They don't allow men in because they're sexist. There is not some special exemption for some classes of people, there are no pigs that are more equal than others.<p>They feel the sexism is acceptable given the circumstances. In a world where college enrollment for women is significantly higher than enrollment for men I don't agree, and I think many others don't agree either.
"Then there's this freshmen drop-off, where all but about 80% of women end up changing their major, usually to something involving design or business."<p>In other words, 20% of women end up changing their major. I'm guessing it was worded this way to trick those that skim read into thinking that 80% of women change their major.
Am I the only one here that thinks that she can let whoever she wants into her school if she wants?<p>While a true discussion of morality is more nuanced, I think you really only have to have the discrimination discussion there are NO other sources or ways to achieve whatever it is that is that is being offered...<p>Men have options, so it's fine? idealistically it doesn't sound great, but in real life, dudes don't have a problem finding a place to code/learn about coding that will accept them pretty much wholeheartedly (as in it's not even an issue that they're there), women do not. So this lady built a place for women to do these things. The place she built is not the last bastion, there are other similar options (maybe even better options), NBD.
Yes, it's discriminatory and apparently identifying through gender-exclusive club memberships is the state of play for most people. But I think we reached this point where almost any initiative that tries to even the numbers in our profession is worth exploring.<p>Personally, I'd rather have us working on eroding the stereotypes, the arbitrary lines of separation, and the behaviors that got us to this point - I'm just not sure anymore that is even an option. Maybe building another, exclusive and discriminatory counter-club <i>is</i> the right move. Extended into the future, if programs like this turn out successful it basically amounts to opening up a whole parallel career support network for women, potentially a complete replica of what we have as the "good old boys club" for men right now, including the harassment and the peer pressure to stomp on everyone who doesn't belong.<p>Gender segregation is something a lot of people seem to be becoming fond of (again). There was a moment in history where briefly it looked like we might break out of these shackles, but it seems that moment has passed and is quickly being forgotten. I believe if this trend continues, it will be one of the biggest failures of Western civilization.<p>The depressing thing is I can see how initiatives like this might be needed right now as a lesser evil compared to the alternative (which is having no women in CS at all).
If they accept only women, I have no problem with that. The can make up whatever rules they want, and the people here who are huffing and puffing about that should go and make their own club with their own rules and write about them in their own blog posts.<p>What I'm curious about is their stance of only accepting the top 5% of applicants.<p>She says that there aren't a lot of women in tech because they don't have a lot of friends, and that most women don't know about what programs are available to women in tech. To combat that, they go ahead and reject 95% of women who _did_ find out about their program.<p>Sucks for you, lower 95%.<p>And then she talks about how that's promoting the idea that women are as good at CS as men, but wouldn't the top 5% of GENDER_A in _anything_ wipe the floor with the average GENDER_B in that same thing? How is that promoting the idea that men and women are equal?<p>This all seems really strange to me and damaging to the brand (I've never heard of it before). What's the goal of this post, to help or to harm Hackbright?
Because it's the cause of the day. It signals appropriate sensitivity, politics, and gets attention.<p>Actually, there is no reason not to only accept women. I mean, apart from choosing best possible candidates but that's apparently not the primary concern.<p>And, really, who cares? Start worrying if she succeeds.<p>> I don't want to be cynical, but boy oh boy is it hard not to observe that at the very moment in our history when we have the most women in the Senate, Congress is perceived to be pathetic, bickering, easily manipulated and powerless, and I'll risk the blowback and say that those are all stereotypes of women. Easy, HuffPo, I know it's not causal, I am saying the reverse: that if some field keeps the trappings of power but loses actual power, women enter it in droves and men abandon it like the Roanoke Colony. Again we must ask the question: if power seeking men aren't running for Senate, where did they go? Meanwhile all the lobbyists and Wall Street bankers are men, isn't that odd? "Women aren't as corrupt or money hungry." Yes, that's been my experience with women as well.<p><a href="http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_woman_would.html" rel="nofollow">http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_wo...</a>
I think this is a good idea. I also think women-only trade apprenticeship programs are a good idea, or (if they even exist) men-only school teacher programs.<p>They're all sexist, sure. But they aren't <i>hurting</i> anyone; they're just providing opportunities to under-represented demographics that weren't there before.<p>Equality benefits everyone in the long run. I support anything that promotes that.
| Stereotypes are not all bad; positive stereotypes are great.<p>| That mission is to bring equality to computer science<p>Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees through such transparent bullcrap?
This is probably something that would rarely come up, if ever, but I'm curious as to how transgendered/female-identifying applicants would or wouldn't fit into the program. I didn't read the article thoroughly, but it only seemed to touch upon a hesitance to _only_ serve them.
Coming from a country where the ratio is significantly more balanced than in north-america(about 40% are women), I appreciate any attempt to address the sex balance in the industry.<p>However, this might be more harm that help. One big problem is the gender centric culture of the industry, and these kind of initiatives are just trying to hide the sun with a finger. The culture problem would still be there and what will happen after the program ends? Are the alumni going to start women only companies? IMHO that is far away from the solution.
Men are grossly overrepresented in such dangerous jobs as fishing and logging, and yet feminists remain utterly unconcerned about this. Could it be that equality really isn't what they seek?