[evincarofautumn]

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.

[hingisundhorsa]

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.

[1qaz2wsx3edc]

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!

[ceol]

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.

[tomp]

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?

[ceol]

> 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.

[tomp]

> 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.

And what is this kind of announcements/programs doing to change that?

[jacalata]

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?)

[tomp]

It's not something only introverts with no social skills like, it's one of the rare high-paying jobs where you can succeed even if you are an introvert with no social skills.

[prodigal_erik]

> 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.

[1qaz2wsx3edc]

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.

[altero]

But they do need help. Diversity is nice, but someone still has to do the actual work.

[tomp]

Many people need help. They need help because they are poor, or uneducated, or don't know anybody, but not because they are black, gay or women.

[nailer]

> 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.

[ceol]

> 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.

[0]: https://www.google.com/search?q=men+in+teaching

[nailer]

>> 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.

[1] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050121100142.ht...

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/men-women-bra...

[3] http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Helmuth-Nybor...

[ceol]

> 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.

[nailer]

> > 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.

[ceol]

> 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'.

Actually, no. You made the first assertion that teachers don't have a problem with the lack of men. I'm countering with the opposite. There is no assumed default in this case, so it's up to either of us to prove our argument. Here is my proof: http://www.menteach.org/ There are outreach programs to get more men into teaching, which means teachers do think it's a problem.

> I'm not going to bother spending time arguing with a child.

I can only assume the name-calling is due to your frustration with being proved wrong. You should spend some time learning how to better handle yourself.

[belorn]

Checking for similar grants such as the one by google, I found (http://www.ehow.com/info_8641285_grants-male-teachers.html).

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?

[ceol]

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?

[belorn]

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.

[ceol]

> Sometimes, gender has nothing to do with genitalia, and sometimes it do.

No, that's not how it works. Again: Read up before commenting on a topic you're not familiar with. Having a penis does not guarantee a person is a man, and having a vagina does not guarantee a person is a woman. This is pretty basic stuff to understand. I'm not sure why you're having trouble.

> 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?

No. Your comment implied you had the problem, as though because they give it to black men, it somehow detracts from the fact they're giving it to men — like it doesn't count.

[jacalata]

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.

[jrs99]

In my opinion, it's not an industry problem. It's a SOCIETY problem.

[rimantas]

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.

[evincarofautumn]

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”.