[srgvd]

> Its related to the validity of your "observation", in that, if teaching to code is not a female-dominated activity, your "observation" that she chose a female-dominated activity is false.

Well, if you insist on reductio at absurdum, let's continue on. Teaching to code in gilrs-only classes is obviously not a male-dominated activity, would you agree on that?

--

This side of the pond, it's fun to observe how Americans try to integrate minorities into bigger groups. The usual tools are: "positive discrimination", ban on open discussion and general patronising attitude on the side of a majority. Because that worked just oh so well with racial minorities.

Last thing women need is your 'knight in the shiny armour' stance toward them. Just treat them as equals, and they'll beat you in your own game once interested enough. It's that easy.

(And, yes, I'm a married man; a father of a beautiful, independent and ambitious daughter; and a hiring manager, with 100% women applicants being hired so far: for being great engineers, albeit a bit unconfident, hence only applying when absolutely sure they're up for the job).

[dragonwriter]

No, I wouldn't agree that teaching girls to code is not male-dominated. Mmost of the specific efforts I've seen have involved make instructors. That may or may not be representative, but in the absence of structured days I'm not just going to assume that because girls are targeted it must not be a male-dominated activity. It may or may not be.

I don't know what the rant in the rest of your post has to do with this diverged; it looks like a canned rant unrelated to the immediate discussion.