
Introducing Passion Projects - bencevans
https://github.com/blog/1433-introducing-passion-projects
======
msoad
So I started programming (for real) about two years ago. I spent about four
months teaching myself coding PHP, JavaScript and CSS. I was able to secure a
job after four months. I wasn't really good enough for the position.

My wife is doing the same. She is following my path. She have me, I teach her
and she is learning much faster. After a year, she is still looking for a
volunteer job! Nobody believes she can do anything.

This is extremely sad. My wife is far more advanced than me when I got my
first job. We are immigrants and we are not white, I believe those adds to our
problems.

Everyone who says women don't deserve this kind of attention never saw a women
struggling get in tech world.

~~~
pablasso
She should just release whatever she creates why learning. Stereotypes are no
longer valid if you have a proof of your skills in Github.

~~~
msoad
What if I tell you I didn't know Git when I got my first job and she has a
bunch of green dots in her Github profile?

~~~
tptacek
I tell you I absolutely believe you, because I watched my wife have the exact
same problems.

------
mlent
I disagree with everyone saying, "Why create something separate for women?
Isn't that further separation?"

For the most part, women don't take up much space in the tech industry. Women
look at the big names in tech, and they don't really see people who are "like
me." This can be intimidating and disheartening. Creating more spaces for
women to connect with other women, and share their experiences and
encouragement is much needed. Of course, let's also not forget women of color
and trans women, who obviously face additional challenges in finding people
like themselves to look up to in tech. I hope that GitHub makes an effort to
include a wide range of women with different backgrounds to include in this
series.

Also, there's no reason why any women's group should have to admit men to
appease the "I promise we're not sexist against men" line of reasoning. I
probably shouldn't be surprised that some of the first comments on something
oriented towards women is, "But...WHAT ABOUT MEN?!" Get over yourselves! Let
this be a reminder that the world does not revolve around you and people like
you.

~~~
Zikes
> Also, there's no reason why any women's group should have to admit men to
> appease the "I promise we're not sexist against men" line of reasoning.

Is sexism not reason enough in itself? Is this not the very thing we're trying
to fight against?

I fully acknowledge and lament that there is a severe lack of women in tech,
and were it up to me men and women both would have equal opportunities in all
regards, but you only debase your message and dilute your efforts when you try
to level the playing field by making an environment that is more hostile
towards men rather than one less hostile towards women.

The overarching goal is to be inclusive, of people of all genders, races, and
the spectrum of people that fall in between. Yes, celebrate successes, find
role models of all types and praise their accomplishments. Bring them forward
to share their wisdom and experiences so that everyone can learn and benefit.

Edit: To clarify, I have no issues with an initiative that seeks out role
models specifically within a category of minorities, such as by gender or
race. My only qualm would be in limiting the audience.

~~~
mlent
To put it simply, sexism against men does not exist. You can discriminate
against men, but let's be clear: sexism is systematic oppression by those in
power on the basis of gender.

So...having a series of talks that is for women by women cannot possibly be
sexist. You can say it discriminates by not allowing men to be speakers, if
you so wish. I can't say I'd find it to interesting to listen to a man tell me
what it's like to be a woman in tech, though, so you could also just say that
they're just featuring people who are interesting to their audience: women.

Also -- who said anything about hostility? What I meant was, "This is about
women...why are you bringing men up at all? Don't they have their own spheres
which they already dominate?" I just get tired of all this "reverse sexism"
nonsense.

Edit: To be clear, I agree with your last paragraph. I don't think it's
limiting the audience to feature women speakers, unless you don't think that
men can find women interesting. ;)

~~~
sp332
_sexism is systematic oppression by those in power on the basis of gender._

I think you're using the wrong word then. Discrimination against men is
sexism. Maybe a better word for what you want is hegemony
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_theory#Hegemo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_theory#Hegemonic_group)

~~~
mlent
The key element is that women are not able to systematically oppress men for
being men, as they do not have the social privilege to do so. You need all the
elements in order to produce sexism.

~~~
sp332
A single individual event or person can be sexist. I understand the idea you
are describing. That idea is not what the word "sexism" refers to.
<https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sexism>

~~~
mlent
Sexism is an institution, so to speak. A single individual could not "bring
sexism into existence". Women do not have enough power, as it stands, to
impose a systemic oppression of men. Perhaps in the future, or in some female
dominated societies, sexism against men exists...but not in the United States.

~~~
lutusp
> Women do not have enough power, as it stands, to impose a systemic
> oppression of men.

And men don't have enough power to impose a systemic oppression of women --
for that, they need women to cooperate in their own oppression. Women
voluntarily rise to the challenge.

> Perhaps in the future, or in some female dominated societies, sexism against
> men exists...but not in the United States.

No. You may have meant effective, oppressive sexism, but not sexism per se.
There's plenty of sexism directed at men.

"If men knew what women said about them in private, the human race would cease
to exist." -- W. H. Auden

~~~
naradaellis
I don't think I can buy the victim-blaming argument. Is a woman who is born
into a culture with female genital mutilation, or forced arranged marriage
"cooperating in their own oppression"? Both of these acts can occur at young
ages.

~~~
lutusp
> I don't think I can buy the victim-blaming argument.

With respect to the topic of women who cooperate in their own oppression, they
aren't victims, and no one is blaming them. Would you blame someone for
choosing a lifestyle that didn't suit your personal tastes? No? Then we lose
the right to "blame" women for making the choices they do. This is what
personal freedom means -- the right to make choices others may disapprove of.

> Is a woman who is born into a culture with female genital mutilation ...

Surely you're aware that's not the topic. Such things aren't volunteered for,
but the sorts of behavior we see in the West are often chosen by women who
have options and rights.

> ... or forced arranged marriage "cooperating in their own oppression"?

Again, not the topic of discussion. Consider the all-too-common example in
which a woman, removed from one abusive relationship, promptly seeks out
another. How is that "forced"?

Real liberation will come, not when women are given the rights they deserve,
but when they accept them.

~~~
mlent
> Consider the all-too-common example in which a woman, removed from one
> abusive relationship, promptly seeks out another. How is that "forced"?

That is a really poor example of women being instruments in their own
oppression. In cases like that, women are likely suffering from internalized
problems that result from patriarchy -- such as a desire to be dominated, to
fit into the patriarchal framework, to fill out the role of the victim that
they are told is their identity. Sure, some choice is involved, but it's more
like Stockholm Syndrome than "I think I fancy having the living daylights beat
out of me today."

My much less dramatic example is a woman who claims that she doesn't enjoy the
company of other women, finds them to be too catty or bitchy, would rather
hang out with men, etc. Commonly, this woman is seeking the approval of her
male peers at the expense of...basically all women ever. She wants to come off
as a "pretty tomboy" -- 'cool' enough to be one of the guys, but also
conforming to sexist expectations about her appearance. This is obviously a
stereotype, but I personally encounter it a lot. How can anyone truly respect
women when their own kind are debasing them left and right?

> Real liberation will come, not when women are given the rights they deserve,
> but when they accept them.

I don't think I even need to explain how absurd this statement is. I'll agree
that women are part of the problem in fighting for women's rights, but frankly
I see and experience sexism far too often to be so dismissive.

------
muan
As a female developer, I would intuitively feel glad when seeing this kind of
events/groups being formed, but thinking about it I am not sure why. I don't
even think I feel like going to them for any other reason than, well, I am
female and they're also female so I should probably check it out.

After reading the reasons Github wrote, I find it hard to relate. For me
picking up coding has nothing to do with seeing some other women do it, but
perhaps seeing some human beings do it. And I don't think seeing female
developers would inspire me further more than male developers. But I could be
completely false and it might be that turns out I don't know what I really
feel...

Perhaps it's because I have not yet noticed any serious injustice around where
I've been, could be that I just didn't realised what they were or I haven't
spend enough time in the tech industry. The most unfair thing in tech I've
ever encountered was interviewing at a company where there is no ladies
restroom...

Anyhoo. I don't personally know any other female developer and I've been
coding since 11, that's 10+ years, I guess that's ought to be wrong. And since
there are no samples around me, I don't really know what inspired other female
developer to learn how to code. Is there anyone here who cares to share her
experience?

------
goldfeld
Thanks Github, it's great to have your weight behind making tech more friendly
to women, and spotlighting female role models so that more of the young might
pursue a career in the field.

------
Zikes
I think this is an excellent initiative by GitHub. It's well-acknowledged that
there is a lack of women in tech, for what I'm sure is a wide variety of
reasons, and celebrating the successes of women in that field is a noble
endeavor.

Personally I believe that these women are capable of being a role model to
both men and women, as they presumably have achieved their successes through
their own merits and not by virtue of their gender, so I'm sure the wisdom
they have to share at these meetups would benefit everyone. To that end I
would be disappointed to hear if, while the meetups may encourage or advertise
to a female audience, they chose to exclude men.

------
arcwhite
To those saying that "this is discrimination is it is morally wrong" (and I
don't think this event constitutes discrimination, but here goes):

1\. Should we then do away with gender segregated sports teams? 2\. Should
other minorities (e.g. LBGTQ groups) no longer have support groups that focus
on issues relevant to them?

Having groups that cater to certain minorities feels to me both necessary and
useful. We are not all identical. You probably don't want to live in a world
without exceptional and different people in it; it would be boring.

That means there are times when some of those people who are like-minded want
to get together and support each other. In some cases, that means other groups
need to be discouraged (because that minority would otherwise be overwhelmed,
drowned out in a sea of majority voices).

Why are so many voices in our industry constantly fighting events like this?

~~~
hnacc10
When will "enough be enough"? When will we have no more need for these
separate groups? Instead of actually choosing the best candidates based on
their best abilities, we now resort to purposely choosing people based on
their sex or race. That is wrong.

There are much more women than men who attend college now. Women score better
than men in reading and other subjects. The wage gap IS a myth. More money is
focused on women's health issues.

Do you see that any area where women don't already represent at least 50% of
the workforce, there will be loud voices decrying sexism at this?

On the other hand, there are 0 efforts on raising standards for boys, or
trying to get them into X field. Nothing. As seen in history, once a group
starts to gain power and privileges, it will continue in that direction no
matter the actual circumstances.

~~~
arcwhite
"Instead of actually choosing the best candidates based on their best
abilities, we now resort to purposely choosing people based on their sex or
race."

I call bulltwang. Please provide evidence of this supposed systematic
selection of 'minority' candidates, because I'm sure as heck not seeing it
where I am.

You assert that the wage gap is myth. Please also provide evidence for this
statement, because everything I've read suggests that it remains a problem
across the board - and for the record we're talking about IT specifically
here, and we're not talking about the wage gap, we're talking about the
abysmally low rates of entry into this sector by half the population as
defined by gender identification.

It's all well and good to say "NO ENOUGH IS ENOUGH MERITOCRACY NAO PLZ", but
who decides what is meritorious? The entrenched majority? This is why that
term was coined in derision.

I say, enough will be enough when there's no longer a problem (c.f. uptake of
science/engineering/tech by women). Until then, we have a problem, and we need
to do things to fix that problem.

~~~
hnacc10
Sure, I would love to answer this.

To give some perspective to you, I come from the humanities field and have
switched to IT. In the humanities field (from college majors to actual
employment), men are underrepresented. Women hold majority positions in many
places (and in related fields, HR, communications etc.).

Even still, when looking at job applications many times will be a blurb such
as: "Qualified female candidates are especially encouraged to apply."

The issue I have with all of this, is that there is a sole focus on bringing
in women into science and engineering, which is of course a GOOD thing.

However, there is zero effort to increase reading rates for boys, and to push
boys and men into the communications and humanities fields, ZERO. Boys lag
behind girls in many places when it comes to education, and nothing is done
about that.

I've actually worked at a place where this was verbally justified. I am not
lying when I heard a female senior management official state: "Women are
better communicators than men, so it is only natural that they be placed in
greater leadership and communication roles."

Why is there ZERO effort in getting men out of dangerous positions, such as
mining and logging and hundreds of other fields and instead actually focus on
THEIR education? Men die at a much, much higher rate than women in the
workforce, but this is ignored.

So that is coming from my perspective.

If you are insulated in the IT field and that is what you have experienced,
then I cannot blame you for thinking "Wow, there are so few women in this
field! We need more!"

However, please note there are many fields where women are the majority of
undergraduate and graduate students.

Sorry, but I do not have specific pay gap data for the IT sector, although I
have plenty of reports that address the overall pay gap:
[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-
gender-p...](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-
gap-is-a-complete-myth/)

When you in fact compare individual jobs to one another there is no wage gap.
Plus we have laws (at least here in the US, not sure where you are) that if
you find out you are getting paid less because of your sex, you can bring this
to court.

And for the record, yes I love meritocracy. I believe in equality of
opportunity, not equality of outcome. Educate more women in the sciences,
educate more men in communications/humanities/social work/education and get
them out of dangerous positions. That is fair.

~~~
arcwhite
I totally agree with you that there are many problems here. I have also seen
the research on male literacy and numeracy rates, and agree with you that
there's a problem there that needs to be tackled.

That does not invalidate _this_ problem.

And back to my original point: even if the problem of women in tech were
solved, I still don't see the beef with having events held for particular
subgroups of people. There's no cost here. Nobody is disadvantaged if we have
a Geek Girls night, or a Gay Coder Hackathon, or the Left Handed Sysadmin
Support Group.

Equality of opportunity is one thing, forcing everybody into the same cookie-
cutter mould and insisting we all do the same things with the same people?
Ick.

------
memset
This is really neat! Kudos to github.

Here is a question: as one of two engineers at a 6-person seed-round startup,
what could we be doing to contribute to the ecosystem of people who support
women in technology? We don't have the office space - much less the money - to
find or sponsor a monthly talk. So within the context of running our business,
what can we do?

Sometimes I fear that, until we have a successful and profitable company (with
spare conference rooms, clout to find people who would like to give lectures
here, or an otherwise large audience), there isn't much we can do to
contribute.

What can smaller companies or even individuals within organizations do?

~~~
noahl
I'm not as familiar with this problem as I'd like to be, so please take this
with a grain of salt, but maybe you could invite female CS majors from nearby
universities to come see your offices? Or better yet, to see what it's like to
work with you for a day.

After all, one of the major issues seems to be that women don't see role
models working in tech companies. If you have female students come and work
with you, then they should be able to imagine themselves working at your
company, or another small startup.

------
jenius
This is how you get more women involved in tech, by actually taking action. I
hope that we see more initiatives like this rather than hateful articles,
which we've seen so many of recently.

------
jamescun
It is brilliant to see a move forward to recognising that there are women in
technology and they provide as good a contribution as everybody else,

BUT,

Is creating a specific, segregated, event/group really the way forward or is
it just creating a greater divide in the tech community along gender lines?
What would really need to be done is look properly into why there is a
disproportionate number of men versus women who go into technology, rather
than introduce yet more segregation.

I do not believe that there is an event/group out there currently that would
place any sort of restriction, intentional or otherwise, on female entry.

~~~
AlexandrB
> What would really need to be done is look properly into why there is a
> disproportionate number of men versus women who go into technology, rather
> than introduce yet more segregation.

This isn't some big mystery. At least one reason that women don't enter
technology fields is a lack of female role-models. Another is societal
pressure that dictates that women are bad at technology.

Technology conferences focusing on women aren't just for the participants,
they help counteract these two forces by giving visibility to notable women in
tech.

[http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.ca/2006/03/women-need-fe...](http://bps-
research-digest.blogspot.ca/2006/03/women-need-female-role-models.html)

[http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/21/where-have-
al...](http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/21/where-have-all-the-
women-gone)

~~~
recuter
What role models did Grace Hopper have? And I can only speak for myself but I
was never drawn to 'technology' out of having famous neckbeards or Jobs or
Gates and so forth as role models.

You have to ask why women are _more_ under represented in this particular
field than others which used to be just as male dominated in the past. But
people don't like to think about such deep large hairy societal problems.

None of this is to say that what's described in the OP is a bad thing.

~~~
Permit
>And I can only speak for myself but I was never drawn to 'technology' out of
having famous neckbeards or Jobs or Gates and so forth as role models.

You may not have been drawn to it because of Jobs or Gates, but you never once
looked at the field of technology and thought "People who look at me don't do
this". That is, you never felt deterred because of the people who dominated
the field.

Scott Hanselman recently hosted Kyla McMullen (first black female Ph.D out of
UMichigan) on his podcast where she shed some perspective on how difficult it
feels to break into tech when no one looks like you and it feels like you
don't belong. I enjoyed it a lot, and maybe you might too.
[http://hanselminutes.com/357/dr-kyla-mcmullen-on-
diversity-i...](http://hanselminutes.com/357/dr-kyla-mcmullen-on-diversity-in-
computer-science-and-spatial-audio)

~~~
recuter
> but you never once looked at the field of technology and thought "People who
> look at me don't do this". That is, you never felt deterred because of the
> people who dominated the field.

That's a rather huge assumption on your part.

> That's nice, but I don't see how your personal motivations are relevant on
> an industry-wide scale.

I don't think my personal motivations are relevant on an industry-wide scale,
that was my point to begin with.

Like I said, the OP is hardly a bad thing, by all means, try. I hope it helps
somebody. In my opinion it is treating the symptoms and not the disease.

------
oliverhunt
I think this is a good idea but is the word 'Passion' only in the name because
it's women?

~~~
holman
A "passion project", in my mind, is simply a project that you're excited about
(notably one that is likely outside the bounds of your normal, day-to-day
job). I distinguish them from "side projects", which tend to be something
you're interested in, but not something you're necessarily defined by. That's
the reason the program's called _passion_ projects — hopefully we'll have a
ton of talks on really interesting things that our speakers are really, well,
passionate about.

I don't view "passion" as a word that is exclusive to women, in other words —
we could just as easily pull in men for the same talk series.

~~~
oliverhunt
Most definitely. We share the same meaning of the concept of a passion
project. I was probably just over thinking it, I am just suspicious of the way
such highly emotive language has been used and it just happens to be for an
interview series with women.

I'll admit I had not read the link before I posted that comment, but looking
at it now I still believe that the language used is overly emotional and I
think that it has been used just because this is a series on women.

A definition of the word passion involves, among other things "strong and
barely controllable emotion" and I think this may be an obvious case where a
gendered stereotype has been blatantly applied.

Some sentences taken from the link:

"celebrate the work of some of the most passionate women in our industry."

"share one of their nearest and dearest passion projects with our community."

"to hear about some positive experiences from other women in our industry
doing what they love."

~~~
holman
> "celebrate the work of some of the most passionate women in our industry."

> "share one of their nearest and dearest passion projects with our
> community."

> "to hear about some positive experiences from other women in our industry
> doing what they love."

Yup, I'm pretty excited about all of these things. Don't know why this is a
problem.

~~~
oliverhunt
There is obviously no problem with hearing about these things. I am focussing
on the language used which could be seen to feminise the people taking part in
the series when in fact we know nothing about them other than they are women
and that they are in tech. I doubt you could find any other tech series which
uses language as seen in the link.

Really, I am focussing on the mundane ways in which "women = feminine =
emotional" has been portrayed in the few words that were written on the new
series.

If you are interested in the way gender is reproduced in this way I recommend
this reading
[http://www.mariabuszek.com/kcai/PoMoSeminar/Readings/BtlrPer...](http://www.mariabuszek.com/kcai/PoMoSeminar/Readings/BtlrPerfActs.pdf)

It is a text by Judith Butler, probably one of the most influential living
social theorists who writes on gender and focuses on 'the mundane', meaning
language, acts etc

Anyway, I am excited to watch these. So, if you were involved - thanks.

------
MrAlmostWrong
Does anyone happen to know the percentage of women that work @Github?

~~~
cobychapple
19 out of our 152 employees are women, so a little over 12%.

~~~
MrAlmostWrong
Thanks for the reply.

------
mark_l_watson
Very cool!

Not too far off topic: I worked for a good tech company for most of the years
between 1973 and 1996. The only major negative thing about the company was a
'glass ceiling' for women engineers (we did have some very high profile women
on our board of directors though). I found that situation embarrassing.

So, yes, special events featuring women engineers are a good thing.

BTW, my granddaughter can program fairly well using the Scratch game platform
:-)

------
dmazin
It makes me pretty happy to see that this event is already full.

------
cbeach
Tech should be friendlier to women.

However, segregation isn't the way forward, IMHO. I'm always sad to see
gender-focussed events and groups. I'd much rather see women and men
-integrate- than congregate within their own gender.

And just to pre-empt, please don't give me the disingenuous "men are welcome
too" line. This is, by definition, a women-focussed group.

~~~
jamesmiller5
Women are underrepresented in technology. This event is to help promote the
potential as well as accomplishments of women in technology.

I fail to see how this is segregation, they make no claim that this series is
to be representing everyone, just highlighting women. It is an event focused
on women's roles in technology and available to the community.

~~~
jessedhillon
By the self-centered logic of the OP, even if a minority group has only 0.1%
representation, they should have no events targeting specifically them and
their causes -- the 99.9% majority should be able to attend, and presumably
contribute to the conversation with no ability of the event's organizers to
moderate the dialog or direct the focus to the minority's experiences.
Anything less than that is segregation.

It doesn't occur to the OP, apparently, that they are trying to create
something that is decidedly _different_ from the ordinary tech experience -- a
conversation dominated by awkward-to-arrogant, entitled males who think that
their very important opinions need to be heard everywhere and at all times.

I wonder if the OP (presumably male) insists on attending (female) rape
survivor meetups, or if he could understand why attendees thereof would not
feel totally comfortable with his attendance.

~~~
jQueryIsAwesome
I see, women are going to share their traumatic experience in tech.

BTW, this discussion is just silly because there are millions of meet Ups in
tech filled with only men, but in the other hand meet ups of rape survivors
not accepting men would be just evil, men are a minority in that group, it
would be like a tech company not accepting any women.

~~~
jessedhillon
Ok. Good luck trying to convince them to let you in, I'm sure your
unassailable logic misses nothing obvious. Make sure you let them know that
it's evil for you not to be allowed in.

~~~
jQueryIsAwesome
What? Fortunately I wasn't talking about me, just men victims of rape. And
doesn't matter if they follow my logic or not, we are discussing what's right,
not the logic of the organizers of such meetings.

~~~
jessedhillon
If you can't take your knowledge of "what's right" and actually change
objective reality with it in a useful way, then it's dubious as to whether
what you know is actually true. And IMO you would not be able to convince a
female survivors group to let you in with logic, so again, I doubt strongly
that it actually corresponds to truth.

~~~
jQueryIsAwesome
Why you keep suggesting I'm talking about me?... are you just trolling?

~~~
jessedhillon
I assumed that you would take ownership of the argument you're forwarding, and
at least monetarily, you could put yourself in the position of someone who
would try to employ your logic. To do otherwise would be arguing in bad faith.
And whether or not you are the person employing the logic, the point remains:
a person couldn't take your argument and do something useful, like convince a
group that he should be allowe in, and so I really have to wonder in what
sense you think this argument is true. Presumably because it exhibits logical
consistency, which by itself is irrelevant (cf bounded rationality)

~~~
jQueryIsAwesome
> a person couldn't take your argument and do something useful, like convince
> a group that he should be allowe in

Have you heard about civil war? That was one group trying to convince another
that some people should be allowed in.

And anyway; I wasn't making an abstraction but the very evil segregation such
as rape victims meetups excluding men. Unsurprisingly these meetups don't
exist in reality; there are some about violence or abusive relationships in
general.

~~~
jessedhillon
You obviously don't know what you're talking about if you think there are no
female-only rape survivor groups.

~~~
jQueryIsAwesome
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>

But is not the classic case of Ad-hominem, you did a deduction from point B to
make a personal attack to deny the validness of point A. Interesting.

~~~
jessedhillon
It's not as hominem to say that you do not have facts. Moreover, I already
said that being logically correct is not my aim. Your argument lacks relevance
or informedness, so you can make as many valid points as you want, your words
simply have no correlation to reality.

~~~
jQueryIsAwesome
Correlation with reality? If I wanted to speak the news I would become an
anchorman. Most people here is discussing how things _should_ be and how that
could become a reality.

And say what you want, Im pretty sure white female rape-victims is not a valid
meet up.

~~~
jessedhillon
When did "white" get added? Also, you could have easily searched for this:

<http://www.raap.org/support-groups.html>

As you obviously know nothing of rape, and probably not much of women either,
I really have to question why you're still typing. You seem to be woefully
unqualified to be participating in any conversation about what _should_ be,
even supposing, as you have, that such a conversation doesn't need to be
informed with facts.

~~~
jQueryIsAwesome
"White" excludes 40% of Americans, "female" excludes 50%. Its just semantics.

