I'll probably always be a bit wary of people who learn coding from a school or who need a school to learn coding. Since most of the time you have to learn new things while coding (new libraries, new languages, new challenges), I don't know if these people will be able to keep learning by themselves without courses provided for them.
Not sure how good a programmer you can become without being inherently excited about the whole thing.
In a way I believe everything can be learned the same way. I suck at design, but in theory I could see how I could learn it. The problem is I would have to be constantly absorbing new things. While talking a walk I would have to notice the typography on shop signs, when browsing the web I would make mental notes of designs I like, and so on. Totally doable, yet I am not doing it. On the other hand I read about programming all the time, even about topics I don't really work with atm like scalability, 3d programming, machine learning and so on.
Perhaps a course can be a good start, but I suppose it only gets you 1% of the way...
Maybe you are right in this case. However, nightclubs need women because a major reason to go there is to hook up. What is the reason to bribe women into showing up at hacking competitions?
Actual cynical me thinks "more sexy workplace" is part of the unspoken motivation for the "more women into programming" movement. But I don't think that is the official message they want to send out...
What's wrong with that? I'd prefer more gender-balanced workplace. My sister is a teacher, and she says female workers in female-dominated workplaces have pretty much same preference.
women ARE victims. They are victims of society, and their parents who grew up with rigid rules of what a woman should be and raised their daughters with those rules in mind.
Still, it's not racism, just the way the human visual system works. What do you think is racist about it? "People don't even care enough to remember the name"? That is not what is going on at all. If they wouldn't care, why would they talk to them at all?
Who knows, perhaps they even have an advantage because people actually remember them. They only get their names mixed up sometimes - other people are simply forgotten completely. How often do you forget the name of people you have just been introduced to?
"There is a slight correlation between the egalitarianism of a household and a fairer division of domestic labor"
How did they measure "fairness" of the division of domestic labor? I suspect that their evaluation is very biased.
To assume 50% division is fair is just wrong.
Edit: to explain, you have to take context into account. For example one person might care more for some things to be cleaned than another (for example some people like to clean the house to perfection EVERY DAY). One person might do more other work. And so on. Where does the assumption come from that people are forced into disadvantageous relationships? Possibly people know exactly what they sign up for, and whatever division of domestic labor they end up with is exactly what they negotiated for (consciously or subconsciously).
And before you mention the children, note that painting the job of caring for children to be so horrible is just pure ideology. Maybe some people actually enjoy spending time with their children - more than spending time with Excel and Power Point.
Also, how is the division of domestic labor even measured? In time? Or awfulness of tasks? Is filling the washing machine equivalent to cleaning the toilet?
Emotional commitment can't be outsourced. You have to be there for their most important moments (recitals, ball games, etc.) You have to spend at least a couple hours every day with your kids, sure. But, for most people, I'd say that if you can outsource cleaning up messes, you should. That way, when you are with your kids, you're energetic and happy rather than overburdened and worn.
Kids with two successful parents who engage with the world on their terms are going to be better off-- they'll have the confidence to expect the world to meet them on their terms, and because they have this, it will-- than if they get somewhat more with-parents time, but their parents are constantly worried about housework and money.
Any citations for your latter claim? Never mind that you set up a false dilemma, as if it could only either be "both parents working and worry-free" or "time with kids and constant worries".
