4 ms·

I presume that you also refuse to do talks or workshops where all the speakers, panelists or mentors are of one gender or race? If so, good on you. Look, you s

by kohanz 10y ago

I presume that you also refuse to do talks or workshops where all the speakers, panelists or mentors are of one gender or race? If so, good on you. Look, you sound like a nice guy, so I don't mean this as a personal attack, but your take on this is a classic example of how good people can fall into the trap of their own privilege. You don't do events where men/boys are not allowed to attend (e.g. girls who code) and that sounds noble and ideal. However, it somewhat ignores the fact that the reason these events have come into existence is that our profession has for decades suffered from massive amounts of systemic discrimination (sexism in particular). Just because it's not encoded in a written set of rules, doesn't mean it hasn't always been present. For men/boys, there are infinitely more events to attend where the gender balance will always be swung widely in their favor. When a woman developer joins/joined an all-male development team, do you think they have the luxury of being able to say "No, I won't do that"? Sure, there's no rule saying the team should be only male, but that's the "systemic" part. This is the "privilege" I'm referring to. You can say "no", because there are plenty of other talks and workshops for you to take part in. There is little to no negative impact on you from refusing those invites. What if women-only workshops were the predominant event out there? I don't think events like Girls Who Code are the final solution. I agree with you that, in the end, an industry and events open to everyone is the solution. However, we've reached such a massive imbalance by operating via the status quo that I think things like Girls Who Code, despite being "discriminatory" by a textbook definition, have a net positive effect, rather than the opposite. I'll happily volunteer my time to teach more girls to again when I have the chance. I don't think the lip-service of saying our industry and events are open to both men and women will tip the scales towards equality.

hueving 10y ago
False equivalence in your examples. The gp didn't say he would refuse to go to events that happened to be all girls. He would refuse to present at events that prevented male attendees. The massive difference is being explicitly prevented from joining based on sex, which makes your privilege rant pointless.
- kohanz 10y ago
  No, you just missed the point. You're exactly describing the difference between explicit and systemic discrimination. I will agree that they are "massively" different, because the systemic version has had an effect that is orders of magnitude greater than the explicit/exclusionary Girls-who-code type of camp. There are no explicitly sexist rules encoded in software professions, so why are those professions predominantly occupied by men? Please don't tell me this is because you believe that men are superior at this kind of work.
  - hueving 10y ago
    >so why are those professions predominantly occupied by men Same tired old crap. The profession is predominantly occupied by men because that's the ratio of males/females in graduating classes. You can have all of the male-hating programming clubs you want, but trying to solve some perceived systematic discrimination of an entire profession that reflects the student supply is ignorant sexism. I applaud anyone who has the integrity to stand up against discriminatory groups like this, particularly when the mainstream discrimination is supported by a lot of people such as yourself.
    - kohanz 10y ago
      If you think girl coding camps are about "male hating", then I think you've shown your true colours. You think I'm supporting discrimination and I think you're feeling threatened and aggressively defending your privilege. We'll just have to disagree because we're too far apart. All the best.
bmelton 10y ago
Not OP, so please don't presume I'm speaking for him, but there's a HUGE difference between a "woman only" event (from which men would be excluded) and a "woman focused" event. Similarly, there would be a difference between an all-male conference to which no women were invited and an all-male conference to which no women submitted. To state the obvious, exclusion is the differentiator, and it is not counterintuitive to be simultaneously in favor of promoting women while also being against the exclusion of non-women. My wife founded local chapters of a women-focused Girl Develop It organization, so I dearly understand that the issue can be divisive, but I personally find it hard to judge someone on whether they choose to be exclusive or inclusive, and not every event needs to conform to one "right" moral standard against which all others will be deemed deficient.
- kohanz 10y ago
  I'm not advocating that exclusion is the main solution (see my last paragraph), but it boils down to: do you think these events are a bad thing? Do they have a net-negative effect when it comes to balancing the gender inequality in our profession? I don't think so. Just because exclusive events exist temporarily while the imbalance is so great, doesn't mean inclusive events can't continue to thrive. Taking a principled stand against them means you don't support them and think they detract rather than contribute. If that's honestly your stance, I guess we just disagree on that. I will happily send my daughter to one of these events when she is old enough, but I hope they aren't necessary anymore by that time.
  - bmelton 10y ago
    > but it boils down to: do you think these events are a bad thing? And I guess what I failed to express that it doesn't have to be a binary 'good' or 'bad'. I personally don't judge inclusivity or exclusivity as either good or bad, nor do I see why anyone should, beyond determining what it means to them. If Boy Scouts of America want to exclude certain demographics, fine -- it's their club after all, but I don't want to participate in that, so I won't. Similarly, if Girls Who Code want to exclude certain demographics, that is also fine with me, and I still don't want to participate. I'm not making a value judgement on whether or not they're good or bad, but am instead deciding whether or not I personally want to be party to exclusion. For me, usually, the answer to that question is 'No'.
tombrossman 10y ago
> I presume that you also refuse to do talks or workshops where all the speakers, panelists or mentors are of one gender or race? If so, good on you. No, I would not refuse, mostly because this does not match my experience (though I accept it happens) and also because I just don't check for this kind of thing beforehand. Further complicating matters is how people self-describe their race or gender. Some prefer to be genderless, some cultures use different definitions for race than Americans do (e.g. "white" in Latin America and "Hispanic" in USA has significant overlap or none at all, depending on your culture. Even more confusing, upper-class people with what we call "black" skin were sometimes referred to as "whites" when I lived in Brazil, and this still amuses me). Bottom line is I don't focus on this much and I'm happy to accept whatever people want to describe themselves as. I don't find it that interesting or important. Back to the original topic, I think it would be perfectly fine to promote an event open to all, and to do so exclusively to women if that's who you want to target as promoter. Just don't tell any men to leave if they show up and I'm presenting, or I'm walking right out the door with them. I draw a distinction between promoting an event and access control at the event. And no offense taken, your points are well made and I think we just have a difference of opinion.
- kohanz 10y ago
  Thank you for taking my response in the right way and responding thoughtfully. I do think we have a difference of opinion, but I respect the level of thought you've put into your stance. I've mentored at "Ladies learning code" events before and wasn't told to leave, they also have the occasional male participant, so I think this varies per organizer or organization.

by kohanz 10y ago

hueving 10y ago

False equivalence in your examples. The gp didn't say he would refuse to go to events that happened to be all girls. He would refuse to present at events that prevented male attendees. The massive difference is being explicitly prevented from joining based on sex, which makes your privilege rant pointless.

kohanz 10y ago
No, you just missed the point. You're exactly describing the difference between explicit and systemic discrimination. I will agree that they are "massively" different, because the systemic version has had an effect that is orders of magnitude greater than the explicit/exclusionary Girls-who-code type of camp. There are no explicitly sexist rules encoded in software professions, so why are those professions predominantly occupied by men? Please don't tell me this is because you believe that men are superior at this kind of work.
- hueving 10y ago
  >so why are those professions predominantly occupied by men Same tired old crap. The profession is predominantly occupied by men because that's the ratio of males/females in graduating classes. You can have all of the male-hating programming clubs you want, but trying to solve some perceived systematic discrimination of an entire profession that reflects the student supply is ignorant sexism. I applaud anyone who has the integrity to stand up against discriminatory groups like this, particularly when the mainstream discrimination is supported by a lot of people such as yourself.
  - kohanz 10y ago
    If you think girl coding camps are about "male hating", then I think you've shown your true colours. You think I'm supporting discrimination and I think you're feeling threatened and aggressively defending your privilege. We'll just have to disagree because we're too far apart. All the best.

bmelton 10y ago

Not OP, so please don't presume I'm speaking for him, but there's a HUGE difference between a "woman only" event (from which men would be excluded) and a "woman focused" event. Similarly, there would be a difference between an all-male conference to which no women were invited and an all-male conference to which no women submitted. To state the obvious, exclusion is the differentiator, and it is not counterintuitive to be simultaneously in favor of promoting women while also being against the exclusion of non-women. My wife founded local chapters of a women-focused Girl Develop It organization, so I dearly understand that the issue can be divisive, but I personally find it hard to judge someone on whether they choose to be exclusive or inclusive, and not every event needs to conform to one "right" moral standard against which all others will be deemed deficient.

kohanz 10y ago
I'm not advocating that exclusion is the main solution (see my last paragraph), but it boils down to: do you think these events are a bad thing? Do they have a net-negative effect when it comes to balancing the gender inequality in our profession? I don't think so. Just because exclusive events exist temporarily while the imbalance is so great, doesn't mean inclusive events can't continue to thrive. Taking a principled stand against them means you don't support them and think they detract rather than contribute. If that's honestly your stance, I guess we just disagree on that. I will happily send my daughter to one of these events when she is old enough, but I hope they aren't necessary anymore by that time.
- bmelton 10y ago
  > but it boils down to: do you think these events are a bad thing? And I guess what I failed to express that it doesn't have to be a binary 'good' or 'bad'. I personally don't judge inclusivity or exclusivity as either good or bad, nor do I see why anyone should, beyond determining what it means to them. If Boy Scouts of America want to exclude certain demographics, fine -- it's their club after all, but I don't want to participate in that, so I won't. Similarly, if Girls Who Code want to exclude certain demographics, that is also fine with me, and I still don't want to participate. I'm not making a value judgement on whether or not they're good or bad, but am instead deciding whether or not I personally want to be party to exclusion. For me, usually, the answer to that question is 'No'.

tombrossman 10y ago

> I presume that you also refuse to do talks or workshops where all the speakers, panelists or mentors are of one gender or race? If so, good on you. No, I would not refuse, mostly because this does not match my experience (though I accept it happens) and also because I just don't check for this kind of thing beforehand. Further complicating matters is how people self-describe their race or gender. Some prefer to be genderless, some cultures use different definitions for race than Americans do (e.g. "white" in Latin America and "Hispanic" in USA has significant overlap or none at all, depending on your culture. Even more confusing, upper-class people with what we call "black" skin were sometimes referred to as "whites" when I lived in Brazil, and this still amuses me). Bottom line is I don't focus on this much and I'm happy to accept whatever people want to describe themselves as. I don't find it that interesting or important. Back to the original topic, I think it would be perfectly fine to promote an event open to all, and to do so exclusively to women if that's who you want to target as promoter. Just don't tell any men to leave if they show up and I'm presenting, or I'm walking right out the door with them. I draw a distinction between promoting an event and access control at the event. And no offense taken, your points are well made and I think we just have a difference of opinion.

kohanz 10y ago
Thank you for taking my response in the right way and responding thoughtfully. I do think we have a difference of opinion, but I respect the level of thought you've put into your stance. I've mentored at "Ladies learning code" events before and wasn't told to leave, they also have the occasional male participant, so I think this varies per organizer or organization.