> Both of which show some good sponsorship. Heck, on the first page, under "resources" there is mention of a magazine called "male nurse magazine" You are eith

> Both of which show some good sponsorship. Heck, on the first page, under "resources" there is mention of a magazine called "male nurse magazine" You are either not serious, or seriously blinkered. What, two links that go to the same "American Assembly for Men in Nursing" association, a magazine for male nurses and a link to some history are equivalent to sponsorship from some of the biggest and most popular software employers (Google, Intel, Microsoft)? As I said, show me something visible like Sloan Kettering, or the Harvard Medical School sponsoring male nurses, or offering free courses to them. > This is poor reasoning. Just because there are initiatives to help one group, and there aren't - for whatever reason - initiatives to help another group, doesn't mean that the initiatives that do exist are a problem. An attempt to solve one problem does not invalidate the other. Nor does the lack of solution to one problem invalidate attempts to solve other problems. It's like this: my software has 2 bugs. I spend a week fixing one bug. My boss doesn't complain that I didn't solve both bugs, but rather praises me for fixing one and says "now fix the other". No, but if there are two bugs (say A and B), and one of them (say B) is similar to another one that is marked INVALID or WONTFIX, your boss might complain that you're spending a ton of time on B. In this analogy, attracting more low-income men into tech would be the WONTFIX bug, since no one is rushing to fix it. Look at this story (http://www.girlswhocode.com/about-us/#section5 http://www.girlswhocode.com/about-us/#section5). Note that this is a girl who is also more likely to go into college and get a degree (60% of all college graduates are now women). A 15-year low-income male in the same situation? Tough luck, no "Boys who Code", or even "People Who Code" initiative for him.