One of the issues with teaching programming as iv’e seen from your previous comments is boredom , the horrendously steep learning curve that there is to get into it with almost little to no gain without a lot of effort being put in. When I first started learning java it was funnily enough because of minecraft , about year 7 christmas time. by year 8 the best thing I had created was a horrendously dodgy image rendering algorithm, by the end of year 9 (two years later) I had tested a slightly more efficient version and built my first actual game that im proud of , BitShip. Still amazed how I managed to do that in 48 hours , it was full of cheeky little bits of code , used 90% of the CPU (i7) and had the worst Ui you ever did see. Currently in year 11 now , I am working on the second version of SOLIS , this is written in the most efficient manor I can comprehend and I feel that with a lot of work I can get it to a standard where it would be releasable. There it is , it took 5 years to get to a point where the person is able to make something they could use , 3 years for something they were proud of and 2 years for something written by themselves that could display an image.
Sound of needle skipping off record…
Cas 
I think you just answered your own question!
I agree with this- that’s why we shouldn’t start with Java. We should start with things designed to be less powerful, but more intuitive, visual, and interactive. Scratch is a good example for kids, and Processing is what I think basically everybody should start out in. No boilerplate code, and in a few lines you have a ball bouncing around the screen.
Again, I disagree with this as adamantly, and as respectfully, as I possibly can. Girls (and minorities) don’t have a “natural” disinterest in STEM. People assume they have a natural disinterest, so they marginalize them, which then causes them to lose interest. And “schemes” that teach programming from a young age help fight that.
And for the record, I think that getting boys into traditionally “feminine” careers is a good idea too.
I’ve never seen this marginalisation in action… what does it look like?
Cas
W… wait a second. I’m not native english speaker, care to elaborate?
Our discussion has centred on numerous points, one of which is that is is a fallacy to believe that “gender Z should peform well in career Q because of specific gender attribute P”, which is what it appears you just stated. (I don’t actually agree - I think that there are careers inherently more interesting, and/or more suited, to specific genders, for reasons that people don’t like to mention, which are conflated with sexism).
Cas
It looks like science toys being branded as “for boys”. It looks like GamerGate. It looks like #1reasonwhy. It looks like this. It looks like this.
Yep. And I vehemently disagree with you.
Like I said, this might be a case of agreeing to disagree.
Yeah, wait a second. I agree that there are careers suited for a gender, for example midwifery or coal mining. My argument is that programming is not one of those careers.
Maybe you agree with me that boy and girls are fundamentally quite different physiologically? Much of the debate seems to be a confusion over discrimination based on rights rather than physiology. There’s some fairly compelling evidence that the brains of girls and boys are very different, and change and mature at very different times during adolescence. This sort of thing can’t be brushed under the carpet.
Cas
Ah good we’re on the same page then I don’t think programming is any more or less suited to any specific gender (in fact there are almost no careers where this is really the case). However I do think certain careers are far more interesting to one gender or another and that these levels of interest are deeply built in to brain physiology and instinct.
Cas
You might think I’m talking absolute crap here btw :o but just one example I can think off off the top of my head is that there is actually a “maternal gene”. This gene is only expressed in females. It has no effect in males whatsoever. It fundamentally affects the behaviour of a mother towards her offspring; when missing, the mother will largely ignore and neglect her offspring. This is just the (enormous) effects of a single gene which fundamentally separates behaviour. Not physiology.
Cas
Sure, I can agree with that.
But I don’t think it’s fair to make the leap from this to “and this is why girls are naturally less interested in STEM, and more interested in midwifing”.
It’s not that simple. The fact that computer science started out as a feminine career sorta proves this. We’ve since shifted our views to the stigma of computer science being for nerdy white guys, and I don’t think that stigma is true, or fair, or healthy. Computer science should be for everybody.
You don’t have to actively fight this stigma if it doesn’t bother you. But I also don’t really understand the pushback against people who do want to fight it, by getting more girls and minorities involved in the industry. I’m not sure how anybody can say that’s a bad thing.
Teaching the basics of programming, and offering the more advanced courses as part of the official curriculum, is how we fight that stigma.
(Also: thanks for the accidental appreciation, haha!)
Sure, okay. But what does this have to do with an interest in STEM?
I always appreciate a good discussion
I reference the genetic behavioural difference to show that there indeed can be genetic behavioural differences between the sexes and that at a very fundamental this may be at the actual roots of career choices between boys and girls rather than active discrimination. Anecdotally, in my entire career I’ve never actually seen any actual discrimination against women programming - there just don’t appear to be that many interested in the job relative to men, and looking back at school days, the girls were genuinely rather disinterested despite having awesome boys like me showing them just how cool it was. Hmm.
Cas
Not quite. I don’t think it’s inherently in the psychology or instinct. It’s because of our bodies. A man is naturally stronger than a woman and a woman knows better about the female body, obviously.
Ok well, interesting. That reply came while writing the above. Do you think there is a gene controlling the abilities needed to code? 
EDIT: AARGH You are writing replies faster than I produce replies. Sorry, I’m busy. I didn’t read the last 3 replies. I’ll read tomorrow
If everyone on the world knew how to code… would that be good?
For the people arguing about equality in this thread I’d like to point out that there are people starving in third world countries. What makes their right to basic human needs less important than people who already have plenty learning how to code?
Obviously it’s not an ideal world but regardless, equality is rarely a valid argument.
In terms of opportunity, equality is an important thing to strive for. In other words, someone should not be discouraged from learning to code because of gender (or anything else).
But in terms of reality, you’re very unlikely to get a 50/50 split between males and females in programming because everybody is different.
Trying to suggest that a skewed distribution is a sign of inequality, is technically in itself a promotion of inequality (if there is no other evidence that shows inequality). True equality would mean that nobody even cares.
Trying to get more people of a certain group to learn a certain profession is likely to cause issues because a) people don’t like being told what to do; and b) people already in the profession will feel like they’re being overlooked or ignored, and will feel hostile towards that group because they’re getting special treatment (or at least, appear to be).
Encouraging women to become programmers more than men is not equality.
Edit: I realise in the second part of my post I am addressing a slightly different issue than what has been discussed in this thread, but the two issues are related and the point still should be considered.
I would argue that yes, it would be. Having everybody be more educated is a good thing.
But that’s not even what we’re talking about here. We’re not saying that everybody needs to be a programmer. We’re saying that we should teach basic problem solving and logic to everybody.
This is a very unfair false dichotomy. Sure, there are lots of problems in the world. Some we don’t know how to fix. Does that mean we shouldn’t fix any problems? Nope.
There are people being murdered- right now! Does that mean cops should stop pulling over people who drive over the speed limit?
I’m not sure how to respond to this, since it seems like you’re arguing with yourself. Maybe I just don’t understand the point you’re trying to make.
This I can agree with. However, unfortunately, people are discouraged from learning to code because of gender, race, and economic background. The way to fix that is by teaching the basics early, and offering more advanced classes as part of the official curriculum.
Programming used to be dominated by females, when it was viewed as a “secretary’s job”. That’s why many of the early programmers are women.
I don’t understand this argument either.
We aren’t talking about telling people what to do. We’re talking about teaching kids the basics of problem solving and logic, exactly the way we teach them the basics of art, and music, and science, and math.
And sorry, but I don’t really give a lot of time to people already in the profession who feel like they’re being overlooked or ignored. They’re already in the profession. If they’re hostile to new people entering the profession, then they shouldn’t stay in the profession.
We aren’t talking about encouraging women more than men. Men are already encouraged more than women. We’re talking about encouraging everybody the same amount. We’re talking about giving kids the option to pursue computer science.
Picture a society that only gives CRAYONS to boys (or at least labeled crayons as “boy toys”). That society views art as a “thing only guys get interested in”, and only 10% of the graduates from art schools are women. If some people in that society then say “maybe we should give crayons to girls too”, would that be “encouraging women to become artists more than men”? Would that be “reverse sexism”?
So why is it different when we’re talking about programming?
“Trying to get more people of a certain group to learn a certain profession is likely to cause issues”
Agree.