5 ms·

> Why is their gender so important? From the article, "A World Wide Web Foundation study found that only 20% of women from Nairobi's slums - like Ms Wambui - a

> Why is their gender so important? From the article, "A World Wide Web Foundation study found that only 20% of women from Nairobi's slums - like Ms Wambui - are even connected to the internet. That's compared to 57% of men." That is the premise of the article. Women becoming engaged with technology against the odds. > Why is there a competition for girls only? There is an underrepresentation of women in tech [1][2][3]. Regardless of how your political beliefs might sway you to think about this issue, the perception that women are underrepresented in tech will compel people to attempt to solve that problem. An all-girls competition is one approach. > It saddens me that people actively promote sexism as something to be proud of. It saddens me that people on the Internet actively water down language in an attempt to espouse whatever banal contention they have to opposing political views. You want to talk about sexism in Kenya, what about the fact that 21% of women in the country undergo female genital mutilation to prevent them from experiencing sexual pleasure [4]? The fact that a women's programming competition even lies within the same spectrum to you is astonishing. But I guess that's the world we live in these days... [1] https://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/womenintech_facts_fullreport_05132016.pdf https://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/womenint... [2] https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/05/17/women-not-keeping-tech-job-surge/3zpMhvMB0UamwEIqv4ffUP/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2016/05/17/women-not-ke... [3] http://www.wsj.com/articles/whats-holding-back-women-in-tech-1458639004 http://www.wsj.com/articles/whats-holding-back-women-in-tech... [4] http://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR308/FR308.pdf http://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR308/FR308.pdf

noobermin 10y ago
Let's use an analogy to explain this. Clearly this competition is selecting for children, and not adults. Should I be allowed to enter it (I'm 26 and I am working towards a Ph.D. in computational physics)? What would stop us from calling the competition ageist? I think what I'd say and what I think most people here would agree is that it is for children because they are inexperienced and this is a way to initiate that interest in these kids or if they already have that interest, to help stoke it. The reason they discriminate, not in the politically loaded use of the term, but say cull amongst the pools of prospective participants is based on the need of these participants. As supernintendo said, there is a disparity between women and men in their technical literacy in Nairobi, so this competition chooses its focus based on said issues. When one takes into account needs and wants of certain groups, the argument of discrimination (the political kind) becomes harder to make. I'd say discrimination is more like restricting access not based on need of the participants but the preferences of the advantaged.
- FeepingCreature 10y ago
  I think the risk is that we are not prepared to extend the same sort of support to boys as the gender ratio begins to equalize; because women have been disadvantaged for so long we don't have the social and political infrastructure to transition to a more equitable system. Compare the slow development of abuse shelters for men despite the relatively similar gender ratios. I don't think it's out of place to raise calls of discrimination well in advance of the gender ratio balancing out. After all, a proportion of 56% to 20% in internet connectedness by gender is actually a massive improvement on the historical state of affairs. And yet, I'm seeing no willingness to even consider a more balanced distribution of aid - not completely balanced, of course, but adjusted to the actual gender split. Instead, raising the thought gets you labelled as some sort of misogynist. Well then.
  - noobermin 10y ago
    I don't want to raise a no-true scotsman (or the negation of it?) but I am not one of those people. For example, there's this[0] that demonstrates how perspectives on male abuse are not fair today. However, from your bigger point, I don't know what you mean, "because women have been disadvantaged for so long we don't have the social and political infrastructure to transition to a more equitable system." Equalization is happening already. Also, I really don't think that men will not be freed from gender roles eventually as well on a cultural level. That too is happening already and, well, we can't judge how society will act until we are well near that. The current situation is easily interpret-able so we should focus energy on that until we are near the equal point. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peNe6XUP_y4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peNe6XUP_y4
    - FeepingCreature 10y ago
      Inasmuch as it's happening, I'm glad to hear it. I'm all for help to all who require it in proportion to the urgency of their need; hopefully with an ongoing reduction in scarcity the battle lines about who requires what will start to soften. Right now, I'm just worried about behavior on parts of the internet that seems to be less about helping people and more about protecting the established status of certain disadvantaged groups; compare all the talk about privilege that ignores the nuances of the concept in favor of using it as a bludgeon to shut down possibly-legitimate complaints. (And yes, of course both sides have their assholes, but that shouldn't be an excuse to draw battle lines down the center.) I think the backlash arising from "you're privileged, so we don't need to listen to you" is going to do more harm than help to the social-justice movement in the medium run. That's why I'm very skeptical of trying to shut people up when they explicitly call for equitability in support. I think a lot of people would be far less worried about "reverse sexism" if they saw people in feminism and social justice acknowledge the fact that these aren't hard categories of oppression and disadvantage but instead factual observations of disadvantage in certain categories, which have merely historically fallen more on one side of the gender line. But of course, the assholes always shout louder than the moderates.

noobermin 10y ago

Let's use an analogy to explain this. Clearly this competition is selecting for children, and not adults. Should I be allowed to enter it (I'm 26 and I am working towards a Ph.D. in computational physics)? What would stop us from calling the competition ageist? I think what I'd say and what I think most people here would agree is that it is for children because they are inexperienced and this is a way to initiate that interest in these kids or if they already have that interest, to help stoke it. The reason they discriminate, not in the politically loaded use of the term, but say cull amongst the pools of prospective participants is based on the need of these participants. As supernintendo said, there is a disparity between women and men in their technical literacy in Nairobi, so this competition chooses its focus based on said issues. When one takes into account needs and wants of certain groups, the argument of discrimination (the political kind) becomes harder to make. I'd say discrimination is more like restricting access not based on need of the participants but the preferences of the advantaged.

FeepingCreature 10y ago
I think the risk is that we are not prepared to extend the same sort of support to boys as the gender ratio begins to equalize; because women have been disadvantaged for so long we don't have the social and political infrastructure to transition to a more equitable system. Compare the slow development of abuse shelters for men despite the relatively similar gender ratios. I don't think it's out of place to raise calls of discrimination well in advance of the gender ratio balancing out. After all, a proportion of 56% to 20% in internet connectedness by gender is actually a massive improvement on the historical state of affairs. And yet, I'm seeing no willingness to even consider a more balanced distribution of aid - not completely balanced, of course, but adjusted to the actual gender split. Instead, raising the thought gets you labelled as some sort of misogynist. Well then.
- noobermin 10y ago
  I don't want to raise a no-true scotsman (or the negation of it?) but I am not one of those people. For example, there's this[0] that demonstrates how perspectives on male abuse are not fair today. However, from your bigger point, I don't know what you mean, "because women have been disadvantaged for so long we don't have the social and political infrastructure to transition to a more equitable system." Equalization is happening already. Also, I really don't think that men will not be freed from gender roles eventually as well on a cultural level. That too is happening already and, well, we can't judge how society will act until we are well near that. The current situation is easily interpret-able so we should focus energy on that until we are near the equal point. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peNe6XUP_y4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peNe6XUP_y4
  - FeepingCreature 10y ago
    Inasmuch as it's happening, I'm glad to hear it. I'm all for help to all who require it in proportion to the urgency of their need; hopefully with an ongoing reduction in scarcity the battle lines about who requires what will start to soften. Right now, I'm just worried about behavior on parts of the internet that seems to be less about helping people and more about protecting the established status of certain disadvantaged groups; compare all the talk about privilege that ignores the nuances of the concept in favor of using it as a bludgeon to shut down possibly-legitimate complaints. (And yes, of course both sides have their assholes, but that shouldn't be an excuse to draw battle lines down the center.) I think the backlash arising from "you're privileged, so we don't need to listen to you" is going to do more harm than help to the social-justice movement in the medium run. That's why I'm very skeptical of trying to shut people up when they explicitly call for equitability in support. I think a lot of people would be far less worried about "reverse sexism" if they saw people in feminism and social justice acknowledge the fact that these aren't hard categories of oppression and disadvantage but instead factual observations of disadvantage in certain categories, which have merely historically fallen more on one side of the gender line. But of course, the assholes always shout louder than the moderates.