Influential women's tech network shuts down unexpectedly
bbc.com
bbc.com
It looks like this organization provides technical training (or collates such learning resources), facilitates professional networking, provides information on job openings, and self-perpetuates by calling for volunteer participation.
Pretty innocuous stuff as far as nonprofits go. You could find this sort of support network probably for any underrepresented demographic in any profession or context-
The American Association for Men in Nursing: https://www.aamn.org
MenTeach, to promote male teachers: https://www.menteach.org
A call for more male childcare workers: https://www.cdacouncil.org/en/published-article/opinion-male...
No idea why such an entity receives this sort of tiresome culture war pushback. This is America, there are organizations for any cause and identity. We have scholarships for left-handed people and Syrians for President Nixon pins (https://www.hakes.com/Auction/ItemDetail/82487/NIXON-28-NATI...). I feel like this is just a unique facet of the culture, where because individualism is so emphasized, people have to find solidarity in specific identities.
>This is America, there are organizations for any cause and identity. We have scholarships for left-handed people and Syrians for President Nixon pins
Those examples you listed, combined, don't get a tenth of the funding that WWC does. Nor do they have the same scale of industry backing. The last link is an opinion piece, not a nonprofit for "underrepresented" groups.
>No idea why such an entity receives this sort of tiresome culture war pushback.
Because WWC is ideologically aligned [0]; they picked a side in the culture war.
No one has denied they exist, this is a classic motte-and-bailey fallacy.
>You quibble about the amount of funding involved, but ultimately they all exist within the same framework of interest groups for those who ascribe to certain identities.
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
>That is a phenomenon that precedes any such "culture war" observed by a narrow time perspective. It is something that predates de Tocqueville.
I don't disagree (Published 17 August 1945)[0]...
> "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
> I don't disagree (Published 17 August 1945)[0]
Animal Farm is an allegory about the Soviet Union under Stalin and not a novel about the United States. de Tocqueville lived in the 19th century, which predates 1945. Please, if you are going to ever read only one book, at least read it enough times to get it right.
Except it doesn't, and again, no one has denied their existence.
>You are the only one arguing about the amount of money involved as if it matters a whit of difference. My entire point is to explain why the existence of such groups is unremarkable, and unworthy of outrage.
You've explained poorly. Once more, no one is arguing that the existence of such groups is remarkable. Quite the contrary, they're par for the course in CURRRNTYEAR. They are most definitely worthy of outrage considering they're size (backing) and far-left ideological alignment.
>And in tech it is vital to tend to one's moat.
In preparation to tilt at windmills for sure.
>Animal Farm is an allegory about the Soviet Union under Stalin and not a novel about the United States.
Indeed, which makes its prescience all the more amazing.
>de Tocqueville lived in the 19th century, which predates 1945. Please, if you are going to ever read only one book, at least read it enough times to get it right.
It's not the 19th century, and we're not discussing democracy in the US. Please, if you're going to ever read only one book, at least read it enough times to get it right, and don't choose the book that every political science major reads as a freshman to sound well read. Embarrassing.
But they have contested WWC's existence, in the sense of whether it ought to exist, in which case I have justified it by pointing out that it is qualitatively no different from any other similar group.
> They are most definitely worthy of outrage considering they're size (backing) and far-left ideological alignment.
I do not believe professional groups that advocate for more male participation in female-dominated occupations have any appreciable ideological alignment to them. They are size what now?
> In preparation to tilt at windmills for sure.
Strunk and White’s venerable Elements of Style warns that “When you use metaphor, do not mix it up. That is, don’t start by calling something a swordfish and end by calling it an hourglass.”
> which makes its prescience all the more amazing.
Yes, a children's fable about the hypocrisy of economic revolutionaries and governmental incompetence is truly analogous to social relations in a specific industry in modern day America. Astounding. One would be praising with faint damnation by saying at least you didn't namedrop 1984.
> Please, if you're going to ever read only one book, at least read it enough times to get it right, and don't choose the book that every political science major reads as a freshman.
I haven't even read de Tocqueville, nor am I a polisci major, so I do not know what you are talking about.
I can hear the goal posts screeching from here.
>in which case I have justified it by pointing out that it is qualitatively no different from any other similar group.
Except you didn't point that out, as a matter of fact, it only weakened your case. A beat up dinghy and a superyacht are not "qualitatively no different".
>I do not believe professional groups that advocate for more male participation in female-dominated occupations have any appreciable ideological alignment to them.
Correct, this is a key difference.
>Strunk and White’s venerable Elements of Style warns that “When you use metaphor, do not mix it up. That is, don’t start by calling something a swordfish and end by calling it an hourglass.”
Glad that's not what happened there. Or were you pointing out that you confused motte and moat? Either way, swing and a miss.
>Yes, a children's fable about the hypocrisy of economic revolutionaries
You're almost there, so close.
>Astounding. One would be praising with faint damnation by saying at least you didn't namedrop 1984.
It's almost like the group that denounces [racism] came to power and corrected it with... More [racism], but new [racism], which is inexplicably moral, you know, exactly how Animal Farm ends. 1984 is practically a manual for these types.
Addressing a failure in reading comprehension is not moving goal posts. Also, goal posts cannot screech, as they are neither animal nor animatronic.
> A beat up dinghy and a superyacht are not "qualitatively no different".
They are quantitatively different, but ultimately, both are nautical vessels.
> Correct, this is a key difference.
I disagree.
> Either way, swing and a miss.
The Guardian and Observer style guide defines cliches as cliches Overused words and phrases to be avoided, some of which merit their own ignominious entry in this guide
> You're almost there, so close.
Then I will go back and regress so far so as to be in the furthest horizon, beyond your view.
> you know, exactly how Animal Farm ends. 1984 is practically a manual for these types.
Huxley was more prescient than Orwell, who was a socialist and fought for the red cause in Spain.
I addressed your failure indeed. To quote, "And yet, they exist. That's the point. These sorts of groups all exist in one fashion or another." No one has denied they exist.
>Also, goal posts cannot screech, as they are neither animal nor animatronic.
Wrong. Screeching is not limited to animals/animatronics [0].
>They are quantitatively different, but ultimately, both are nautical vessels.
They are qualitatively different as one is an auxiliary vessel.
>The Guardian and Observer style guide defines cliches as cliches Overused words and phrases to be avoided, some of which merit their own ignominious entry in this guide
Immaterial. This is not The Guardian/Observer, nor am I a journalist at those newspapers. That's three strikes, you're out! So cliché!
>Then I will go back and regress so far so as to be in the furthest horizon, beyond your view.
It's so close there too.
>Huxley was more prescient than Orewell
Debatable, but the prescience of this quote cannot be understated:
"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats."
>Orwell, who was a socialist and fought for the red cause in Spain.
Which makes this all the more hilarious. Truly Poe's Law in action.
[0] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/screechi...
Did you get friction burn from that appeal to authority?
> They are qualitatively different as one is an auxiliary vessel.
They are both objects that are intended for transportation on bodies of water, and so qualitatively identical.
> That's three strikes, you're out! So cliché!
You don't seem to grasp what sport is being played here.
> It's so close there too.
I see you are familiar with Minkowski space.
> Debatable, but the prescience of this quote cannot be understated:
That's a good quote.
> Which makes this all the more hilarious.
I wish, the jokes are quite stale.
That is not an appeal to authority.
>They are both objects that are intended for transportation on bodies of water, and so qualitatively identical.
One is for auxiliary transportation only, and so is qualitatively different.
>You don't seem to grasp what sport is being played here.
Oh I do, and thankfully it's not baseball, your OPS is below league average.
>I wish, the jokes are quite stale.
Love the double entendre.
We can re-create me in aggregate.
[1]: https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23296842&cid=64409...
That's a pretty hefty fee for a few people.
"Alaina P. (CEO) - $193,725 Jo Anne R. (President Product & Communication) - $184,085 Samaria R. (Chief People And Inclusion Of) - $169,913 Shanna G. (Chief Program Officer) - $137,760 Lise R. (CFO) - $135,625"
Edit: Savage-Rabbit over on /. said it best: why do you hate capitalism?
However, pay scales in accordance with revenue. If you are running red ink (as was the case here) and you can't increase revenue sufficiently, then costs including payroll should be decreased to get back in the black.
Multiple executives each taking somewhere around $150,000.00 in pay when you're in the red is arguably too much compensation.
Like, did you actually write out that extremely rounded salary estimate down to the penny and full punctuation just because you want that junior-dev-level salary to look extra big? Why the gimmick?
There is an argument to be made that there is plenty of room for reduction in the compensation the executives received in order to get back in the black, along with any other cost cutting measures. That's why I wrote out the six figure compensation.
If they felt inclined to just shut down rather than try to make ends meet, that's their prerogative. It doesn't make their decision to shut down any less perplexing, though.
You do understand that the alternative is asking people to work for below-market rates, right? At a non-profit where there will never be an "exit strategy" by law?
So you're the boss now, you've got $75k to offer a new CFO. Where do you find a qualified candidate, and why do they want to work for you and not a comparable organization offering twice as much?
Sometimes, shutting down is the smart move.
So getting the books straight wasn't that difficult, especially if the people concerned were passionate in their cause. This was a non-profit, after all. If they want to shut down instead, that's within their rights but it's nonetheless perplexing they gave up so quickly.
https://variety.com/2024/biz/news/warner-bros-discovery-davi...
If there aren't any woman to hire in tech roles, find out why that is and tackle _that_ problem. Assuming of course it's a problem, which is an assumption we're sweeping under the rug. Culturally, we're pushing woman away from tech. On the other hand, it is a given in neural science that — oversimplification warning — men like "things", and woman like "people". It's not surprising then that there are more men in work that involves "things".
An initiative like this does nothing but foster resentment and push-back.
No amount of downvotes will change facts.
>this isn't the way to go about it.
What do you mean? AFAICT from the article, they were a nonprofit that provided support and training for women in (or interested in) coding.
From the article:
Beyond that, she describes a "camaraderie of other women that are interested in the same things I'm interested in," and got career advice from other participants at the WWC events.
As well as networking events and speakers, she also benefitted from events geared towards learning new skills.
If addressing it causes "resentment and push-back" consider reflecting on your own biases first. It is very likely the issue is there.
Whenever we encounter broad, overarching theories like this our brains immediately jump to things which might confirm it. Our brains love creating simple rules which explain complex phenomena.
But if we really want to understand what is true, we need to think explicitly about 1) what is the hypothesis which is being offered and 2) what counterexamples might there be to disprove it. A theory becomes stronger after withstanding counterexamples, not weaker.
So this hypothesis is that the lack of women in tech in the US is fundamentally biologically driven, rather than culturally driven. Put in this way, we should naturally ask the question, are women in all cultures as averse to computers as in American culture?
> No amount of downvotes will change facts.
I’m with you there. That begs the question: what are the facts?
Apparently. You can probably find more, but for example
https://theculturetrip.com/europe/sweden/articles/swedish-te...
Agreed, that's a good way to get closer to the truth. I'm afraid I don't know, but at least in my own experience it is also true in Malaysian, Indian, French, German, Spanish, Japanese, and I'm sure more cultures that I can't think of off the top of my head. Again, this is from my _personal_ observations, but it's 100%, which has been enough for me not to dig any further and conclude it's true.
The next point would be why. Is it purely biological, purely cultural, or a mixture? I've explained why I think it's mostly biological, but happy to be proven wrong.
>> No amount of downvotes will change facts.
> I’m with you there. That begs the question: what are the facts?
I was referring to the "woman like people, men like things" fact. There are lots of studies on this, and their conclusions are often dismissed as sexist. To have a happy society, we need to agree that "equal" does mean "the same".
That might be good enough for you, but that's not good enough for society in the least- either in terms of fostering change, or simply in terms of studying a sociological phenomenon.
Anecdotally, I don't think that's true about Indian culture at all, and I don't believe it's true in Russia and other former Eastern Bloc countries, nor in Chinese culture. Not to mention, it's rather ham-fisted to conflate nationality with culture, as all countries are made up of myriads of subcultures.
> There are lots of studies on this, and their conclusions are often dismissed as sexist.
Post them if you've got them.
Alright, but do we need to? I'm interested in equality for all, meaning everybody gets the same chance. If someone wants to do X with their life and you try to stop them, I'm going to be more than a little miffed. But that's not the same as making sure they _do_ X.
>> There are lots of studies on this, and their conclusions are often dismissed as sexist.
> Post them if you've got them
These two from a quick search (but the ones I was initially thinking of are references buried in a massive book by Steven Pinker):
> These two from a quick search
Thanks for the citations. A cursory search finds these critiques about the first one:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
> One article described sex-related differences in career interest inventories using pooled datasets dating back to the 1960s. Analyses by cohort were claimed but not shown. [...]
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/lcnxph/is...
> For example, the three subscales of the inventory that make up the “thing” dimension require “thing” to be interpreted so broadly—including “the global economy, string theory, mental representations, or tennis”—that the term becomes “vacuous.” Valian also suggests that preconceptions about which sex does stuff with things have influenced the creation of the items. Why, for instance, don’t activities like “Take apart and try to reassemble a dress” or “Try to recreate a dish tasted in a restaurant” appear on such scales? But also, as Valian observes, the sexes are artificially divided when they are categorized as either “thing people” or “people people.” In fact, being interested in things doesn’t stop you from being interested in people, and vice versa.
These critiques, one should note, do not dismiss the study for being "sexist", but rather point out how it is constructed in flawed ways. Does this invalidate it? Of course not. But this means that this is an ongoing debate, often couched in subjective sociological analysis. Hardly a "given in neural science." And so not something sufficiently rigorous for one to make policy upon. Perhaps, then, one should reexamine one's premises.
Looking at the responses to the second study, it does look like accusations of sexism are present. But also accusations of misinterpretations of developmental data, lack of replication of study results, overstating the significance of findings, and so on. So it looks like a compelling narrative that is worthy of ongoing investigation but again, far from given.
> An initiative like this does nothing but foster resentment and push-back.
I mean, does it? It looks like a support network, something that exists for almost any demographic for any purpose in America.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40103537
There are many interest groups and causes and enthusiasts. Maybe it's not for you. But if so, who cares? Let people try to effect change as they feel is right. If you think it's wrongheaded, let the results prove it for themselves. What kind of busybody gets resentful at a support network?