The problem with this type of the thinking is the same thing you see when it comes to racism in general: "If we just stop mentioning it, it will go away", "programs to counter racism are racist", etc. Not talking about racism/sexism etc will not make it go away. Kids are very perceptive, they notice the apparent differences in acceptable behavior very early on; they are internalizing it subconsciously whether we bring it up or not. The only way to compensate is to tackle it head-on. This means defining it, explaining why its wrong, and taking steps to mitigate its effects. Girl-centric CS activities are an appropriate way of counteracting these pervasive gender stereotypes. Ignoring it will not make it go away.
>Girl-centric CS activities are an appropriate way of counteracting these pervasive gender stereotypes.
This is pretty much the exact opposite of what needs to happen. We want to eliminate gender discrimination, so let's single out people of a single gender, tell them they're different and that they need CS events just for them, and watch the problem disappear. And while we're at it let's also disparage The Other gender (because surely, there are only two) by implicitly discouraging them from attending the event. Then when it comes time to enter the workforce these two strata we've created will surely integrate seamlessly, creating a more livable and productive world for all of us. Yes, that is how it will happen.
What we need are gender-neutral CS events that we encourage all people to attend. Recruit women aggressively to attend, fine -- but not on the basis that they are women. Rather, on the basis that they might like CS and the things that happen at said event.
I fail to see how we are going to combat gender discrimination by reinforcing gender stereotypes.
It's not a choice between ignoring or "tackling it head on". In the early days of tackling some kind of systemic bias, it makes sense to talk about it all the time. Now that most everyone agrees it's a problem, it seems (to me) like the most productive way to move forward is to only point out sexism in specific instances where it occurs, providing reinforcement to help change our mental habits, making pariahs of persistent offenders. But if you continue to "tackle" the problem, you're just badgering people about things you've already convinced them on, which leads to annoyance and backlash, as we've seen.
I'm not sure about girl-centric CS activities. Sometimes guys and girls just want to hang out and do ${activity} with members of the same sex. We can have guy-only or girl-only camping trips without any problem. Camping is pretty well-established to be a unisex activity. You'd think the same would be true for CS or any other field, in an unbiased world. But who could get away with an explicitly guy-only CS event? It would be politically difficult to say the least. Something is clearly wrong here.
Maybe girl-only gatherings, as the next step past mixed gatherings, help further the subconscious idea that women have a natural place in ${activity}. How's that for compensating? But this sort of falls flat when it's hard for guys to do the same. And as a blunt weapon against sexism, well, it still doesn't make sense to me, because if it's wielded that way it's inherently polarizing.
I think you're conflating issues here. There is a point where continually beating the drum about overt sexism in the field becomes counter productive. But this is a different issue. Having women-centric CS events arent necessarily about shielding women from male sexism, but about creating environments where they won't feel intimidated and can commiserate with others who are experiencing or have experienced the same issues. Like I said in another comment, countering the gender stereotypes against women in hard science and engineering fields isn't about banning certain types of humor. The problem goes much deeper than that.
>But who could get away with an explicitly guy-only CS event? It would be politically difficult to say the least. Something is clearly wrong here.
I really wish people would stop trotting out this shallow argument when discussing inequality in various spheres. The contexts for the two groups are completely different, thus a simple "swapping the two labels and seeing what results" gives absolutely no insight.
>The contexts for the two groups are completely different, thus a simple "swapping the two labels and seeing what results" gives absolutely no insight.
This is an argument that has been used by most proponents of discriminatory practices.
Have you never been in a minority status in anything you've done? I'm not talking about race, just situations where your background/traits/etc. are much different than those of the majority of your peers.
I started as an "odd man out" for practically every major peer group I've ever been involved in and I can tell you, it sucks. The way I've successfully acclimated is usually with highly informal "incubator" groups that help with the integration process by breaking it up into steps. These groups were so informal that we didn't even think of it as such, but in retrospect that's what had happened.
But an actual majority wouldn't need this exact type of support, they already have been acclimated to it and can easily integrate into similar peer groups, so it's not even an exact comparison.
But to the extent that this GitHub project is focused on ensuring that this particular minority of this particular peer group has a place to go for support and successfully working their way into the larger peer group I think it's a wonderful thing. Hopefully someday we can discard it as redundant and unnecessary, but today it can be very helpful.
It's just irrelevant. If the argument is wrong, then explain why its wrong. Trying to shut it down because someone has misused a similar-sounding argument in the past is not a refutation.
What do you mean "the contexts are different"? I mean, I know they feel different, which is partly why I tried to compare it to camping, where no one cares. I don't think I see how switching labels is "shallow" except that it's easy to think of, and even if all it brings to light is another inequality, it's worth keeping in mind.
Let me take the more extreme example of racism as an illustrative point. "If we had a 'white entertainment television' that would be racist, therefore BET is racist". This is the sort of argument you made and hopefully its obvious how ridiculous it is to you. The contexts for whites and blacks in this country are completely different (dominant culture, etc). Thus something being racist when it re-enforces the dominant culture is not the same when its supporting a marginalized culture.
BET is racist in exactly the same way "WET" would be, which is to say not much, because no one is actually locked out of anything (plus WET is a terrible name). Whatever else you think of me, don't just assume I'm inconsistent.
Now you're saying that racism is "not the same" (I'm assuming that means "not bad"?) if it's in favor of people who are normally discriminated against by the "dominant" culture. It amounts to justifying one person's bad behavior by pointing out someone else's, which simply doesn't qualify as a moral argument. If this is the only reason BET is okay and WET is not, I think it's a lame one.
In the case of television networks, it doesn't really matter. But I refuse to accept this mushy "different contexts" argument to justify anyone's wrong or stupid behavior. The whole point of striving for equality is to get rid of these different contexts, not perpetuate them. Be the change you want to see.
There is a certain sense in which BET may be less stupid than WET, which is if being black was a strong selector for liking some content over others. This is, AFAICT, less the case with "white" people, so WET makes less sense. This kind of goes back to what I was saying earlier about girls' CS events because, hey, the girls want to get together and hack. They can do their own thing if they want. That's the key, that's what needs to get into people's psyches: "You can do your own thing if you want."
Sure, you're consistent. But that isn't saying much. You really should expand your understanding of the word racism, along with the history of racism in the US (assuming you're from the US). If you think a supposed WET is analogous to a BET then you are tragically under or misinformed regarding the issue of race.
Your rather narrow and closed minded misunderstanding of race likely mirrors your misunderstanding of issues regarding gender. This isn't the place for an in-depth discussion about these issues, nor am I the right person to offer it. So we can leave it at that if you prefer.
Now you're just being condescending. If you don't think the conversation is productive, you can say that. Assigning me a research project and pretending to graciously let me walk away is a cop-out.
I'm only interested in the meanings of words to the extent they illuminate real objects and concepts, and inform real actions. I'm not interested in cultural baggage except as a stumbling block to understanding to be removed. I understand, to some extent, that people have complicated motives from a wide range of sources, mostly irrational, which makes them hard to get a logical handle on. I don't believe morality is that complicated. I can't shake the feeling that "WET" is morally stupider, but I don't have a good reason, and I try to ignore feelings like that. If that makes me "narrow and closed minded" in your mind, I can handle that. In that case, it is indeed unlikely that our conversation will be productive.
If I'm closed-minded, do you see how your comments look to me, pushing against my idea of literal equality for some abstract form of "corrected" equality? Then turning to diversionary tactics when you can't answer my argument (and a peripheral one at that)?
I guess the point was, girl-only gatherings seem more like a part of the end-game of equalization, except to the extent pretending the game is over makes it get over faster. Point mostly taken about "creating environments...".
>I'm only interested in the meanings of words to the extent they illuminate real objects and concepts, and inform real actions. I'm not interested in cultural baggage except as a stumbling block to understanding to be removed
This is intentionally putting blinders on yourself. Words are elucidated through their "cultural baggage", not inhibited by it. You cannot understand true meaning without all the associated context, connotations, emotions, etc, however irrational they may seem. This is precisely what makes language such a rich communications medium. You cannot divorce meaning from the messy soup of associated contexts.
I'm sorry if I come off as condescending, but I see this type of argument frequently online. People promote degenerate meanings of certain words (racism and sexism are prime examples) and then want to use those degenerate definitions to "prove" some self-serving result (e.g. "race-aware college admissions are racist"--sure if you use the most watered down and useless definition of racist you can muster). I'm sorry but I can't see this tactic as anything but purely self-serving, thus it is met with a condescending response.
I've heard that view on language. It has it's place. It's no good for philosophy, or anything requiring rigorous reasoning. It is precisely this kind of reasoning that is desperately needed in discussions of sexism and racism, so we can try to get past the emotional issues that are clearly, I'm sure we can agree on this, clouding people's judgment. To some degree, we have to understand or at least notice the baggage to neutralize it. But overall richness is not desired as much as precision. If we don't try to be precise, we've already failed at communication. This is the opposite of putting blinders on myself.
If you want to talk about something more complicated than just "discrimination based on race", I think you need to describe that in terms of simpler things we agree on before we can decide whether it's happening and whether it's good or bad. Otherwise we don't know what we're talking about. This conversation is a perfect example. While I'm using the strict definition, you seem to think that "racism" means when the underdog is discriminated against but not the "dominant" culture, I still don't understand it. I think your definition is broken and deceptive (at least it's possible to prove something from a "degenerate" definition), and you think the same of mine. Would have been nice to know that at the start.
On the subject of pure logic, pointing out that someone's argument benefits them is strictly a logical fallacy. I'm tempted to whine that your arguments are self-serving, but tu quoque is a fallacy too. Both are usually counter-productive, except possibly as an explanation after you've explained logically why someone is wrong, which you have still not done.
This is how I try to approach any sort of philosophical or moral question, especially in writing. If you don't agree on this basic approach to finding truth, we really have nothing at all to say to each other.
>But overall richness is not desired as much as precision.
Richness and precision are not at odds with one another. Attempts at understanding language through precision is precisely why AI has failed miserably when it comes to actual understanding of language. I promise you that figuring out how to model all the various contexts and connotations that are associated with language is the big breakthrough that natural language processing has been waiting for.
That being said, one can have a precise discussion regarding these admittedly emotional topics if we clearly define all of the relevant contexts that are involved. But anyways, this has suddenly turned into a discussion about race unintentionally. So instead of going into great depth, I will cut to the point which will hopefully clarify my problem with your type of reasoning.
Words like racist and sexist have a certain power in our culture. If you call someone a racist, they immediately become defensive because it has become one of the worst things you can call someone. This is precisely because of the connotations involving hate, inferiority, violence, etc. Now when you attempt to prune all of that cultural context from that word (by defining it as generic discrimination based on race), and then label programs geared towards minorities "racist", you are intentionally wielding that cultural context to stigmatize something that would not otherwise receive that negative connotation. You are changing the definition without simultaneously changing the cultural connotations that give the word its power. This is what is so despicable about altering the meaning of these words: you are using unconscious associations between racism and evil things to stigmatize things you simply don't like by forcing a new association in the minds of your audience by way of the old label. The "evil" connotation is then unconsciously transferred to the thing you don't like.
A clear example of how the degenerate definition is useless, and frankly absurd, is the case of doctors that check black patients for high blood pressure, heart disease, hypertension, etc. This is your "technical" definition of racial discrimination, ie "racism". But it is absurd that this should carry a negative stigma by falling under such a label.
>Kids are very perceptive, they notice the apparent differences in acceptable behavior very early on
Yes and if young girls' early exposure to the industry consists largely of "Girl-centric CS activities" then they will immediately wonder why they need such special treatment. People do not want want to be segregated, even if it is, supposedly, for a good cause.
Can we please let the women speak for themselves? I absolutely abhor when white people tell me that as a black person I should not want scholarships/education programs/tutoring/etc geared specifically towards people of my background.
Are you suggesting that we cannot debate this issue unless we are female? Because, if so, then you need to copy and paste your comment on 90% of the comments in this thread including your own. (I assume you are not a women because you said "Can WE please let the women speak for themselves?")
Or are you suggesting that us males are only not allowed to debate when we believe that special treatment of women is actually detrimental to them and everyone else?
I am suggesting we not make self-serving assertions about how women should feel. There is debating and then there is putting words in other people's mouths that are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. If women themselves are not making this type of argument, men have no place in making it on their behalf.
Please explain to me where I made an assertion about how women should feel. I said that girls will wonder why they are being treated differently and I said that people do not like being segregated. What words am I putting in whose mouths? What type of argument?
Let's not devolve this discussion into a language-parsing exercise. Take your comment as a whole, its clear you are saying "this is how women will/should feel". I'm saying there is no reason to suppose how women will feel: they can tell us themselves if they feel this way.
No, I am saying that people don't like being segregated (not that they should not like, do not try to put a different spin on it) and as a person who has interacted with other people my whole life I do have a right to say that. Yes, women are people so I believe this includes women. Maybe there are people that like being singled out based on their gender in this context but I have definitely not met any.
>they can tell us themselves if they feel this way
Yes and they do. I am not sure if you realise this but this actually what the female author of the article says:
"I also have grave concerns regarding activities and events that are for “girls only”. These events instead enforce the stereotype, segregating girls and giving them (and everyone) a message that they are different. It is a band-aid attempt at a solution to a problem that starts at a much younger age, and seriously neglects those girls (and women) who don’t want to be segregated (many of whom never even come out to such events, and whose voices are sadly never heard). Children do not grow up into a segregated world, so why are we reinforcing that message? Why are we not just creating a variety of activities that may appeal to boys or girls or both? I can see taking issue with creating explicitly sexist activities, but there is nothing inherently sexist about having activities that may attract more of one gender than the other, especially when we make the available to everyone.
"
> Maybe there are people that like being singled out based on their gender in this context but I have definitely not met any.
The fact that women participate in these events is an obvious counter-example.
And yes, the author is essentially making your point. But she is also speaking from a position of privilege, as someone who was never intimidated by "boy stuff" and who admittedly got along better with boys rather than girls. I'm not sure her point is representative of the target audience of these kinds of gatherings, so it should be weighed with that in mind. Also its interesting to note that her comment was not in the first person, as in "this is how I feel about these events". It seems like she's doing what you are doing, projecting her ideas about how these girls will/should feel onto them.
Racism, sexism, etc are necessarily wrong. However, discrimination is not necessarily wrong. Whether its wrong depends on the context and the motivations. I submit that this is a valid form of "discrimination".
First, nothing is necessarily wrong, as that would imply an absolute rather than relative morality. All morality is relativistic.
Secondly, I would argue that your list, from my point of view, denoted 'racism, sexism, etc' is more rigorously defined as 'discriminating based on anything other than merit'.
Given that assumption, discrimination by race or sex for any reason would be wrong.
With those premises, I stand by my original conclusion that discrimination on the whole is wrong.
>I would argue that your list, from my point of view, denoted 'racism, sexism, etc' is more rigorously defined as 'discriminating based on anything other than merit'.
Sexism is discrimination based on sex. Please look up the definition of sexism. No, it does not depend on the motivation or context, everyone who discriminates believes that their motives justify it but they don't. Your sexism is no different from anyone else's.
Sure, under the most simplistic definition devoid of any cultural context or connotation. But if you have to prune all meaning from the word to prove your point then perhaps your point is rather weak to begin with.
To put it another way: if your definition of sexism means that women-centric events designed to foster interest in an otherwise underrepresented field is considered sexist, then its your definition that is faulty.
Here's a definition that doesn't strip the salient context from it (dictionary.com)
1.attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
2.discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women.
It's amazing how these discussions always devolve into cherry-picking definitions and parsing language like a machine to prove respective points. If you have to resort to that, then just bow out gracefully as you are missing the point of the discussion altogether.
I'm a woman and when I say such things, women either A) (subtly) turn away from me and act like I'm the Crazy Racist Uncle that everybody pretends doesn't exist, or B) tell me to shut up.
But the fact is, there's no evidence that these endeavors help. None at all. There's plenty of evidence that they hurt -- stereotype threat and the implication that the OP gave, which is that special treatment indicates a special lack.
Note that we're not talking about scholarships here.
Show me the evidence that they hurt. And extrapolating or supposing stereotype threat is not evidence. The fact is these are mostly private people or private groups that put on these efforts. They need no "proof" that they work. The fact that women show up to these things is enough proof as far as they are concerned. If you want to completely eliminate these events then its up to you to show that they are actively harmful.
The problem is that it is using discrimination to fight discrimination.
What about the boy who can't afford the tuition for the computer science course, his best friend, a girl who he has just introduced to programming, gets a bursary to the course just because she is female? The boy feels that he is not wanted in the cs community because of this discrimination so he begins to pursue something different and the girl feels that she was given an unfair advantage over her friend and does not want to ruin the relationship so she pulls out of the course.
Anything like this that isn't based on merit or interest can be pretty devastating.
But you can't force an interest in CS down people's throats. Holding "women for CS" events only makes the women in CS feel even more isolated from their male peers and does nothing to promote CS to women who do not know about it.
Like you say, kids are very perceptive. The only way to truly eradicate the stereotype is to create a world in which the stereotype doesn't exist.
And that is done by giving all kids, regardless of gender or race, the __opportunity__ to learn about the value of computer science. The ones that like it will participate, those that don't, won't. And gender will be irrelevant.
>Holding "women for CS" events only makes the women in CS feel even more isolated from their male peers
I don't think this is true at all (and usually you never see women say this, just males rationalizing their position). Women centric CS events are to encourage those who have an interest but may have been hesitant for some reason to seek it out. Or to encourage those who are students to seek help and find comraderie/validation.
A common theme from women is that they often feel like imposters in intro CS classes because its always guys who seem to be so much further ahead. Of course, guys will chime in that they experience impostor-syndrome just as much. The difference is that girls have an immediate re-enforcing explanation for that sense of being out of place: you don't belong because you're a woman. This is the curse of being a minority in a field that you aren't well represented in. This is why these CS-centric events are important.
It's different because people around them are more likely to react as though not being good at CS is an expected outcome of their identity: http://xkcd.com/385/
Exactly my thoughts. Most of the people I've spoken with honestly in my CS classes have expressed these feelings of inadequacy. Often it's accompanied by things like "oh, I didn't take CS in high school and it seems like everyone else did." If they're a certain gender or race they may feel this has hindered them, even though many others in the class secretly have the same feelings of inadequacy.
I'm not sure whether it'd be comforting to feel (correctly or not) that your background is partially to blame for your lack of confidence or success. On the one hand you may discourage yourself and set yourself up for failure because you believe you have a good reason to fail. On the other hand it may prevent you from beating yourself up as much since there are some external factors at play that are out of your control.
Beginning guys who find themselves in classrooms full of people that started programming in their teens do what they always do - suck it up or fail. Such is the life of a member of the majority.
It's perhaps also worth noting that sexism and discrimination are usually just as bad for members of the dominant class as they are for members of the discriminated.
Programs which would help more women be involved and included in CS will end up helping men who would find themselves in similar situations. Discrimination is harmful to just about everyone.
I don't really think exclusive events are the solution either and I'm not convinced they don't make things worse. Tech events shouldn't exclude either gender and when they do (or have events/do things that make one group uncomfortable) they should be called out on it.
The problem is there isn't anything we can do to change your typical tech gathering/event to not be intimidating or uncomfortable for a large number of girls. It's known that girls are more vocal and proactive in a classroom full of just girls. The intimidation factor is something that cannot be fixed at this level. It's not just a matter of banning certain types of humor.
> It's known that girls are more vocal and proactive in a classroom full of just girls.
Isn't that an argument that all schools should then be boy/girl schools, always separating kids based on their sex? After all, this is the most effective model right?
If schools has gone away from this model, I assume they had a good reason. We also used to separate women from men in the work place. That too was changed in the last 100 years. Business somehow decided that productivity went up if did not separate people based on their sex.
If we moved away from this in both schools and work, why are we then trying to reintroduce it again with the same argument they had a hundred years ago? Is there any exceptional detail that only computer science has?
>Isn't that an argument that all schools should then be boy/girl schools, always separating kids based on their sex? After all, this is the most effective model right?
It might be, and I'm not completely sure it isn't the best model.
But work environments are totally different situation. School is an exception because it is at a time where kids are in their formative years, thus creating artificial environments that are maximally conductive to learning is appropriate (which is what "school" is to begin with).
I think that ignores the fact that socialization is one of the most important things you learn at school. I'd imagine separating sexes would just create even more stereotypes/generalizations from both sides.
I don't think that translates. Racism is hatred based on race. Hatred is something that needs to be addressed more directly because it won't go away on its own. Isn't the gender imbalance in tech something that is self-perpetuating the more visible it is? If it were closed, would it stay closed?
Racism is not about hate. That is only the most extreme form and hardly the most damaging kind (in our society; there's always genocide). Racism is the differentiation (discrimination) of people by race: assuming a black guy will not be into d&d. Even if it is statistically true, such stereotypes are damaging in two ways: (1) we wont invite him for a dnd session even if he would've loved it; and (2) the same person would probably have declined anyway even though he would've liked it.
Discrimination impedes freedom in many ways. Legally, most obstacles have been removed. We need to change peoples/our preconceptions of others as well as ourselves.
Emancipation requires changing our habits. Learning something new, especially when it goes against established patterns, is achieved most effectively when the new is made explitit and even exaggerated.
I think GP is spot on. The gender imbalance is visible even if we pretend it doesn't exist. The only way to change it, is to force it. That will be damn hard and totally worth it.
I would say that racism is about hate, ignorance, and creating systematic barriers to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Women are considered a minority group; yet, white women still retain the privilege of being white. It sounds like the essay echoes the sentiment of being privileged and not wanting to be sub-grouped. I've noticed that some white friends didn't consider themselves to belong to any special "ethnic group" - they considered themselves to be "normal".
The point of the Civil Rights movement, the Voting Rights Act, and implementation of affirmative action policies was that hatred and bigotry gave way to the people creating barriers that prevented minorities from pursuing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Affirmative action is needed because the impact of centuries of systemic discrimination cannot be undone in just one generation.
The solution to ending racism, homophobia, and sexism cannot be to ignore these evils. Shine a light on them.
Is racism just about white privilege, though? In America, ethnic Indians and east Asians outperform all other ethnic groups on a host of metrics - income, criminality, education, and etc. Isn't there a huge Asian privilege in America that nobody is talking about? Why don't we talk about the Asian/White achievement gap?
This isn't an apples to apples comparison. Asian Americans have never systematically disenfranchised white Americans.
However, you bring up some interesting points but that I have a couple of issues with including probationary whiteness, survivor-ship bias, and performance vs. access. I don't think Asian Americans had to drink from the "colored" fountain. It's easier to win the game if you are allowed to play. In many cases, Asians are considered probationary white so should we be talking about a White/White achievement gap?
Children of immigrants are highly motivated to achieve by parents who selected to come to the US. The folks that immigrate were motivated enough to come here and be successful. This is the essence of survivor-ship bias.
There was a study a couple years ago that showed that having an black-sounding name on your resume lead to fewer callbacks. You have a better shot at batting .300 if you are allowed to pick up a bat.
Japanese and Chinese Americans have faced lots of historical obstacles, from anti-miscegenation laws to internment camps. Ever hear of the Chinese Exclusion Act? They still face a lot of stereotypes. There's a big culture and language divide between the cultures of South/East Asia and those of Europeans. I don't buy the idea that they are "probationary whites".
They just happen to be really, really good at what they do, on average, to the point where they outperform whites in majority-white nations. And in doing so, they falsify the hypothesis that achievement gaps are caused solely by majority-group racism.
Asians blow whites out of the water on SAT, MCAT, IQ, and other tests of achievement, aptitude, and ability. Even if there was a bias against asian names in the market place, Asians would probably overcome it just by being too good to ignore.
It's really hard for me to square leftist theories of racism with the data. To be successful in America, the best thing you can do is be born to Indian parents[1].
It is interesting that you mention immigrants. African immigrants to America are a high-achieving group, outperforming whites in income. So they manage to beat the stereotypes while African-Americans do not.
>African immigrants to America are a high-achieving group, outperforming whites in income. So they manage to beat the stereotypes while African-Americans do not.
Isn't that an argument FOR survivor-ship bias?
How do the ethnic asians that immigrated a century ago stack up against the newly immigrated ones?
hmmm, so would you suppose that children of African immigrants (the Obamas of the world) run into the negative stereotypes of our society and start to fall in socioeconomic standing towards the level of African Americans?
I can agree that its less self-perpetuating than racism is. But the root cause of imbalances in tech is also very pervasive, as it is a product of gender stereotypes in the wider culture. Gender stereotypes are certainly self-perpetuating: young kids internalize what they learn and then perpetuate that behavior as they become older. So to break that cycle requires direct intervention to prevent shaming for girls who don't like stereotypical activities, and to allow other girls to sample things that they otherwise would not have thought open to them. A part of this intervention is to get more positive female role-models in tech and hard science fields. Direct outreach to older girls by creating (admittedly artificial) learning environments that they will be more comfortable in will help with this. These artificial environments aren't a solution, but they can be a stepping stone for girls who would otherwise be too intimidated to give it a try otherwise.
I wouldn't characterize racism as hatred only. There are many more subtle (even sometimes unconscious) forms of racism. Racism runs the whole spectrum from ignorant misconceptions all the way up to irrational hatred.
