Hacker News Reader

Comment by GrantSolar | Hacker News Reader

>Why in the age of a _World_ Wide Web and "post-discrimination" are large companies such as Google deliberately targeting specific groups?

Because the gender ratio in STEM fields skews heavily towards men.

>What will be in the girls-only code program that might be inappropriate for boys?

I can't imagine there would be anything that was 'inappropriate', though there may be some boys less excited about making a dress light up. Google is using existing gender roles to introduce girls to code and get them excited about STEM, something that may be far more difficult once they grow older.

View on HN

> Because the gender ratio in STEM fields skews heavily towards men.

Girls are free to study what they want. If they don't want to study STEM fields - their problem, which I don't feel having to care for.

Apparently it's your problem as well, because you appear to be personally upset by a program that only helps them.

I am always upset over discriminatory programs. If one would replace "women only" by "white people only", you would probably be upset, too.

How do you feel about Spanish language programming courses? What about affordable housing?

How do you define discrimination? I think there isn't a clear line, and we have to use our evolving best judgment depending on the context.

How else can we attempt to more quickly resolve unfortunate and unfair dynamics the past has brought us?

Lastly, I think it's a mistake to assume all discrimination is zero sum. We will all reap benefits from previously disadvantaged groups receiving more opportunity.

> How do you define discrimination?

Using any other criterion than ability for e.g. staffing jobs/university places/... In this sense every forced quota on gender/skin color/race/... is discrimination. Women only programs are, too (as "men only", "white only" or "black only").

EDIT:

> How do you feel about Spanish language programming courses?

Living in Germany I openly don't understand what you want to imply with this question.

I'm implying it's not as simple as you are making it out to be. Does Google fall under your definition? They must, or it wouldn't seem fair to be upset at them. What counts as a "program"?

If your complaint is mainly about quotas, I don't have as much to say about those. My intuition is that strict quotas are overly heavy handed and also treating the symptom not the cause. I would guess that programs that seek to help certain groups closer to the source (e.g. in the education and training phase) are more effective.

To clarify, I was referring to Google's C.S. education program that is targeted at women, not hiring processes

>I think there isn't a clear line

A clear line has been drawn in the form of protected classes. Primary language spoken and income are not protected classes. Gender is.

>Girls are free to study what they want.

Of course, but when the disparity is so large we should at least question why that is. Are girls biologically less inclined to find any appeal in STEM, or is it due to upbringing? This course appears to be following the latter, and either challenging any social bias that may dissuade girls, or balancing out any extra persuasion of boys

> some boys less excited about making a dress light up

you're using gender stereotypes ("girls like dresses", and implied its corollary, "boys like machines") in an argument against gender exclusion.

Yes. Regardless of anyone's stance on them, these stereotypes exist right now and are being re-inforced by society.

It's not easy to break down cultural barriers, and doing so in one fell swoop is near impossible. Employing these stereotypes in order to bring an end to them is not necessarily a bad thing

Reply on news.ycombinator.com