This is pretty much the exact opposite of what needs to happen. We want to eliminate gender discrimination, so let's single out people of a single gender, tell them they're different and that they need CS events just for them, and watch the problem disappear. And while we're at it let's also disparage The Other gender (because surely, there are only two) by implicitly discouraging them from attending the event. Then when it comes time to enter the workforce these two strata we've created will surely integrate seamlessly, creating a more livable and productive world for all of us. Yes, that is how it will happen.
What we need are gender-neutral CS events that we encourage all people to attend. Recruit women aggressively to attend, fine -- but not on the basis that they are women. Rather, on the basis that they might like CS and the things that happen at said event.
I fail to see how we are going to combat gender discrimination by reinforcing gender stereotypes.
I'm not sure about girl-centric CS activities. Sometimes guys and girls just want to hang out and do ${activity} with members of the same sex. We can have guy-only or girl-only camping trips without any problem. Camping is pretty well-established to be a unisex activity. You'd think the same would be true for CS or any other field, in an unbiased world. But who could get away with an explicitly guy-only CS event? It would be politically difficult to say the least. Something is clearly wrong here.
Maybe girl-only gatherings, as the next step past mixed gatherings, help further the subconscious idea that women have a natural place in ${activity}. How's that for compensating? But this sort of falls flat when it's hard for guys to do the same. And as a blunt weapon against sexism, well, it still doesn't make sense to me, because if it's wielded that way it's inherently polarizing.
Humans are so complicated.
>But who could get away with an explicitly guy-only CS event? It would be politically difficult to say the least. Something is clearly wrong here.
I really wish people would stop trotting out this shallow argument when discussing inequality in various spheres. The contexts for the two groups are completely different, thus a simple "swapping the two labels and seeing what results" gives absolutely no insight.
This is an argument that has been used by most proponents of discriminatory practices.
I started as an "odd man out" for practically every major peer group I've ever been involved in and I can tell you, it sucks. The way I've successfully acclimated is usually with highly informal "incubator" groups that help with the integration process by breaking it up into steps. These groups were so informal that we didn't even think of it as such, but in retrospect that's what had happened.
But an actual majority wouldn't need this exact type of support, they already have been acclimated to it and can easily integrate into similar peer groups, so it's not even an exact comparison.
But to the extent that this GitHub project is focused on ensuring that this particular minority of this particular peer group has a place to go for support and successfully working their way into the larger peer group I think it's a wonderful thing. Hopefully someday we can discard it as redundant and unnecessary, but today it can be very helpful.
Now you're saying that racism is "not the same" (I'm assuming that means "not bad"?) if it's in favor of people who are normally discriminated against by the "dominant" culture. It amounts to justifying one person's bad behavior by pointing out someone else's, which simply doesn't qualify as a moral argument. If this is the only reason BET is okay and WET is not, I think it's a lame one.
In the case of television networks, it doesn't really matter. But I refuse to accept this mushy "different contexts" argument to justify anyone's wrong or stupid behavior. The whole point of striving for equality is to get rid of these different contexts, not perpetuate them. Be the change you want to see.
There is a certain sense in which BET may be less stupid than WET, which is if being black was a strong selector for liking some content over others. This is, AFAICT, less the case with "white" people, so WET makes less sense. This kind of goes back to what I was saying earlier about girls' CS events because, hey, the girls want to get together and hack. They can do their own thing if they want. That's the key, that's what needs to get into people's psyches: "You can do your own thing if you want."
Your rather narrow and closed minded misunderstanding of race likely mirrors your misunderstanding of issues regarding gender. This isn't the place for an in-depth discussion about these issues, nor am I the right person to offer it. So we can leave it at that if you prefer.
I'm only interested in the meanings of words to the extent they illuminate real objects and concepts, and inform real actions. I'm not interested in cultural baggage except as a stumbling block to understanding to be removed. I understand, to some extent, that people have complicated motives from a wide range of sources, mostly irrational, which makes them hard to get a logical handle on. I don't believe morality is that complicated. I can't shake the feeling that "WET" is morally stupider, but I don't have a good reason, and I try to ignore feelings like that. If that makes me "narrow and closed minded" in your mind, I can handle that. In that case, it is indeed unlikely that our conversation will be productive.
If I'm closed-minded, do you see how your comments look to me, pushing against my idea of literal equality for some abstract form of "corrected" equality? Then turning to diversionary tactics when you can't answer my argument (and a peripheral one at that)?
I guess the point was, girl-only gatherings seem more like a part of the end-game of equalization, except to the extent pretending the game is over makes it get over faster. Point mostly taken about "creating environments...".
This is intentionally putting blinders on yourself. Words are elucidated through their "cultural baggage", not inhibited by it. You cannot understand true meaning without all the associated context, connotations, emotions, etc, however irrational they may seem. This is precisely what makes language such a rich communications medium. You cannot divorce meaning from the messy soup of associated contexts.
I'm sorry if I come off as condescending, but I see this type of argument frequently online. People promote degenerate meanings of certain words (racism and sexism are prime examples) and then want to use those degenerate definitions to "prove" some self-serving result (e.g. "race-aware college admissions are racist"--sure if you use the most watered down and useless definition of racist you can muster). I'm sorry but I can't see this tactic as anything but purely self-serving, thus it is met with a condescending response.
If you want to talk about something more complicated than just "discrimination based on race", I think you need to describe that in terms of simpler things we agree on before we can decide whether it's happening and whether it's good or bad. Otherwise we don't know what we're talking about. This conversation is a perfect example. While I'm using the strict definition, you seem to think that "racism" means when the underdog is discriminated against but not the "dominant" culture, I still don't understand it. I think your definition is broken and deceptive (at least it's possible to prove something from a "degenerate" definition), and you think the same of mine. Would have been nice to know that at the start.
On the subject of pure logic, pointing out that someone's argument benefits them is strictly a logical fallacy. I'm tempted to whine that your arguments are self-serving, but tu quoque is a fallacy too. Both are usually counter-productive, except possibly as an explanation after you've explained logically why someone is wrong, which you have still not done.
This is how I try to approach any sort of philosophical or moral question, especially in writing. If you don't agree on this basic approach to finding truth, we really have nothing at all to say to each other.
Richness and precision are not at odds with one another. Attempts at understanding language through precision is precisely why AI has failed miserably when it comes to actual understanding of language. I promise you that figuring out how to model all the various contexts and connotations that are associated with language is the big breakthrough that natural language processing has been waiting for.
That being said, one can have a precise discussion regarding these admittedly emotional topics if we clearly define all of the relevant contexts that are involved. But anyways, this has suddenly turned into a discussion about race unintentionally. So instead of going into great depth, I will cut to the point which will hopefully clarify my problem with your type of reasoning.
Words like racist and sexist have a certain power in our culture. If you call someone a racist, they immediately become defensive because it has become one of the worst things you can call someone. This is precisely because of the connotations involving hate, inferiority, violence, etc. Now when you attempt to prune all of that cultural context from that word (by defining it as generic discrimination based on race), and then label programs geared towards minorities "racist", you are intentionally wielding that cultural context to stigmatize something that would not otherwise receive that negative connotation. You are changing the definition without simultaneously changing the cultural connotations that give the word its power. This is what is so despicable about altering the meaning of these words: you are using unconscious associations between racism and evil things to stigmatize things you simply don't like by forcing a new association in the minds of your audience by way of the old label. The "evil" connotation is then unconsciously transferred to the thing you don't like.
A clear example of how the degenerate definition is useless, and frankly absurd, is the case of doctors that check black patients for high blood pressure, heart disease, hypertension, etc. This is your "technical" definition of racial discrimination, ie "racism". But it is absurd that this should carry a negative stigma by falling under such a label.
Without proper context, words lose all meaning.
Yes and if young girls' early exposure to the industry consists largely of "Girl-centric CS activities" then they will immediately wonder why they need such special treatment. People do not want want to be segregated, even if it is, supposedly, for a good cause.
It's easy to poke theoretical holes in any proposed change...but the status quo should not get a pass just because we're used to it.
What about the boy who can't afford the tuition for the computer science course, his best friend, a girl who he has just introduced to programming, gets a bursary to the course just because she is female? The boy feels that he is not wanted in the cs community because of this discrimination so he begins to pursue something different and the girl feels that she was given an unfair advantage over her friend and does not want to ruin the relationship so she pulls out of the course.
Anything like this that isn't based on merit or interest can be pretty devastating.
Or are you suggesting that us males are only not allowed to debate when we believe that special treatment of women is actually detrimental to them and everyone else?
Secondly, I would argue that your list, from my point of view, denoted 'racism, sexism, etc' is more rigorously defined as 'discriminating based on anything other than merit'.
Given that assumption, discrimination by race or sex for any reason would be wrong.
With those premises, I stand by my original conclusion that discrimination on the whole is wrong.
My comment nextdoor describes my problem with these sorts of degenerate defintions: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5350842
To put it another way: if your definition of sexism means that women-centric events designed to foster interest in an otherwise underrepresented field is considered sexist, then its your definition that is faulty.
Here's a definition that doesn't strip the salient context from it (dictionary.com)
1.attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
2.discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women.
It's amazing how these discussions always devolve into cherry-picking definitions and parsing language like a machine to prove respective points. If you have to resort to that, then just bow out gracefully as you are missing the point of the discussion altogether.
To put it another way, the ends justifies the means. And I think you'll find plenty who would disagree with that statement.
>they can tell us themselves if they feel this way
Yes and they do. I am not sure if you realise this but this actually what the female author of the article says:
"I also have grave concerns regarding activities and events that are for “girls only”. These events instead enforce the stereotype, segregating girls and giving them (and everyone) a message that they are different. It is a band-aid attempt at a solution to a problem that starts at a much younger age, and seriously neglects those girls (and women) who don’t want to be segregated (many of whom never even come out to such events, and whose voices are sadly never heard). Children do not grow up into a segregated world, so why are we reinforcing that message? Why are we not just creating a variety of activities that may appeal to boys or girls or both? I can see taking issue with creating explicitly sexist activities, but there is nothing inherently sexist about having activities that may attract more of one gender than the other, especially when we make the available to everyone. "
The fact that women participate in these events is an obvious counter-example.
And yes, the author is essentially making your point. But she is also speaking from a position of privilege, as someone who was never intimidated by "boy stuff" and who admittedly got along better with boys rather than girls. I'm not sure her point is representative of the target audience of these kinds of gatherings, so it should be weighed with that in mind. Also its interesting to note that her comment was not in the first person, as in "this is how I feel about these events". It seems like she's doing what you are doing, projecting her ideas about how these girls will/should feel onto them.
But the fact is, there's no evidence that these endeavors help. None at all. There's plenty of evidence that they hurt -- stereotype threat and the implication that the OP gave, which is that special treatment indicates a special lack.
Note that we're not talking about scholarships here.
Really? Because self-segregation is pretty obvious in any number of contexts.
Like you say, kids are very perceptive. The only way to truly eradicate the stereotype is to create a world in which the stereotype doesn't exist.
And that is done by giving all kids, regardless of gender or race, the __opportunity__ to learn about the value of computer science. The ones that like it will participate, those that don't, won't. And gender will be irrelevant.
I don't think this is true at all (and usually you never see women say this, just males rationalizing their position). Women centric CS events are to encourage those who have an interest but may have been hesitant for some reason to seek it out. Or to encourage those who are students to seek help and find comraderie/validation.
A common theme from women is that they often feel like imposters in intro CS classes because its always guys who seem to be so much further ahead. Of course, guys will chime in that they experience impostor-syndrome just as much. The difference is that girls have an immediate re-enforcing explanation for that sense of being out of place: you don't belong because you're a woman. This is the curse of being a minority in a field that you aren't well represented in. This is why these CS-centric events are important.
How is this different from guys who go, "They're so ahead of me. I'm out of place, because they are all smarter than me"?
Programs which would help more women be involved and included in CS will end up helping men who would find themselves in similar situations. Discrimination is harmful to just about everyone.
I'm not sure whether it'd be comforting to feel (correctly or not) that your background is partially to blame for your lack of confidence or success. On the one hand you may discourage yourself and set yourself up for failure because you believe you have a good reason to fail. On the other hand it may prevent you from beating yourself up as much since there are some external factors at play that are out of your control.
I don't really think exclusive events are the solution either and I'm not convinced they don't make things worse. Tech events shouldn't exclude either gender and when they do (or have events/do things that make one group uncomfortable) they should be called out on it.
Isn't that an argument that all schools should then be boy/girl schools, always separating kids based on their sex? After all, this is the most effective model right?
If schools has gone away from this model, I assume they had a good reason. We also used to separate women from men in the work place. That too was changed in the last 100 years. Business somehow decided that productivity went up if did not separate people based on their sex.
If we moved away from this in both schools and work, why are we then trying to reintroduce it again with the same argument they had a hundred years ago? Is there any exceptional detail that only computer science has?
It might be, and I'm not completely sure it isn't the best model.
But work environments are totally different situation. School is an exception because it is at a time where kids are in their formative years, thus creating artificial environments that are maximally conductive to learning is appropriate (which is what "school" is to begin with).
Discrimination impedes freedom in many ways. Legally, most obstacles have been removed. We need to change peoples/our preconceptions of others as well as ourselves.
Emancipation requires changing our habits. Learning something new, especially when it goes against established patterns, is achieved most effectively when the new is made explitit and even exaggerated.
I think GP is spot on. The gender imbalance is visible even if we pretend it doesn't exist. The only way to change it, is to force it. That will be damn hard and totally worth it.
The point of the Civil Rights movement, the Voting Rights Act, and implementation of affirmative action policies was that hatred and bigotry gave way to the people creating barriers that prevented minorities from pursuing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Affirmative action is needed because the impact of centuries of systemic discrimination cannot be undone in just one generation.
The solution to ending racism, homophobia, and sexism cannot be to ignore these evils. Shine a light on them.
However, you bring up some interesting points but that I have a couple of issues with including probationary whiteness, survivor-ship bias, and performance vs. access. I don't think Asian Americans had to drink from the "colored" fountain. It's easier to win the game if you are allowed to play. In many cases, Asians are considered probationary white so should we be talking about a White/White achievement gap?
Children of immigrants are highly motivated to achieve by parents who selected to come to the US. The folks that immigrate were motivated enough to come here and be successful. This is the essence of survivor-ship bias.
There was a study a couple years ago that showed that having an black-sounding name on your resume lead to fewer callbacks. You have a better shot at batting .300 if you are allowed to pick up a bat.
They just happen to be really, really good at what they do, on average, to the point where they outperform whites in majority-white nations. And in doing so, they falsify the hypothesis that achievement gaps are caused solely by majority-group racism.
Asians blow whites out of the water on SAT, MCAT, IQ, and other tests of achievement, aptitude, and ability. Even if there was a bias against asian names in the market place, Asians would probably overcome it just by being too good to ignore.
It's really hard for me to square leftist theories of racism with the data. To be successful in America, the best thing you can do is be born to Indian parents[1].
It is interesting that you mention immigrants. African immigrants to America are a high-achieving group, outperforming whites in income. So they manage to beat the stereotypes while African-Americans do not.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_Un...
Isn't that an argument FOR survivor-ship bias?
How do the ethnic asians that immigrated a century ago stack up against the newly immigrated ones?