Google offering grants to women to attend tech conferences.
google.com
google.com
If Google was doing this where the attendance was even 33% women I could understand a bad reaction.
But I think it's more like 3% in reality?
Personally I'd love to go to Velocity, there were some great presentations at the US conference this year, they should extend this offer for people in USA to fly to Europe.
(ha, who am I kidding, I am not subjecting myself to the TSA)
adding some right-on-topic humor: http://socialsignal.com/cartoon/cherchez-la-femme
Depends a lot on the community & conference, there's quite a bit of variance.
But the mean is definitely much closer to 3% than to 30%: PyCon 2013 prided itself on its progress on gender-equality and gender-parity[0] and it had 20% of women attendee (up from 10% in 2012 I understand)
[0] bolstered by gender-equality sub-communities such as PyLadies
Where are the grants for males? This is giving women an advantage over males wanting to get in to the field. And they are getting an advantage because of their gender that is sexism.
If women want to work in tech there is nothing stopping them, the issue (i believe) is that females are generally more attracted to social based working roles rather than tech problems. Example on avg men speak 2000 works a day (google facts), women speak on adv 7000. Females are drawn to more social enabling roles, where are men prefer to play/fix/tinker than be social. I do not understand this need to have balanced male and females in all roles when it is proven that we are biologically different and that male and females look for different things from employment. in fairness, males and females have very different base priorities.
Now becuase of hte above post, I will be labeled as a bigot and or Chauvinism male, oh well
Where are the grants for women to work in the building trade? Or for men to work as nurses? Both are under-represented in those fields.
Plenty of fields have a gender imbalance, but they don't present it as a problem.
Women in building trades grants:
http://www.state.nj.us/governor/news/news/552012/approved/20...
Grants for men in nursing:
http://voices.yahoo.com/top-20-nursing-scholarships-grants-m...
(Note for the later its a top 20 list - implying there are more than 20 such grants).
If you would like to make an argument, please do the tiniest bit of fact checking before you make wild claims. I mean, I opened 2 tabs and typed into the search "grants for women in building trades" and "grants for male nurses". Basically your wanton ignorance is showing.
2) people on a tech forum are likely to be far more familiar with the issues and grant available within the tech industry. It does seem this issue is discussed a lot though.
On another note, your message is v. condescending.
As for your points:
1) on the same order - what does this mean? How do you measure. Pure dollars? Some ratio related to size of the industry? Number of opportunities? I don't know the answers to any of these questions, but please, expand on your notion of differing scales. You are making the assertion, you need to show evidence, not just some conjecture.
2) Sure, I didn't know about those outside of "tech" grants either, yet I had the not-at-all-interesting insight to google. 14.8s later I was able to be informed. Choosing not to do so is wanton ignorance.
As for condescending: I don't cater to people who chose to be uniformed. That is not something I am willing to be polite about under any circumstance - it is 2013, google is everywhere, and holding an opinion that contradicts facts, or stating a "fact" that is simply false are mere agenda building disingenuities.
He described them as 'under-represented', which isn't how you describe something you were claiming didn't exist.
> How do you measure..
Any of those examples could be used as a metric and provide meaning to the question of differing scale. Each one would be a different discussion - the only conclusion is there there is no simple metric that we can make the simple claim that one thing is the same as another, just because of these examples - which is what you're claiming, right?
And you're wrong, I'm not making a claim, I'm just questioning yours. You're trying to shift the burden of proof, but it was you that rudely asserted that your googled evidence showed parents' argument to be ignorant.
> I had the not-at-all-interesting insight to google
Again more snark, but who says you are now informed? You are of that impression, but what a googling? Do you have an education now? Does a 14.8s search-engine lookup make you an expert on the matter for which such arrogance is appropriate? Maybe parent did google, and considered the results weak evidence compared to other sources.
Again, your attack is based entirely on beating the straw-man of "parent claimed there where no grants for men", a claim never made.
> I don't cater to people who chose to be uniformed
What did parent choose? what do you know of parent?
> That is not something I am willing to be polite about under any circumstance
I subscribe to a less conditional for of politeness - especially to those I have no need to respond to at all. And, as I'm arguing, I think you have read unduly into parents post, and your attitude only serves to jump the gun after a hasty mis-judgement.
> holding an opinion that contradicts facts, or stating a "fact" that is simply false are mere agenda building disingenuities
Google = facts? and yet no fact were stated, and now you read a "disingenuous" "agenda" into parents post - isn't this clear that you are reading into parents post more than can be reasonably inferred - that you are applying a stereotype, and fighting a perception that exists within your own biases.
Second - I don't claim expert status. I just claim that a small amount of research shows that pure ignorance is a moronic position. Googling doesn't equal facts, but certainly the links I chose - a news organization and a top 20 list to sites that look legit - are enough evidence that an assertion of "where are they" needs some backing beyond "i don't think they exist".
Third: because context matters, this is in response to a comment about the lack of male only tech scholarships, and its sexism to fix the underrepresentation of women in tech with women only scholarships. The post as a response (particularly since it starts with "Agreed.") in support of that notion. Supporting statements about "where are the men only scholarships in nursing". So I answered the question. If you want to switch the subject to grants are being underrepresented (which isn't about the sexism of the existence of gender specific grants, but about the sexism of volume) the onus is on you to evidence your claims. Otherwise it is mere goalpost moving.
Fourth - your evidentiary requirements are amusingly inconsistent. You want to require extra evidence from me, because you don't like me answering the question that was asked about "where are the grants", and question my method of finding the evidence, and provide tons of conjecture (but no real counter evidence) that I'm not making a good argument. Yet you are blindly accepting the claim that they are underrepresented. Even defending it. Yet that claim has 0 supporting evidence (which is less than "flimsy" evidence). Such a set of actions suggest a beginning bias - that you think there is an underrepresentation of grants. Like I said - its amusing, hypocritical and honestly, kind of stupid.
Fifth - since you have chosen to ignore the core of the argument and instead attack my presentation of them, I will assume you are using the fallacy fallacy and ad hominem to try and discredit my point rather than responding to the point itself. Usually (note, because you seem to have problems with this sort of thing - the word usually is distinctly different than always dictionaries may be able to help if you need some explanation) this means you have no actual argument towards the point.
Sixth - you can approach politeness however you want. Fortunately, so can I. It has no relevance to the actual discussion about sexism tho.
fair enough
> are enough evidence that an assertion of "where are they" needs some backing beyond "i don't think they exist"
"where are they" doesn't necessarily assert "i don't think they exist" on a worldwide scale. Very often statements such as these assume a particular location (e.g. the west, the us, etc) and other context (what is the norm / the usual case). But in any case, my post was mainly about how you assumed the intention of parent, and attacked their post; so I think it less important if they poorly supported their argument, and more important that their argument was so poorly supported that it was offensive, and can be attacked as 'ignorant'. I don't want to beat you down for factual in-correctness, but rather for unreasonable manner!
> So I answered the question.
If all you did was that, a constructive argument could be had, that could go in many directions; but this ignores tone entirely. Saying the issue is about 'existence' not 'volume' and is therefore a change in topic is wrong. you assert that the topic is about absolute, worldwide existence of these grants, an extreme straw-man. 'volume' is another common interpretation of 'existence' that seems far more relevant to the context.
> You want to require extra evidence from me, because you don't like me answering the question that was asked about
I guess it was a matter of time before I got the same treatment as op, and had my intentions analysed in bad-faith.
> provide tons of conjecture (but no real counter evidence) that I'm not making a good argument
The issue then is burden of proof. If a claim is made, and the burden on you, then the argument isn't good-until-proven-bad, it needs to meet certain standards first. My 'conjecture' is that you know nothing about parent to make assertions about him. For example, whether you realise it or not, you made an assertion that "[I] don't like me answering the question that was asked about". How do you know this? what do you know of my intentions?
Are you saying I have to prove that you know nothing about me? now that's an amusing evidentiary requirement.
> Yet you are blindly accepting the claim that they are underrepresented
Please quote me on that
> which is less than "flimsy" evidence
Why does 'flimsy' have quotes? I didn't say this.
> its amusing, hypocritical and honestly, kind of stupid.
really? Can you never take the high-road?
> since you have chosen to ignore the core of the argument and instead attack my presentation of them
Let me clarify that - this isn't a case of judging a book by its cover, or an argument by its style; communicating in a rude, abrasive manner is something deserving of criticism in itself. Show me were I've implied that "You argument is invalid because of how it's is presented". I have implied "Your argument is invalid, and it is presented in an unacceptable manner" - These are two issues, but the second relates to the first in that a discussion of the validity of your arguments should require civil discourse.
> I will assume you are using the fallacy fallacy and ad hominem to try and discredit my point
You discredit yourself by presenting your argument in this manner, if this is the case. Are you saying you can be as rude as you like, and if anyone takes exception to it, they're trying to derail your argument?! Then avoid this, and deprive them of this tactic by being civil.
> Usually (note, because you seem to have problems with this sort of thing - the word usually is distinctly different than always dictionaries may be able to help if you need some explanation) this means you have no actual argument towards the point.
sigh, more nasty snark - and why then do you think it's me that has a 'problem'? I would be happier discussing this nicely, you insist on not doing so. Which point are you referring to in this case?
> you can approach politeness however you want.
You seem to approach it from a direction that certainly differs from the dictionary definition. This has no relevance to the topic of sexism, but it is relevant to the discussion of it.
You can keep harping about your insulted sense of propriety, or you can address the point.
So, do you actually have anything (evidence backed) to say about your belief that there are more grants for women in tech than men in nursing (etc)? Do you have any clarifications of the vague phrase about "on the same order"?
[1] snark is a fantastic method of pointing out bullshit, as is flat out saying "your argument is not addressing the point", as is noting disingenuous behaviour.
Did you look, or are you reacting to a cognitive bias?
(http://www.heatingandventilating.net/news/news.asp?id=6255&t...)
> A successful initiative set up to support women working in the construction sector, has been granted £420,750 further funding to continue.
> The government-funded Women and Work: Sector Pathways Initiative is led by Construction Skills and aims to help get women into construction work and supports women already working in the sector to get further training.
(http://civilconstructioncareers.com/women-in-construction.ph...)
> The Women in Civil Construction Initiative will directly address the skills required for entry to the civil infrastructure sector of the industry. The Civil Contractors Federation (CCF), in collaboration with their funding partners Construction Skills Queensland, is delivering a flexible based program designed to deliver the entry level skills required to participants who wish to pursue a career in the Civil infrastructure sector. The WIC program is already underway within Queensland.
(http://www.build.co.uk/construction_news.asp?newsid=75823)
> ConstructionSkills, the Sector Skills Council for the industry, took part in the government funded Women and Work: Sector Pathways Initiative. In Phase 1, over 2,200 women were helped to access work related training and support initiatives in the construction industry – beating the target of 1,800.
(http://manhattan.ny1.com/content/top_stories/136592/new-prog...)
> A new program is launched to boost business for minorities and women in the construction industry.
> The New York Association of Hispanics in Real Estate and Construction is helping to finance labor costs for these companies.
(http://www.collegescholarships.org/scholarships/nursing/male...)
Both the examples you have given in this case have been discussed in this thread, making me think you are trying to highlight that there are male only grants as well to undermine my argument. I fully accept that there are male only grants, but I also call those sexist. Everyone who replied to your message seems to think that because there are a few instances of this happening that it is now an accepted practice. Basically what people here seem to be saying are saying is that because sexism has happened before (regardless of who is affected) then we can do it again. What i am saying is that should not be the case and in relation to this discussion Google’s moves are sexist and a bad precedent.
Just flip it, what if Google offered only male grants how much rage would there be?
Second you are assuming that the imbalances are based on some inherent gender differences (in a previous point you make some claim about "socialness"). This point is somewhat contentious, and not well evidenced (that is to say, there is at least as much evidence for as against such points), or just plain shown to be false. If you can show a preponderance of agreement in facts, I will change my position. Evidence required for such.
Third, your claims that, corrective actions to an existing imbalance are the same as those same actions when furthering an imbalance or creating an imbalance. This is true in the pedantic sense - the actions are the same. However, the consequences and motivation for the actions must be taken into account. If the motive is to correct an imbalance, and the consequence is imbalance correction, then different considerations must be made. If I use a scalpel to remove someone's kidney, the circumstances surrounding the action matter a lot - as a surgeon performing a transplant it's ok, as a psychopath getting his jollies it isn't.
Finally you are using a slightly different definition of sexism than many. You will argue till you're breathless, use annoying semantic pedantry, general point missing, and other disingenuous BS to try and counter me, but here it is: the sexism people are talking about is systemic, the fact that statistically speaking, women are faced with an imbalance that seems only to apply because of gender. The sexism you are using is "acknowledges gender in actions". They are different and have different implications. Too bad you keep demonstrating a basic choice to ignore things like implication, multi-step reasoning, and acknowledgement of definitions of words that you don't like.
To put it differently: I'd rather live in a world with this grant than in one without.
But that's not the case, so having it is the better option.
Assuming you're male, do you feel discriminated because Google wants more women to attend conferences? I don't.
Now if the site would say that men in general shouldn't bother going to tech conferences, and if the majority of society would agree that men shouldn't bother getting into tech at all, then it would be discriminating. We're quite far from that.
And I have only once gone to an expensive conference. I offered to help with organization and running it and therefore got in for free (paid own travel expenses).
It doesn't and it's not supposed to. The goal of this program is to increase the number of female participants at technical conferences. That's it.
Gender wars notwithstanding, that's not how you compare possible worlds :-) A more correct comparison would look like "I'd rather live in a world with this grant than in a world where the same money was spent on saving rare wild geese".
That's probably why it's called "Women in Tech Conference and Travel Grants", and not "Women in Tech Become Better Programmers Grants".
I do see a point here. Going to conferences hasn't made me a better programmer per se, but I think it has made me more passionate about the field, in my early days.
"All applicants will be notified ... 3-4 weeks prior to the event."
How likely is it that this will increase participation, rather than just wind up just effectively refunding people who would have been going either way?
If you apply, and receive confirmation 3 weeks prior; it's pretty much guaranteed that travel/accommodation/ticket prices will all be higher than they are today. Maybe even 1000 EUR higher.
If the grant was aimed at both genders but specifically for those who simply can't afford to attend these types of events then it would be significantly more appropriate. That, however, is just my opinion.
Nothing mind-blowing yet things outreach, advocacy and mentorship groups have to repeat time and again.
I probably should have added caste and religion as well.
There's no good reason that we should treat men and women differently just so that we can try to force each job to be 50/50 gender split. Giving women some exclusive opportunities is ultimately still discriminating on gender and two wrongs don't really make a right here.
Teaching-wise, a quick google finds the "Dr. Calvin Martin Memorial Scholarship Trust Fund", open only to black males.
Men and women are already treated differently, the point of these is to try and apply corrective actions to lead to better gender balance and hopefully, down the line, social consciousness changes leading to balance in the first place making the grant unnecessary.
If you don't like this grant, help fight for a more equal treatment at the root.
Kinda sounds a like a reverse advert for a (scam) dating website.
Well nobody will admit the real reason "we" want more women in tech. Let's just say it makes for a better atmosphere and more "attractive" work place. (I have nothing against women in tech, btw).
Be a person with female genitalia, who work in computing and technology, and who has leadership ability.
Or:
Be a person whose work is inspiring others for better gender equality in computing and technology.
> Have a strong academic background with demonstrated leadership ability
Why the need for "demonstrated leadership ability"? Doesn't that completely rule out CS students and junior workers, as well as senior workers who aren't interested in leadership?
they are allowed to be different last i checked? or are we going to control that freedom away from them?