Look, these all sound like fine programs, unto themselves. But I find this column itself odd.
The author lists different statistics and percentages which demonstrate an uneven male/female distribution within the field. Conspicuously absent though is any discussion whatsoever of the causes of this uneven distribution. ("To combat these numbers..." Really? It's the numbers we're fighting?) Presumably, she's leaving the reader to fill in that blank him/herself. Thankfully for the author's sake, we're all very well trained in filling that blank.
The article isn't trying to argue the causes of the low female:male ratio. It's just setting a context for why it's necessary for there to be organizations to address the problem.
There are LOTS of articles that try to figure out the cause. This isn't one of them. It's a useful list, instead.
Who is the author arguing against here? Did I miss it when someone said "Chicks writing programs? Psh, that'll go the way of pogs and pokemon in no time at all!"
I don't see women in programming jobs as a fad, I just don't see them. I've worked at dozens of companies in over the last 15 years and I've worked with exactly 4 women... none in the last 2 years. I don't know why that is.
The page I end up on has the title "5 Organizations Helping Women Get Ahead in Tech" and isn't really arguing against anyone what I can see. Are we reading the same article?
The author lists different statistics and percentages which demonstrate an uneven male/female distribution within the field. Conspicuously absent though is any discussion whatsoever of the causes of this uneven distribution. ("To combat these numbers..." Really? It's the numbers we're fighting?) Presumably, she's leaving the reader to fill in that blank him/herself. Thankfully for the author's sake, we're all very well trained in filling that blank.