Below is a roundup of notable articles published throughout Women’s History Month – a sort of reference blog of articles we found ourselves reading. The conversation doesn’t stop here of course, as it is always ongoing and contextual. If you have another resource we should know about leave a comment below.
The byline of this article sums it up: “The ability to participate in science has always been political. On International Women’s Day, scientists must decide how best to defend women’s rights” – Depend on The Guardian to tell it straight:
Sometimes – perhaps sadly – it takes a high-profile woman to raise an otherwise obviously glaring issue. Melinda Gates tackles gender disparity in tech workforces in this Q&A:
This Foreign Policy article contains some interesting historical statistics of women in the tech workforce, and includes mention of some recent administrative initiatives.
Business Insider’s list of ‘the 43 most powerful female engineers of 2017‘ we would argue is missing one notable name 🙂 – but it’s still a very good list of many names (and fields, even companies) you might otherwise be unaware of.
In honor of National Engineers Week (February 19-25), we bring you our annual shout-out to the most powerful women engineers in US tech.
Yes, the tech industry is doing a well-documented terrible job in attracting women into engineering. And once they enter this male-dominated world, some women are subject to some appalling sexism and sexual harassment.
A Wired gem, this one is a profile of software engineer & Hamilton Technologies CEO Margaret Hamilton:
Another Wired gem, although this one is less a profile of #WomenInSTEM and an interview with a woman in the M-of-STEM field, about the ‘beauty’ of mathematics to connect humans but also our perceived cultural disassociation from it as a field of study.
Last article, and this one is an opinion/commentary piece that takes a different angle at the otherwise positive ‘girls in STEM’ analysis. That’s not to say it’s not positive, but that as an opinion piece it perhaps intentionally raises more questions than it answers, borne from personal experience rather than data-ist study of the issue.