Girls Take All In $50 Million Google Learn-to-Code Initiative 548
theodp writes: On Thursday, Google announced a $50 million initiative to inspire girls to code called Made with Code. As part of the initiative, Google said it will also be "rewarding teachers who support girls who take CS courses on Codecademy or Khan Academy." The rewards are similar to earlier coding and STEM programs run by Code.org and Google that offered lower funding or no funding at all to teachers if participation by female students was deemed unacceptable to the sponsoring organizations. The announcement is all the more intriguing in light of a Google job posting seeking a K-12 Computer Science Education Outreach Program Manager to "work closely with external leaders and company executives to influence activities that drive toward collaborative efforts to achieve major 'moonshots' in education on a global scale." Perhaps towards that end, Google recently hired the Executive Director of the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA), who was coincidentally also a Code.org Advisory Board member. And Code.org — itself a Made With Code grantee — recently managed to lure away the ACM's Director of Public Policy to be its COO. So, are these kinds of private-public K-12 CS education initiatives (and associated NSF studies) a good idea? Some of the nation's leading CS educators sure seem to think so (video).
Want to code? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you a girl? Great! Here's all kinds of grant money to help people make that happen.
Are you a boy? Get out of my classroom, if we have too many of you it will threaten our grant money.
That's "progress" for you.
Re:Want to code? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, it's more like "why is ~50% of the country not pursuing IT?"
Because when people find out that anything useful in CS that nobody has ever done before requires actual math knowledge, most of them will are stumped.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't "researching", they are recruiting and trying to change the statistics.
I don't feel oppressed. I just think it's profoundly stupid to try to mess with people's free career choices.
Re: (Score:2)
If they started explicitly recruiting only men, you would have no qualm then, correct?
Re:Want to code? (Score:4, Informative)
No, it's more like "why is ~50% of the country not pursuing IT?"
Nah; it's more like 99%. The majority of young men are also not very interested in becoming computer geeks.
The problem is that young women are being systematically discouraged from even trying to be part of the 1%. This is, of course, not restricted to just CS/IT topics.
Re: (Score:2)
>The problem is that young women are being systematically discouraged from even trying to be part of the 1%.
You do realize "the 1%" is a fraction, and by nature it can only be a tiny minority of people.....
What a strange statement.
Re: (Score:3)
They will become your next project manager. Then they can stop learning, because in management roles that is not required. (It would be useful though.)
At least around here, we have a reasonable amount of "women in IT." They're just not coding. There are a lot of women in management, testing, QA, UX - anything that does not mean actually writing software. Some of them have a university degree that prepared them for writing software, but most escape that role very quickly after graduation. I'm pretty sure the
Re: (Score:2)
"why is ~50% of the country not pursuing IT?"
and half of the population just isn't interested in taking part in it,
Answered your own question there, buddy.
Re: Want to code? (Score:4, Interesting)
You sound so put upon. I don't see many male politicians talk about vasectomies or the fact that women have held any rights in America for less than 100 years.
"Catharine Esther Beecher, daughter of Lyman Beecher, the preacher and revivalist, feared that woman suffrage heralded an imminent national crisis challenging the “most sacred interests of woman and of the family state.”
She pointed out that under New York State law women had more advantages than men had.
A woman had unlimited and independent control of her property but regardless of how rich a wife was, the husband had to support her and the children. It had also become easier for a woman than for a man to obtain a divorce."
"Almost immediately after the April committee meetings, Helena Gilder detailed the reasons she opposed woman suffrage in a long letter to her dearest friend , Mary Hallock Foote...
She , like many other anti-suffragists, believed in an inextricable link between military service and voting; only a person able to sacrifice himself on the battlefield earned the right to vote."
"In view of the privileges they already had women did not need political rights. Mariana Van Rensselaer articulated her particular views about women in articles for the New York World in May and June 1894;...She considered the enfranchisement of millions of women a risk not worth taking. Women already held more privileges than men under the law.
Specifically, Van Rensselaer wrote, a woman had control of her earnings, her personal property, and any real estate she owned. She could carry on a business or profession, she had no responsibility for her husband’s debts, and she was not required to support him.
She could sue and be sued, and she could make contracts. She had no obligation to serve on juries. With her husband she had equal rights to their children and, yet, he was obligated to support her and her children. Women were entitled to alimony in the event of a divorce, while a man could not ask for alimony.
She was entitled to one third of her husband’s real estate upon his death, but he was not entitled to her property after death if there were no children. Van Rensselaer concluded that the distribution of labor and privileges between women and men seemed fair, that the different roles of women and men were critically important, and that it was “slander” to claim that men did not already take good care of women."
But when someone invests in a minority cause
Except women are literally in the majority in the US. Men are the minority.
Re: (Score:3)
I am living proof that this is a false statement.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't talk about tubectomies either and there are plenty of female pro-lifers (I guess you want to take away their vote because they're electing people you don't like to represent them?). I'm not sure why any politician would be talking about something that happened to women 100 years ago nor why you are bringing it up. I am assuming that you mean about the time men got conscripted to go die and shortly thereafter women were given the vote.
51% of the population can hardly be considered a minority. Get
Re: (Score:2)
Rape has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever. Your bar for equality is ludicrous.
Re:Want to code? (Score:5, Insightful)
Claiming that men have no legitimate qualms when it comes to gender equality; that is sexist.
Re:Want to code? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll stop playing my tiny violin when literally 99% of rapists are no longer men.
If you're using rape stats to justify discriminatory programs against men, then do you also support discriminatory programs against blacks, since blacks are disproportionately more likely to commit rape?
Re: (Score:2)
In many ways IT people are just as bad as your typical right-wing asshole. They do not want to see anything done to help marginalized people.
The code doesn't care about your social agendas. If you hire less qualified people and train them up, you are quantifiably damaging the product vs. hiring people who are already competent.
Although I suppose you can argue stuck in your ways vs. still malleable somewhat in that context.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because that stupid hypothetical "evil affirmative action" scenario has ever happened to any of us.
I get and even endorse the principal you're espousing. Equality is a high value, and doing it wrong can hurt it's own objective. But ridiculous hyperbole just makes you come across as completely disinterested in the actual idea, and only concerned with a the argument as a matter of convenience to your own interests.
Re: (Score:3)
How is it hyperbole? The very existence of this program guaranties this is happening.
The only reason people aren't turned away is because they weren't allowed to apply in the first place, so they didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the vast majority of CS education related grant money goes to pay for mens' education, in spite of this. Period. We aren't being left behind at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's what women would have you believe, but they are experts in manipulating men to feel we're in charge. It's not the case, women have been running the show for the entire time. They are just smart enough to understand the value of subtle action, and humble enough to not demand credit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what are you proposing? Men be put at a disadvantage for the next ~million years to make up for the apparent suppression of women that took place when humans were barely human?
Sexism (Score:5, Informative)
End of story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Succinct. I like it :)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope.
http://rixstep.com/2/20111127,... [rixstep.com]
This documentary did a great job looking into what drives our choice of careers and found women are just not that interested in STEM jobs, generally speaking.
tl;dw - The more free and open a society becomes, the more likely people are to follow their predispositions. For women that means comfortable jobs with lots of socializing opportunities. For men that was more hands-on type of work relating to personal interests.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying that the argument is apparently predicated on a contradiction, and thus complete bullshit.
It could just be apparent and not actual, but OP apparently is +5 informative for basically not justifying their position in any meaningful way.
Saying "end of story" with a gross simplification is stupid as all goddamn hell.
Re: (Score:2)
Men's rights activists aren't actually interested in mens' rights. Every time they bring up any of their concerns, it's as an excuse to not make social progress.
I've never seen an MRA who posted anything that wasn't about rejecting feminism.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>"Why are you trying to encourage more [massively underrepresented group X] into [profession Y]? That's discriminatory to [group !X]"
Underrepresented? Why not ask *why* it's underrepresented, maybe then you'll see that there's a simple lack of interest.
Where's the big push to get men working as nurses, librarians, grade-school teachers, secretaries, and any number of other female dominated professions? Oh, because talking about that is *sexist*.
Re: (Score:2)
We do ask why, a lot of what we've seen implies early childhood cultural factors. But it would be a lot easier on the relatively simple-minded to assume girls are just different.
"Simple lack of interest" is such bullshit, because it absolves you of the actual question of what drives interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your major flaw is the presupposition that sexism is the reason there are relatively few women in technology. You are excusing dictionary sexism based on assertions of past sexism with no proof of its existence.
Secondly, no it isn't fair to hand people a proportional part of any pie. Not when they have the same opportunities to earn it like everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh forgot how nuanced and up for proper critical examination the stance of "sexism end of story" is.
No wait, it's not.
It's unthinking. And moronic. You're saying I'm being unfair in my fucking presumption? Why do you think to apply that "you're making assumptions" argument to me and not to that shit?
Re: (Score:2)
Since it involves gender, one or the other side *has* to be sexist. Duh.
So women are less than men... again? (Score:4, Insightful)
So now Google thinks they need to pay women to learn to code? What an absolutely sexist campaign. Women are plenty capable of learning to code, they don't need cash payouts by patriarchal companies; this is akin to prostitution and Google should be ashamed.
Re:So women are less than men... again? (Score:4, Informative)
They aren't paying the female students, they're paying the school administrators, who may or may not be women.
It will never work (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing stopping a girl or woman from learning programming/networking/etc. if she wants to, and these increasingly bizarre, desperate, and creepy attempts to lure in women will end up pushing away the ones who might have pursued tech careers otherwise.
Really? (Score:2, Insightful)
My salary has been steadily increasing and I certainly haven't found that there are skilled developers sitting idle at home. I can collect a small fortune in placement fees, if only I know some out-of-work developers I wouldn't be ashamed to recommend.
The simple fact from where I am standing is: There is a lot of work and there are not enough skilled people to do it yet we are only using 50% of the population.
But the sector has a massive negative image. Not even so much anti-women as anti-human. If you don'
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're oversimplifying. There seem to be supply and demand dynamics in play.
We have a tug of war. Google and Facebook want to increase the supply of developers, so the prevailing wage goes down. Current and aspiring developers want a decrease in the supply, so that their wages go up.
This is a very, very old kind of story.
Why I don't buy the misogyny argument (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was getting into programming in the 90's I certainly didn't rely on anybody else's affirmation -- I learned how to program sitting by myself at my computer(s) with very little in the way of two way communication with the outside world. I realize it's not the 90's anymore, but the argument that says you have to have a vibrant Twitter presence and go to local programmer meetups to be a coder today is, quite frankly, hogwash. It's about the code, friend.
Here's another theory that I will probably be flamed for -- maybe girls don't get into programming as often for the same reason that female deer don't bash heads against each other as often as the males do. Maybe it boils down to testosterone. Males of many species have an impulsive drive to accomplish certain things, and in humans' case this is largely independent of intellectual aptitude. Yes, girls are smart. Many could be good programmers. But do they want to? Are they driven to? Am I (at least partially) driven to my peculiar lifestyle of being glued to a screen and eschewing much social interaction because of testosterone? ("Yeah, you'd like to _think_ so" I can hear my naysayer naysaying.) But these are questions I honestly ask.
Re: (Score:2)
I do. Look at the first post on this article for an example. For that matter, look at the first response to that post as well. Immediately, Slashdot readers (who we *used to* expect more from) objectified all of these women. Twice. Before anyone else could make a remotely educated comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Before anyone else could make a remotely educated comment.
Educated comments take more time to compose ;-)
Grace Hoppper would be PISSED (Score:4, Insightful)
She would most likely start cutting down one of her microseconds to strangle some folks. We don't need to do stuff like this we need to get kids to learn from the beginning that
1 Girls are not SEX OBJECTS
2 Smart and Pretty are not exclusive of each other
3 Some girls can do Math and some boys can't do Math (and science and tech and...)
Re:Grace Hoppper would be PISSED (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they are. In the sense that men look upon women and have a desire to sleep with them.
The problem is thinking that women are only sex objects.
Re:Grace Hoppper would be PISSED (Score:4, Interesting)
I am not sure that calling someone an object is all that flattering.
Sexual partners.
My goal was to speak the truth, not to flatter.
I think most adults want to be treated modally, so to speak. When we're on the way to the bedroom, we want to be sexually desired. When we're on a conference call, we want to be seen as smart and competent and put-together. When we're on the sports field, we want to be seen as tough.
That's why I don't have a problem with someone being seen primarily as an object of sexual desire in the right circumstances. The problem is when a person only sees others as sexual objects.
Article -1 Troll (Score:2)
offered lower funding or no funding at all to teachers if participation by female students was deemed unacceptable
So basically the headline is completely debunked by the third sentence of the summary. It is NOT "all."
Re: (Score:2)
So basically the headline is completely debunked by the third sentence of the summary.
The third sentence refers to prior programs, not this one. So how "similar" is this one? We can't tell from the summary.
Re: (Score:2)
9 must be a record for most links in one summary.
Fur it (Score:2)
I am for it, as long as it isn't also construed to discourage the boys. That's the last thing we need to do to our "educational" indoctrination system.
In fact, anything that undoes the dumbing down to match the lowest achievers that has been done in the last 80 years or more needs to be undone itself.
Reading comprehension for instance, went down when they dropped phonics back in the 40's. That was a monumental mistake IMO. So now, in 2014, we have 3+ generations of people who cannot read the daily fish wr
Opportunity / Outcome (Score:2)
I am all for intervention to ensure equal opportunity.
But I am opposed to interventions to manipulate equal outcomes.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how no one is (Score:2)
Shrewd Google (Score:2)
The only reason Google is doing this is they're about to get hammered for having a nearly all-male workforce. Truly, Google could care less whether this program actually accomplishes anything or whether more women get into coding. If it works, great. If it doesn't work, well, they can always say they've poured a few million dollars into the effort and they tried.
Frankly, I could care less whether the program works or not, or even the fact that it is aimed squarely at women. This is because a lot of code
Reminds me of this Rails bootcamp in Boston. (Score:5, Informative)
Asian males and white males get screwed.
http://www.thisismetis.com/rub... [thisismetis.com]
I don't see this as a threat to male coders (Score:3)
As someone who tutors in CS while finishing up his bachelors, I think this is great. Too many times I see women who have the skills to be a good programmer but don't have someone pushing them hard to be a great programmer because it's assumed that the field just "isn't for Women." Women can be just as good at engineering, programming, math and science as men and I think the industry as a whole can stand to get a bit more even in terms of gender representation. If anything, encouring the women in our country to get into these more technical fields could help drive the men who are competing with them to work harder and perhaps we'll be importing less tech savvy people from other countries. My $0.02.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, you can't come to a conclusion based on a failure to achieve a goal.
You just know that method didn't work. Not that you can't make a lightbulb.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a little generous to provide "genetics or whatever" as a null hypothesis.
But your sentiment is in the right sciency place.
Re:Before you start complaining... (Score:5, Interesting)
As a woman and ex-coder, I'd say I got out of software development because of immoral companies like Google with their boot-licking race to the bottom when it comes to respect for the individual. My aversion to the field is an aversion to macho culture only to the extent that "might makes right" (i.e. "we do it because we can") is macho culture. I don't think they're appropriate in the workplace, but I'm not put off by sexist jokes, assumptions that I will fail (if anything, I've been treated too "delicately") and what-have-you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's never too early to start complaining. The criticism of "separate but equal" in education was that the "equal" part is a myth. Now we are experimenting with "separate and explicitly unequal" in education. Awesome.
And I think you're wrong about what a successful outcome of this experiment suggests. If you provide a different environment for women to study CS, and then they like it, they may just like the new environment, not the CS part. A credit is a credit. If you have to fulfill some science/math requ
Re: (Score:3)
Some of the leading computer pioneers already have [wikipedia.org]. ;) Willingly or not [dailymail.co.uk].
I know a couple trans women from Canada who use the phrase "tall woman with a laptop" as code for other trans women. Because apparently if you see a tall woman using a laptop in a public place, odds are abnormally high that she's trans. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm just one guy, but I'm definitely going to try to teach my girls to code when they're old enough. I won't force them if they're not interested, but I'm going to work pretty damn hard to show them how fun it can be before I give up.
Re: (Score:3)
My daughter was coding when she was 8 (IBM Logo :) ). She's gone through programming to being a DBA and has recently entered Computer Security.
I will say that initially, she was a bog-standard office worker. But since she grew up around me (coding, etc), she was always asked about computer problems. She had no _desire_ to be in computers (initially anyway) but eventually bowed to the fact that she's a damned sight smarter than her co-workers with regards to computers.
On the other hand, my younger daughter h
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Before you start complaining... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Before you start complaining... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the accept the explanation, they just feel that something should be done to change it.
Re: (Score:2)
Who knows if there's something genetic but there's obviously something cultural. Most women don't strive to immerse themselves in a culture that is predominated by socially awkward beta males. I don't understand why nobody accepts this obvious explanation for the lack of women.
Gawd, I'm going to steal that one and make it a sig.
Re:Before you start complaining... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the non-mysoginist explanation of what is deterring women from the field is that women are not being deterred. They are just not being attracted to the field because they are at a disadvantage due to the fact that they spent their youth treating men as sex objects instead of studying technology.
I have a better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Why doesn't someone put fifty million into figuring our why fewer young men are graduating from universities than ever before, instead of trying to "lean in" on what feminists perceive as "soft skill white collar" industries.
Sounds good?
Re:I have a better idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Why doesn't someone put fifty million into figuring our why fewer young men are graduating from universities than ever before, instead of trying to "lean in" on what feminists perceive as "soft skill white collar" industries.
Sounds good?
I work at one of the largest Universities in the US.
On our campus, females outnumber males by 3:2. This divide is growing. This is championed as a great thing for equality, diversity, etc.
Of course, if it were reversed, it would be a shameful failure that needed $$$$$$$$$$$ and political outrage to be fixed.
Re: (Score:3)
Why doesn't someone put fifty million into figuring our why fewer young men are graduating from universities than ever before
WHAT are you talking about? Actual numbers of college graduates AND the percentage of college graduates among adults are at all-time highs in the United States, even among males. (See this chart [nytimes.com], attached to this article [nytimes.com], for example.)
What has changed is that the growth of female college graduates has increased much more rapidly than males, so women are now graduating in greater numbers and compose higher percentages of university students.
But your idea that "fewer young men are graduating from univer
Re:I have a better idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Focusing on the escapes isn't focusing on the problem. Tell me, which sex is more likely to be diagnosed for medical "treatment" than the other? The current schooling environment is hostile to boys. *That* is the reason they aren't good at it, they are not taught how because the teachers are predominantly female and don't know or want to know how to teach boys. So the boys escape.
Re: (Score:3)
... wait to see if this increases the number of women taking these courses and going into CS. If it does then that suggests that women are interested and just needed the right environment or some encouragement. If it doesn't we can conclude that they just are not interested because of genetics or whatever.
Sorry, but women aren't interested or not interested in CS, or any other topic. A woman might be interested, and another woman might not be interested. But implying that women as a class are or aren't interested is sexist in the extreme.
No matter what we do, many women will never be interested in such geeky stuff, just as many men aren't. To be successful, we should introduce any subject to young people in general, and encourage those who find it interesting, regardless of their sexual organs (which r
Re:Before you start complaining... (Score:4, Insightful)
Another part of the "whatever" could be students visiting workplaces and finding out they've all switched to open-plan work environments with extremely high noise levels, constant interruptions, and zero privacy, and students are switching to other majors where they can have a career path that doesn't cap out by the time they're 35 and in which they have a work environment conducive to concentration.
Re: (Score:3)
Surely that should affect males and females equally though.
Re: (Score:3)
Why? Studies have shown that females far more than males dislike bad jobs that are particularly enjoyable and painful.
Bad working conditions is correlated with female uninterest.
next you are going to tell me that the high level of physical danger inherent to all fishing jobs is not what drives women away from the industry?
Re:Before you start complaining... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed with all but this one bit:
...a career path that doesn't cap out by the time they're 35...
Not everyone in IT is a developer, eh?
At one month shy of 45 years old, I'm drowning in recruiters wanting me to talk to people, testing on my part has shown that employers are hella eager to speak with me, and they all see "20 years of experience" right at the top of my frickin' resume.
Seriously though - where in the hell does everyone get the idea that just because your beard turns gray you're suddenly worthless in IT? Sure I've seen IT folks who are, in all honesty, well past their expiration date - but this is mostly because they've either mentally checked-out, burned-out, or they're deluded prima donnas with demands that no other employer with a brain would want to even contemplate. The prima donnas are usually considered to be rock stars within the little company where they've worked for 15 years or so, but discover to their horror that the sweet little deals they have with their employer is something no other employer would want to buy into. The first two are fucking helpless whenever something new or unusual comes along. None of these, single or combined, make up the majority, and judging by my own experience, most employers know it.
Assertions aside, there's also the hordes of graybeards out there who not only read and write COBOL, FORTRAN, et al, but along the way write their own effing paychecks. Why? Because they know the ancient languages which the trend-chasing .NET and Ruby-on-Rails s'kiddies apparently can't be bothered to learn. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, I'm 35 and my career is really taking off. 30 seems to be the age where things really start to move these days, the point at which you have enough experience to start getting the into the more senior positions.
I call bs on this one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the "whatever" is that we are importing a steady stream of H-1B workers to reduce salaries, and that you're about as likely to find a job in IT after 45 as you are to find one in the NBA.
Maybe the "right environment" is where we only allow H-1B visas when unemployment is below 4%, and make it a felony to fake job postings to give jobs to foreigners instead of Americans.
45-year old guy here says you are full of it. Unless we are confining the job search a very narrow area with a history of ageism (Silicon Valley), I call bs on that kind of statements (statements I've been seeing for the last 20 years). Some of my colleagues/ex-colleagues are approaching their late 50's and are still getting well-paid, 6-figure gigs (both perm and contract).
If you are worth your shit, you will get a job in IT regardless of your age.
Re: (Score:3)
Hear, hear! I'm 40 and just entering the most interesting part of my career (architecture and rapid prototyping).
Relevant to the article, I'm also a guy.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're in the Western world, in the Global Economy, you're not worth what you're paid.
Re:Before you start complaining... (Score:4, Informative)
If you're in the world, since the beginning of time, a lot of you are not worth what you're paid.
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, you're worth (in your job) exactly what you're paid, by definition.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
according to our social contract
Show me this "social contract". I think a big part of the problem here is delusional reasoning based on imaginary things that don't actually exist. I grant that there is cooperation in a society, it is an inherent and necessary component. But to claim that is a "contract", requires that the thing be voluntary and agreed to. That generally is not the case.
I find that most of the people who use the term, "social contract" want me to do things for them, but can't be bothered to come up with reasons aside fr
Re: (Score:3)
Show me this "social contract". I think a big part of the problem here is delusional reasoning based on imaginary things that don't actually exist.
It's a metaphor. Read [wikipedia.org] and learn. Yes, the social contract is an "imaginary" contract. It's based on the idea that for society to exist, we all have to agree to some principles. There's lots of disagreement about what those principles are (i.e., what the "contract" consists of), but there has to be some sort of implicit agreement. Otherwise, it's in my best interest to go murder you and steal your food and clothes and money when no one's looking, because it will benefit me.
Instead, we as a society hav
O RLY? (Score:3)
Seems to me that IT workers aren't worth that have been paid.
Some of them aren't. Some of them are worth more than what they are paid. Same in all careers and walks of life. Welcome to this thing that we call life.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like the older generation. The modern-day "brogrammers" don't fit that profile at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, the good old days, when civil rights activists fought for equality. Much better than today where the fight is typically for special rights and inequality.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. That's just something the ignorant conservatives claim as they see their white christianist privilege fading. Have you immersed yourself in the wingnut hate-radio/loon-blog/Fox News subculture?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Take all? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because sexualization of women whenever the topic of women in IT comes up is a great way to interest more women in IT?
Re: (Score:2)
What does that prove? And "pander" is an emotionally loaded word...but you're using "queers and pansy [sic]" so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
You're assuming a base morality that a lot of Slashdotters don't share.