I am not denying the problems women face. We are a free society and they are free to choose their career based on what interests them. The information provided FTFA that I previously linked showed a disparity in interest. If the one of the biggest problem women have is that their friends will make fun of them? Yes, i don't have much sympathy for that. Thick skin, grow some. Society does not owe you any favors to end peer pressure or negative stereo types. Because the way to end stereo types is to not care and ignore them and change them yourself. Have some personal accountability. All of the women that are in STEM didn't let anyone bring them down or talk them out of it. That tells me there is equal opportunity. Just because it is not 50/50 does not mean it is inherently sexist.

Are there any legal barriers stopping those interests? No? Then they are just as free. What obstacles stop a girl watching a youtube video that teaches how to code? What societal pressure will stop you from reading a technical manual? There are more opportunities now to cultivate any interest you have these days, if subtle intimidation or mean comments stop you from perusing your interests, clearly it wasn't that interesting to you. If necessary there are legal courses of action a woman can take to end that type of behavior in school or on the job.

Bullshit. Ever worked in a restaurant? It makes STEM look like the Oprah Winfrey show. Male dominated classroom and/or workplace? That means quotas which mean equal outcomes, not opportunity. Also, this coddling and unnecessary affirmative action does little to help those ridiculous attitudes about their competence and abilities. did you get that job because of quota or because you earned it?

I have yet to see a compelling evidence that suggests women have less opportunity than men in STEM. STEM maybe male dominated, and some men are dicks but that doesn't mean less opportunity for women. Subtle social anxieties and stressors are not evidence of lack of opportunity. Get over it.

i can agree with that. But that doesn't justify segregation. if it did, why don't we segregate all classes ( English, math, drama, science, etc ad infinitum)? Entire schools? Even the Workplace?

In the real world, men and women have work together. That is a very compelling reason against segregation. The good reasons for having segregation are not strong enough for that, imo.

I have not seen an acknowledgement for reasons against segregation. You appear to dismiss their very existence. Therefore, you do not understand the issues because if you did you would have acknowledged them.

Yes, children/young adults have to get over peer pressure and negative stereotypes. This is not a gender specific problem. The nerd/geek stereotype is not a positive one, yet men and women overcome this "problem" all the time and pursue their interests. Segregation would solve this, how?

You can do this in a co-ed classroom.

Girls can't learn in the same classroom as boys, is what you imply. Why stop at CS then? Why not gender segregated schools? Segregated workplaces? If girls can't learn with boys can they work with them? Segregation worked so well for race it should work for gender too.

I disagree. You can speculate all you want about gender segregation but in the real world men and women have to work with each other.

If it is behavior that is disruptive to learning, the teacher is the arbitrator and can adjust the offenders behavior by kicking them out (for example). Unwanted comments and advances??? We are talking about K-12 right? I didn't realize kids so young were so forward... high school maybe but then, do you get that in English class? How do we stop it there? Why is CS so different?

To use your logic: Because you can't find a single legitimate reason for co-ed tells me that you don't understand the issues at all. You didn't address my reason for against segregation therefore you don't understand. Brilliant...

If it was simple, it wouldn't be an issue. yes, men and women face obstacles. Life is full of them. An ability to overcome those obstacles is a good thing, IMHO.

What you want is equal outcomes, not opportunities. Boys that have "informal opportunities", spend their own time to cultivate an interest. Yet, Girls are not. because they have different interests. FTFA, they are not as interested in working with computers, computer animation, computer programming and computer games . They prefercommunal careers.

And have chosennot to work with computers in high school.

Again, i think that growing children's interest in CS is a good thing... But I don't like it when a boy now has less formal choices because of some informal advantage that girls could have if they spent their time with it.... That is not equality. You make women sound weak.

level the playing field... because a boy that cultivated their interest in computers is now a data point for the lack of opportunity for girls...

So, the semantics of a unisex bathrooms are now the analogy? Hygiene for adults is fundamentally different than sparking an interest for an education/career for children.

I do not see a good reason for having a girls only class. Any career or educational path a person chooses have to learn to work with people that are different from them. Teaching children how to handle diverse work fields and different educational environments is a good thing. That includes learning to work with members of the opposite sex. It may not be detrimental to boys (it could discourage them) but it certainly is unequal and unfair to a male kid that wants to learn about CS but does not have the same formal opportunities as girls because... bad analogies and equal outcomes (but he has more informal opportunities!!! whatever that is).

informal opportunities? Could you list some examples of informal opportunities? Informal implies it is done on their own (or with help from parents). How is a boy (or his parents) cultivating interests now a data point for lack of opportunities to girls? Do girls not have access to the same internet as boys? Or games? Or technology to foster that informal experience? I like the idea of allowing children to spark their interest in CS, but limiting it to one gender to me seems wrong. Just like your soup kitchen example, it seems wrong to deny a poor white person to your soup kitchen.

So, the kid that spent time learning a computer has more opportunities than someone that didn't... Shocking.

You are changing the criteria and moving the goal post. Cats and dogs are biologically different and require different food diets to be health. That is fundamentally different than a soup kitchen for poor humans. However, sticking to your original example, If you make a soup kitchen and deny a poor person because of their race, that's racist. You may have limited cash, but your soup will be helpful to any hungry human regardless of race. Just like this program would be helpful to any child looking to learn about CS, not just girls.

Is it racist if you deny poor white people access to soup your kitchen? I don't think anyone is against engaging children in CS. The issue is actively denying interested parties by gender.

So, because boys shown an interest in computers whether that is because of (FTFA) computer games or because of some other computer experience in high school; we should deny those kids access to education that could cultivate their interest because a kid with a different gender didn't have the same interest and we must have gender quotas??

Or did I miss something?

If metric is so awesome why aren't computers 10 based?

Checkmate.

It's for real. The author is delusional.

Somehow I doubt this. Homeschooling is a growing trend.

If you don't trust what the government says about vaccines; do you think you would trust the education from the government?

The biggest problem with vaccines was their unbridled success. Because vaccines eliminated those terrible diseases and all that remains are distant memories from a dying generation; you have functional retards that publish crap like this: http://www.amazon.com/Melanies...

you must be some sort of communist.

Each grain of sand is useless by itself but with enough sand and water you can build sand castles.

And company's never build off of government investments? Fed Ex and Amazon should build their own roads and postal system or else they are just as bad as the government. Google should have to build their own internet or else they are taking advantage of government thievery right? Obviously the government prevented private entities from investing their money into such research and development.

What about the money made back by some of those investments through businesses that were created? Roads, postal systems, internet, etc foster a larger/healthier economy which is good for everyone and why everyone pitches in!

Company's need an environment with which to operate and that is usually provided by the government in the form of various projects, infrastructure, research, defense, protections, courts, etc. Because those things are boring, expensive, and not profitable but help nearly everyone.

Provided at gunpoint? More like mutual understanding; businesses are good at somethings and governments can do other things. You are an idiot if you think your taxes do not provide anything useful.