Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday January 11 2017, @05:19PM   Printer-friendly
from the I'm-not-moving-to-Detroit dept.

General Motors has announced a new partnership with education nonprofit Girls Who Code that's intended to encourage more young women to pursue STEM subjects. The auto manufacturer will offer up a $250,000 grant to help fund after-school STEM clubs in schools, universities, and community centers.

"Becoming an engineer paved the way for my career," said GM CEO Mary Barra in a statement posted to the company's website. "It's one of the reasons I am passionate about promoting STEM education to students everywhere. Partnering with Girls Who Code is one more step in GM's commitment to inspiring and growing diverse future leaders."

[...] GM and Girls Who Code are pursuing this collaboration is [sic] response to the decreasing proportion of women in jobs related to computing, even as the field continues to grow. In 1995, 37 percent of the computing workforce was comprised of women, but today that has shrunk to 24 percent.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @05:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @05:26PM (#452568)

    How can this even be?

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 11 2017, @05:49PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2017, @05:49PM (#452579) Journal

      The urge is to lambast you for crying sexism about people trying to address already-present sexism through (charitable, voluntary) affirmative action.

      But we both know that argument will go nowhere. Instead, I'd like to talk about definitions, morality, and maybe even first principles, and try to get at how you got to where you're whining about sexism, on what I'd personally view as a pretty harmless attempt to combat it.

      If you have the time to humor me, could you please answer these questions?
      *How do you define sexism? In your own words, as much as possible, because applying the dictionary definition(which one?) doesn't help get at your feelings on the matter.
      *How does that relate to morality? Why is sexism wrong?
      *How does that relate to this situation? Which moral boundaries are they violating, and how much?

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:23PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:23PM (#452603)

        You cannot combat sexism with sexism.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:38PM

          by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:38PM (#452619) Journal

          I've got another folksy saying for you.

          You can't resolve fundamental and profound disagreements with unsubstantiated thought-terminating-cliches.

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:42PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:42PM (#452621)

            You can resolve any problem with a gun; that's where your ilk is leading the world.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:57PM

              by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:57PM (#452633) Journal

              Yes, please, comrade, seize that person who doesn't think about the details and nuances of their beliefs and bring them before the firing squad. No trial, they posted something dumb on the internet.

              Really, I think these principles are probably worth fighting, killing, and dying for(the recent nazification of the US has forced me to think on that) if it comes to that, I can't imagine your half-assed "but-but-but technically" bullshit means as much to you.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:39PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:39PM (#452679)

                you're the socialist, you dumb fuck

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:45PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:45PM (#452751)

                  Yes, we are the socialist. We surround you. We are the majority. We have more guns. We know how to educate. You are in big trouble, you racist, sexist, Ford loving moron!

                  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Thursday January 12 2017, @01:34AM

                    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 12 2017, @01:34AM (#452807) Journal

                    Sadly, I'm not actually socialist.

                    Compared to the American almost-literally-worshipping-the-market-as-divine center, I could come off that way, but I'm pretty sure most actual leftists don't want their ideology was watered down with humanist pragmatism.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:31PM

        by Arik (4543) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:31PM (#452610) Journal
        Here's a pretty clear example.

        When you want something, a slot in a school, or a job, or to rent an apartment, whatever, one of the many many things out there that have no logical connection to sex. When you apply, and are denied because you have (or even project) the wrong genitalia, that's sexism.

        Now we can have another conversation if you like about whether or not a certain amount of sexism should be allowed or accepted or tolerated, but let's not act like we don't know what we're talking about. There's a double standard at work in American education and it's in a fairly advanced state. Exclude a woman for being a woman and untold wrath will descend on you from every corner, say hello to your new career at Burger King. Exclude a man for being a man and if anyone gives it a second thought it will likely be to applaud you.

        In the meantime most of these girls don't give a damn about coding, still won't give a damn about coding even if you bribe them enough to attend classes, and in the meantime there are young men with drive and talent who can't attend. And we claim we have no choice but to import our coders from India.

        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:16PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:16PM (#452644)

          Let's put this simply: when those who are oppressed or disenfranchised are given equal opportunity, or an opportunity to be equal, those in power to oppress don't get to bitch about it.

          • (Score: 4, Informative) by Arik on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:46PM

            by Arik (4543) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:46PM (#452652) Journal
            "Let's put this simply: when those who are oppressed or disenfranchised are given equal opportunity, or an opportunity to be equal, those in power to oppress don't get to bitch about it. "

            Women are not oppressed or disenfranchised, in the US or in any developed country.
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:49PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:49PM (#452654)

              Reality disagrees with you. But then again, you've got your own special little reality, don't you?

              • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:51PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:51PM (#452655)

                Here's what their disenfranchisement looks like. "I got the job at the factory for $20/hr, but my boyfriend didn't like it, so I took a minimum wage job instead."

                At some point, women need to pull on the big girl pants and dump the boyfriend. Simple as that.

                It's a man's world, not because it should be, but because the female 51% of the planet's population seems to like it that way.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:52PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:52PM (#452656)

            Bullshit. Show me who's 'oppressing' them. Show me how they don't have equal opportunity.
            They don't have equal *interest*, just as men don't tend to have equal interest in teaching or nursing (which you'll notice don't have sexist funds set up for them).
            This is pure politics and while I'd love to work with more female programmers, I don't think this is going to help much. Women who are interested in programming are as good at it as men. I don't think this is going to enhance anyone's interest, and I'd add that it might also create the kind of backlash seen with quota based hiring.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by http on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:52PM

          by http (1920) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:52PM (#452657)

          Your definition sucks horseballs. It's correct as far as it goes, but it's like calling a rabbit hole "that dark place over thar."

          Gilrs have an extremely different experience in education than boys do. Your notion, "exclude a women for being a woman and untold wrath will descend on you" is trite, sophomoric, and wrong. Girls are asked to participate less often, regularly shut down when attempting to participate on their own initiative, and belittled even when their knowledge is superior to that of boys. They are systematicly excluded and most often nobody bats an eye.

          Why is it so fucking hard for people to understand "systemic"? Oh, right. It's not hard, they'd just rather not admit that they are part of the problem.

          --
          I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:17PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:17PM (#452670)

            The reality you describe is completely counter to my lifelong experience, especially in education; throughout my schooling, it was very clear that the teachers (the vast majority of which were female) treated the boys as second-class citizens, and spent most of their time engaging with the "better" behaved (read: boring as fuck) girls.

            • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:56PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:56PM (#452758)

              Red Pillars of Masculinity are getting the shaft again, so to speak. So sad, poor puppies! Did you realize that a large part of experience is determined by the experiencer? You if you are a sexist misogynist jerk, you will experience a lot of sexist misandrist discrimination against yourself because you are a second class citizen. Or, you are a jerk, still a boy, and you ought to grow a pair and be a real man who supports affirmative action, even at the cost of your own self interest, because that is what real men do.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:44PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:44PM (#452681)

            that's why a high percentage of the US' males are going to jail or shitty jobs if they're lucky while females go to college? you're the one who's not paying attention.

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:09PM

            by Arik (4543) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:09PM (#452694) Journal
            I can only echo the other poster that your overall depiction is completely contrary to all my may years of experience in school, both as student and as staff. I can add that I see some truth in your details, it's the overall spin you're trying to put on it that is just wrong. Women are less often asked questions? Well yes I suppose that might be true, but again you're looking at the result of female-positive discrimination (teachers, most of whom are women themselves, tend to treat the girls better, which could easily manifest as being less likely to put them on the spot by asking them a direct question in front of the class - a technique teachers use every day in attempts to punish or control boys.) Women are "regularly shut down when attempting to participate on their own initiative" well yeah, but boys are too, and far more freely. "Belittled even when their knowledge is superior?" Yep, happens to boys every day.

            "They are systematicly excluded and most often nobody bats an eye." - In Saudi Arabia maybe.

            Seriously I am not sure what planet you're from or if you even believe what you're saying.
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 4, Informative) by http on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:06PM

              by http (1920) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:06PM (#452727)

              I'm from a planet where I remember a few things. http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/prejudice/women/ [pbs.org] sums up the research in a nutshell.

              Dale Spender, an Australian linguist, noticed that in groups, men think women participated equally if they spoke 15% of the time, and believe that women dominiated the discussion if they dared speak as much as 30% of the time. In all fairness, Spender's methodology has been questioned, but later researchers got more visibly rigorous and came up with similar results. Or Allyson Jule, Canadian, showing that in elementary classrooms, girls are silenced collectively, but boys are silenced individually. Or, well, ... you know what? I'm not a linguistics major, for one, and I'm not doing all your research for you, for two. But here's a free head start: Gender Issues in the College Classroom [columbia.edu]

              It's a common trope around here that you can't make someone see truth when their livelyhood depends on denying it. As corallary, most men are unwilling to observe systematic discrimination against women, because they unfairly benefit from it being invisible to the casual observer. Me included.

              --
              I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:18PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:18PM (#452734)

                girls are silenced collectively, but boys are silenced individually

                Now, that is very interesting. Perhaps it takes an individualist to push his way to the top of industry; maybe that's why society becomes ever more oppressively collectivist whenever women step (or, rather, are placed) into positions of power.

              • (Score: 2, Informative) by Arik on Thursday January 12 2017, @02:49AM

                by Arik (4543) on Thursday January 12 2017, @02:49AM (#452822) Journal
                Of course it's been criticized, it was horribly shoddy research. But just for the sake of argument let's say it's not, let's say that's true. Boys face far more formidable problems than that in school. It's an interesting measure of just how privileged women in our society are, that whenever the subject of their 'oppression' comes up the forms of oppression turn out to be such nonsense. Talk to people who are actually oppressed and you will find they have rather more substantial complaints than 'people think I'm dominating the conversation if I'm speaking 30% of the time.'
                --
                If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                • (Score: 2) by http on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:32AM

                  by http (1920) on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:32AM (#452856)

                  The forms of the discrimination (oppression, you call it) are only one axis of the problem. The other axis of the problem, the one that makes it into a huge fuckng deal, is that for girls in school, discrimination is everywhere, every day, multiple times per day, from day one. One mosquito? No big deal. Ten thousand mosquitos? Big deal. Living in a swamp? Bigger deal. Your attempt to minimize the problem with the irrelevant "but other people have it worse" is just... juvenile. And I'm moderately curious as to what you believe the "more formidable" problems boys face are. Fun fact: I agree with you that boys face particular problems in school, but we might disagree on both why and the extent.

                  --
                  I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
                  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @02:02PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @02:02PM (#452934)

                    Haha. Yeah, the group punishments were so discriminatory against girls. All the boys had to keep their heads on their desks because a couple boys in the back of the classroom were being disruptive. The girls get treated as individuals. The policy that let girls wander the halls during indoor recess and use the gym if they wanted but kept boys in their homeroom were so oppressive of women. When I started a computer club and then got railroaded on trumped up evidence and gaslighted, that was so discriminatory to girls. Years later when a girl made front page news because she started the district's first computer club, that was so discriminatory to girls.

                    Your genitals better be mutilated nice and tight for women's sexual pleasure. You better be circumcised so you don't transmit your HPV boy cooties to women, you rapist. We need to mutilate you as an infant too so that your 3 year old rapist ass feels nothing but excruciating pain. That will teach you. No, we can't immunize girls against HPV, because that would be sexualizing them. KNOW YOUR ROLE YOU SEX OBJECT.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:53PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:53PM (#452659)

          the leader of girls who code is actually of Indian descent, you know.

          Makes you wonder

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:54PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:54PM (#452661)

        The urge is to lambast you for crying sexism about people trying to address already-present sexism through (charitable, voluntary) affirmative action.

        No they are not. What they are combating is perceived sexism backed up by the flawed assumption that gender is informed by culture alone, and that boys and girls would fare exactly the same if society stopped sending "messages", which of course flies in the face of empirical evidence that established gendered behavior in week-old infants, the entire history of mankind which shows differences as far back in history as we have evidence, and of course observations in our close cousins in the animal kingdom who also display such trends.

        In other words, the fundamental failure of your viewpoint lies in the fact that it's based on the presumption of a positive feedback based on vague cherrypicked circumstantial evidence, while dismissing any evidence that suggests otherwise.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by archfeld on Wednesday January 11 2017, @11:55PM

        by archfeld (4650) <treboreel@live.com> on Wednesday January 11 2017, @11:55PM (#452777) Journal

        Please, the fact that girls don't want to code is not an issue of sexism, but of preference, and no amount of codling/extolling is going to make them want to. Do you really believe that at the elementary school level there is or has been some sort of conspiracy to prevent girls from pursuing STEM related education ? The fact of the matter is men and women are very different creatures and seek very different goals in life. Men and women draw a feeling of fulfilment very differently and that is reflected in the choice of careers. I'm not saying that in the business world there aren't barriers to women all over the place and those need to be knocked down, but in lower education I don't buy it.

        --
        For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @05:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @05:49PM (#452580)

      It's because we invent our own definitions [sjwiki.org].

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:22PM (#452601)

        From that page:
        "Racism is prejudice plus power. On the basis of this definition, while all people can be prejudiced, only those who have power are really racist. African Americans, Latinos, Asians and American Indians the powerless in American society can be and often are most prejudiced toward Whites on an individual basis, but they are not racists at the structural, institutional level."

        What a load of crap.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday January 11 2017, @05:32PM

    by cubancigar11 (330) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @05:32PM (#452571) Homepage Journal

    "Being a woman paved the way for my career."

    This is why diversity promotions suck. You promote one person on diversity basis and he or she will ensure everyone under him or her knows that diversity is the non-negotiable.

    In a time where women are preferred 200% in STEM over men, men are dropping out in large numbers out of colleges, men are doing worse in schools, who exactly is this going to help and how is it going to fight gender equality.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday January 11 2017, @05:52PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @05:52PM (#452582)

      In a time where women are preferred 200% in STEM over men, men are dropping out in large numbers out of colleges, men are doing worse in schools, who exactly is this going to help and how is it going to fight gender equality.

      What's really bad is that companies in America are constantly whining that they can't find enough qualified STEM workers. So instead of getting training/education for the people who are actually interested but can't afford it (because there's no scholarships for them), they keep pursuing the people who already DO have lots of scholarships available, but just aren't interested in those fields.

      On top of it all, they do everything they can to make these careers miserable, such as pushing "open plan" office arrangements for careers that require quiet and concentration. This just makes people like me trash the profession any time some kid or his parent asks about it, pushing more young people away from it. My standard advice for smart kids is to go into medicine somewhere; I wish I had gone that route.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:05PM

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:05PM (#452591) Journal

        Lol, are you seriously blaming women for open plan offices?

        Just as an FYI, you can thank this asshole [wikipedia.org] for "inventing" and promoting them as efficient a hundred years ago. And whoever is your company's accountant is for pushing them now.

        At a particularly shitty company I was at a few years ago my (male) boss's boss decided unilaterally to "save money" by moving the entire development team to an open floor plan. The only thing you can do when that happens is change jobs. It's solid evidence your employer doesn't give a shit about you or the quality of your work.

        • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:29PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:29PM (#452608)

          Of course he isn't blaming women. Check your reading comprehension, "ikanreed"; you've chosen the dumbest interpretation.

        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:33PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:33PM (#452677) Journal

          It can get worse than open plan offices.

          A buddy of mine used to work as a consultant at Price-Waterhouse Coopers. Their "desks" looked like a shelf in a bookshelf, arranged in aisles like a library. And even those they had to check out every day when they got to the office. It was a practice called "hotelling." The bean counters decided it was more efficient for the bottom line that way, and would de-construct the territoriality that arises when people gun for the corner offices. As an employee it meant you were utterly dehumanized and could not even keep a picture of your kids at your station without the cleaning staff throwing it out at night. My buddy's classmate from grad school had also landed a job there and would weep every morning at the thought of going back there.

          After seeing that it made absolute sense why people would go postal.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @01:26PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @01:26PM (#452927)

            "Hotelling" is atrocious. It was started in one of the companies I had worked as a contractor, the description of my former coworkers can be summarized in one word: "atrocious". It is pure BS policy & very bad for team engagement...

            Here is another good one I've experienced: in another company, where contractors (60 to 80% of the team, depending on which team you were) are treated like 2d class. For instance: you didn't get a full desk. We had to fit 3 contractors on 2 desks. I leave to your imagination the problems to fit the monitors, documents, problems with left-handed people sitting besides right-handed (mouse issues), etc.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:27PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:27PM (#452739)

          Lol, are you seriously blaming women for open plan offices?

          Wow, you should get an award for stupidest comment of the day for this one.

          In case it isn't obvious (it is, just not to you apparently), I'm blaming the crappy state of the industry and the work environment (including open-plan offices) for the reason many people don't want to go into it, and especially why women don't want to go into it.

          Your "particularly shitty company" anecdote isn't exceptional: that's now the *norm* in this industry. These stories are not uncommon at all. It makes perfect sense to me that smart young women hear about this stuff and find out what jobs in this industry are like, and see firsthand what their future coworkers are like in class, and run the other direction, changing their majors to something else. If I had a daughter, I'd strongly discourage her from going into computing fields, and push her into medicine or law. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:42PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:42PM (#452620) Journal

        When I produce too few of something I generally tend to try and find the bottleneck. 24% participation rate, and shrinking, looks like a bottleneck to me.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:49PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:49PM (#452626)

          Its just moving goal posts to rationalize bigotry.

          Minorities are under-employed in technical fields.
          Response: You can't blame employers, they can hire people that don't exist.

          Employers invest in education programs intended to create more minority job candiates.
          Response: This is just reverse-bigotry. You shouldn't help the people on the bottom, you should help the people who aren't as reliably on top as they once were.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:57PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:57PM (#452631)

            Why in the world should it be the goal of a company to make more "minorities" hirable? Surely, the goal should be to make operations more profitable! The only way the former could ever cast a shadow over the latter is through indoctrination or subsidy; indoctrination never speaks as loudly as money, so the cause of all this is likely subsidy, and the only organization that could supply subsidies for such a stupid goal is the government.

            • (Score: 2) by mojo chan on Thursday January 12 2017, @01:23PM

              by mojo chan (266) on Thursday January 12 2017, @01:23PM (#452926)

              Why in the world should it be the goal of a company to make more "minorities" hirable?

              Because the choice they face is:

              1. Do nothing, and society will force them to be more responsible and raise taxes to pay for it anyway. The money might not be spent training the type of candidates they want.

              2. Do it themselves, get the people and skills they want, and look good at the same time so that society feels less need to regulate and tax them.

              Business is not some sacred church that operates separate to the rest of society.

              --
              const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
              • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 12 2017, @05:13PM

                by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday January 12 2017, @05:13PM (#452982)

                You really think that in the Brave New Trump World that "society" is somehow going to regulate and tax companies for not being diverse enough? What are you smoking? Big business has owned government in this country for quite some time now, and it's only going to get much worse in 2017.

                Finally, companies aren't training candidates. Have you not noticed that? They only want people who already have experience in stuff. You can see this in all the job postings, and it's a common complaint in the industry. Training costs money, waiting 6-12 months for an employee to "come up to speed" costs money, so companies don't do it; they want someone else to bear that cost for them.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:51PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:51PM (#452627)

          But where are those people going? I bet you'll find large increases of women in managerial roles, especially bureaucratic roles in large quasi-governmental organizations such as universities.

          • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 12 2017, @10:26PM

            by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday January 12 2017, @10:26PM (#453096)

            Exactly. Even in engineering, the women who do go into this field usually end up getting out of true engineering roles pretty quickly. They move into management of some kind, or they get sick of the field and go into something entirely different.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:16PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:16PM (#452733)

          It's not a bottleneck, it's a lack of interest. There's more women than men in college now; the ratio is about 60/40 last I heard. Women are advancing in professional fields farther than ever before. It's only in STEM (and especially in computer-related fields) where they're way behind, and falling. They actually had higher representation in the past.

          So people are trying to encourage more women to get involved, and instead they're getting less involved. Continuing to encourage them seems to fit the definition of insanity: doing the same thing and expecting a different result. After all, how much outreach has there been to get women involved in other professional fields like medicine and law?

          Maybe the problem isn't with a lack of outreach to women in computing. Maybe the problem is with the profession itself not being attractive to women, and the women are doing the right thing by avoiding it and going into professions that fit them better (like medicine and law).

          Anecdotally, I was just reading a thread on HN today about open-place workspaces, and there were people on there talking about how they loved this work environment, and working with a group of other guys, staying up really late, playing loud music, etc. Tell me how a frat-boy work culture like that is supposed to be attractive to professional women. This is what programming has become these days in many cases. And maybe there isn't loud music in most workplaces, but open-plan offices are now undeniably the norm, and pushing long hours has been the norm for as long as I've been in the industry. Don't forget all the outsourcing too. It certainly isn't a profession that is suitable for professional women who want to earn a great salary, have a stable job, avoid sexual harassment, and who want to have children at some point. Women like that, who are smart enough to earn a tough degree, are much better suited for other professions, such as becoming a doctor or surgeon where they can make far more money and not worry about their job being outsourced and being forced to train their replacement, and where they'll be doing far more meaningful work to boot instead of just wasting their life writing some stupid app that won't be around in a few years.

          • (Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday January 12 2017, @10:13AM

            by anubi (2828) on Thursday January 12 2017, @10:13AM (#452898) Journal

            Can you really blame anyone for not getting so excited about a career in the STEM field if you will intend to have a family? [ocregister.com]

            I did STEM all my life. Just "officially" retired last year. It was fun. Well, most of it was until the last decade when the new management methods started making the rounds.

            I always felt very insecure of having the responsibility of providing for a family based on the vagrancies of being so expendable, so that was the price I paid for being in STEM.

            Had it been strictly money I wanted, and the stability to raise a family, I would have gone more into something like law, medicine, accounting, or helping business comply with government mandates. But my heart just wasn't in it. STEM is too much like music or the arts. One must have a love for creating things to do this. One sees lots of poor but very talented musicians, paint artists, sculptors, along with engineers.

            Looking back on my life, I always was in the top of my class, determined to understand exactly what I was doing, but too damned determined to do things my way, which was my downfall. I could not stomach doing stuff some way I knew was wrong just to please someone else.

            Kids: Go into STEM for the same reason you would study music: Your heart is here, and if you were doing anything else, this is where your mind would be.

            And like the rest of us, you will spend a lot of time in frustration, wondering why companies spend so much money to do it wrong, yet hire people at several times your income to make sure you never work there.

            --
            "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
        • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:42AM

          by cubancigar11 (330) on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:42AM (#452860) Homepage Journal

          But don't you think a man saying he is producing less of something related to women is inherently male chauvinistic?</sarcasm>

          Lets put it this way. Which of the following is gender equality about: (A) A process that doesn't care about your gender (B) A process that ensures that an arbitrary ratio of genders is always maintained irrespective of requirement. From my experience, people switch between these two definitions at will as long as it means giving money to women. Even if you disagree with my assertion, you have to admit that (A) removes politicking while (B) creates a metric just to do politicking.

          Just to be clear, I am on record here and on the old-website defending the statement that women are equally smart and capable. But for me (A) actually solves a problem once and for all while (B) is just there to ensure the problem never gets solved.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 11 2017, @05:57PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2017, @05:57PM (#452586) Journal

      Yep, it's definitely not the case that women get worse paying careers on average, and within a given career they're paid less, and that controlling for every possible confounding factor they're still paid less.

      Those are absolutely emblematic markers of being advantageous in one's career, and not literally the opposite. Certainly she's not underrepresented in the rank of CEO with 5% of people in her position sharing her gender. Being a woman is obviously how you get ahead there.

      There's absolutely no chance that casual observation of virtually any available observational evidence raising serious questions as to whether you're off your goddamn rocker.

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:34PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:34PM (#452614)

        When it comes to male-dominated fields, most women workers are—in my experience—nearly incompetent; the few women who are competent are geniuses, and are just simply exceptional individuals, an exception that proves the rule.

        What I've noticed is that it's not the case that including women improves a team; rather, it's the case that a good team can afford to include women.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:42PM

        by Arik (4543) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:42PM (#452651) Journal
        "Yep, it's definitely not the case that women get worse paying careers on average, and within a given career they're paid less, and that controlling for every possible confounding factor they're still paid less."

        You're right, it's definitely not the case, since the truth of a compound statement of this form requires all elements to be true, and this is only partially true (and completely deceptive.)

        "Worse paying careers on average" - that one's true. Good job, I always say lead with the best thing you have.

        "within a given career they're paid less" - eh, sort of yes. They also put in fewer hours of work for that smaller amount of money, however. Arguably true, but deceptive in the context you have put it.

        "controlling for every possible confounding factor they're still paid less" - and now you slide all the way into full on falsehood. Because once you control for a few well known and quite obvious confounding factors this "wage gap" magically disappears. Yes, the average woman has made less money than the average man of the same age. She's also worked fewer hours in better conditions and taken more time off. She's much less likely to have died on the job or committed suicide because of unbearable stress. These are 'confounding factors' but you're completely overlooking them and attributing their effect to anti-female sexism.

        In reality, it's more complicated, and probably more true to say it's the result of *pro-female* sexism. No one's organizing campaigns to encourage more women to enter mining or fishing or sanitation.

        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:09PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:09PM (#452693) Journal

          No one's organizing campaigns to encourage more women to enter mining or fishing or sanitation.
           
            Women in Mining Foundation [womeninmining.org]
            International Women's Fishing Association [iwfa.org]
            Angling for gender equality in the seafood industry [fao.org]
            National Waste & Recycling Association Women’s Council [wasterecycling.org]

          • (Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:11PM

            by Arik (4543) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:11PM (#452699) Journal
            Nice job, but notice how tiny and low profile they are.
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:12PM

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:12PM (#452700) Journal

              Nice job moving those goalposts.

              • (Score: 1) by Arik on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:18PM

                by Arik (4543) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:18PM (#452706) Journal
                The summation was the penultimate sentence, the last sentence was an obvious rhetorical flourish which you zoomed in on and showed to be technically incorrect. Congratulations. If I were your debate coach I'd be proud.

                You haven't tackled the actual summation, however, because you can't dispute it. Women are not treated as property in the US or in any developed country, they are not second class citizens, they are not a minority, and when they are treated differently it is almost always *in their favor.* Those are simply facts.
                --
                If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:28PM

                  by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:28PM (#452712) Journal

                  If you had made an argument that was more than a wordy version of "nuh-uh" I would've addressed it. Since you didn't, and "yes-huh" would've been redundant, I could only address your factually incorrect statement.

                  I'll also point out that your statement was absolutely, indisputably, FALSE. Being completely wrong is a bit more than a technicality.

              • (Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:44PM

                by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:44PM (#452716)

                I checked out women in mining. Nice quarterly newsletter. Appears to be about 20 women at the national level who go on field trips to mines. It appears none of them work in mining and are mostly appear to be elder members of the traditional cat lady industries. The president, I kid you not, is a graybeard dude, unless he's trans I donno about that. They appear to be self funded, or if they're getting grants they're stiffing their donors by never advertising.

                Girls who code, in comparison appears to receive huge steaming piles of funding from every megacorporation, SV startup, and NASDAQ member. Hats off to them for acquiring lots of money while doing apparently nothing with it, or doing nothing that requires money. I imagine salaries are nice and high at that charity.

                There's a whole weird segment of American business revolving around finding a problem, collecting money, and not doing a damn thing about it other than paying salaries and collecting even more money. WIM is not like that. Girls who code, well, I'm just saying I'm seeing wheelbarrows of money going in and ... a nice looking website and volunteers guide going out. That money's going somewhere. I'm not even claiming somewhere illegal. I now have a lot more respect for WIM than GHC, just sayin.

                Twenty female mining fans seem to actually accomplish more documented "action" with basically no money, so I have to respect the female miners more that the girls who code inc. The problem with your goalposts comment is WIM budget looks like its about 3 or 4 digits about like a small cub scout pack both in funds and activity level, whereas you claim thats equivalent to a fundraising industry professional non-profit NGO with maybe a 8 digit budget, and they're hardly the only group pimping one of the dozens of variations of "girls in stem".

                So sure, moving the goal posts seems fair when the claim is a budget of zero and you found a whomping 3 or 4 digits, but its unfair to compare that to one fundraising org that runs 8 or so digits in a movement at least ten times as big. Find us a "women in waste handling services" movement with a billion dollar budget and get back to us.

                • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday January 12 2017, @10:05AM

                  by deimtee (3272) on Thursday January 12 2017, @10:05AM (#452895) Journal

                  I followed you on checking out WIM, and I have to say I am also impressed with them. No bullshit, and a genuine enthusiasm for their subject goes a hell of a long way.
                  They also seem to be aiming primarily at anyone who might be interested, with an emphasis on females, rather than pushing it on just a bunch of girls who don't want to know about it.
                  This is the way gender equality should be pushed. Men and women are different and that is inevitably going to result in unequal participation in fields. As long as no one is coerced out of or into a field solely because of their gender, I don't see a problem.

                  --
                  If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:46PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:46PM (#452623) Journal

      So you assume she got promoted based on her gender and not on her ability.

      I'm not one to throw sexism allegations around but that's pretty much the dictionary definition right there.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by jmorris on Thursday January 12 2017, @02:48AM

        by jmorris (4844) on Thursday January 12 2017, @02:48AM (#452821)

        So you assume she got promoted based on her gender and not on her ability.

        But is it true? Lets see you, with a straight face, say it couldn't possibly be true. We have at CEO at "Government Motors" who, as the first female CEO, instantly embarks on "diversity" initiatives. If I were picking the most likely Fortune 500 "Affirmative Action Hire CEO" she sounds like a strong candidate.

        And that is the problem isn't it? Once everyone knows what affirmative action is, they start suspecting any member of a "protected^Wprivileged group" of being promoted far beyond their competence, especially when they are having media puff pieces written about how "groundbreaking" they are. Rage against the injustice all you want, I know it happens, YOU know it happens and the people who get the unearned positions know it too. Just look at the SCOAMF who will, thankfully, be leaving in nine more days, who as the first Affirmative Action POTUS was promoted far too high, far too fast and fell flat on his face.

        Happens all the time in the workplace, especially in fields like hers where the number of candidates who are even qualified to the point where they won't "kill too many" customers" with her incompetence is so low they hire any female engineer they can find, Hell the headhunters fight over them as they all seek to meet quotas so as to keep the Dept of Labor off their asses. She was destined for the boardroom on that basis alone, even before the Federal Government essentially became a majority stakeholder.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by mojo chan on Thursday January 12 2017, @01:29PM

          by mojo chan (266) on Thursday January 12 2017, @01:29PM (#452928)

          But is it true? Lets see you, with a straight face, say it couldn't possibly be true. We have at CEO at "Government Motors" who, as the first female CEO, instantly embarks on "diversity" initiatives. If I were picking the most likely Fortune 500 "Affirmative Action Hire CEO" she sounds like a strong candidate.

          That's a textbook example. When a woman does make it, suggest it may be because of her gender. On the other hand, if someone suggests that the male CEOs had an easier time getting to that level because they are male, it can't possibly be true and business is a perfect meritocracy.

          --
          const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
          • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday January 12 2017, @05:23PM

            by jmorris (4844) on Thursday January 12 2017, @05:23PM (#452985)

            If a white male is in a position everyone assumes he earned it, since he doesn't have PC privilege. The notable exception that demonstrates the point is when the guy is the son of the last boss, then he is always having to prove he deserves to be there... and often fails. In other words he suffers the same undermining of employee confidence that an Affirmative Action hire does.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:51PM

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:51PM (#452684) Journal

      men are dropping out in large numbers out of colleges

      Let's be clear about what the actual trend is. Yes, women now make up the majority of people who attend college. Yes, women now graduate from college at higher rates than men. BUT it's NOT true that "men are dropping out... of colleges" in larger numbers than before.

      In fact, let's be clear that overall the percentage of the young population (in the U.S.) with college degrees is higher than it has ever been in history. AND the percentage of population of YOUNG MEN with college degress is higher than it has ever been in history. Say what you will about this article's [usnews.com] analysis of the gender pay gap, but look carefully at that first graph. The proportion of young men who chose to go to college or dropped out went up significantly from the mid 1970s through the mid 1990s, but the proportion of young men with college degrees has gone up more-or-less steadily over the past couple decades.

      What we do know is that the proportion of women choosing to go college and sticking with it is EVEN HIGHER, and the rate of increase is faster.

      This may still be a concerning trend, but all of this rhetoric about how men are dropping out or not completing education is NOT backed up by facts. Instead, men are completing education at greater numbers -- and completing more of it -- than ever before in history. The proportion of women doing the same is just rising even faster.

      It also should be noted that surveys of high-school students tend to show that men aspire to college with lesser frequency [chronicle.com] than women.

      So, for all of you who love to point out that maybe women simply aren't INTERESTED in STEM, so why should we be pushing them -- can we ask a similar question about men and college? If a larger proportion of men don't show interest in going to college, why are we so concerned about them? Maybe, like the women who choose to be teachers or nurses or whatever "stereotypical female jobs" some people think are appropriate, maybe a higher percentage of men than women are just pragmatic and don't see the point in accumulating a bunch of college debt, so they just want to jump into the workforce?

      Or maybe both sides are being pragmatic here -- for whatever reason the gender paygap exists, it simply does. So whether it's because women tend to take more time off to raise families or because women don't want to work long hours or whatever rationale you might have -- the paygap still exists. SO, might it not be a more rational choice for more women to try to get higher education, which will increase their salary potential even with that paygap? While men may feel it's more pragmatic to take their chance without it by a few percentage points in the population?

      I don't know. I'm not saying this is all the case. But for those who are willing to consider alternative reasons for things like why women don't go into STEM or why there's a gender paygap, are there no possible reasons why men might not be choosing college in an era where tuition fees and loan debt is insane?

      And regardless of what you think of the answers to those questions, keep in mind that men aren't dropping out at historically high rates -- again, they're actually getting degrees at a higher rate than ever before in history.

      • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:10PM

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:10PM (#452697) Journal

        Oh, and if you need some more specific stats on the college dropout rate in particular, here's the table [ed.gov] from the National Center for Education Statistics that shows completion rates for bachelor's degrees after 4, 5, and 6 years, broken down by sex, race, etc. It only goes back to 1996, but you can see that the cohort of males graduating college within 6 years increased overall from 52% to 56.5%, while for females it increased from 58.2% to 61.9% over the same period.

        Should we still be concerned about a college non-completion rate of ~40% for BOTH sexes? Yes, I think so. If nothing else because those without completed degrees are even less likely to be able to pay back education loans. So they likely made huge investments for little to no gain. Anyhow, my point is that there's no evidence of an increasing problem of male college dropouts; to the contrary, the percentage of completion for males is actually rising.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:11PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:11PM (#452597)

    after administrative fees and other perks... $27.95.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:57PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2017, @06:57PM (#452632)

    In 1995, 37 percent of the computing workforce was comprised of women, but today that has shrunk to 24 percent.

    So what is the point of this? Girls are smarter than boys so we should add lead to their drinking water until the percentage goes up again?

    Wheres the 1/4 million dollar bribes to get men into early childhood education, cheerleading, K12 education, HR, ballet, nursing, womens studies ...

    And why has the women percentage shrunk? It is because jobs are sent to India and most H1B are male so naturally the percentage goes up? In that case graduating more women who won't get jobs because H1B will have their job doesn't really accomplish anything other than making unemployed female grads work at starbucks instead of the liberal arts grads, so who benefits by art history majors being unemployed instead of baristas? Perhaps its ageism and they fire all the women who have a family so naturally women are getting the hell out, and why unless you're a sadist, would you want more women in the system so more suffering can occur?

    Why is numerical gender parity a good thing? Do I get a better API if I know the gender of the author and I prefer that gender? I can sorta see a tortured argument for service industries where "we should" be a better society if people equally enjoy services from a male nurse as a female nurse. But with something rather non-personal and non-service and non-sexual like "computing workforce" I'm not seeing the societal value in knowing a woman terminated the cat-5 cable in that wall outlet vs a fucking white male terminated the cat-5 cable in that other wall box. If I got a sex change would my code naturally improve? Clearly gender doesn't matter WRT whats produced.

    There are almost no women in EE but "computing" is comparatively swarming with women up to a quarter the population, and I haven't noticed a hell of a lot of difference. Actually that brings up a good point, why "girls should code" when a quarter are already girls, when basically no girls solder? You'd think you'd get better growth rates starting from almost zero than from halfway there.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:01PM (#452635)

      But soldering is so icky! We girls want to sit at a desk in a nice office... of course, the darn chauvinist patriarchy keeps the office thermostat too cold for us ladies.

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:18PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @07:18PM (#452645) Journal

      Wheres the 1/4 million dollar bribes to get men into early childhood education, cheerleading, K12 education, HR, ballet, nursing, womens studies ...
       
      Yeah! It's so unfair that there are no scholarships, [collegescholarships.org] organizations, [aamn.org] or anything [nursejournal.org] like that [discovernursing.com] aimed at getting men into nursing. [allnursingschools.com]

      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:21PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:21PM (#452707)

        Yeah I tossed you a softball there, now try womens studies and ballet.

        With a side dish of infinite journalist coverage and corporate press releases wringing hands about not having enough men in womens studies.

        I have a perfectly good coworker who needs a diploma, any diploma, to amuse HR to progress further in the working world and we've been egging him on to sign up for Arizona State U's online womens studies degree program. All HR wants is to see is that BS degree, and how hard can an online womens studies curricula be?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:02PM (#452665)

    And she cannot find job in it.

    Right now, call center for MAJOR TECH COMPANY @ $10/hr! Wow

    • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:17PM

      by GungnirSniper (1671) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:17PM (#452704) Journal

      Don't mix your IN and FOR statements in your subject.

      Clearly she's not in a tech area, based on her being someplace where call center work only pays $10/hr. Even 30 miles from Boston that pays $14+/hr for most semi-trained work. So she may have to move to get a start in her career. Is she keeping up with the field she's in? Does she contribute to Open Source? Does she mentor students at any level? Or anything else to stay current?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:42PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:42PM (#453007)

        Her stem is math. Have multiple company's within 1hr that can use that degree. insurance Aerospace manufacturing All no go. Call center is here because 3 colleges with in 30 minutes.

  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:54PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday January 11 2017, @08:54PM (#452685) Journal

    This isn't the pledge Trump wanted!

    Ford just announced that they stopped plans for a billion-dollar plant in Mexico And they're going to be moving into Michigan and expanding very substantially an existing plant. I appreciate that from Ford. I appreciate it very much from Fiat Chrysler. I hope that General Motors will be following, and I think they will be.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:48PM

    by GungnirSniper (1671) on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:48PM (#452718) Journal

    More women would go into STEM and specifically computer science and IT if we didn't have the contingent of socially-hopeless junior neckbeards starring at them slackjawed. And if women were a bit more resistant to peer pressure to do stereotypical things. Could it also be that now that the genders are more balanced in things that their mothers are not pushing them to break down a barrier further that is already broken down?

    Women view technical problems differently and can often be the ones with the a-ha moment in a room full of guys thinking down another path.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:14PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @10:14PM (#452731)

      And if you can recommend how to do that without kneecapping the boys, we there might be a resolution to this.

      The fact is that for whatever reason, women aren't as interested in these fields as other fields. Assuming that there should be parity is rather ridiculous as there's no reason to believe that women are as good as men in the same way that there are fields dominated by women where men might just not have the talent or interest to go into.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:50PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 11 2017, @09:50PM (#452721)

    Just a major company paying a tiny amount of money in order to get a PR bump. $250k? That would subsidize 2-5 college educations? Or it could fund 2-5 office workers to promote outreach programs for a year?

    Sidenote: Girls Who Code needs to hire a graphic designer, the girls at the bottom of their page badly need some photoshopping.

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Username on Thursday January 12 2017, @01:26AM

    by Username (4557) on Thursday January 12 2017, @01:26AM (#452802)

    Instead of investing 250k annually into feminism, they could hire on two more engineers to make sure their ignition switches won’t turn off while driving.