
Google offering grants to women to attend tech conferences. - Peroni
http://www.google.com/intl/en/jobs/students/proscho/scholarships/emea/travelgrants/
======
ck2
Some people immediately think this is bias but remember you have to correct
the massive imbalance first.

If Google was doing this where the attendance was even 33% women I could
understand a bad reaction.

But I think it's more like 3% in reality?

Personally I'd love to go to Velocity, there were some great presentations at
the US conference this year, they should extend this offer for people in USA
to fly to Europe.

(ha, who am I kidding, I am not subjecting myself to the TSA)

 _adding some right-on-topic humor:[http://socialsignal.com/cartoon/cherchez-
la-femme](http://socialsignal.com/cartoon/cherchez-la-femme) _

~~~
return0
Nah, it's just PR bullshit. Did women ever complain that tech conferences are
too expensive to attend?

~~~
Tichy
Isn't it mostly the case that people's employers pay for conferences? How many
people pay out of their own pocket?

------
unknown_var
This is pure sexism,

Where are the grants for males? This is giving women an advantage over males
wanting to get in to the field. And they are getting an advantage because of
their gender that is sexism.

If women want to work in tech there is nothing stopping them, the issue (i
believe) is that females are generally more attracted to social based working
roles rather than tech problems. Example on avg men speak 2000 works a day
(google facts), women speak on adv 7000. Females are drawn to more social
enabling roles, where are men prefer to play/fix/tinker than be social. I do
not understand this need to have balanced male and females in all roles when
it is proven that we are biologically different and that male and females look
for different things from employment. in fairness, males and females have very
different base priorities.

Now becuase of hte above post, I will be labeled as a bigot and or Chauvinism
male, oh well

~~~
jkl32
Agreed.

Where are the grants for women to work in the building trade? Or for men to
work as nurses? Both are under-represented in those fields.

Plenty of fields have a gender imbalance, but they don't present it as a
problem.

~~~
sophacles
Both of those exist. One example of each...

Women in building trades grants:

[http://www.state.nj.us/governor/news/news/552012/approved/20...](http://www.state.nj.us/governor/news/news/552012/approved/20120830a.html)

Grants for men in nursing:

[http://voices.yahoo.com/top-20-nursing-scholarships-
grants-m...](http://voices.yahoo.com/top-20-nursing-scholarships-grants-
men-11806793.html)

(Note for the later its a top 20 list - implying there are more than 20 such
grants).

If you would like to make an argument, please do the tiniest bit of fact
checking before you make wild claims. I mean, I opened 2 tabs and typed into
the search "grants for women in building trades" and "grants for male nurses".
Basically your wanton ignorance is showing.

~~~
Chris2048
Two points on that 1) Are these grants on the same order as tech-industry
grants? I don't think the implication was there there are literally _no_
grants in the world, but that the scale differs considerably.

2) people on a tech forum are likely to be _far_ more familiar with the issues
and grant available within the tech industry. It does seem this issue is
discussed a lot though.

On another note, your message is v. condescending.

~~~
sophacles
Sorry, he asked where they were, and went on as if they didn't exist. I showed
him that they do, with trivial research.

As for your points:

1) on the same order - what does this mean? How do you measure. Pure dollars?
Some ratio related to size of the industry? Number of opportunities? I don't
know the answers to any of these questions, but please, expand on your notion
of differing scales. You are making the assertion, you need to show evidence,
not just some conjecture.

2) Sure, I didn't know about those outside of "tech" grants either, yet I had
the not-at-all-interesting insight to google. 14.8s later I was able to be
informed. Choosing not to do so is wanton ignorance.

As for condescending: I don't cater to people who chose to be uniformed. That
is not something I am willing to be polite about under any circumstance - it
is 2013, google is everywhere, and holding an opinion that contradicts facts,
or stating a "fact" that is simply false are mere agenda building
disingenuities.

~~~
Chris2048
> Sorry, he asked where they were, and went on as if they didn't exist

He described them as 'under-represented', which isn't how you describe
something you were claiming didn't exist.

> How do you measure..

Any of those examples could be used as a metric and provide meaning to the
question of differing scale. Each one would be a different discussion - the
only conclusion is there there is no simple metric that we can make the simple
claim that one thing is the same as another, just because of these examples -
which is what you're claiming, right?

And you're wrong, I'm _not_ making a claim, I'm just questioning yours. You're
trying to shift the burden of proof, but it was _you_ that rudely asserted
that your googled evidence showed parents' argument to be ignorant.

> I had the not-at-all-interesting insight to google

Again more snark, but who says you are now informed? You are of that
impression, but what a googling? Do you have an education now? Does a 14.8s
search-engine lookup make you an expert on the matter for which such arrogance
is appropriate? Maybe parent _did_ google, and considered the results weak
evidence compared to other sources.

Again, your attack is based entirely on beating the straw-man of "parent
claimed there where no grants for men", a claim never made.

> I don't cater to people who chose to be uniformed

What did parent choose? what do you know of parent?

> That is not something I am willing to be polite about under any circumstance

I subscribe to a less conditional for of politeness - especially to those I
have no need to respond to at all. And, as I'm arguing, I think you have read
unduly into parents post, and your attitude only serves to jump the gun after
a hasty mis-judgement.

> holding an opinion that contradicts facts, or stating a "fact" that is
> simply false are mere agenda building disingenuities

Google = facts? and yet no fact were stated, and now you read a "disingenuous"
"agenda" into parents post - isn't this clear that you are reading into
parents post more than can be reasonably inferred - that you are applying a
stereotype, and fighting a perception that exists within your own biases.

~~~
sophacles
First of all - the sentence talking about underrepresentation is easily
interpretable as "men are underrepresented in nursing and women are
underrepresented in building trades" not that grants are. (men and women are
the subjects of the sentence, and pronouns usually to refer to the subjects
when unqualified in english) I'll allow that its an ambiguous sentence.

Second - I don't claim expert status. I just claim that a small amount of
research shows that pure ignorance is a moronic position. Googling doesn't
equal facts, but certainly the links I chose - a news organization and a top
20 list to sites that look legit - are enough evidence that an assertion of
"where are they" needs some backing beyond "i don't think they exist".

Third: because context matters, this is in response to a comment about the
lack of male only tech scholarships, and its sexism to fix the
underrepresentation of women in tech with women only scholarships. The post as
a response (particularly since it starts with "Agreed.") in support of that
notion. Supporting statements about "where are the men only scholarships in
nursing". So I answered the question. If you want to switch the subject to
grants are being underrepresented (which isn't about the sexism of the
existence of gender specific grants, but about the sexism of volume) the onus
is on you to evidence your claims. Otherwise it is mere goalpost moving.

Fourth - your evidentiary requirements are amusingly inconsistent. You want to
require extra evidence from me, because you don't like me answering the
question that was asked about "where are the grants", and question my method
of finding the evidence, and provide tons of conjecture (but no real counter
evidence) that I'm not making a good argument. Yet you are blindly accepting
the claim that they are underrepresented. Even defending it. Yet that claim
has 0 supporting evidence (which is less than "flimsy" evidence). Such a set
of actions suggest a beginning bias - that you think there is an
underrepresentation of grants. Like I said - its amusing, hypocritical and
honestly, kind of stupid.

Fifth - since you have chosen to ignore the core of the argument and instead
attack my presentation of them, I will assume you are using the fallacy
fallacy and ad hominem to try and discredit my point rather than responding to
the point itself. Usually (note, because you seem to have problems with this
sort of thing - the word usually is distinctly different than always
dictionaries may be able to help if you need some explanation) this means you
have no actual argument towards the point.

Sixth - you can approach politeness however you want. Fortunately, so can I.
It has no relevance to the actual discussion about sexism tho.

~~~
Chris2048
> the sentence talking about underrepresentation...

fair enough

> are enough evidence that an assertion of "where are they" needs some backing
> beyond "i don't think they exist"

"where are they" doesn't necessarily assert "i don't think they exist" on a
worldwide scale. Very often statements such as these assume a particular
location (e.g. the west, the us, etc) and other context (what is the norm /
the usual case). But in any case, my post was mainly about how you assumed the
intention of parent, and attacked their post; so I think it less important if
they poorly supported their argument, and more important that their argument
was _so_ poorly supported that it was offensive, and can be attacked as
'ignorant'. I don't want to beat you down for factual in-correctness, but
rather for unreasonable manner!

> So I answered the question.

If all you did was that, a constructive argument could be had, that could go
in many directions; but this ignores tone entirely. Saying the issue is about
'existence' not 'volume' and is therefore a change in topic is wrong. _you_
assert that the topic is about absolute, worldwide existence of these grants,
an extreme straw-man. 'volume' is another common interpretation of 'existence'
that seems far more relevant to the context.

> You want to require extra evidence from me, because you don't like me
> answering the question that was asked about

I guess it was a matter of time before I got the same treatment as op, and had
my intentions analysed in bad-faith.

> provide tons of conjecture (but no real counter evidence) that I'm not
> making a good argument

The issue then is burden of proof. If a claim is made, and the burden on you,
then the argument isn't good-until-proven-bad, it needs to meet certain
standards first. My 'conjecture' is that you know nothing about parent to make
assertions about him. For example, whether you realise it or not, you made an
assertion that "[I] don't like me answering the question that was asked
about". How do you know this? what do you know of my intentions?

Are you saying I have to _prove_ that you know nothing about me? now _that 's_
an amusing evidentiary requirement.

> Yet you are blindly accepting the claim that they are underrepresented

Please quote me on that

> which is less than "flimsy" evidence

Why does 'flimsy' have quotes? I didn't say this.

> its amusing, hypocritical and honestly, kind of stupid.

really? Can you never take the high-road?

> since you have chosen to ignore the core of the argument and instead attack
> my presentation of them

Let me clarify that - this isn't a case of judging a book by its cover, or an
argument by its style; communicating in a rude, abrasive manner is something
deserving of criticism in itself. Show me were I've implied that "You argument
is invalid because of how it's is presented". I _have_ implied "Your argument
is invalid, and it is presented in an unacceptable manner" \- These are two
issues, but the second relates to the first in that a discussion of the
validity of your arguments should require civil discourse.

> I will assume you are using the fallacy fallacy and ad hominem to try and
> discredit my point

You discredit _yourself_ by presenting your argument in this manner, if this
is the case. Are you saying you can be as rude as you like, and if anyone
takes exception to it, they're trying to derail your argument?! Then avoid
this, and deprive them of this tactic by being civil.

> Usually (note, because you seem to have problems with this sort of thing -
> the word usually is distinctly different than always dictionaries may be
> able to help if you need some explanation) this means you have no actual
> argument towards the point.

 _sigh_ , more nasty snark - and why then do you think it's _me_ that has a
'problem'? I would be happier discussing this nicely, _you_ insist on not
doing so. Which point are you referring to in this case?

> you can approach politeness however you want.

You seem to approach it from a direction that _certainly_ differs from the
dictionary definition. This has no relevance to the _topic_ of sexism, but it
_is_ relevant to the discussion of it.

~~~
sophacles
Again with more disingenuous argument. I've already stated my position on
politeness. I don't think people who go on tangents without actually
addressing the main points of the argument - in this case that of sexism and
the existence of grants (which not even 5% of your comments touch on, other
than vague statements of disagreement with no factual backing), deserve
politeness. Politeness seems to you to mean "allow people to go on tangents
because calling them on stupid bullshit[1] is impolite". I on the other hand
see allowing such tangents to be a distraction from the central discussion
point, and a way of deflecting actual conversation - an attempt to avoid
having to back up an indefensible position.

You can keep harping about your insulted sense of propriety, or you can
address the point.

So, do you actually have anything (evidence backed) to say about your belief
that there are more grants for women in tech than men in nursing (etc)? Do you
have any clarifications of the vague phrase about "on the same order"?

[1] snark is a fantastic method of pointing out bullshit, as is flat out
saying "your argument is not addressing the point", as is noting disingenuous
behaviour.

------
mtrimpe
I'm pretty sure this thread will be filled soon enough with people debating
the degree of inappropriateness of the grant, but I for one applaud them for
taking an initiative.

To put it differently: I'd rather live in a world _with_ this grant than in
one _without_.

~~~
return0
i know plenty of guys who would like a grant to attend conferences. How is
this not sexist?

~~~
fhd2
Sexist = discriminating.

Assuming you're male, do you feel discriminated because Google wants more
women to attend conferences? I don't.

Now if the site would say that men in general shouldn't bother going to tech
conferences, and if the majority of society would agree that men shouldn't
bother getting into tech at all, then it would be discriminating. We're quite
far from that.

~~~
return0
It's sexist because it treats women as some sort of 'weaker' sex that needs to
be bribed to attend tech conferences (as if attending a conference will solve
the problem of employment in IT). This is pure PR.

------
jkl32
Google's PR department seem to be working overtime. I guess after the NSA
revelations their public image took a nosedive, developers with strong morals
have probably abandoned that sinking ship. I'd rather work for Oracle right
now.

~~~
icebraining
Are you seriously going to post a "Google ♥ NSA" message on every single topic
about them?

------
antirez
That's wrong: attending to conferences does not make a huge difference in the
process of _becoming_ a good programmer. Much better to use the same money to
sponsor a primary school program to make kids understand computers and
programming for instance.

~~~
fhd2
> attending to conferences does not make a huge difference in the process of
> becoming a good programmer.

That's probably why it's called "Women in Tech Conference and Travel Grants",
and not "Women in Tech Become Better Programmers Grants".

I do see a point here. Going to conferences hasn't made me a better programmer
per se, but I think it has made me more passionate about the field, in my
early days.

------
Peroni
To add to the confusion, the application form has gender as a required field
where you can select 'male' as an option.

------
stickydink
"to be paid after the conference"

"All applicants will be notified ... 3-4 weeks prior to the event."

How likely is it that this will increase participation, rather than just wind
up just effectively refunding people who would have been going either way?

If you apply, and receive confirmation 3 weeks prior; it's pretty much
guaranteed that travel/accommodation/ticket prices will all be higher than
they are today. Maybe even 1000 EUR higher.

------
ioquatix
Is this some kind of gender bias and is it appropriate?

~~~
Peroni
Tough question. I personally can't see how paying for a small group of women
who essentially are winning a contest can even begin to encourage other women
to attend tech events.

If the grant was aimed at both genders but specifically for those who simply
can't afford to attend these types of events then it would be significantly
more appropriate. That, however, is just my opinion.

~~~
walshemj
I think aimed at underrepresented groups in general would be a better idea BME
and LGBT or example.

~~~
rwmj
There are plenty of body modifications on show at the tech conferences I've
been to. As for LGBT, that's not usually a visible thing, unlike the massive
gender imbalance (I actually went to a conference a month ago which was
_entirely 100%_ male).

~~~
walshemj
Well I wanted to be inclusive and just because you have piercings doesn't make
you gay BTW.

I probably should have added caste and religion as well.

------
Ellipsis753
Personally I think this seems kind of sexist. I would highly doubt that this
would go down so well if it was "schools offering grants to men to encourage
them to become teachers". Assuming that there are more female teachers than
male.

There's no good reason that we should treat men and women differently just so
that we can try to force each job to be 50/50 gender split. Giving women some
exclusive opportunities is ultimately still discriminating on gender and two
wrongs don't really make a right here.

~~~
masklinn
> There's no good reason that we should treat men and women differently

Men and women are already treated differently, the point of these is to try
and apply corrective actions to lead to better gender balance and hopefully,
down the line, social consciousness changes leading to balance in the first
place making the grant unnecessary.

If you don't like this grant, help fight for a more equal treatment at the
root.

------
Systemic33
"Come attend our seminars. We have so many guys attending, we are now giving
cheap tickets to all females!"

Kinda sounds a like a reverse advert for a (scam) dating website.

~~~
Tichy
It's quite common to give women free entrance to nightclubs, too.

Well nobody will admit the real reason "we" want more women in tech. Let's
just say it makes for a better atmosphere and more "attractive" work place. (I
have nothing against women in tech, btw).

~~~
Systemic33
The word you are looking for is a more "dynamic" workplace.

------
belorn
This is very tactless move, and will more likely do harm than good to gender
equality. Compare the following two requirements for a grant and decide which
one would be better:

Be a person with female genitalia, who work in computing and technology, and
who has leadership ability.

Or:

Be a person whose work is inspiring others for better gender equality in
computing and technology.

------
fhd2
One requirement is puzzling:

> Have a strong academic background with demonstrated leadership ability

Why the need for "demonstrated leadership ability"? Doesn't that completely
rule out CS students and junior workers, as well as senior workers who aren't
interested in leadership?

~~~
RougeFemme
Maybe they want they want to ensure that they get women who will go back and
?evangelize? and lead other women to the conference in the future. But I agree
- not wild about that requirement. And - not to stereotype - but I would think
that women with "demonstrated leadership ability" would already feel
comfortable attending the conference.

------
ps4fanboy
If I identify as a female but still look like a male can I apply for this?

~~~
masklinn
I'm pretty sure anybody can apply.

------
jheriko
this is pretty sexist.... maybe they just don't want to go?

they are allowed to be different last i checked? or are we going to control
that freedom away from them?

------
rednotebook
Reminds me of topblacktalent.co.uk

