Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

venturebeat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 520 posts

Re: Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

#51

Post by grobbyy »

At the risk of posting a reflexive comment, what should we be doing here? It seems like everything has unintended consequences (not on a cost-benefit basis):

- Minority affinity groups pull people from majority groups and decrease integration.

- Anti-discrimination/sexism/etc. movements often add social barriers to interactions (e.g. things I do within my identity group would be misperceived if done across)

- Affirmative action makes minorities feel like they don't deserve to be there (and often leads to resentment and other consequences)

Progress in the past few decades has been limited, so it seems like we're taking the wrong approach, but I'm don't have a better approach to propose.

Green fields, blue sky, what should we be doing to resolve the historical issues we have around sex, race, socioeconomic status, etc.?

I think looking to countries which made better progress might be helpful....

Re: Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

#52

Post by nytesky »

dang wrote: post #23

[stub for offtopicness]

Since it's founding, we've seen Gamergate, the rise of Brogrammers (https://www.cnn.com/2012/05/07/tech/web/brogrammers/index.ht...), and Changs book on Brotopia.

I could see it if stakeholders feel they are engaged in a quiotic endeavor...

As a father of 3 daughters, I still see a push for women in stem, but anecdotally my youngest is often the only girl in such activities.

Re: Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

#53

Post by lenerdenator »

nothercastle wrote: post #40
asah wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately this is normal, because running a non-profit is hard enough that suitable candidates command high salaries. I was on an NPO board with a similar ratio and we couldn't get it down.

300k isn’t crazy especially in SF that s not going up get you far

Perhaps we should stop concentrating so many opportunities in areas with exhausted resources that are needed to host an economic sector.

Re: Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

#54

Post by nytesky »

nothercastle wrote: post #40
asah wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately this is normal, because running a non-profit is hard enough that suitable candidates command high salaries. I was on an NPO board with a similar ratio and we couldn't get it down.

300k isn’t crazy especially in SF that s not going up get you far

Doesn't CEO and non profit operate out of Nashville?

Re: Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

#55

Post by randomdata »

nsonha wrote: post #35
Hasu wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The (economic) purpose of Girls in Tech is to create more workers in software so that prices for labor will go down. Given the layoffs of 2022-ongoing, labor costs in tech are dropping enough that interested parties aren't incentivized to increase the supply of labor further.

> so that prices for labor will go down wut? Any one creating anything is DELIBERATELY driving price of that thing down for you I guess.

Yes, anyone who deliberately increases the supply of something does so in an effort to diminish the price of something.

Re: Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

#56

Post by [deleted] »

grobbyy wrote: post #51

At the risk of posting a reflexive comment, what should we be doing here? It seems like everything has unintended consequences (not on a cost-benefit basis): - Minority affinity groups pull people from majority groups and decrease integration. - Anti-discrimination/sexism/etc. movements often add social barriers to interactions (e.g. things I do within my identity group would be misperceived if done across) - Affirma…

[deleted]

Re: Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

#57

Post by mikhael28 »

There is an expression which I think is fitting, in a weird way - a successful marriage does not have to last forever. For some reason, we always tend to imagine that, once a company or organization is created, it must last forever. That for it to ‘close its doors’ or ‘wind down’ is somehow a failure. And that’s just not true; a professional athletes career does not last forever, and neither does the lifespan of most corporations or non-profits.

The organization accomplished what it set out to do; make the tech industry more inclusive and accessible to women. To a large extent, though it wasn’t a primary factor, it aided that journey nicely with its thousands of events that it organized over the years, according to this announcement.

It didn’t last forever, but it was never meant to - that would mean the presence of women in tech would never become truly equal to the presence of men. While its goal wasn’t ‘achieved’, this organization did what it could to move things in that direction and now, with its energy spent, it leaves the door open for new contributors to take the next step.

The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice. Thank you to everyone who helped organize the events this organization hosted in the last seventeen years.

Re: Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

#58

Post by worthless-trash »

n4r9 wrote: post #36
worthless-trash wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removed.

"another-dave" posted some in an adjacent comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40926228 Or did you mean something different?

I must have .. posted oddly.. i thought it was inline.. thanks. I did mean something else, i'm not sure how that ended up in the state it is in.. now the whole thread is gone.

Re: Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

#59

Post by AmericanChopper »

randomdata wrote: post #55
nsonha wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so that prices for labor will go down wut? Any one creating anything is DELIBERATELY driving price of that thing down for you I guess.

Yes, anyone who deliberately increases the supply of something does so in an effort to diminish the price of something.

> After all, that's why the opposite situation: Collusion – where actors try to deliberately limit the supply of something, thereby causing price to rise – is illegal.

Unless they’re a union.

Re: Girls in Tech closes its doors after 17 years

#60

Post by dang »

blueflow wrote: post #50
dang wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please keep flamebait like this off HN. It leads to tedious internet tedium that inevitably turns nasty [1]. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

[flagged]

It can be both, no? But the issue here is the predictable effect that certain kinds of comments have on internet threads.
Post reply on HN