> I assure you my daughter is very real and ceased to be a hypothetical about a year ago
Heh. "Hypothetical child or children of unspecified gender".
> Calling it "weakness" to gravitate towards something that other members of your gender are doing is misplaced
There's a difference between doing something and discovering that most of the people doing it are your gender, and doing something that a higher-power (the event organizers) made gender-segregated.
And I don't mean there's a weakness in the person choosing the activity, I mean there's an apparent one you the parent are compensating for. Like if the event in question was basketball camps and you put your child in "Basketball for Short & Slow People". All the female-only events have a real taint of keeping out the strong performers so the weak can win too. imho it changes things from a primarily female-centric event which happens to cover programming to a people-centric event which forbids the "obviously" superior boys. What better way to make people feel second-class?
> I'm not so naive to think that those were exactly welcoming enviornments for women.
Agreed. But that seems like the problem to solve, by making sure that the events we organize aren't hostile to anyone. But anyone is far wider than women, and the offenders are far more diverse than men.
> I don't really understand what "handicaps" the existence of an all-girl coding camp represents to men or boys.
Not that there is a handicap, but that your son would feel like he's being given one so that he's on equal footing - just because he's male.
> Who is getting really, genuinely hurt by this, in your opinion?
Everyone. Both children, and all of society.
Your daughter would feel less sense of accomplishment, your son would feel that his success is less important to you than hers or that he's already good so why strive. Children of either gender who don't learn in the stereotypical way the group leaders think they should and are thus less-served by the program. Trans kids would suffer from more physical-gender stereotyping and all these gender-specific camps would just prolong gender segregation for everyone.
It's not an either-or question though. I don't think you should ignore traditional sexism, which I agree is huge pretty much everywhere including many classrooms. But I think we should do more-inclusive things, not less, to combat it. Things that help everyone, not that exclude.
There's a real reason to have mentors who look like you, in whatever ways you see yourself, but not I think, to be separated from those who are different.
On most of your points we are not too far apart, but I really have to take issue with this:
> Like if the event in question was basketball camps and you put your child in "Basketball for Short & Slow People". All the female-only events have a real taint of keeping out the strong performers so the weak can win too.
An all-girl introductory coding camp is like a baksetball camp for "short & slow" players? Girls are weak when it comes to software and boys are strong?
Learning to code is not a competitive sport. I think it's a really ugly comparison, to be honest. It's all-girl to encourage female participation and has absolutely nothing to do with ability. Any presumptions of ability being brought into the discussion is being injected by your own viewpoints.
>Girls are weak when it comes to software and boys are strong?
That's precisely what you are implying by supporting coding camps "for girls"!
Any time you create an event restricted to some group unrelated to skill level, it makes it sound like something inherent to the group makes their abilities different.
>Any time you create an event restricted to some group unrelated to skill level, it makes it sound like something inherent to the group makes their abilities different
Not at all. That is completely you bringing your prejudices into the equation.
Do gyms have womens-only sections because women are not as good as men at going to the gym?! No, it's about comfort and an alternative to a male-dominated environment.
If girls exposed to coding through camps end up enjoying it and going on to CS in school, balancing out the classrooms (which will naturally lead to more balance without the needs for exclusionary events), that's not a bad thing IMHO and there is no harm done. This is just something to try and kickstart momentum away from the status quo of the huge imbalance there is.
>That is completely you bringing your prejudices into the equation
Says the person advocating for special women's-only classes, implying they are not capable of participating in mixed gender environments.
>that's not a bad thing IMHO and there is no harm done.
Except to the kids that were refused from entering the class due to their gender. They were deprived of whatever the teacher and their would-be peers had to offer.
I don't know where you live, but in my area for each female-specific coding event there are 10s or 100s without restriction that are male dominated. Again, this is like claiming that the existence of women's only gyms infringes on your ability to find a place to work out.
> Do gyms have womens-only sections because women are not as good as men at going to the gym?!
"Infringes on your ability" never was the question.
There always were many clubs open to women - only a few here and there were men-only. In fact, by the time we got rid of men's only clubs they were rarely very influential so you can't even really argue that they were special. But, obviously I think, we aren't getting rid of men's only clubs simply to give women the choice of 50 clubs instead of 45, but because we feel it's unfair for people to be excluded.
> Learning to code is not a competitive sport.
Right, so setup an event that is not and it'll be appropriate for all learners, of either gender. This is the sort I prefer to attend, fwiw.
But if you make it competitive (offering prizes, recognition, or mentors for instance) don't be surprised if people treat it that way.
> Any presumptions of ability being brought into the discussion is being injected by your own viewpoints.
Why are there paralympics, if not to give the paralympians a chance against the uninjured?
> I think it's a really ugly comparison, to be honest.
How it makes you feel is seldom related to the truth.
Also, not that your comfort would matter either way, I think you're hearing me say that there's an actual skill difference, which I am not, and I do not see one amongst my work peers. I'm talking about the message inherent in segregated events.
> It's all-girl to encourage female participation and has absolutely nothing to do with ability.
How does making an event "no males" encouraging? That says a lot of things, but "You're just as good" is not one of them. How about just making the event about things that the girls in question care about?
And, even if it had only positive connotations, why is it fine to have all-girls events but not all-boys events?
Heh. "Hypothetical child or children of unspecified gender".
> Calling it "weakness" to gravitate towards something that other members of your gender are doing is misplaced
There's a difference between doing something and discovering that most of the people doing it are your gender, and doing something that a higher-power (the event organizers) made gender-segregated.
And I don't mean there's a weakness in the person choosing the activity, I mean there's an apparent one you the parent are compensating for. Like if the event in question was basketball camps and you put your child in "Basketball for Short & Slow People". All the female-only events have a real taint of keeping out the strong performers so the weak can win too. imho it changes things from a primarily female-centric event which happens to cover programming to a people-centric event which forbids the "obviously" superior boys. What better way to make people feel second-class?
> I'm not so naive to think that those were exactly welcoming enviornments for women.
Agreed. But that seems like the problem to solve, by making sure that the events we organize aren't hostile to anyone. But anyone is far wider than women, and the offenders are far more diverse than men.
> I don't really understand what "handicaps" the existence of an all-girl coding camp represents to men or boys.
Not that there is a handicap, but that your son would feel like he's being given one so that he's on equal footing - just because he's male.
> Who is getting really, genuinely hurt by this, in your opinion?
Everyone. Both children, and all of society.
Your daughter would feel less sense of accomplishment, your son would feel that his success is less important to you than hers or that he's already good so why strive. Children of either gender who don't learn in the stereotypical way the group leaders think they should and are thus less-served by the program. Trans kids would suffer from more physical-gender stereotyping and all these gender-specific camps would just prolong gender segregation for everyone.
It's not an either-or question though. I don't think you should ignore traditional sexism, which I agree is huge pretty much everywhere including many classrooms. But I think we should do more-inclusive things, not less, to combat it. Things that help everyone, not that exclude.
There's a real reason to have mentors who look like you, in whatever ways you see yourself, but not I think, to be separated from those who are different.