10 ms·

I realize that the realities of the limited resources available for charities and non-profits is what leads to the ethnic and gender based targeting, but this j

by JPKab 14y ago

I realize that the realities of the limited resources available for charities and non-profits is what leads to the ethnic and gender based targeting, but this just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Is it a good cause? Yes. Teaching any disadvantaged group a useful skill is a great thing, but solving a problem of exclusion with further exclusion is, in principal, bad. I grew up in a poor, mostly black, rural county in Virginia. The opportunities for learning to code were zero. There was no computer science class, while students attending public schools in the DC suburbs of northern Virginia got to have programming classes starting in middle school. People WANTED to learn to code, but they couldn't. These were poor people, of all colors and genders. Will this make Women's Studies graduates and professors happy? Yes. Will it make African-American Studies graduates and professors happy? Probably. I could point out the bullshit in this idea in so many ways, but I'll stick with just one: Among black americans, which group has a lower graduation rate? Males or females? Which group is more likely to be unemployed, males or females? Which group is more likely to be incarcerated? The list goes on. I know it's not cool to help boys/males these days, but all the statistics point to a dramatic problem with young men of all races today. It's too bad that there isn't a powerful special interest group backed up by a bunch of humanities professors looking out for the impoverished non-black non-females of America. Charities should be based on need and helping the greater good, not on playing favorites.

_pius 14y ago
I read your rant a few times and I've yet to see your point. Charities should be based on need and helping the greater good, not on playing favorites. This isn't a charity. A black woman started this program to address a legitimate need that she saw. Others who agreed with her gave her money to do it. Where is the bad in this? How is this anything but a net positive for the world?
- JPKab 14y ago
  The bad in this would be a young black girl trying to bring her hispanic friend. Exclusion is exclusion. If this were the WhiteBoysSew club, you would call it racist, despite the fact that very few white boys learn to sew.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
    - gardenshoes 14y ago
      I think his point is that the program is being racist (in the sense that it is preferring a race to another), which we are conditioned to think of as wrong. But, because it benefits a minority, it's okay. It's also sexist.
  - jbattle 14y ago
    I would be a little surprised if anyone seriously objected to a sewing for boys class
    - _delirium 14y ago
      There actually are groups like that for areas where men are historically underrepresented, such as the American Assembly for Men in Nursing (http://aamn.org/ http://aamn.org/). As far as I know they don't get a lot of flak. With white people in specific there is a bit of eyebrow-raising, because "white" is a bit broad, a historically dominant group (in the U.S.), and has some history of "white organizations" being intended mainly for exclusionary purposes. Despite being white myself, I would probably be skeptical of the intentions of someone who asked me to join an organization with "white" in the name. More specific organizations targeting subsets of white people are common, though. For example, there are scholarship programs for Americans of Greek ancestry. There are also a number of initiatives targeting "Rural Appalachians", which is not definitionally white, but is almost exclusively an identity held by white people.
      - rmc 14y ago
        More specific organizations targeting subsets of white people are common, though. For example, there are scholarship programs for Americans of Greek ancestry. Lots this non-Anglos weren't considered white back in the day. JFK was asked if his being Catholic would hinder him.
  - 14y ago
- mibbitier 14y ago
  I'd guess the bad bit is the sexism and racism. Would you be so positive if it was some program that excluded any applicant that wasn't a white male?
  - _pius 14y ago
    This: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4262233 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4262233
    - mibbitier 14y ago
      I disagree. Everyone can be a minority if they decide to, depending on how you cut the population. To claim "white males" are a majority is just an arbitrary distinction you're making. Everyone is a majority or minority depending on your criteria. You don't fix racism/sexist/etc with more racism/sexism/etc. You fix it by being inclusive, and judging people on their merits.
      - _pius 14y ago
        Everyone can be a minority if they decide to, depending on how you cut the population. In other news: down is up, black is white, and true is false, depending on your criteria. There are actual facts in the world and you don't get to change them to suit your side of the argument.
      - natrius 14y ago
        The goal of this program isn't to fix racism or sexism. It's to encourage a group of people to explore programming who do so at lower a rate than many other groups. If the talents and desires needed to program are evenly distributed among the population, this is a targeted way to improve the lives of people who wouldn't discover programming on their own. A program that wasn't narrowly targeted would have a lower return on investment.
        mibbitier 14y ago
        And that's fine. But you can't have it both ways... If you believe in free speech, you have to accept people saying things you don't like. If you believe in freedom to set criteria on who you accept for something, you should also accept "white men only private clubs" etc.
- vijayr 14y ago
  I understand where the GP is coming from. Teaching kids to code is an absolutely nice thing to do. But segregating based on color or gender or caste is never a good idea. What if a poor white or Asian or Hispanic kid wants to join this class? They'll be turned away? To give an example: India is a deeply divided society, based on caste/religion etc. In many educational institutions, huge percentage of seats are reserved for the so called "lower" castes. So a kid, who gets very low grades, can get into a good institution, just because he is from a lower caste, even if that kid's family is rich. On the other hand, a poor kid from a so called "higher" caste, can't get in, even after getting high grades, as there are only so many seats and competition is tough. This has wrecked havoc in the Indian society, as absolutely dumb kids get into good colleges, while bright kids are left out. Charities should never ever be based on color, gender, caste etc. Charity should be based on need and need only. Any kid who wants to learn to code, should be welcome, irrespective of their color. It does however, make sense to say no based on affordability - meaning, saying no to a rich kid makes sense, as he/she will find another teacher anyway, because he/she can afford it. Again, she is doing a great noble work, no question about it. It would be even more awesome, if she just taught all kids, instead of just black kids.
  - king_jester 14y ago
    > But segregating based on color or gender or caste is never a good idea. What if a poor white or Asian or Hispanic kid wants to join this class? Charities are free to focus on where the most need is based on the limited resources they have. There is a significant lack of women of color in US tech circles, so there is nothing wrong with a charity targeting that. Charity by definition won't be able to focus on everyone. > To give an example: India is a deeply divided society, based on caste/religion etc. This is a US-based charity targeting people of color living in the US. Comparisons between the US and India are not helpful here. > Charities should never ever be based on color, gender, caste etc. Charity should be based on need and need only. This is nonsense. Those that would benefit the most from this charity program already face discrimination and lack of opportunity BECAUSE OF their race and gender. > It would be even more awesome, if she just taught all kids, instead of just black kids. It would also be awesome if social barriers didn't exist at all and this kind of program wouldn't be needed, but we don't live in that world. That said, this program is absolutely doing good work and is right to target who needs this kind of assistance the most.
peterwwillis 14y ago
So you're saying that charities should do a breakdown of all the demographics in a given area, and spend exactly the same resources on getting them all help? I wasn't aware that charities and non-profits were supposed to be so generalized. I thought targeting specific issues was part of the point, to have a greater chance at solving at least one problem. The net effect of this organization's efforts will be to elevate several different demographics by targeting one. White/black/etc women will be able to relate to the black women in this course. Black men and women will be able to relate to the black women in this course. On top of that, since it's kids, their friends who are kids of any race/sex will find it easier to relate to, and eventually study and work in the field. tl;dr This helps a ton of people by only targeting a few. It's an amazing and effective idea.
- JPKab 14y ago
  There should be zero targeting of ethnicity. Excluding people based on ethnicity is wrong, no matter what the ethnic group is. And what makes you so sure that black men would relate to black women better than they would men of other ethnic backgrounds? Which is the bigger divider, gender or ethnicity? The point I am making isn't that this isn't a good thing, because as I said in my original post, helping any disadvantaged group of people is a good thing. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy in doing it based on race. Why not make it CityGirlsCode? If the argument for BlackGirlsCode is so logical, why would it be wrong to have an organization called WhiteGirlsCode in the poor areas of Appalachia? It's wrong in both instances, its just that modern political correctness has taught you that it's ok to discriminate based on race as long as it isn't favoring whites.
  - mindstab 14y ago
    You don't get it. By "not discriminating" you are essentially discriminating against everyone who isn't in the majority. People are not these ideal unxenophobic people. You say you grew up in a black neighborhood but I'm going to guess you are a white male yourself. People group by like and are often exclusionary. Look at Gnome and Google's summer of code. They have started doing specifically female targeted ones because they females are there but aren't applying to the normal ones for a myrid of reasons plenty of which are mighty valid. I'm sorry but targeted helping is needed and is a good thing. Stop over reacting because for the first time you almost nearly kind of feel the sting of discrimination. All is not even close to equal.
Torgo 14y ago
Is it really true that charities should be allocated first based on need? Maybe public funding, but these are voluntary donations by private individuals. A lot of charity is based on affinity to groups. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you want to eliminate this. People give money to whomever they want, it may not be the most fair or do the most critical good in an absolute sense, but it might ameliorate some real suffering and disadvantage in the world.
TechNewb 14y ago
Agreed. This fits the definition of racism: "Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief." Any targeting based on the color of skin is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. Charity should be called something that does that imply racial discrimination.
- slurgfest 14y ago
  So I take it that any attempt to help Native Americans on the reservation is racist because it is not helping poor whites?
  - TechNewb 14y ago
    Things are not black and white, no pun intended. But Habitat for Humanity is a good example of a charity executed right. They help Native Americans, to everyone else. So yes, if you exclusively help someone solely based off the color of their skin, with the notion of advancing only a certain race, then yes, I would consider that racist. It's not called Habitat for Native Americans. Or Habitat for Blacks. It's called Habitat for Humanity. Also, affirmative action based off of race is morally wrong. (Note about me: My gf is of another ethnicity origin than myself, and I love diversity. I see organizations that are based on race morally wrong, and promote segregation and cultural bias)
- rmc 14y ago
  Depends. Some people define racism (& sexism etc) as "descrimination against a disadvantaged group by a privilieged group based on what separates them". This would mean a black person in USA would not in general be able to be racist against a white person.
slurgfest 14y ago
If some black girls want to code, what possible reason do you have to object? Let them. Leave them alone, if you aren't supportive. That's all you need to do. The group isn't preventing white people from coding. If you want white people to code, you can make your own group. And it will fly really well anywhere in the South and many places in the West and you won't have to say anything about how it's only for white people, there are a hundred ways that can be signaled. Again, if you want to help boys specifically - I actually think that's an important target for 'affirmative action' because boys are falling so far behind in academic achievement. Do it. Good for you. And good for the people trying to help black girls
- Produce 14y ago
  So if I started a charity called WhiteMenCode, do you think that it would be fair to all of the other races and genders? Would it be fair that one segment of the impoverished get special treatment? Surely it would be better to organise something like PoorPeopleCode, since that is the segment of society which, in fact, needs help - poor people. Who gives a crap about race or gender? It's bigger than that.
  - natrius 14y ago
    "Surely it would be better to organise something like PoorPeopleCode, since that is the segment of society which, in fact, needs help - poor people." Women code less than men of the same socioeconomic background. Not everything is about money. Plenty of these girls would make decent livings for themselves in other fields, but thanks to this program, some will find that programming is their true calling. That is a worthwhile effort.
    - bilbo0s 14y ago
      Well... Not really. To be COMPLETELY fair, we would need to concede that in this particular demographic... That is... poor, black children... NO ONE has a real opportunity to code, male or female. So I think a PoorPeopleCode would have made more sense here. Having mentioned that, I believe firmly in the principle of people being able to contribute charitably to whatever cause they please. It's just that, quite naturally, there will develop in any culture... well ... let's call them 'preferences'. In India, the government just started an investigation of private schools which forced Dalits to wear different uniforms, stand in the back of classrooms etc. In Indonesia... it's not good to be a Chinese Christian. And... in the US ... I'm not letting anyone in on any secrets when I tell you that you don't want to be a black boy in our school system for instance. These 'preferences' usually manifest themselves in charitable giving and... VOILA. This doesn't make the charity 'bad', just puts it in line with most of the other charitable giving in the US. Not so much 'bad', as just... 'unexceptional'. Sorry to be so longwinded. Was just trying to be fair to both sides.
markessien 14y ago
What's the difference between "Girls Code" and "Black Girls Code". They both exclude a significant chunk of the population, but one is slightly more targeted than the other. They both exclude based on biology and facts on ground. It's the exact same thing. One could also say "Dallas Girls Code", a program for girls in the dallas area. It's perfectly okay.
sophacles 14y ago
Yeah, you know what else sucks - there is funding for support groups of cancer survivors. What a pile of crap that they don't fund me to go in and learn about surviving cancer. I think cancer sucks too, and its just so unfair that they are exclusionary because of some silly thing like "had cancer". What makes them special? I mean shit, I grew up in a household where my grandma DIED of cancer. I don't deserve support and sympathy just because I didn't have it? What a pile of crap. I know its uncool to have never had cancer these days, but lets just be honest: it would be much more useful to the world to give everyone a "cancer sucks" dollar than to provide some people with enough dollars to specialize on one part of the problem. Then we could all be equal and awesome. I understand, that cancer survivors feel alone and lost to the world, but is the right way to fight that really by putting them in a group of other "people who understand"? This favoritism is bullshit. (For those who don't get sarcasm, or if I somehow stumbled on a high poe factor, the preceding rant was sarcasm)
- rmc 14y ago
  Excellent analogy. Medical care (i.e. money spent) is given out to people who need it. The more you need it, the more you should get it. Conversely, you don't give a cancer sufferer the same amount of money as you gave someone without cancer. Which is what people often suggest when projects want to help disadvantaged groups ("We shouldn't get BlackGirlsCode any more money than we give to WhiteGuysCode, otherwise it's RACIST!")
drumdance 14y ago
It's an issue of marketing. Which message converts better? 1. Children are starving in Africa. Send money. 2. This particular child [picture] in Sudan will probably die in the next 7 days. Send money. Specialization is good.
dinkumthinkum 14y ago
Yeah, it's not about playing favorites, good try though. It's about actually helping a specific group. Under this view, we should just have "Help Kids learn to code" or, maybe that is agist "Help People learn to code" I won't be pedantic and claim maybe you won't like the emphasis on "people," I'll stop there. The problem is that I think you could demonstrate that such a broad/general program would not be as effective as one focused on this particular or similar groups ("bald hispanic men under 40" as someone else so eloquently put is not a serious group). There is something qualitative about the world and social interactions that is completely missed by this simplistic mentality; this sort of thing is always couched in logic but it is argument free of any necessary context.
wpietri 14y ago
Can you explain what you're doing to help disadvantaged people learn to code that is better than this? Because if the answer is nothing, then I don't think you have much standing to talk. Shouting "U R DOIN IT RONG" while standing on the sidelines just reduces the the speed at which the world gets better, so I don't have a lot of time for it. Anyhow, I gave 'em a hundred bucks. I give money to other people, too.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Steko 14y ago
"It's too bad that there isn't a powerful special interest group backed up by a bunch of humanities professors looking out for the impoverished non-black non-females" Shorter JPKab: poor white men, when will they ever catch a break in this country.
aristus 14y ago
My father had some bad experiences with "La Raza" in the 60s because back then it really was race politics. Today my wife and I participate in a lot of their arts programs even though I look as white as Martha Stewart. I imagine that if a hispanic girl were to ask to join this program, she would not be told no. It'd be an interesting experiment. On the other hand this looks like a privately-funded venture so they are free to do what they wish. I have a dog in this fight because I give away copies of my book to clubs like this. I have noticed that the girls clubs are a lot more organized and get press, which worries me a bit. But helping someone is better than helping no one. Have you a suggestion for how I can reach out to more kinds of people?

by JPKab 14y ago

_pius 14y ago

I read your rant a few times and I've yet to see your point. Charities should be based on need and helping the greater good, not on playing favorites. This isn't a charity. A black woman started this program to address a legitimate need that she saw. Others who agreed with her gave her money to do it. Where is the bad in this? How is this anything but a net positive for the world?

JPKab 14y ago
The bad in this would be a young black girl trying to bring her hispanic friend. Exclusion is exclusion. If this were the WhiteBoysSew club, you would call it racist, despite the fact that very few white boys learn to sew.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - gardenshoes 14y ago
    I think his point is that the program is being racist (in the sense that it is preferring a race to another), which we are conditioned to think of as wrong. But, because it benefits a minority, it's okay. It's also sexist.
- jbattle 14y ago
  I would be a little surprised if anyone seriously objected to a sewing for boys class
  - _delirium 14y ago
    There actually are groups like that for areas where men are historically underrepresented, such as the American Assembly for Men in Nursing (http://aamn.org/ http://aamn.org/). As far as I know they don't get a lot of flak. With white people in specific there is a bit of eyebrow-raising, because "white" is a bit broad, a historically dominant group (in the U.S.), and has some history of "white organizations" being intended mainly for exclusionary purposes. Despite being white myself, I would probably be skeptical of the intentions of someone who asked me to join an organization with "white" in the name. More specific organizations targeting subsets of white people are common, though. For example, there are scholarship programs for Americans of Greek ancestry. There are also a number of initiatives targeting "Rural Appalachians", which is not definitionally white, but is almost exclusively an identity held by white people.
    - rmc 14y ago
      More specific organizations targeting subsets of white people are common, though. For example, there are scholarship programs for Americans of Greek ancestry. Lots this non-Anglos weren't considered white back in the day. JFK was asked if his being Catholic would hinder him.
- 14y ago
mibbitier 14y ago
I'd guess the bad bit is the sexism and racism. Would you be so positive if it was some program that excluded any applicant that wasn't a white male?
- _pius 14y ago
  This: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4262233 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4262233
  - mibbitier 14y ago
    I disagree. Everyone can be a minority if they decide to, depending on how you cut the population. To claim "white males" are a majority is just an arbitrary distinction you're making. Everyone is a majority or minority depending on your criteria. You don't fix racism/sexist/etc with more racism/sexism/etc. You fix it by being inclusive, and judging people on their merits.
    - _pius 14y ago
      Everyone can be a minority if they decide to, depending on how you cut the population. In other news: down is up, black is white, and true is false, depending on your criteria. There are actual facts in the world and you don't get to change them to suit your side of the argument.
    - natrius 14y ago
      The goal of this program isn't to fix racism or sexism. It's to encourage a group of people to explore programming who do so at lower a rate than many other groups. If the talents and desires needed to program are evenly distributed among the population, this is a targeted way to improve the lives of people who wouldn't discover programming on their own. A program that wasn't narrowly targeted would have a lower return on investment.
      - mibbitier 14y ago
        And that's fine. But you can't have it both ways... If you believe in free speech, you have to accept people saying things you don't like. If you believe in freedom to set criteria on who you accept for something, you should also accept "white men only private clubs" etc.
vijayr 14y ago
I understand where the GP is coming from. Teaching kids to code is an absolutely nice thing to do. But segregating based on color or gender or caste is never a good idea. What if a poor white or Asian or Hispanic kid wants to join this class? They'll be turned away? To give an example: India is a deeply divided society, based on caste/religion etc. In many educational institutions, huge percentage of seats are reserved for the so called "lower" castes. So a kid, who gets very low grades, can get into a good institution, just because he is from a lower caste, even if that kid's family is rich. On the other hand, a poor kid from a so called "higher" caste, can't get in, even after getting high grades, as there are only so many seats and competition is tough. This has wrecked havoc in the Indian society, as absolutely dumb kids get into good colleges, while bright kids are left out. Charities should never ever be based on color, gender, caste etc. Charity should be based on need and need only. Any kid who wants to learn to code, should be welcome, irrespective of their color. It does however, make sense to say no based on affordability - meaning, saying no to a rich kid makes sense, as he/she will find another teacher anyway, because he/she can afford it. Again, she is doing a great noble work, no question about it. It would be even more awesome, if she just taught all kids, instead of just black kids.
- king_jester 14y ago
  > But segregating based on color or gender or caste is never a good idea. What if a poor white or Asian or Hispanic kid wants to join this class? Charities are free to focus on where the most need is based on the limited resources they have. There is a significant lack of women of color in US tech circles, so there is nothing wrong with a charity targeting that. Charity by definition won't be able to focus on everyone. > To give an example: India is a deeply divided society, based on caste/religion etc. This is a US-based charity targeting people of color living in the US. Comparisons between the US and India are not helpful here. > Charities should never ever be based on color, gender, caste etc. Charity should be based on need and need only. This is nonsense. Those that would benefit the most from this charity program already face discrimination and lack of opportunity BECAUSE OF their race and gender. > It would be even more awesome, if she just taught all kids, instead of just black kids. It would also be awesome if social barriers didn't exist at all and this kind of program wouldn't be needed, but we don't live in that world. That said, this program is absolutely doing good work and is right to target who needs this kind of assistance the most.

peterwwillis 14y ago

So you're saying that charities should do a breakdown of all the demographics in a given area, and spend exactly the same resources on getting them all help? I wasn't aware that charities and non-profits were supposed to be so generalized. I thought targeting specific issues was part of the point, to have a greater chance at solving at least one problem. The net effect of this organization's efforts will be to elevate several different demographics by targeting one. White/black/etc women will be able to relate to the black women in this course. Black men and women will be able to relate to the black women in this course. On top of that, since it's kids, their friends who are kids of any race/sex will find it easier to relate to, and eventually study and work in the field. tl;dr This helps a ton of people by only targeting a few. It's an amazing and effective idea.

JPKab 14y ago
There should be zero targeting of ethnicity. Excluding people based on ethnicity is wrong, no matter what the ethnic group is. And what makes you so sure that black men would relate to black women better than they would men of other ethnic backgrounds? Which is the bigger divider, gender or ethnicity? The point I am making isn't that this isn't a good thing, because as I said in my original post, helping any disadvantaged group of people is a good thing. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy in doing it based on race. Why not make it CityGirlsCode? If the argument for BlackGirlsCode is so logical, why would it be wrong to have an organization called WhiteGirlsCode in the poor areas of Appalachia? It's wrong in both instances, its just that modern political correctness has taught you that it's ok to discriminate based on race as long as it isn't favoring whites.
- mindstab 14y ago
  You don't get it. By "not discriminating" you are essentially discriminating against everyone who isn't in the majority. People are not these ideal unxenophobic people. You say you grew up in a black neighborhood but I'm going to guess you are a white male yourself. People group by like and are often exclusionary. Look at Gnome and Google's summer of code. They have started doing specifically female targeted ones because they females are there but aren't applying to the normal ones for a myrid of reasons plenty of which are mighty valid. I'm sorry but targeted helping is needed and is a good thing. Stop over reacting because for the first time you almost nearly kind of feel the sting of discrimination. All is not even close to equal.

Torgo 14y ago

Is it really true that charities should be allocated first based on need? Maybe public funding, but these are voluntary donations by private individuals. A lot of charity is based on affinity to groups. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you want to eliminate this. People give money to whomever they want, it may not be the most fair or do the most critical good in an absolute sense, but it might ameliorate some real suffering and disadvantage in the world.

TechNewb 14y ago

Agreed. This fits the definition of racism: "Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief." Any targeting based on the color of skin is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. Charity should be called something that does that imply racial discrimination.

slurgfest 14y ago
So I take it that any attempt to help Native Americans on the reservation is racist because it is not helping poor whites?
- TechNewb 14y ago
  Things are not black and white, no pun intended. But Habitat for Humanity is a good example of a charity executed right. They help Native Americans, to everyone else. So yes, if you exclusively help someone solely based off the color of their skin, with the notion of advancing only a certain race, then yes, I would consider that racist. It's not called Habitat for Native Americans. Or Habitat for Blacks. It's called Habitat for Humanity. Also, affirmative action based off of race is morally wrong. (Note about me: My gf is of another ethnicity origin than myself, and I love diversity. I see organizations that are based on race morally wrong, and promote segregation and cultural bias)
rmc 14y ago
Depends. Some people define racism (& sexism etc) as "descrimination against a disadvantaged group by a privilieged group based on what separates them". This would mean a black person in USA would not in general be able to be racist against a white person.

slurgfest 14y ago

If some black girls want to code, what possible reason do you have to object? Let them. Leave them alone, if you aren't supportive. That's all you need to do. The group isn't preventing white people from coding. If you want white people to code, you can make your own group. And it will fly really well anywhere in the South and many places in the West and you won't have to say anything about how it's only for white people, there are a hundred ways that can be signaled. Again, if you want to help boys specifically - I actually think that's an important target for 'affirmative action' because boys are falling so far behind in academic achievement. Do it. Good for you. And good for the people trying to help black girls

Produce 14y ago
So if I started a charity called WhiteMenCode, do you think that it would be fair to all of the other races and genders? Would it be fair that one segment of the impoverished get special treatment? Surely it would be better to organise something like PoorPeopleCode, since that is the segment of society which, in fact, needs help - poor people. Who gives a crap about race or gender? It's bigger than that.
- natrius 14y ago
  "Surely it would be better to organise something like PoorPeopleCode, since that is the segment of society which, in fact, needs help - poor people." Women code less than men of the same socioeconomic background. Not everything is about money. Plenty of these girls would make decent livings for themselves in other fields, but thanks to this program, some will find that programming is their true calling. That is a worthwhile effort.
  - bilbo0s 14y ago
    Well... Not really. To be COMPLETELY fair, we would need to concede that in this particular demographic... That is... poor, black children... NO ONE has a real opportunity to code, male or female. So I think a PoorPeopleCode would have made more sense here. Having mentioned that, I believe firmly in the principle of people being able to contribute charitably to whatever cause they please. It's just that, quite naturally, there will develop in any culture... well ... let's call them 'preferences'. In India, the government just started an investigation of private schools which forced Dalits to wear different uniforms, stand in the back of classrooms etc. In Indonesia... it's not good to be a Chinese Christian. And... in the US ... I'm not letting anyone in on any secrets when I tell you that you don't want to be a black boy in our school system for instance. These 'preferences' usually manifest themselves in charitable giving and... VOILA. This doesn't make the charity 'bad', just puts it in line with most of the other charitable giving in the US. Not so much 'bad', as just... 'unexceptional'. Sorry to be so longwinded. Was just trying to be fair to both sides.

markessien 14y ago

What's the difference between "Girls Code" and "Black Girls Code". They both exclude a significant chunk of the population, but one is slightly more targeted than the other. They both exclude based on biology and facts on ground. It's the exact same thing. One could also say "Dallas Girls Code", a program for girls in the dallas area. It's perfectly okay.

sophacles 14y ago

Yeah, you know what else sucks - there is funding for support groups of cancer survivors. What a pile of crap that they don't fund me to go in and learn about surviving cancer. I think cancer sucks too, and its just so unfair that they are exclusionary because of some silly thing like "had cancer". What makes them special? I mean shit, I grew up in a household where my grandma DIED of cancer. I don't deserve support and sympathy just because I didn't have it? What a pile of crap. I know its uncool to have never had cancer these days, but lets just be honest: it would be much more useful to the world to give everyone a "cancer sucks" dollar than to provide some people with enough dollars to specialize on one part of the problem. Then we could all be equal and awesome. I understand, that cancer survivors feel alone and lost to the world, but is the right way to fight that really by putting them in a group of other "people who understand"? This favoritism is bullshit. (For those who don't get sarcasm, or if I somehow stumbled on a high poe factor, the preceding rant was sarcasm)

rmc 14y ago
Excellent analogy. Medical care (i.e. money spent) is given out to people who need it. The more you need it, the more you should get it. Conversely, you don't give a cancer sufferer the same amount of money as you gave someone without cancer. Which is what people often suggest when projects want to help disadvantaged groups ("We shouldn't get BlackGirlsCode any more money than we give to WhiteGuysCode, otherwise it's RACIST!")

drumdance 14y ago

It's an issue of marketing. Which message converts better? 1. Children are starving in Africa. Send money. 2. This particular child [picture] in Sudan will probably die in the next 7 days. Send money. Specialization is good.

dinkumthinkum 14y ago

Yeah, it's not about playing favorites, good try though. It's about actually helping a specific group. Under this view, we should just have "Help Kids learn to code" or, maybe that is agist "Help People learn to code" I won't be pedantic and claim maybe you won't like the emphasis on "people," I'll stop there. The problem is that I think you could demonstrate that such a broad/general program would not be as effective as one focused on this particular or similar groups ("bald hispanic men under 40" as someone else so eloquently put is not a serious group). There is something qualitative about the world and social interactions that is completely missed by this simplistic mentality; this sort of thing is always couched in logic but it is argument free of any necessary context.

wpietri 14y ago

Can you explain what you're doing to help disadvantaged people learn to code that is better than this? Because if the answer is nothing, then I don't think you have much standing to talk. Shouting "U R DOIN IT RONG" while standing on the sidelines just reduces the the speed at which the world gets better, so I don't have a lot of time for it. Anyhow, I gave 'em a hundred bucks. I give money to other people, too.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Steko 14y ago

"It's too bad that there isn't a powerful special interest group backed up by a bunch of humanities professors looking out for the impoverished non-black non-females" Shorter JPKab: poor white men, when will they ever catch a break in this country.

aristus 14y ago

My father had some bad experiences with "La Raza" in the 60s because back then it really was race politics. Today my wife and I participate in a lot of their arts programs even though I look as white as Martha Stewart. I imagine that if a hispanic girl were to ask to join this program, she would not be told no. It'd be an interesting experiment. On the other hand this looks like a privately-funded venture so they are free to do what they wish. I have a dog in this fight because I give away copies of my book to clubs like this. I have noticed that the girls clubs are a lot more organized and get press, which worries me a bit. But helping someone is better than helping no one. Have you a suggestion for how I can reach out to more kinds of people?