and their long-term job prospects and incomes, which currently suffer relative to men due partially to lower levels of interest and education in STEM fields. Believe it or not, not everything is about what's best for YOU.

Re:Sexism (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39651529)

Why would you have it be what's best for only another, then? We can reach a situation that's best for all of us, but it won't be found through this kind of sexism.

Re:Sexism (2)

HunsV (2615715) | more than 2 years ago | (#39651803)

I'm glad my high school lit teacher had us read Animal Farm. This corresponds nicely with the part where the pigs start walking upright. They adopt all the mannerisms of the human farmers they were supposedly trying to get away from, while changing their society's motto from "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad" to "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Better."

Re:Sexism (4, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#39651799)

So if it's good for them, why are they not flocking to those fields? Why is it you who gets to decide what's best for women (the tradeoff of higher salary, for working in a field you don't enjoy) instead of them making that decision for themselves? Or are you saying there's some sort of problem women have where they can't make rational choices, and need to be enticed towards them instead?

Re:Sexism (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652147)

Or are you saying there's some sort of problem women have where they can't make rational choices, and need to be enticed towards them instead?

Just because a *market is free does not mean it is rational or optimal.
So yes, sometimes people need to be enticed towards rational choices.

*In this case, the market for programming jobs

Re:Sexism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39652491)

I believe that people have the right to be irrational.

Re:Sexism (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39651475)

Everyone deserves equal access. A person should not apply for this grant and be denied because of the way they were born. It's revolting and I'm glad to see other people have the same opinion.

They will deny people access to this grant because of their sex. That is discrimination. Someone who meets every criterion they lay out for eligibility will be treated as unworthy because they haven't got the grantor's favorite chromosomes.

Re:Sexism (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652259)

A person should not apply for this grant and be denied because of the way they were born. It's revolting and I'm glad to see other people have the same opinion.

You are an idiot.
There are thousands of grants that are amazingly specific in their requirements.
Some are based on country of origin or last name, others are for redheads, left handers, skateboarders, tall people,
short people, club affiliation, weight, religious affiliation, skin color, academic achievement, and so on.

They will deny people access to this grant because of their sex. That is discrimination.

Breaking News: Private citizens can choose who they want to give money to.
Ric Romero with more at 11.

Re:Sexism (1)

HunsV (2615715) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652677)

No one is arguing that private citizens shouldn't be able to give money to whom they please. The complaint that is being made by so many here is that it's sexist, which is the case whether the money is private or public. Whether other grants discriminate or not has no bearing on whether this one is discriminatory. Who is stupid now?

Re:Sexism (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39653385)

I dont GP was arguing about legality of the grant. Just that it is discriminatory and sexist. Learn to read before calling others idiots.

Re:Sexism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39651875)

It increases the pool of datable people programmers can meet at work unless you are a homosexual male.

Re:Sexism (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39651907)

They are offering the grant to encourage and promote the participation of women in the field. It's not like they decided, "let's give this money to folks who want to do CS" and then later "...but just women". As you all know, historically the number of women in CS has been very low. You can argue about why this is all you like. If you think the field doesn't suffer by not tapping into such a large demographic of human potential, you're kidding yourself. Medicine and Law shared the same kind of low numbers decades ago but managed to change over time and now there are contributions in those fields made by women that would have never happened otherwise. So:

1) Many people think it would be good to get more women involved with CS.
2) Some people are willing to spend some money to that end.
3) The hope is that once a critical mass is achieved it will become more socially acceptable as a career path for women and this sort of thing won't be needed.

No one is taking your resources away. These kinds of grants come into existence for this purpose. It's not political. It's not affirmative action. It's a private organization choosing to spend money for this purpose.

You can whine about it, but it really doesn't make any sense to me why you would. Let's get the best and brightest from both genders involved in our field. I'm a man and I can't understand why anyone would think this is a bad idea.

Re:Sexism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39653559)

They are offering the grant to encourage and promote the participation of women in the field

Except not really.

This grant doesn't bring more women into the field. Hacker School isn't a CS degree, they are providing courses for people already in programming. It might or might not be a competetive advantage, and it even might not be needed - if you believe statistics up there in the thread there are 20% female CS students, which means 20% of women in industry equals fair employment rate.

To encourage and promote the participation of women in the field they'd better give grants or otherwise attract new women to CS degrees. I doubt it that there's discrimination which doesn't let women to major in CS.

Re:Sexism (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39651935)

Oh you poor, poor baby!

You know what you regressive little bitches sound like? A bunch of fucking klansmen moaning about "a pack of niggers taking over the place."

How about you smack those uppity girls around a little? Not too rough or anything, just enough to make sure they remember their place- the kitchen...

Re:Sexism (1)

HunsV (2615715) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652717)

You should have thought this through more carefully before you commented. There is a difference between wanting to be treated the same as another person, and wanting to be treated better than another person. You should learn that difference. No one wants to stop women from going to school to be programmers, which is precisely what this is about. Trying to say that someone who wants equal treatment is the same as someone who wants to be treated preferentially, to the point of being able to physically hurt them and relegate them to menial work, is utter bullshit.

Re:Sexism (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39652009)

Lots of people care what gender the code comes from. Not consciously, not overtly, but they care. We're not in an ideal world where no one cares about these things. It's a bias, and it's slowly getting better, but it's not without effort.

You want the best possible code. I want the best possible code. Great.

Except society has trained most people to believe that the best code is written by men. And by the sheer number of men in the field, it sure seems like the best code is written by men. It's a bad feedback loop.

There's a decent chance you're biased against a specific hard drive company. Does the fact that they make the best hard drive get you over your bias? Everyone would like to say yes, but in reality they initially feel "ugh, the last 3 drives I got from them failed within 3 months. Pass". It takes some convincing otherwise.

And this isn't a problem which will resolve itself naturally, which is what you seem to think will happen. Yes, maybe it'd happen if everyone was like you or me or most of the /. crowd, but the world isn't like us. It's not that simple... this is a problem which needs actively worked on. And that is what is boing done.

I guess it's sooooooort of similar to how many companies hire only those with experience. Someone has to hire them in the first place in order for them to get experience. Someone has to step up, else everything stagnates.

Someone has to step up and give women a chance.

Re:Sexism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39652335)

I am a transwoman, I self-identify and present as a woman. I have been enthusiastically offered two internships in the past two years which were mysteriously revoked after I revealed I am transgender. It was never said exactly why my two internships disappeared before my very eyes, but I knew. I considered applying to hacker school, as I'll be graduating from college this year and have not yet lined up a permanent position. I could not tick those two boxes at the bottom in good faith, because I fear it happening again, even in progressive New York. The way the second one only lights up after you tick the first indicating that you are female bothers me in a way I cannot explain.

Re:Sexism (1)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652459)

You comment would be more compelling if women were not underrepresented in the field due to sexism. But they are. It's not accidental that the first computer programmers were women -- it's hard work, and why should men do that? -- until business realized how powerful this stuff was, and poof, out go the women. See ya, Ada, we got it from here.

Re:Sexism (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652469)

and/or it could also be a marketing/pr move for a web site that predominantly markets to women in the first place.

Re:Sexism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39652473)

You're just mad because you're not getting free stuff. The fact is there is a serious lack of females in this field. I don't think that they are innately better or worse than their male counterparts but if we can get a reasonable level of females interested in hacking/coding it basically doubles the amount of people able to work in the industry. This is a good thing.

Re:Sexism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39652539)

Your privilege is showing.

Re:Sexism (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39653479)

What privilege? Being able to take CS class or degree is a privilege awarded only to men, and somehow women are deprived of that privilege? Tell me that was a bad joke.

I suppose... (1)

Haxagon (2454432) | more than 2 years ago | (#39651289)

Having females at all in the hacker college is good, for some reason? I don't see how there's any inherent higher value of an woman versus an equally-skilled man; why not make this a merit/financial circumstance based grant?

Re:I suppose... (1)

Haxagon (2454432) | more than 2 years ago | (#39651305)

I mean to say, "having females specifically", I hate left-behind editing errors.

Re:I suppose... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39651423)

Well, firstly, meritocracy isn't inherently "fair" either: we're all born with different abilities just as we're all born with some sort of gender... and while we might be able to do a little about it, for most of us our dicks and our IQs are fixed. (Actually, we can do more about the former than the latter these days!)

But, to get to the crux of the question, the answer is that Etsy will have 10 young women locked up for 3 months.

Re:I suppose... (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#39651817)

The OP wasn't arguing about "fair"; he was arguing about "effective". Why is a female programmer more desirable than a male programmer (given both are equally skilled)?

Re:I suppose... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39651863)

You can have sex with the female programmer, of course. What an odd question. There are lots of good programmers out there and we don't really need to train up any more - but you can never have enough sex with enough women.

Maybe you're gay, or maybe people have become so twisted by political correctness that they resist the obvious when they feel they can't say it.

Re:I suppose... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39652211)

You can have sex with the female programmer, of course.

For the love of God, mod parent +1 informative.

Re:I suppose... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39652385)

They're not. So why are there more male programmers than female programmers, if they can be equally skilled?

Re:I suppose... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39651465)

You are missing the point and stating it all at the same time. It's not that women have an inherent higher value - it's that men also don't have an inherent higher value. However, women are severely underrepresented and particularly so at this hacker college, and it's not because women are incapable of programming. So maybe a little encouragement will help more women attend.

Re:I suppose... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39651531)

Why should grant money be denied to a man who is otherwise eligible? By only giving this grant to women, they are establishing that they believe there is more value in women. You can't have it both ways. If you would turn down a man who applies for this, who is otherwise eligible, you are implying that his education and future are worth less to you than that of a woman.

But you shouldn't care about someone's sex. This is the message we have been hearing for decades. It's a good message. Unfortunately, it tends to get perverted by people who think that some genders are "more equal" than others.

Re:I suppose... (1)

Aeonym (1115135) | more than 2 years ago | (#39651697)

If I were part of the otherwise all-male enrollment I'd consider it inherently good, but not for the reasons Etsy does...

Don't men sell things on Etsy? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39651313)

100 years ago, in New York, there were signs on Italian businesses which read, "Micks need not apply." ("Mick" is a slur against the Irish, for those of you who are not well read.)

50 years ago, angry white people held up signs exhorting black people to stay out of their neighborhoods.

Now that racism is almost completely socially unacceptable (except against Asians, who for some reason are still unjustly and openly targeted,) people who like to blame their failure to relate on those with whom they cannot relate have to find new targets.

If I was a dude selling stuff on Etsy, I would feel insulted. The owners of Etsy make profit from people who sell there, and then take some of that profit to offer financial support - but only if the person was born a certain way? Fuck that. It's sexism, and it's wrong.

women only is asking for discrimination suits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39651337)

women only is asking for discrimination suits

2nd Etsy Slashvertisement today (0)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 2 years ago | (#39651497)

Nice Slashdot. Way to be, you know, journalistic.

Makes perfect sense (0)

ghn (2469034) | more than 2 years ago | (#39651521)

They want women so they can pay them less.. Business masterminds!

Re:Makes perfect sense (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39651701)

Although I sense some sarcasm in your post, that makes more logical sense than any other reason I've heard so far to only award it to people with a certain set of organs.

sooo, i see you like to write code too... (1, Insightful)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#39651617)

here's my contact info... just feed it to your favorite compiler and run the executable to generate a QR code that lets you bypass the 7 proxies to my linkedin profile. btw, your packets smell like roses. you wanna get out of here?

$5000?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39651711)

If we have man tits can we get like $2500?

Nice to see some sponsorship of women... (2, Interesting)

trims (10010) | more than 2 years ago | (#39651825)

Because, for a "meritocracy", there's a whole lots of sexist bullshit going on in tech, and I'm not just talking about management.

Part of the reason that women aren't more prevalent in tech, is that as soon as it becomes known that a female is present in a discussion (on-line, or in-person), the tone of the discussion changes radically. Women have a much harder time getting people to accept their ideas, even controlling for level of experience. And, you can't tell me inexperienced females come up with stupider ideas than inexperienced males (if anything, I think it's the opposite, 'cause at least most women I know bother to listen for a bit before making a comment, where most young males just shoot off their mouth at the first opportunity).

No more are the comments about the technical correctness of ideas being discussed - nope, suddenly there's snide sexual innuendos that slide in. Women are being "bitches" if they fight for their ideas, but, hey, if I (a guy) strongly advocate my idea, that's just fine. And, that's just the start of it. I hear stuff (both in the discussion and afterwards) about such-and-such being "weak" or "avoiding talking" or similar. Not to mention the fact that during such discussions, I'll commonly see that the topic switches from "which idea is best", to "make sure that girl's idea doesn't win". It's annoying, to say the least, and I can understand why many women avoid tech - it's not fun to be constantly harassed or belittled simply due to being the only woman in the room.

The primary problem here is not just a small minority of males being the jerk, but that the majority of males present give them a pass on it, and don't call them on their crap. That's just aiding and abetting the problem. DON'T GIVE THE JERKS A FREE PASS. Pay attention when women are trying to comment, and tell the assholes to shut their mouths when they start in with the sexist comments.

Tech is supposed to be about quality of ideas, not personal attacks. Don't be an enabler.

-Erik

Re:Nice to see some sponsorship of women... (1, Insightful)

HunsV (2615715) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652861)

And, you can't tell me inexperienced females come up with stupider ideas than inexperienced males (if anything, I think it's the opposite, 'cause at least most women I know bother to listen for a bit before making a comment, where most young males just shoot off their mouth at the first opportunity).

-Erik

You have stated that women are necessarily better than men at coming up with ideas. You are a sexist. You are also a male, so you are sexist against your own gender. You should get your head examined.

No more are the comments about the technical correctness of ideas being discussed - nope, suddenly there's snide sexual innuendos that slide in. Women are being "bitches" if they fight for their ideas, but, hey, if I (a guy) strongly advocate my idea, that's just fine. And, that's just the start of it. I hear stuff (both in the discussion and afterwards) about such-and-such being "weak" or "avoiding talking" or similar. Not to mention the fact that during such discussions, I'll commonly see that the topic switches from "which idea is best", to "make sure that girl's idea doesn't win". It's annoying, to say the least, and I can understand why many women avoid tech - it's not fun to be constantly harassed or belittled simply due to being the only woman in the room.

Even if this is true, why should a man, who has done nothing wrong, be denied assistance - because of what someone ELSE did - based on the fact that they have the same genitals? We are all individuals. Treating a woman differently because she's a woman is wrong. Treating a man differently because he's a man is also wrong. If a man other than me punched you in the face, would you retaliate against him, or against me, based on the fact that we both have dicks? That would be just as unfair as it was when he punched you.

Re:Nice to see some sponsorship of women... (1)

robwgibbons (1455507) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652973)

Male chauvinism in the context you describe is not limited or any more rampant in the tech industry. IWhat you're saying is applicable to any field in which men and women interact. And perhaps even opposite in similarly female-centric industries. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with encouraging women to participate in technical fields. Balance is naturally ideal in any situation. The problem of sexism becomes real at some point, however, in trying to "encourage" female participation. The issue of why females choose not to pursue technical careers has no bearing on how we go about encouraging their participation. Female-only scholarships raise a very valid concern of sexism. There is a disproportionate ratio of females to males in the healthcare support field. Would it be sexist to provide a male-only scholarship for this field?

Re:Nice to see some sponsorship of women... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39653163)

Pay attention when women are trying to comment, and tell the assholes to shut their mouths when they start in with the sexist comments.

So you think women are so useless they can't even talk without the help of a man? If someone is offended that's their damn problem, I for one won't get involved - I can't even be sure if they were offended in the first place. I bet you don't take off your white armor even for coding.

This is great (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39651829)

If we accept the premise that gender is in no way related to programming abilities, the current gender distribution in the field means that we're missing out on a lot of great talents. So why is that, and what can we do about it? Sticking our heads into the sand and pretending that there is no problem sure as hell hasn't worked so far. I think we need to realize that there is a feedback loop going here. Getting more women into programming helps in creating role models and a less hostile environment.

Re:This is great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39652285)

But why is there a lack of role models and a hostile environment in the first place?
Programming is a field that (mostly) developed after the feminist movement, emancipation and equality in education. Maybe your initial premise shouldn't be accepted blindly.

Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War (0, Troll)

LionKimbro (200000) | more than 2 years ago | (#39651947)

I think that the way to understand the visceral reactions and willfully beligerant arguments on the behalf of so many men here, is to understand the intimate violence that men, and programmers in particular, have experienced at the hand of woman. I think that a lot of men intuit that their world is "outside" the home, and that women's world is "inside" the home. Women being the masters of the inside of the home places women as the masters of the inside of the heart. Since women say "no" to men's access to their own hearts space, their most intimate and sexual feelings, men feel that they have a right, and perhaps even a duty, to own the outer world.

To put it another way: If our culture was not sexually violent, if in our culture men had loving sexual intimate relationships with women, they would have no problems with women occupying "their" space. But in a culture of sexual humiliation of men, there is no way that they are going to give up "their" territory.

Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39652397)

this is totally incomprehensible to a person not familiar with your specific buzzwords

Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War (1)

LionKimbro (200000) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652859)

Ask questions and help me draw it out. It's hard to explain ideas that are not common, and I could use some help.

Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39653049)

Here, I'll translate.

Programmers, particularly people who post on slashdot, can't get laid. They blame women for this, because none of their problems can possibly be their own fault. Therefore they lash out at any attempt to get women involved in programming, or any other area where Slashdotters still feel superior.

Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War (0)

LionKimbro (200000) | more than 2 years ago | (#39653231)

And it's so obvious, right? Yes, you have translated well --

-- except for two things: 1. the judgement, one, and 2. -- (possibly) -- the shame.

There is a notion that men should be able to just "figure out" how to "get laid." That it's a man's job and duty to figure out how to fight the good fight to be smooth. That he needs to toughen up, and "just learn" somehow how to get women to want to have sex with him. Or perhaps it's impossible for him. Or perhaps he needs to learn how to dominate better.

There is nothing in such a man's life telling him that women do in fact already desire him. Rather, there is "faulting," that you have given an example of. Now he's a bad person, or a lazy person, because -- "hey, it's easy." But it's not easy to navigate sexual intimacy, and, further, -- he's not a bad person. He just isn't successful in love. The man and the woman haven't found out how to intimately relate, that's all.

It isn't a crime. And it also isn't his fault.

There are courses teaching men how to pick up. There is the pick-up artist scene, and on and on. There are people who will teach you how to play games. If you look at these courses though, ... You're going to find war, in the vast majority of cases. You are going to find war. It's like dropping your knife for an AK-47. You'll find success, of course. You can take out tons of people to look big, and win success. But the war does not change.

What we need to do, what I really believe we need to do, is to make a culture of love.

I cannot imagine that, if we had a culture of love between men and women, (and in all the sexual worlds, LGBTx,) that men would be trying to push women out of programming, trying to keep women out of programming.

That should be our objective. That should be what we are doing. That's how we can share programming, and every other field. Whether we are men or women, here is our hope.

Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War (3, Insightful)

LionKimbro (200000) | more than 2 years ago | (#39653053)

I'm not sure what you mean, but I will try to unpack some of the ideas.

"The Inside of the Home" and "The Outside of the Home." I am talking about the contemporary society, but also more broadly. Inside of the home is the space literally within the walls of a house or an apartment. Women tend to be the decorators, and in charge of the children, and in charge of care activities. I am not saying that this has to be the case; I am saying that that is how it tends to be in the majority of the cases in our society. Cooking, cleaning, household chores, childrearing, arranging doctor visits, and on and on. Also, interior decoration, arrangement, placements of objects, coordination of guests, and on and on. Even in dual income families, this is generally the pattern.

"Outside the home" refers to the political arena, the realm of work (in an office, in a quarry, at a factory, etc., etc.,.) Again, I am not saying that this is the required way things need to be. I am saying that this is how it tends to be.

The current fad of "man caves" -- or, homes within the home for men -- is a demonstration of this "Inside/Outside" division.

The "intimate violence" that men experience is the control that women hold over intimate relationships, by the withholding power of the "No." Men ask, women reject. The horrors of this were detailed by a woman named Norah Vincent who is a woman who lived as a man for a full year. She detailed exactly what it felt like to be approaching women as a man, and noted for the first time what it is like to be rejected as a man. Women frequently say, "I have been rejected, I know what it's like to be rejected; Man has nothing on me," -- but Norah Vincent actually knows that there is a difference between night and day between the two.

Women individually and collectively have the power to exclude and shame a man for his sexual advances, which he and he alone is required to make. How many tears have been shed by men because of the way that the sexual relationship plays out? This does not receive enough attention.

I am not saying that women are bad, any more than noble-minded feminists are saying that men are bed. I am saying that there is something needing analysis here, if we are going to truly understand what is going on in the relationships between men and women in -- and this is one offshoot -- in the programming battle as well.

Men know that they are at the mercy of women in the intimate sphere -- and they know where their powers are. Men know that their powers are in the programming sphere, in the trades sphere, in the political sphere, and on and on. Men do not want to disarm because women do not want to disarm.

I have already been called a misogynist, -- just for pointing out the game. The battle is alive and well.

Let's see; ... What else might be unclear, that *perhaps* I can give explain:

I said that "Women being the masters of the inside of the home places women as the masters of the inside of the heart." Here I am treating the home metaphorically -- but the message is very visceral and real. Men who love women but can never "make it work," or feel that they have to go through layers of game or interpretation or just giving up (humiliation) in order to "make it work" should be able to intuit what is going on, though. Men and women (heterosexual) have each other in a death-grip around the heart. We love one another, clearly, but we are in a war, we are in a battle. We need each other, and that need has become war.

Women can say "No," and hold themselves in reserve. Men can push her out or dominate her -- if not physically, then politically, economically, or "any means necessary," whether consciously or unconsciously. Of course, women can play the dominance game as well. But we all feel it. We know what is happening. We know when we are being pushed, and we know when we are pushing. At some level, we know.

My appeal is to people who dream for equality, true equality, and love, between men and women: To see the role that intimacy and romantic love play in this battle. I do not have a solution, but I don't need a solution. All I need is for you to *see this.*

Once you see this, you will be able to find out what to do, in your particular circumstances and more broadly. There will be nothing of coercion or force in the answer. Nobody needs to be forced to do anything that they don't want to do. You just need to be able to *see* this, and you just need to be able to hear the pain behind the arguing.

Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39652761)

hahaha you're dumb as shit i hope all programmers legitimately do get their asses kicked for being whiny bitter misogynists who post on slashdot

Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War (1)

LionKimbro (200000) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652907)

Misogyny? How so? I'm all in favor of women programming. I love women. I love programming. I want to share it with women. I believe in equality of the sexes. I support the grants.

There is no misogyny here; But I think I've touched a nerve...

Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War (1)

HunsV (2615715) | more than 2 years ago | (#39652969)

I think you are talking about love and intimacy as though they always go the same way, and that men are like "this" and women are like "that." But that isn't the case. Every relationship is different. In some, it is the man who doesn't want intimacy as much as the woman.

Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War (1)

LionKimbro (200000) | more than 2 years ago | (#39653301)

You are correct. Every relationship is different, and every individual is different. But there are some generalities that can be made. For example, we are talking about men and women in programming. A great many of the men here are "pushing back," arguing for the purpose of keeping their territory.

Are ALL the men doing that? No, of course not. But there are forces at work here, there are real lives being lived here.

Intimacy is a mixed word, too. It can mean a lot of things. Here I am focusing on sexual intimacy -- I think this is where most ("a great many") men feel locked out.

And I will push it back further: Even men who are happily married -- even in relationships between men and women, where there is no plan to escalate to sex, -- there is still the push and pull of desire in (say) the workplace. There is an intimacy even in this field. Just because a man's sex life with his wife has dwindled to near nothing, and he has given up on sex with anyone else, -- it doesn't mean that there aren't feelings, and that these dynamics are alive and at work within him and her and the society.

I believe that sexual desire is like a nervous system within the social organism. It is always at play. When a group of men and women meet together for purpose A -- something like "making money together" (at a company,) or "going on a picnic" (at a gathering of friends) or "going to the movies" -- wherever there are men and women (or more generally: a "sexual landscape," to include the LGBTx,) -- there are always TWO channels. Channel "A" is the explicit, stated purpose, and then there is always, ALWAYS, Channel "B": the sexual nervous system. The networks of desire, shyness, bravado, temptation, hope, sadness, at play in the sexual realm.

I've gone a long way from your comment, but what I want to say is that "intimacy" is a large field. 2 people who don't even speak to each other, -- just see each other on the bus every now and then -- can (and often DO) have an intimate relationship. So that "intimacy" is vast.

Re:Humiliation, Sexual Intimacy, the Gender War (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39653617)

That's an interesting theory, but you see similar anger towards Indian programmers, getting modded up here on Slashdot, even though they are male. So it's probably not just a matter of sexual violence.

It's actually rather annoying.......in the Trayvon/Zimmerman stories, tons of comments get modded up for complaining about the latent racism in America. Then in a story about Indian programmers, you see actual cases getting modded up complaining about the Indians.

What's the problem? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39652501)

I think more women should be programming. But only after she's finished the laundry and scrubbing the toilet.

Here's to progress!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>