Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

'Girls In Tech' Closes Its Doors After 17 Years (venturebeat.com) 87

Posted by BeauHD from the shifting-landscape dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from VentureBeat: The Girls in Tech nonprofit women's tech community is closing its doors after 17 years, according to a newsletter from founder Adriana Gascoigne. Gascoigne said the decision was made with "sadness and devastation" and was not made lightly. "It is with a heavy heart that I share the news that Girls in Tech will be closing its doors. This decision was not made lightly, and the sadness and devastation we feel cannot be overstated," Gascoigne wrote. "For 17 incredible years, we have offered a welcoming community based on empowerment, support, and inspiration for women in the tech industry. Together, we have made a profound impact, helping women reach for the stars and excel in their careers, while working tirelessly to eliminate the gender gap in tech worldwide."

The group reached more than 250,000 individuals across 35 chapters in 30 countries on six continents. It was founded in Silicon Valley, but Gascoigne relocated the group to Nashville, Tennessee, in 2022 during the pandemic. I interviewed her numerous times about the group's mission and goals, and how it rose to greater relevance in fighting the "toxic culture" of Silicon Valley. The group's programs included a mentorship program, hackathons, coding bootcamps, the Girls in Tech Conference, a startup challenge, global classroom, podcast, blog, jobs board, and shop. The group organized thousands of in-person and virtual events, producing educational and engaging content. Without explanation, Gascoigne said in closing, "Though Girls in Tech is closing its doors, the movement we started must and will continue. I encourage each of you to carry on the fight to eliminate the gender gap in tech. Our mission will live on in other forms, driven by the same passion and commitment that have always defined us. I will miss you all deeply. Thank you for being a part of this incredible journey."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Girls In Tech' Closes Its Doors After 17 Years More

'Girls In Tech' Closes Its Doors After 17 Years

Comments Filter:

  • I'll care when... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slapyslapslap ( 995769 ) on Wednesday July 10, 2024 @05:41PM (#64616951)
    ...there are efforts to raise women's participation in high paying careers like plumbing.

    • My kingdom for a mod point!

    • Re:I'll care when... (Score:5, Informative)

      by godrik ( 1287354 ) on Wednesday July 10, 2024 @05:57PM (#64617021)

      I guess you do care then!

      https://www.womeninplumbandpip... [womeninplumbandpipe.org]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by SirSlud ( 67381 )

      You have to be small minded not to be able to guess that there are not efforts to raise women's participation in every vocation on earth in which they're under represented. The way I judge intelligence is that more intelligent people are good at judging *to what degree certain things they've never heard of exist* because nearly everything does exist, while people of more limited capacity just assume something doesn't exist they've been exposed to it.

      So yeah, you appear to live in a perception of reality bas

    • We always get this "hot take" every time the subject comes up.

      Firstly, this is slashdot, not plumbingdot or nursingdot. We never get articles about plumbing or nursing, so I don't know why you would expect articles about women's or men's participation in either of those careers to appear here.

      Second, you don't actually care, you're just concern trolling. I know this because you didn't even take the 3 or 4 seconds to search the web to see if there are any organisations doing what you claim isn't happening. I

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Sounds to me like a 45 year old executive wants to retire.

  • I'm not bitter... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CyberSnyder ( 8122 ) on Wednesday July 10, 2024 @07:35PM (#64617173)

    ...but when my son was in high school looking for some tech club type thing, almost everything we found was just for girls. It was really disappointing. So he did things on his own. I hope that whatever replaces it will encourage women and underrepresented groups, but won't disallow everyone else.

    • If boys/men need help they can always skip checking these government offices:

      - Large city women issue/women health offices
      - County women issues/women health offices
      - State governor women issues office
      - State legislature women issues office
      - Federal - President's office of women
      - Federal - Congressional women's issue office
      - Federal - Every executive branch, independent agency, judiciary, etc - has special offices for women issues

      They can also skip all of the special programs, internships, grants, special tr

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Kartu ( 1490911 )

          This book manifests the level of female entitlement that exists in human heads, it is simply insane.

          Someone with some farma background here.

          We test FEMALE ONLY drugs in this very order:

          1) Mice
          2) Dogs
          3) Chimps
          4) Men (male homo sapience)
          5) Women

          Why? Because if it KILLS, government prefer it to be done to a men, over a women.

          This fact is singled out in the book as being "sexist" towards... women.

          • So, factually, the book should be about how the world is biased towards mostly the top half of all men. The bottom half is there for menial, heavy and high risk jobs, including apparently testing drugs for women. Thanks for that extra data point.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Didn't he have any friends who were interested in the tech stuff? That's usually the issue, there are informal groups but they are entirely male, which only contributes to tech being perceived as a "male" passtime/subject.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Kokuyo ( 549451 )

        But why are they entirely male? The narrative is that boys for some reason hate girls and are making sure they can't join the secret club in the tree fort.

        That may well be true up to an age of twelve but should see something of a 180 after.

        Girls generally don't find tech interesting. All the girlish whining of supposedly adult women will not change that fact. Nobody stops a girl from "male" hobbies and interests unless her motivation is so feeble it might as well be just a passing interest.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          That may well be true up to an age of twelve but should see something of a 180 after.

          Maybe from the boy's side, but from the girl's point of view they probably don't want to be surrounded by bunch of horny young boys who think their dreams of finding a girl who shares their interests have come true.

          I'm not trying to blame anyone, it's just an unavoidable fact that children of that age are still developing their social skills, while also trying to deal with the massive hormone rush of puberty.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Kartu ( 1490911 )

            "Probably". So let us have clearly discriminating policies because "probably" there is some male conspiracy going.

            Saudi Arabia and Iran have higher % of women in STEM, than, couhg, Sweden.

            Established narratives about the causes of gender gap are laghably off.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Saudi Arabia and Iran also have segregated classrooms, i.e. they suggest that it does work and undermine your argument.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Kartu ( 1490911 )

                It is whack a mole game with, on one side, a bunch of dubious thoughts and on the other, cough, facts.

                Socializing means JACK SHIT in math and STEM in general.
                We know it for a fact.
                We have goddemn math genius Perelman, who was bullied for his entire life and still ives with his mother.

                We have countless hackers who are lonely dudes in the basement, with no friends and just computers around them.

                Yet women are somehow underrepresented in that area too, even though nobody could possibly know what sort of genital

                • Re: (Score:1)

                  by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  Socializing means JACK SHIT in math and STEM in general.

                  Strongly disagree. A lot of maths can be quite social, e.g. statistics. It's actually a really common mistake you see people making on the internet - they find a stat, and without understanding any of the context they are convinced they know what it means.

                  STEM in general often involves working with other people, and almost always any end product is going to be used by people. Failure to understand that and to interact successfully with others is what causes so many products to be bad.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by Kartu ( 1490911 )

                    % of women in STEM fields in Sweden is DROPPING, contrary to what emapncipation was supposed to bring.

                    Universities in Iran are mostly not segregated, back to your "but maybe that is why" argument which isn't an argument at all.

                    STEM in general often involves working with other people

                    Sure, Joh. Perelman, Einstein, Newton, Fermi, were a bunch of amazing extroverts that made their breakthrough in a drunk male only parties out there somewhere.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by will4 ( 7250692 )

                      https://www.bbc.com/worklife/a... [bbc.com]

                      Shows research that even when the social safety net provides nearly equality in gender, women choose jobs traditionally done by women and avoid jobs traditionally done (engineering, computer programming) by men.

                      This the "Gender Equality Paradox"

                      BBC

                      The 'paradox' of working in the world's most equal countries - 4 September 2019 - By Maddy Savage

                • How do you fucking know there are no women, if those people don't socialize? You assume their genitalia, and pretend it proves your point.

          • Maybe from the boy's side, but from the girl's point of view they probably don't want to be surrounded by bunch of horny young boys who think their dreams of finding a girl who shares their interests have come true.

            Well, and this type of thinking, is one of the primary drivers of our current LOW reproductive problems in the western world.

            Don't worry, after #MeToo and overt radical feminism.....men aren't even approaching women.

            We've actually socialized away our natural tendencies for men and women to mee

            • Re: (Score:3)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              The bar is higher now, sure. But is population decline really a good reason to force women to have lower standards?

              • > But is population decline really a good reason to force women to have lower standards?

                Of course not. But you can't have it all. Women don't want men who make less than they do. Also women want the highest paying jobs even when they don't qualify. Also women want to be able to divorce on a whim and keep their husbands money. So society gave women and girls preferential hiring and biased divorce courts. Now suddenly there aren't a lot of stable marriages. In this case population will decline, life satis

                • Re: (Score:1)

                  by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  Women don't want men who make less than they do.

                  I know for a fact that that isn't true. I don't even have to use a personal example - the former Prime Minister of the UK has never been worth as much as his wife, and made considerably less during his time in office.

                  Also women want the highest paying jobs even when they don't qualify.

                  Speaking to women it seems that the opposite is true. They are more likely to not apply for the highest paying jobs because they are less willing to inflate their qualifications and blag it.

                  Also women want to be able to divorce on a whim and keep their husbands money.

                  In every developed country I know of, divorces result in assets being split fairly. If, as you seem to th

                  • Re: (Score:1)

                    by Kartu ( 1490911 )

                    I know for a fact that that isn't true

                    There are solid findings from evolutionary psychology field that you cannot negate by some laughable anecdote.

                    The findings are rather peculiar:

                    1) Women, unlike men, are very focused on finding partner that is AT LEAST on their level (looks, education, income)
                    2) The higher the status of a woman, the stronger the demands

                    ok, this one is not:

                    3) Women do care a lot about males ability to get and committment to provide resources

                    as what else would we expect from a society that

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      That doesn't seem like a very sound evolutionary strategy. Also looks are highly subjective and heavily influenced by the society that the person is living in.

                      And how much of it is down to men feeling insecure in relationships with women who earn more than them, or who they consider to be "out of their league"?

                      But even assuming, for the sake of argument, we accept your premise. What should we do about it? Ban women from highly paid jobs? Ban them from higher education? Make such things more hostile to women

                    • I hate to say it but all I can see as a solution is society turning against divorce and women deciding to settle. It would help if we stopped presenting marriage as harmful to women and men as evil at worst and buffoons at best. See also: man vs bear in the woods.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      I don't think forcing women to stay in bad relationships is a good idea. Aside from anything else it gives men licence to behave badly.

                      How about men working to improve themselves so they are more attractive to women, and less likely to get divorced? You could start by dropping the unwritten assumption that women are only trying to get something from you and don't experience the same emotional attachments that you do.

                    • That doesn't seem like a very sound evolutionary strategy. Also looks are highly subjective and heavily influenced by the society that the person is living in.

                      Uhhh, are you really refuting sexual selection and whole branches of evolutionary science because you found one outlier? Interesting.

                      A lot of the "solution" would be based on social media and dating apps. Limited time on them for minors / teens wouldn't be a bad thing, as many research shows that increased mental issues and possible unrealistic standards go hand in hand with it.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by will4 ( 7250692 )

                      >How about men working to improve themselves so they are more attractive to women, and less likely to get divorced?

                      Search for news articles and advice on how women should improve themselves.

                      Then do the same search for how men should improve themselves.

                      Notice that the overwhelming majority of news articles are authored by women telling men how to dress, how to act, how to talk, how to groom, what to do, what not to do, how to spend their money, how to be entertaining and an exhaustion of other what men sh

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by Kartu ( 1490911 )

                reason to force women to have lower standards?

                Lower what?

                Happiness is in steady decline from 70s.
                Unhappiness is steady raise form 80s.

                On the bright side: gender gap in happiness is shrinking. Female happiness is neraly down to male happiness now.

                Punching boys as called out in Christina Sommer's "War Against Boys" back in 90s might have something to do with it.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Kartu ( 1490911 )

        How is the monumental WNBA effort going?

        Women interested in basketball enough?

        Remind me what sort of discrimination leads to playing in WNBA or watching WNBA not being perceived as female enough.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Targon ( 17348 )

          The whole "what about..." routine is old at this point. Spectator sports are great for those who play or for those who don't DO things themselves, so watch other people who do things.

          There is a definite problem when the tech clubs are out of balance. 10+ boys/men plus only 1 or 2 girls/women will potentially be a problem for teenagers, but on the flip side, if there isn't a club for those who are in that small minority, that will make people feel left out. A 60/40 split won't be a problem, but it's whe

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Kartu ( 1490911 )

            There is an army of fields in which humanity is trying to "address gender gaps" if one of the genders is underrepresented.

            How is "what about any other field, did it succeed?" not relevant a question?

            Women in symphonic orchestra? Blind audition working? Nope, not and ? Oh, ok. [nytimes.com]

            I'm pretty sure I've seen an article trumpeting "finally with blind audition discrimination will end and we'll have more women".

            Is it a good time to accept that not all gender gaps are caused by soem sort of discrimination, or do we nee

            • Funny how there isn't a grand societal imperative to have gender equality in menial labour, to have men equally represented in fields like nursing, teaching, to have equality in college and university admissions.....

              • I'd disagree with the nursing thing; if you want be a hero be a male nurse... just expect to do some heavy lifting, pun intended.

                Though yeah... schooling's focus on women at this point is an overcorrection,

                • I'd disagree with the nursing thing; if you want be a hero be a male nurse... just expect to do some heavy lifting, pun intended.

                  I don't see any preferential hiring, equity initiatives, reserved schooling slots....

    • ...but when my son was in high school looking for some tech club type thing, almost everything we found was just for girls.

      Same experience here when I tried to go to college several decades ago: The vast majority of paths into college were all gilded for the girls and entirely non-existent for the boys. There were loans available, but I couldn't afford the required fee. (maybe $80 at the time? not obscene, but not affordable to a person who was pushed out the door into a minimum wage job and abandoned by family). What is even funnier is that the girls were paid more than the boys at those minimum wage jobs. This society is sup

  • Find a cause, pocket the profits, close the company. Tale as old as time.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close