[dinkumthinkum]

Why not? This is one of the hardest hit economic demographics in the country. I don't think targeting it to be specifically for them is bad; in fact I think it is probably best. This demographics tends to get lost in the "need more women in tech" crowd.

[IanDrake]

>Why not?

I agree - IF we can also agree that groups for "White Women", "Bald Hispanic Men Under 40", etc... are also allowed.

Society needs to come to a consensus on this. Either there is a useful purpose to segmenting private groups by age, gender, race, income, etc... or there isn't. If there is a valid purpose, then we should all agree that all possible combination of these factors are equally valid.

The end result is that some poor white woman won't be able to attend because of the color of her skin. I'm not sure what happens to her mulatto friend...I guess it depends how black she looks.

[dinkumthinkum]

But this is nothing more than naive pedantry. There is a very large economic demographic in this country that is apparently at a disadvantage. It's called black girls/females. It's not bald hispanic athiests, or freckle-faced Irish mormons or celebrity scientologists that have blond hair.

There is a real problem that can potentially be solved. You can play this game if you want but there is quite clearly a qualitative difference between groups like "black girls" and "bald hispanic men under 40." It's just ridiculous; it's sophomoric to conflate the two.

As to your last point, so the perfect is the enemy of the good? The end goal is to help real people, not sit in an ivory tower and debate about whether "race even exists" or any of this nonsense. If calling the group "Black Girls Can Code" allows the group to raise more money and help a very specific group of girls, then that is good.

I think there is a good reason to think that if there was a group called "Woman Can Code" that this particular group/demographic would not benefit as much as it might as it is currently labeled (perhaps less participation, perhaps drowned out by the others, etc). We can be pedantic and cry foul that "Wah, there is not a White Women group or a Native American Transgender" group but that doesn't end up helping anyone.

The world is more complex than that. "Bald Hispanic" is not a comparison to "black girls" any serious person would make.

[IanDrake]

>There is a very large economic demographic in this country that is apparently at a disadvantage. It's called black girls/females.

The only point in your reply that I understand is that you believe black women are poor, therefore typical social rules regarding segregation don't apply.

>If calling the group "Black Girls Can Code" allows the group to raise more money...

By this logic you are OK with a group called "White boys can code" IF it helped that group raise money? And why not, these could be boys from Appalachia who have Mountain Dew and Snickers for dinner every night.

I think this is a conversation worth having. At some point we need to go beyond convenient stereo types and get to the root of the problem.

[dinkumthinkum]

> The only point in your reply that I understand is that you believe black women are poor, therefore typical social rules regarding segregation don't apply.

I don't know why you're having trouble understanding this. This stuff is pretty basic to understand. Your view is childish and pedantic. "Wah realizing there are social mores in effect in the real world is just segregation."

> By this logic you are OK with a group called "White boys can code" IF it helped that group raise money? And why not, these could be boys from Appalachia who have Mountain Dew and Snickers for dinner every night.

No, I think there are qualitative social implications that we all recognize when we stop making silly statements like "Why is there not White Entertainment Television." But I do think having groups as you suggested is a good idea but I think the naming of them should pay attention to social realities.

[IanDrake]

>This stuff is pretty basic to understand.

Well then help me...

>Your view is childish and pedantic.

Ad hominem, not helpful.

>No, I think there are qualitative social implications that we all recognize

Emphasis mine. Like what? Black people are poor, so they get a pass? Is that what you mean? Jesus, just say it.

>But I do think having groups as you suggested is a good idea but I think the naming of them should pay attention to social realities.

What are your version of social realities? You say this shit with a wink and a nod...You know blacks are poor, asians are good with numbers, jews are good with money, whites are oppressors, and gays speak with a lisp. Are these the "social realities" you speak of?

For the love of god, stop being so vague and just say what you mean. For instance, the following is my exact feeling on this matter.

There are only two non-bigoted positions to have on this issue. One, it's OK for people to segregate private groups by race, gender, etc... Or, two, its not OK at all. Any position in between can only be justified by relying on stereo types.

[dinkumthinkum]

That's not ad hominem, look it up. Your view is childish and pedantic, exactly. You are more concerned with what you suppose to be technically "segregation."

You said all the racist stuff not me. I didn't say that blacks are poor so the get a pass. I said they are social realities that reasonable people, i.e. non-childlike pedants, that understand. :)

There are people still alive that lived under Jim Crow. It is only very recently that public bigotry against black people has been considered taboo. People always trot out "slavery's been over for 150 years" bit but the problems begot by slavery didn't go away over night. In fact, we have some moron on this thread spouting off about how whites are intellectually superior to blacks and the best response most on HN have to that is "Well, we should really consider charitably the intellectual possibility the blacks are 'stupider' than whites."

You've offered nothing more than a false dichotomy in your last statement. Black people have been inundated with the statements both direct and indirect of inferiority. As well, whether you believe it or not, many places even in our current situation are made to feel as the other. Being "black girls" is part of the identify of many "girls that happen to be black (if I'm going to play this pedantic game with you)." Therefore, what exactly with promoting a notion that something fundamental to their identity is good, i.e. "Black Girls Can Code?"

Maybe your jibber jabber would make sense if we were robots or Vulcans, but I mean, that's just no reality. I'm sorry, I can't change that for you. The world is more complicated than you think it is, welcome to Earth.

Do you really want me to explain all of the culture of the Western world to you? I mean it may seem that I'm shirking from a responsibility by not offering you one but it just seems ridiculous that you would need one.

[rmc]

Not all defintions of racism mean "Any segmentation based on skin colour". Some people define racism as a privileged powerful racial group discriminating and holding back a disadvantaged racial group.

So yes, a programme that targets helping black people in tech is not racist, but helping white people in tech is racist.

[unit_testing]

Are poor, uneducated whites less worthy of help than wealthy, affluent blacks?

If you believe so, you're a bigot.

Also, are poor, uneducated whites less worthy of help than poor, uneducated blacks?

[unit_testing]

I can't reply to your comment, so I'll comment here.

Let's think about some poor, uneducated white kids living in a trailer park without an internet connection. What should they feel when they hear of programs like this? "I'm not important enough to help, because people who look like me already have good jobs?" How should they feel about the myriad of programs and scholarships which explicitly exclude them?

At this point, being black isn't a disadvantage in-and-of-itself. Being poor is a disadvantage, and blacks are more likely to be born poor due in no small part to slavery. But all things being equal, being a poor white person is more difficult than being a poor black person.

And they shouldn't be excluded.

[wpietri]

> being a poor white person is more difficult than being a poor black person

Evidence? I'd especially like to see a video of you visiting the trailer parks and public housing projects of America and asking people if they agree with that. I'm not sure which group would take more exception to it.

Regardless, as a former poor white person, I think it's bullshit.

[rmc]

Poor uneducated people (yes including whites) are a disadvantaged group compared to rich people. We should set up a group targetting them.

There are numerous advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Some people are in 1 or 2 or lots. We should try to end all disadvantagness. I don't see a contradiction.

[prayag]

>Are poor, uneducated whites less worthy of help than wealthy, affluent blacks?

Of course not, but in most cases poor uneducated white people are not poor and uneducated because of the racial dynamics. In a lot of cases, the poor black women are poor because of the racial and gender dynamics.

[jbattle]

I think the general rule keys around the relative level of privilege a group holds in the relevant society.

I don't see society coming to consensus on this any time soon - but a lack of consensus doesn't and shouldn't stop private meetings that don't clearly cause or promote or contribute to harm to others

[wpietri]

Society does pretty much have a consensus on this. If you're working to reduce privilege and increase fairness, some selectivity based on race, gender, and sexual orientation is allowed.

So a group for helping women is considered cricket, but one focused on white women probably wouldn't be, because white people are already privileged enough.

[petercooper]

Unless they edited the post, it sounded to me that dusing agrees and likes the idea of it being that specific demographic.