It's widely accepted that women are more comfortable learning and engaging in environments where they're not underrepresented. There are even some anecdotal examples of that in the comments here. By offering opportunities like this exclusively to women, you eliminate a lot of potential barriers that men, in general, don't face.

Your mistake is believing that if men and women are equal, then they face identical obstacles. That's, very obviously, not the case.

A simple difference between your first and second statements: One is about individuals, the other is about individuals in groups. Programming is anything but egalitarian when you introduce social dynamics. Not everyone hides in their basement, you know. Sooner or later, you have to leave mom's cellar to attend work or school, or you may want to share what you're doing/learning with friends and family. Your belief that programming is "inherently" egalitarian depends on the ability for a woman to maintain anonymity. I don't really need to point out the absurdity of that!

Women shouldn't be forced to hide their gender to get equal treatment. In online communities, development communities in particular, the default assumption is that you're a man. Consequently, men don't need to "advertise" their gender nor make special efforts to conceal it (how could they?). In your pretend egalitarian world, you have women hiding behind a masculine or gender-neutral pseudonym and never engaging with anyone face-to-face!

See, you don't believe (or you don't believe that others believe) that women are just as capable as men. That's why you think they need to hide their gender -- that badge of inferiority -- from others. It's no wonder that you think programs like this are insulting to women; you think that it highlights a natural inferiority.

In short: Giving women special treatment like this helps ensure that women have equal opportunities. Women face different obstacles than men. If all programs like this were gender-neutral, they'd be (unintentionally) excluding women. It's not insulting, it's empowering.

Meyers-Briggs, DISC, and similar Jungian personality assessments are bunk. That doesn't mean they can't be useful, but it does mean you can't rely on them for their intended purpose. I'm deeply suspicious myself of people who put stock in such things. Particularly Meyers-Briggs, as it's the most widely criticized, even if that's for no other reason than its popularity.

But it was anticipated! That's why I didn't engage more directly in the first place.

On that point, there's nothing to discuss. You'll note that I did offer him more specifics on his other points.

Does it? I've found that people tend to "read in" to my posts more than what is actually there. I attributed this to the 'either-or' mentality you find here.

It is true, however, that I try to keep my personal views private as they're often irrelevant to the discussion. Unfortunately, most people here are more interested in someones personal beliefs than they are the content of their posts -- it makes it easier for them to dismiss what the other person has written. Rather than an "attempt to avoid any genuine discussion on the topic" as you suggest, it's one of the few ways to actually achieve it!

If I offer anything, it will be rejected out-of-hand. If he comes to an answer on his own, through reading or reflection, he has no choice but to consider it.

You can't argue with ideologues on the internet. With luck, however, you can guide them.

I couldn't agree more. I ran across this the other day, you may find it interesting as well.

Sorry to derail the discussion, I was just having a bit of fun.

Like I said, take your time. Maybe do a bit of reading.

What a ridiculous notion. Groups are divided out for many reasons. In this case, the reason is clear: girls are underrepresented in computing. This in no way implies that girls are inferior to boys.

I no know nothing about beauty pageants. I would assume, however, that they're already separated along those lines as the purpose is to be named the best representative of your gender, yes? This doesn't bother me in any way. Why do you think I should find that disturbing?

No, he can't. As you so colorfully put it: "That's not an 'ad hominem', douchebag"

Well, I guess it's on now ... My bad.

Consider, for a moment, why it would be beneficial for the participants to have this program be for girls alone.

Take your time.

If you can't support your claims, just say so.

Because the parent already mentioned her.

There's a serious flaw in your reasoning: I never claimed that sexism was the most credible answer. That was an inference on the part of the parent. I made no claim, and thus have no obligation to defend one.

The parent, on the other hand, did make a claim. I merely asked him to defend it.

Now go and sin no more.

This should be fun.

Why do you believe sexism to be the least credible answer? Please include relevant citations.

Do you have an alternative explanation, which also explains the demographic shift we've seen since the early 1980's? Again, show your work.

Women have been making video games since the beginning! As I noted earlier, River Raid (of the the top games on the 2600) was written by Carol Shaw, a women. I also mentioned Dona Bailey, who co-developed the hit arcade classic Centipede.

But let's let your limited knowledge and experience dictate reality. That way, we don't have to let those icky girls in to our clubhouse.

Anecdote: When I introduced RPG Maker in an after-school program at the urging of one boy, more girls than boys asked if they could also participate. The girls also stuck with it longer than every boy, save the original. (The girls averaged about three weeks vs the boys four days, not counting the first boy, who spent 4 months on his creation.)

Children, regardless of gender, enjoy creative activities. Moving on...

You'd be amazed at how many games were written and designed by women, even in the old days. Sticking with just well-known titles: River Raid (Carol Shaw), Centipede (Dona Bailey, later driven from the industry by male co-workers), Archon (Anne Westfall), [bunch of Sierra games] (Jane Jensen), Laser Surgeon [okay, not as well known, but the name you'll recognize] (Brenda Laurel), Plundered Hearts, Zork Zero (Amy Briggs), I could go on all day, it seems.

That doesn't even begin to touch on the countless influential women in game design, who bring talents aside from programming to the table like Lucy Bradshaw, Robin Hunicke (who you dismissed without naming earlier), Brenda Brathwaite, Alyssa Finley, Linda Currie ... like the earlier list, this just doesn't end.

The point of all this? That you're not aware of many famous women in games does not mean that there aren't many famous women in games.

Do you know what keeps women out of game development? Attitudes like yours, as illustrated by the aforementioned Dona Bailey.

Back in the early 80's something like 40% of CS graduates were women. Why do you think they seem to have collectively chosen to avoid it and related fields? It clearly wasn't a problem earlier, after all.

I think that you know why. You just don't like the answer.

That's kind of how it works in general. Some products are superior to other, inferior, products.

Why not just say "they wouldn't have had a product that was 'better' than the competition if the competition had a superior product". So silly...

Good effort. Now, ask yourself: 'why did the market grow?' Because the smartphone market expanded in to the consumer space. Companies started to offer their inferior products (read: ill-suited to the enterprise) with features attractive to consumers. BlackBerry faltered in the consumer market because consumers aren't interested in the features that enterprise users demanded. As the market grew, it was no surprise to see their market-share fall -- they weren't competing in the same space. (Ignoring their less-than-successful entries in to the consumer market, that is.)

Anyhow, now that the smartphone hype as all died down, I don't see any reason that BlackBerry couldn't make a strong come-back, at least in the enterprise. Someone else linked to this review which indicates that BB can still build a workhorse for the serious business user. (I'll even offer the same quote: " It was unexpectedly the best smartphone we've ever used from the perspective of taking care of business.")

Time will tell, but they've clearly started to play to their strengths. The new BlackBerry Classic has caught my eye. My battered old 8820 never let me down. A 2014 version of that just might cure my mobile woes. I doubt that I'm the only one who feels that way.

That's like saying a telegraph key is just as good as a keyboard. They are worlds apart.