I think you are talking about love and intimacy as though they always go the same way, and that men are like "this" and women are like "that." But that isn't the case. Every relationship is different. In some, it is the man who doesn't want intimacy as much as the woman.

You have stated that women are necessarily better than men at coming up with ideas. You are a sexist. You are also a male, so you are sexist against your own gender. You should get your head examined.

Even if this is true, why should a man, who has done nothing wrong, be denied assistance - because of what someone ELSE did - based on the fact that they have the same genitals? We are all individuals. Treating a woman differently because she's a woman is wrong. Treating a man differently because he's a man is also wrong. If a man other than me punched you in the face, would you retaliate against him, or against me, based on the fact that we both have dicks? That would be just as unfair as it was when he punched you.

You should have thought this through more carefully before you commented. There is a difference between wanting to be treated the same as another person, and wanting to be treated better than another person. You should learn that difference. No one wants to stop women from going to school to be programmers, which is precisely what this is about. Trying to say that someone who wants equal treatment is the same as someone who wants to be treated preferentially, to the point of being able to physically hurt them and relegate them to menial work, is utter bullshit.

No one is arguing that private citizens shouldn't be able to give money to whom they please. The complaint that is being made by so many here is that it's sexist, which is the case whether the money is private or public. Whether other grants discriminate or not has no bearing on whether this one is discriminatory. Who is stupid now?

Yes, it is discrimination. If a woman wants to learn how to write code, she already has precisely the same access to resources that she would if she was male. If she wants to sign up for classes, no one is going to stop her. Since the women who want to learn to program have no greater barrier to taking classes than men do, they are in no greater need of any grants than men are, and the grants should be distributed based on actual merit, rather than something the recipients are born with and therefore have no say over. Treating people differently based on how they're born is a great way to define discrimination.

Women have the same opportunity to get degrees and certifications in IT-related fields that men do. They CHOOSE not to of their OWN ACCORD. It was that way when I was in junior college, and again when I was in a 4-year university. The distribution would always look something like 27 men, 3 women. The registration system for both schools lets you sign up for whatever class you are eligible to take based on prerequisites, as long as there are open seats. If you are a woman, and you try to register for C++, it doesn't say "please don't try to register for this class because you're a woman." (Unlike certain grants offered by certain companies, which will say, "please don't try to apply for this grant if you're a man.") It just lets you register, regardless of your gender, because that's, you know, fair, and exactly as it should be. This is not a case of 51% of comp sci graduates being women, and then being turned away from jobs based on their sex. This is a case of the vast majority of women simply choosing not to sign up in the first place. They are making this choice of their own free will. To deny these grants to men is sexist. It places more value on women than it does on men. These assholes at Etsy would gladly collect profits from a man who sells on the site, but then turn around and tell him to go fuck himself if he asked for grant money. It's completely stupid.

I must argue strenuously against the idea of "Reverse discrimination." There is only one kind of discrimination. "Reverse discrimination" was invented by people who wanted to imply that some people are more worthy of discrimination than others, which itself is discriminatory. It is a perversion of the social outrage that rightly exists against discrimination.

I'm glad my high school lit teacher had us read Animal Farm. This corresponds nicely with the part where the pigs start walking upright. They adopt all the mannerisms of the human farmers they were supposedly trying to get away from, while changing their society's motto from "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad" to "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Better."

Is someone who's anti-progressive automatically a jackass?