This isn't an academic question. The tech industry is one of the very few left where large numbers of men from diverse backgrounds are doing well. For many who are struggling, it's the best shot they have. Men receive less financial aid for college and graduate with more debt... if they graduate. Women now outnumber men 3 to 2 in current graduating classes in the US. Far more men than women suffer poverty and homelessness. Amazingly, it's common for shelters to refuse single men.
Does Hacker School and its sponsor's "need based" help truly discriminate against the very group—poor, non-degreed men—that society treats so callously?
The last thing I want to see is women being dismissed or shut out of opportunities purely out of chauvinist ignorance, but when it comes to poverty and need it's almost like our society has empathy only for women and children. Recognizing this doesn't mean becoming blind to the glass ceiling that women often hit at the high-end of the career ladder. Both are problems. This really is an issue where two wrongs don't make a right.
Disclaimer: I earned well under $10k living in SF last year and faced some of this pain personally. I overcame the obstacles in my path and am now in a great situation... but I can't help but feel for those I know who aren't.
Does Hacker School and its sponsor's "need based" help truly discriminate against the very group—poor, non-degreed men—that society treats so callously?
Sure, why not? They will receive nothing but praise for making it easier for women to do Hacker School.
Put on your cynic's Thinking Hat for a moment. The fundamental question of politics is "Who? Whom?" Who's doing and who's being done to. Feminism is an "in" political movement. It has power and positive pr. Why would any of the companies sponsoring these grants choose to spend their pr dollars less effectively by letting undifferentiated men apply? Some day there will be bursaries for other groups polite society is in favour of helping. If the group is in fact over represented in CS/programming already, say Indians, the justification will be changed and no will say anything.
TL;DR All politics is coalition politics. Feminism has positive pr, the closest male equivalent, men's rights are seen as a bunch of bitter, shrill, misogynistic losers. Why waste your PR dollars?
This is a good comment. It's easy to forget that the proportion of people "above the glass ceiling" is tiny, regardless of gender. Girls outperform boys consistently through school and, as you've said, admissions to university have a significant gender skew. With the decline of many of the more traditional blue collar male-dominated industries, our system is quietly failing a high proportion of boys.
It's hard to discuss this stuff without verging dangerously close to the rather toxic "mens rights" movement, but I think there needs to be more recognition that the male dominated glass floored executive club is not just a "boys club", but an "old boys club". It's not particularly welcoming to women, but it's also not particularly welcoming to men from the wrong class or background. Our organisations may have a male dominated executive, but the middle layer is rapidly becoming skewed the opposite way.
When we talk about "equal opportunities" only in the context of gender, I think we miss the less obvious inequalities in our industry. Walk into an office of software engineers and it's immediately obvious that there's a significant gender imbalance. What isn't obvious without asking questions is that there's also a significant imbalance in socioeconomic background.
I should add that I'm not aiming to detract from efforts to see greater gender equality in our industry. My first comments apply more to broader society than tech, and I'm definitely an advocate for equal opportunities regardless of gender. This challenge is, however, much less black and white than it's sometimes portrayed in the media.
If you're a man, you're on your own because you obviously have privilege. Strong empowered wymyn need these grants because patriarchy. /s
Women complain about the glass ceiling but they also have the glass cellar which keeps them from going to the bottom. More men may be at the top but they also over-represent the bottom of society and no one talks about that.
What Google's doing here is a social engineering experiment. They don't just want equal opportunity, they want equal outcome. Because biological differences of the sexes don't real and every kid deserves a medal for participation. And people wonder why businesses are moving their manufacturing away from America.
Given that this is for an institution called `Hacker School`, and I have a feeling that your stats aren't P(x | studying CS), I don't really see how this is particularly relevant. The grant isn't give as part of a `help women in financial need` project, it's given as part of a `help increase the proportion of people in the tech industry who are women`.
If you want to increase the proportion of people in the tech industry who are women, do out reach, eliminate glass ceilings in management, and sponsor research into industry causes of gender bias.
Doing gender discriminations to "counter" gender discriminations is neither a good or effective way. It's lazy, and only causes more harm.
What do you think this is if not outreach? Any sort of outreach will be targeted. I can only imagine you would be in those threads complaining about "gender discrimination" because Company X created women-focused programming classes or the like.
There's plenty of research into "industry causes of gender bias." This is one of the solutions. You're basically claiming that because this doesn't completely solve the gender divide, it's lazy and worthless. Well, sorry, but that's not how the world works. This is one of many small steps into getting more women interested in programming, which then eliminates the glass ceilings and discrimination.
How you and the others in this thread don't see this is just baffling.
Are you defining preferential treatment as outreach? Thats not only a very odd definition, but also creates the idea that glass ceilings is some form of outreach for male leaders.
The definition of "Outreach", is an method that are used to fill in the gap in the services provided by mainstream means, to the purpose of reaching groups who otherwise would not be aware of existing services (In this case, education). This doesn't do that. Mozilla mentor program for example is one that does. Compare and see the difference.
women-exclusive classes do not work, and are indeed counter-productive. Any research of this has proven this point. When the Sweden government body tried it, it was found to be ineffective, counter-productive (created more separation between sexes), and declared illegal in the last years. Sadly, given the current gender politics, little money has been spent to answer why it failed, as it is easier to simply ignore the fact that it failed.
So to reiterate, This is not one of the solutions, its a illusion of an solution that do harm rather than good. It is worthless, because it do not work and causes harm. It is lazy, because other groups has shown (like Mozilla) how to do it right. In the real world, thats how progress work. You discard what is a step backward, and only use what is a step forward. Small step backwards are still backward steps.
What is baffling is how people keep disregarding any sense of scientific method. Just because a previous theory is thought to be working, one should not be ignorant to new information.
> Outreach is used fill in the gap in the services provided by mainstream means
Check.
> to reach groups who otherwise would not be aware of existing services (In this case, education).
Check.
It does both things. It fills the gap of an affordable, welcoming resource for women who have an interest in programming, and it reaches women who would otherwise not be aware of a resource that is friendly toward them. You just don't like that it's reaching out to a specific group that you happen to not belong to.
> women-exclusive classes do not work, and are indeed counter-productive.
Hacker School isn't excluding men. It's merely saying they will help women with expenses while attending the school. It's not giving women an express lane through the application process.
> You discard what is a step backward, and only use what is a step forward. Small step backwards are still backward steps.
Do you have any source to prove this is a step backwards? Because one of the largest and most resourceful tech companies in the world happens to disagree with you, so you're going to need a little more to back yourself up than, "Nuh uh!"
And please don't throw around "scientific method" as though it applies here. You're not bringing in any new information. You're just stating your own opinion and then acting as though it's fact.
No. An outreach is used to fill in the gap in the services provided by mainstream in order to reach groups who otherwise would not be aware of existing services.
A grant system is intended to convince people to join a program which they are aware of, but for economical reasons would not choose.
One could argue that by creating "buzz", it has a secondary effect that causes outreach. Secondary effects however are not reliable, and using actually outreach to create outreach is to me a much better way than hoping that buzz create outreach.
What they are doing, ironically, is the least engineering thing to do. Fixing one of the side effects, which may cause worse side effects, instead of analyzing and fixing the problem.
Uh no it's relevant. I've applied to hacker school in the winter '14 batch; I hope to crack it, fingers crossed! But I don't know how I will live/sustain in New York if I do crack the interviews. I am currently in DC, not been in a job for more than a year.
I immigrated to US recently (August '13) burned all my savings to do so. Prior to moving here I was doing a product start-up that failed. Have had too much on the plate so I'm now stuck between a hard rock and a cliff.
While applying to Hacker School I was seriously meaning to tick the checkbox for financial aid (but it was disabled because one has to confirm "I am a woman" first). I do believe that women programmers need encouragement and an inclusive environment, but sometimes men need it too.
All great points and i personally share your point of view. This isn't the kind of initiatives that will improve anyhow the situation of women in tech, it's just cheap marketing for Google and Hacker School. They are connecting "need-based situations" and gender, which is quite counter-productive as IMHO what women really need now is just fair opportunities.
To Hacker School: either you open funds to men (and here i'm talking personally as i applied, don't have savings and don't really know -if accepted- how i will make it - but ehi i'm smart and positive) or you are loosing, at least for me, a HUGE amount of credibility.
Nice to see a simple story of encouragement. My peer group is fortunately pretty diverse in terms of culture and country of origin, but it misses out on a realistic distribution of sex, which I think is important as well.
As a “white male programmer”, I’ve always been uncomfortable with an imbalanced group; now, being in a relationship with a female programmer, I’m exposed to a lot more of the actual iniquities.
We should consider this as a high-priority bug in our industry.
As a “<insert ethnicity here> <insert gender here> <insert sexual orientation here> programmer”, I've always been uncomfortable with race based or gender based or orientation based policies. Google would have been better off taking the time evaluating each participant and then making a judgement on whether that person would benefit from additional help. That would be better for everyone rather than blindly assuming every female needs assistance or every "insert ethnicity here" needs assistance.
It's perplexing that to avoid gender discriminations, the solution is to discriminate against genders. I don't like these, I think they further the stigmatism that is native to our industry about gender discrimination.
Specifically I'm bothered by direct benefits due to gender, I have no issue with educational programs as long as they remain open to all.
I don't want to end up in a workforce where people are working because it was a good financial decision from yesteryear. I want to work with people who are truly excited about what they do. And choose it for no other reason then it was: fun, interesting, and exciting. Those would be awesome people to work with. Welcome!
If I have ten apples, and you have five apples, giving us both five apples doesn't make us equal. Likewise, giving both men and women grants (which are readily available anyway for both genders) doesn't suddenly fix the imbalance of women. It requires a targeted solution.
> I don't want to end up in a workforce where people are working because it was a good financial decision from yesteryear.
Well then you're barking up the wrong tree, because there are plenty of men who got into computer science because it's lucrative. On the other hand, if you told a woman, "Hey! Want to earn an upper-middle class income? All you have to do is spend every work day of your life dealing with crude jokes at your expense, boys' club mentalities, and an industry that has little more than contempt for you!" I doubt many would jump at the opportunity.
The problem with sorting by how "truly excited" they are is that some women might not know how interesting programming is to them. They were never given the opportunity, and every time they got close, they were shunned or pushed back because of their gender.
If you truly, honestly cannot see these grants as anything more than "reverse gender discrimination", I'd have to say you're part of the problem.
This comment would be OK if we were talking about the profession of lawyers, or doctors, or investment bankers, but programmers?!
Programming is an ideal career for the introverted and "socially awkward". You don't need formal education, you don't need to talk to people, all you need is a computer and a book or internet connection, and most importantly, curiosity and desire to explore and learn about computers. You can't blame the lack of any of those on "boys' club" or "glass ceiling"; the best programmers are self-made, and nothing is stopping women from becoming top-notch hackers.
I think you are focusing on the wrong problem. Yes, it's true that men outnumber women in the field of programming, but guess what: non-programmers outnumber programmers much much more! Less than 5% of the people I know are programmers, and I work as a programmer. Why don't we try to make this profession more interesting to everybody, instead of focusing on just 50% of the people?
> nothing is stopping women from becoming top-notch hackers.
A lot is. Contrary to your comment, programmers have to interact with other people in order to participate in the industry, whether they're in college learning or have just taught themselves and are looking for a job. I've had quite a few female friends tell me about high school teachers and college professors who told them, straight to their faces, that programming was "for men" and they don't belong. There are still plenty of male employers who pass over perfectly qualified candidates just because they're women; plenty of male classmates who harass women with "get back in the kitchen" jokes. One of my friends even dropped out of the program all together because of it.
> Why don't we try to make this profession more interesting to everybody, instead of focusing on just 50% of the people?
Because in order to make it more interesting to everybody, we need to even out our numbers. Otherwise, when we open up the field to everyone, all we're going to do is inflate the numbers without changing the ratio.
The total number isn't the problem; it's the ratio.
I'm pretty sure there are significant movements around attracting "everybody" to programming already, btw. This is "computer science week" in the USA, for crying out loud. If you want to join a discussion, try reading hacker news to get major announcements like "president of USA says everyone should learn to code", or to hear about the"programmer bootcamp" options that are trying to attract non-programmers to the profession. There are also lots of programs starting in elementary school aiming to attract kids, for instance.
Perhaps a change you could make personally, as a step to making it more broadly attractive, would be to stop advertising it as something only introverts with no social skills would like? (What percentage of people are in that group? Less than 50?)
> there are plenty of men who got into computer science because it's lucrative
And they're useless dilettantes we should drum out of the profession, not double down on. Any scholarship that doesn't focus on obsession will merely switch names around on the mountain of garbage our industry is producing.
My concern is that it may be the wrong vehicle for change when they don't bark what they preach.
I feel the biggest contributors to change aren't large sums of money thrown at it. e-Learning, Bootcamps, or groups like ladies learning code, have, in my opinion, a better effect.
> We should consider this as a high-priority bug in our industry.
Why? Primary education is overwhelmingly female, for example, but female schoolteachers do not consider the lack of men to be a problem with their industry which they should be ashamed of.
One should always judge the individual, and no person should ever be stopped from doing anything on the basis of their race, gender, or anything else. However part of that may mean accepting that, after looking at the individuals, more of them may belong to one group than another.
Personally, I'm not offended or sorry that early primary education is dominated by women. I think an excellent early primary education who is male should be able to each the heights of the profession, but I accept that biology may mean those who are interested in, or good at, the profession may be overwhelmingly female.
> but female schoolteachers do not consider the lack of men to be a problem with their industry
Source? Because I'm sure if you talked to any teacher, they'd tell you they would prefer a more balanced selection of primary school teachers. The least you could do is a simple Google search,[0] which would show there is a movement to get more men into teaching.
> after looking at the individuals, more of them may belong to one group than another.
What does this mean? That men "belong" to programming and women "belong" to primary school teaching? (Not college teaching, of course! That's still heavily dominated by men, because they evolved to prefer teaching college-level classes or something. It's biology, you see. There's a "professor" gene inside all men.) That line of thinking inevitably leads to saying men's brains are "wired" to "think a certain way", which has been proven false each time it's brought up.
>> but female schoolteachers do not consider the lack of men to be a problem with their industry
> I'm sure if you talked to any teacher, they'd tell you they would prefer a more balanced selection of primary school teachers.
That's a different matter. One may wish there to be more male teachers, but that does not mean one considers the lack of male teachers a problem with the industry.
>> after looking at the individuals, more of them may belong to one group than another
> What does this mean?
I thought this was self explanatory but obviously not: after evaluating each individual on the basis of their merits, one may discover that many of the individuals who have been found to excel may belong to the same group.
> That line of thinking inevitably leads to saying men's brains are "wired" to "think a certain way", which has been proven false each time it's brought up.
Pardon? Male and female brains have massive differences in the amount of gray and white matter for one thing [1], connectivity [2], and size [3]. Sex is a biological construct that is very much a real thing.
> One may wish there to be more male teachers, but that does not mean one considers the lack of male teachers a problem with the industry.
So then... your source? Because I'm sure if you talked to any random teacher, they would tell you that the lack of men in teaching is a problem with the industry. You're still not providing anything to back up your claims.
> after evaluating each individual on the basis of their merits, one may discover that the individuals who have been found to excel may belong to the same group.
So exactly what I thought. Which part of the brain makes women more inclined to teach grades K through 12? Which part makes men more likely to teach at the college level? Which part makes women not excel as much as men in programming?
> Male and female brains have massive differences in the amount of gray and white matter for one thing.
Your first link doesn't show that women are less likely to be programmers. It actually shows they would be more likely, as they apparently excel at intuitive thinking, multitasking, and remembering.
That doesn't touch on the fact that I said "think a certain way". I didn't say they are exactly the same. I said there has not been definitive proof that men are hardwired to be programmers/leaders/managers/etc and women are hardwired to be nurses/teachers/caretakers.
> > One may wish there to be more male teachers, but that does not mean one considers the lack of male teachers a problem with the industry.
> So then... your source?
This is a logical argument. You claimed you spoke to teachers and found something that doesn't correspond to my assertion to be true. I pointed out that it may be true, but it doesn't correspond to my assertion.
If you are now asserting that teachers, in addition to wanting more men in the industry, also think that the lack of men is a problem with their industry, then it's up to you to prove your assertion. And not with 'if you talked to any random teacher'.
>>> That line of thinking inevitably leads to saying men's brains are "wired" to "think a certain way", which has been proven false each time it's brought up.
>> Male and female brains have massive differences in the amount of gray and white matter for one thing [1], connectivity [2], and size [3].
> Your first link doesn't show that women are less likely to be programmers.
That's correct. All the links are direct responses to your assertion that "men's brains are "wired" to "think a certain way" has been proven false each time it's brought up."
I have provided cited three papers to disprove a claim that I've quoted and you've responded by saying it doesn't disprove something else. I'm not going to bother spending time arguing with a child.
It was interesting that none of the grants are "if you are male, thats it. Here is a bunch of money". It is either for teacher that are willing to cater to students from low-income families, or African American male teachers.
I guess Google could add a condition to their grant, in which only female students willing to cater to <unwanted area of the tech industry>, or alternative to people of <ethnic minority> + female status.
Is there any grants that gives men money just for the fact that they have male genitalia and are willing to enroll in education?
Google's grant doesn't give women a whole bunch of money solely on the basis of being a woman. They have to first qualify for Hacker School, and then they have to qualify for financial aid. Once they do all that, they get some money to help cover expenses while attending the school.
> or African American male teachers.
So then, what's the problem? They're still men, which is apparently the defining factor. That comment doesn't really help your case here; it just makes you look petty and a little bit racist.
> Is there any grants that gives men money just for the fact that they have male genitalia and are willing to enroll in education?
Gender has nothing to do with genitalia. You really aren't informed on this topic, are you?
You really aren't informed on this topic are you? Have you not seen the discussion about transsexuals and grants given to a specific gender. Sometimes, gender has nothing to do with genitalia, and sometimes it do. It depend, and has been discussed several times in the past.
> little bit racist
You seems a bit out of your depth here. What are you talking about?
Do you have a problem that grants to students are given on the specifics of someone being of the racial and ethnic minority called African American, and is male? Are you a racist? (and feel free to speculate if a answer "yes", or an answer "no" to the first question qualify as an yes or no to the second. Personally, I don't think the first question has anything to do with the second, but it does makes you look a bit petty and a little bit racist to be honest.
I have read that because teaching funding is usually from the government, "legal reasons" mean there are not many sex specific funds. Perhaps we need to find a private source of funds - bill gates puts a bunch of cash into educational stuff, he might be interested.
In my opinion it is not a problem at all. But some want to see it as a problem. I wonder if the same people consider underrepresentation of females in garbage disposal or plumbing as a problem too.
Sex underrepresentation isn’t a problem itself. It’s a potential source of problems—if you saw some statistical outlier while profiling software, you’d pay more attention to it and verify whether it’s causing issues. Homogeneity of any kind tends to create bias and brittleness.
When you ask women why they don’t program, there’s a mix of normal things like “I don’t find it interesting” and “I prefer X”; but many also say “I don’t feel welcome”, and I would like to improve on that. In the same way, when you ask black Americans why they don’t program, a disturbing number say things like “I never had access to a computer”.
We need more women in the industry but I am not sure this is the way to do it. It is specifically for those "who cannot afford to live without an income during Hacker School." What does this mean exactly?
To me it sounds like getting those who are poor or not well off into programming. I like that idea as much as getting more women into programming. What I don't understand is why this would be limited to women only.
I have never been a fan of positive discrimination. Wouldn't it be better to advertise more to women to try to get more applicants this way? Perhaps go into local schools to rustle up a more diverse selection of people to be the next generation of programmers. Perhaps use the money to give away raspberry pi systems to the underprilliaged kids to inspire them to get going young?
It is nice of Google and it seems like a decent inititive. I do feel though that the money could be used in a far more effective way.
Life isn't fair. People are born into random circumstances outside of their control that vastly affect the quality and direction of their life. Sociey has developed in an imperfect fashion, and has many issues. These problems are complex, and there is no silver bullet. Some people are trying to create a positive impact, and hopefully make things a little better. Meanwhile, you sit here bitching about "reverse discrimination". What is your better solution?
How about "Google sponsors over $150k of grants for programmers with most open source contributions" or "Google sponsors over $150k of grants for programmers that win an online hackaton for newbies" or "Google sponsors over $150k of grants for programmers with best school grades or most impressive hobby projects"?
Don't they do many of these types of things? I highly doubt this is is their only grant. Also, how do you determine what is too much and too little to put towards a certain issue? Seems a little presumptuous.
> If Google would say that teams that only consist of men, or white people would get $2K extra everyone would explode.
Surely you can understand why? The industry is already dominated by white men. They (we, in fact) don't need extra support to enter and get accepted by the industry. We don't suffer lots of subtle forms of harassment and discrimination, simply for being different from the norm.
I don't think money by itself is the solution, but in order to make the industry more accepting of women, it helps if people get used to women in the industry, which means there need to be more women in the industry, which means some additional encouragement is probably necessary. Addressing the sexism in the industry in the absense of women doesn't seem to work very well. We need more women in order to become more accessible to women.
That said, I do think it's odd to do this through larger prizes for women in a contest. Encouragement programs and networking events seem like a better way to do this. Then again, in sports, it's generally male competitions who tend to have far more prize money.
Yeah. I'm sure women will "get accepted in the industry" much more if every man who looks at them is thinking "she's being given $2K extra for winning the same prize as me" or "I wonder if she's working here for her merits or because she took advantage of one of those positive discrimination programs". Brilliant idea.
But the point everyone is making is that there is a white male out there that is poor and doesn't have the resources, time, and educational background, but has the intelligence, work ethic, and desire to learn more and get a job as a programmer.
But this guy out there will never be helped. There simply will never be a program for this person to get out of the rut that he's in.
But a woman with a Stanford degree may be able to get into these programs with a grant.
I'm not saying it's wrong or right, but that seems to be the complaint, that there is probably a better way to spend that money to help people.
my opinion is that when you start looking at individuals' situations in order to give that grant money out, then that's just going to much more complicated and cost much more money.
I'm absolutely for helping the poor, providing everybody with affordable (preferably free) quality education, programs that help unemployed people get jobs, that help homeless people get their life back in order, etc.
But those problems aren't specific for the IT industry. They're society-wide, and need to tackled on a much broader scale.
And in society at large, women are doing increasingly better. They are surpassing men in education (so it's definitely a good idea to take a good look at if there's anything that causes boys to fall by the wayside in the educational system), but that doesn't change the fact that there are still some industries that are remarkably sexist and/or inaccessible to women. And that's just not acceptable.
The point is that a poor, uneducated man will still be ahead of a poor, uneducated woman when attempting to learn how to program; likewise, a man with a Stanford degree will have many more resources available to him than a woman with a Stanford degree. You can't pull examples from opposite ends of the spectrum, because of course it's not going to be equal.
Maybe you are right in this case. However, nightclubs need women because a major reason to go there is to hook up. What is the reason to bribe women into showing up at hacking competitions?
Actual cynical me thinks "more sexy workplace" is part of the unspoken motivation for the "more women into programming" movement. But I don't think that is the official message they want to send out...
What's wrong with that? I'd prefer more gender-balanced workplace. My sister is a teacher, and she says female workers in female-dominated workplaces have pretty much same preference.
women ARE victims. They are victims of society, and their parents who grew up with rigid rules of what a woman should be and raised their daughters with those rules in mind.
This looks like a great program that hits the right audience - people who know how to code, and will surely end up programming professionally when they're done. Unlike the many bootcamps popping up that make minority kids write toy apps and hope they'll take up computer science later. A good use of Google's money.
those bootcamps at least focused on real, contemporary, problem. by focusing on socio economic classifications... though it ended up being the regular anything-is-good-for-the-poor crap of content.
this is just cheap advertisement for the sake of holier than thou.
if anything it creates the "women need handicap" mentality where it didn't existed before.
Well, I'm in the gaming industry right now, so at the very least learning how to code could just fill out my skill set. I think there is a difference between pushing something like coding vs teaching or nursing. Yes, in many cases pushing people to enter those fields where there was a deficit at the time will flood them with applicants later on. However, we aren't really building many more schools or hospitals. But more and more companies need people who can code. And more and professions rely on, or at least benefit from knowing how to code. Years ago animation had nothing to do with coding, but now knowing python or action script is almost required.
Any profession that teaches computing can benefit from some coding skills. (And similarly, any profession where you ever produce some written words can benefit from learning how to write well.)
I find this sexist, it discriminates against men. If it would be the other way around we would see an endless stream of blogposts on HN complaining about how sexist Google is. This right here is a good example of the damage the hypocrite feminists are doing to the industry.
Programming should not be about how you were born, it should be about skills and merit.
This isn't an academic question. The tech industry is one of the very few left where large numbers of men from diverse backgrounds are doing well. For many who are struggling, it's the best shot they have. Men receive less financial aid for college and graduate with more debt... if they graduate. Women now outnumber men 3 to 2 in current graduating classes in the US. Far more men than women suffer poverty and homelessness. Amazingly, it's common for shelters to refuse single men.
Does Hacker School and its sponsor's "need based" help truly discriminate against the very group—poor, non-degreed men—that society treats so callously?
The last thing I want to see is women being dismissed or shut out of opportunities purely out of chauvinist ignorance, but when it comes to poverty and need it's almost like our society has empathy only for women and children. Recognizing this doesn't mean becoming blind to the glass ceiling that women often hit at the high-end of the career ladder. Both are problems. This really is an issue where two wrongs don't make a right.
Disclaimer: I earned well under $10k living in SF last year and faced some of this pain personally. I overcame the obstacles in my path and am now in a great situation... but I can't help but feel for those I know who aren't.