I was expecting Sheryl Sandberg in feminine-tech-pantheon (but of course, you didn't need to include them all, just she's the low-hanging in the pantheon).
I've been in and around tech most of my life (because I'm a bay area native, and because I know of a lot of folks in tech). The values you're hearing about now, loud and publicly, were always there, and none of this new-post-election tech-speak is at all surprising (to me).
Ah, read the essay, but didn’t read the footnotes. But either way, your examples were sufficient and I didn't intend my comment as a critique. It was intended as an observation as I was expecting Sandberg before Susan W. because Sandberg is so frequently cited as the example of power behind the scenes.
Please see also the paragraphs beginning, "But equally important," and "So why don't women get their due." You will find Ms. Sandberg in both. So that's three times.
I was expecting Sheryl Sandberg in feminine-tech-pantheon (but of course, you didn't need to include them all, just she's the low-hanging in the pantheon).
I've been in and around tech most of my life (because I'm a bay area native, and because I know of a lot of folks in tech). The values you're hearing about now, loud and publicly, were always there, and none of this new-post-election tech-speak is at all surprising (to me).
You may notice Ms. Sandberg got a mention in the first footnote. Waggener Edstrom, mentioned in the body of the essay, was founded in 1983.
Ah, read the essay, but didn’t read the footnotes. But either way, your examples were sufficient and I didn't intend my comment as a critique. It was intended as an observation as I was expecting Sandberg before Susan W. because Sandberg is so frequently cited as the example of power behind the scenes.
Please see also the paragraphs beginning, "But equally important," and "So why don't women get their due." You will find Ms. Sandberg in both. So that's three times.