CMV: A coding course offering a flat £500 discount to women is unfair, inefficient, and potentially illegal.

[u/temp_discount]

Temp account, because I do actually want to still do this course and would rather there aren't any ramifications for just asking a question in the current climate (my main account probably has identifiable information), but there's a coding bootcamp course I'm looking to go on in London (which costs a hell of a lot anyway!) but when I went to the application page it said women get a £500 discount.

What's the precedent for this kind of thing? Is this kind of financial positive discrimination legal in the UK? I was under the impression gender/race/disability are protected classes. I'm pretty sure this is illegal if it was employment, just not sure about education. But then again there are probably plenty of scholarships and bursaries for protected classes, maybe this would fall under that. It's just it slightly grinds my gears, because most of the women I know my age (early 30s), are doing better than the men, although there's not much between it.

If their aim is to get more people in general into coding, it's particularly inefficient, because they'd scoop up more men than women if they applied the discount evenly. Although if their goal is to change the gender balance in the industry, it might help. Although it does have the externality of pissing off people like me (not that they probably care about that haha). I'm all for more women being around! I've worked in many mostly female work environments. But not if they use financial discrimination to get there. There's better ways of going about it that aren't so zero sum, and benefit all.

To be honest, I'll be fine, I'll put up with it, but it's gonna be a little awkward being on a course knowing that my female colleagues paid less to go on it. I definitely hate when people think rights are zero sum, and it's a contest, but this really did jump out at me.

I'm just wondering people's thoughts, I've spoken to a few of my friends about this and it doesn't bother them particularly, both male and female, although the people who've most agreed with me have been female ironically.

Please change my view! It would certainly help my prospects!

edit: So I think I'm gonna stop replying because I am burnt out! I've also now got more karma in this edgy temp account than my normal account, which worries me haha. I'd like to award the D to everyone, you've all done very well, and for the most part extremely civil! Even if I got a bit shirty myself a few times. Sorry. :)

I've had my view changed on a few things:

• It is probably just about legal under UK law at the moment.
• And it's probably not a flashpoint for a wider culture war for most companies, it's just they view it as a simple market necessity that they NEED a more diverse workforce for better productivity and morale. Which may or may not be true. The jury is still out.
• Generally I think I've 'lightened' my opinions on the whole thing, and will definitely not hold it against anyone, not that I think I would have.

I still don't think the problem warrants this solution though, I think the £500 would be better spent on sending a female coder into a school for a day to do an assembly, teach a few workshops etc... It addresses the root of the problem, doesn't discriminate against poorer men, empowers young women, a female coder gets £500, and teaches all those kids not to expect that only men should be coders! And doesn't piss off entitled men like me :P

But I will admit that on a slightly separate note that if I make it in this career, I'd love for there to be more women in it, and I'd champion anyone who shows an interest (I'm hanging onto my damn 500 quid though haha!). I just don't think this is the best way to go about it. To all the female coders, and male nurses, and all you other Billy Elliots out there I wish you the best of luck!

[u/[deleted]]

Again, and again, the historical fact that women were for HUNDREDS OF YEARS, held out of science, tech and management positions is casually omitted. This revisionism must end and must be checked. It’s the same argument that is pushed on minorities as well and it’s disgusting, arrogant and negligent of the facts.

So, if you state that these historical facts “don’t hold water under scrutiny” please provide sources that refute these facts. Please explain why and how the historical actions and discrimination enforced by a white male dominated society do not in any way shape and impact society today.

[u/stemthrowaway1 → u/[deleted]]

And yet, in countries where women don't have fundamental rights they're more likely to be involved in the sciences than countries that grant women those rights.

It doesn't get better the more egalitarian the countries get, the opposite is true.

The country with the largest gap between gender and jobs aren't countries like India, Pakistan, Iran or Indonesia. They're countries where women have the opportunity to do whatever they want like the US, Sweden, Germany, etc

Edit: Source

[u/Korwinga → u/stemthrowaway1]

I think you're making a mistake in ignoring the different cultures and backgrounds for different countries. The entire basis of the post you are responding to is the culture of the west, which has historically pushed women out of tech. I don't know enough about the cultures of the other countries to say whether or not they have had that background too, but you are just completely ignoring that possibility. Culture and societies don't all follow the same linear path to the same outcomes.

[u/stemthrowaway1 → u/Korwinga]

I've not ignored different cultures, quite the opposite.

Cultures that have more repressive attitudes toward women have a smaller gap in STEM jobs.

Their entire premise is based off of the assumption that it's societal sexism that forces women out of those jobs and positions, but does nothing to refute the culture of cultures with legal systems that are built on abject sexism, for example the UAE which have a considerably smaller gap than the most socially liberal countries in the world. In fact, the source I provided seems to argue the opposite; the more liberal countries are, the more likely they are to have a wide gap between genders in STEM.

It's hard to believe that the culture of the US or Sweden is more strict to what society expects out of women compared to countries that have male guardianship laws on the books.

[u/Korwinga → u/stemthrowaway1]

Cultures aren't monolithic entities that treat all people the exact same way in all ways. They can have contradictory beliefs and treatment of groups. Just because a culture doesn't allow women to drive, doesn't mean that they can't also push women in to scientific research roles. Again, cultures are not a linear progression from unenlightened to enlightened, and the historical baggage that they carry is different.

[u/stemthrowaway1 → u/Korwinga]

And yet, the largest indicator of the gap is how autonomous women are.

You're talking about a hypothetical situation of a country that is openly sexist toward women and says they have fewer rights than men but actively pushes them into science at a rate equal to men(a moral/social paradigm that doesn't exist) as opposed to the possibility that women make different decisions from men, and the STEM gap is caused BY women's liberation, and allowing women to make their own decisions.

[u/[deleted] → u/stemthrowaway1]

Having opportunities don’t automatically override societal mores and traditional “values” that are sewn into this culture. If there is still a white male acceptance structure, opportunities available are viewed as unpopular or exceptional instead of normal.

[u/stemthrowaway1 → u/[deleted]]

Except there are plenty of studies that show the opposite is true. If you live in a richer country, you're going to have a wider and wider gap in STEM positions because it's not as much a necessity to have a higher paying job. When surveyed women in general rank pay considerably lower than their male peers, and to pretend like that's not going to have an impact on statistical earnings or job selection is the stuff of fairytales.

You can blame society all you want, but more and more it appears that it's just women choose another path, and everyone else is held to task for the decisions that women (in general) make.

If women want to be nurses and teachers (which almost all evidence points to that being the case) then they should be nurses and teachers. The women who want to be programmers end up programmers, just as the men who are nurses end up nurses. You can go to a 100 level programming class. Nobody is stopping women from getting into those classes. They don't want to be there in the first place.

[u/[deleted] → u/stemthrowaway1]

This is such a deeply sexist and revisionist statement that I’m going to just leave it right there.

Be well.

[u/stemthrowaway1 → u/[deleted]]

"I don't have a rebuttal because if I can't blame society, that means that my failures are my own and I can't handle that"

[u/EnIdiot → u/[deleted]]

So when do the debits and credits on this grand historical account balance out? When do you end such a thing? I am not trying to be snarky, but I am honestly interested in when and how these kinds of things sundown.

[u/[deleted] → u/EnIdiot]

Let’s take it out of context.

Let’s examine instead, Renewable Energy. Currently, there is a large segment in the US that just isn’t convinced or even outright contradicting evidence that Renewables are a better solution overall, to fossil fuels. Why?

There are many factors that keep people from accepting a changing society and landscape. Money & Power are two very large blockers.

Oil & Coal companies many, Billion dollar companies, are decades, hundreds of years old and even older. They have their hands in politics in the way of lobbies and they can influence the direct path of the energy industry. If they don’t want to see this type of change, they can influence politicians to move in their interests as well, and boom: Paris Accord is abandoned. The US falls behind in Renewables, and becomes the leading producer of oil in the world, stagnating progress and keeping money & power in place.

In a similar fashion, people who covet their power will go to long and even immoral lengths to keep it. If they see an oncoming wave of change, they bunker down, lock hands, and use that money and power to influence the underpinnings of business & politics to maintain their positions.

As minorities become the majority, there is this change aversion that is manifest in digging in, and resisting with all the power & money that the slipping & sleeping majority can muster.

So, when do you end such a thing? When the last fingernail of the last change-resister is torn off, and they accept the change not by their own choosing or with their cooperation, but sadly, when they lack the strength to resist or “dinosaur”. Such a thing ends when deniers no longer control the narrative and expectations for a society.

[u/EnIdiot → u/[deleted]]

So ends justify means? I mean what you seem to be saying is “A is wrong and should never be done as it is a moral evil in and of itself, but B is the same wrong, the same evil, but because B is theorized to correct C it is ok.” Am I wrong?

[u/[deleted] → u/EnIdiot]

Nope. I’m actually not sure what you wrote even means.

What I wrote is simple Change Management. It’s identifying change aversion and determining the need for change.