I cannot resist, I must point you to more posts in the latest conference diversity blogswarm


Most of these people took way more care and time with their posts that I did, so they deserve your attention!

First the links and some quotes. Down below i add some additional commentary.
==============================
Ms Jen: On Conferences and Diversity

"OK, so Eric makes a case for limiting speakers to the A-Listers who have published and excelled in web design and development. I say "Eric, it is becoming a circle jerk." Not literally. But in essence, yes."

Snappy the Clam: He-Man Web Developer's Club

"What's really at work here is another version of the meritocracy argument, and the same fallacies apply. Instead of addressing root causes of gender imbalance in technology, the web development world is assumed to be a pure meritocracy free of any social or political influences and thus serves as validation. In other words, if there were qualified women, they'd be getting speaking gigs, thus, there are no qualified women. There is no nepotism, favoritism, or undue influence of any sort; opportunity is equal and available for all. So, if women are underrepresented at web conferences, and by implication, the entire web development field, it's not that there's any underlying bias at work; the only logical explanation is that women are mysteriously just not interested in web development. This strikes me as disingenuous, self-serving, and is the sort of argument oppressors trot out against the oppressed."

Kimberly Blessing: Where are all the women (revisited)
"Diversity on stage is the key to including and engaging the broadest possible audience."
Anil Dash, a twofer: The Essentials of Web 2.0 Your Event Doesn't Cover and The Old Boys Club is For Losers

"Those of you who are defending this status quo are defending a culture of failure.
And that's the most important thing to remember: Those who are reaching out to include all members of their community, who are seeking out new ideas and voices, are not only winning, they're the only ones who will continue to win. You may succeed in defending the boys-only nature of your treehouse. But you'll be dooming yourselves to irrelevance."

and
"...in 15 minutes, I was able to construct a set of theoretical sessions that you won't see at events that specifically exclude women, or that make sure not to reach out to them."

Virginia DeBolt: Who's Counting? Kottke, that's who
"Those of you who are long-time readers of this blog know that I love to end a post that announces an event with a list of the number of male speakers versus female speakers and a smart a**ed, "But who's counting?" Well, Kottke is counting and he's got the goods, the facts, the data, the real stuff."
Another twofer from John Allsop of dog or higher: Women speakers at conferences redux and Diversity redux redux
"It's important, in the way that equity for green eyed people is less so, because its a real life issue that affects more than 50% of the people on the planet. If we can't even get that right, worrying about equity for people with facial tattoos, non-ear facial piercings, or other categories is a complete and utter non starter."
and
"In my opinion, as a conference organizer, you are, whether you like it or not, putting your hand up as a leader in our industry. You are helping to shape opinions as to what techniques and issues are important, and you send out all kinds messages, that you need to be responsible for. We all draw the line in different places, we all have thoughts as to what is or isn't an important message to present, but we can't shy away from the consequences."
==============================
So, a comment from me:
Actually, this was going to be a comment on one of Anil's posts, but it broke my 3-paragraph rule, so it belongs here. I am saddened by the guys who just can't seem to fathom what about this male-dominated conference circuit would be off-putting to women. They don't get that it's way more than a number on a list of speakers. It is what happens when you enter into this world so clearly featuring and praising the status quo of mostly white male speakers. I was going to ask those guys these questions:
Question #1 for the guys: have you ever been on a backchannel for a conference and seen some physical attribute mentioned about most of you that get up to speak or comment? Well, I have been to conferences where that happens to the women.
Just in case you're wondering about a specific example of what might make women feel a bit unwelcome.
Question #2 for the guys: Have you ever watched a panel where the women on the panel seem to have no issue speaking over and interrupting the (usually lone) man on the panel, while they respectfully engaged with the other women? Well, I have...and even at a conference that is known for its dedication to diversity.
Now, should that backchannel have been moderated and those trolls booted? Sure, but it wasn't.
Should women on panels make sure to speak louder and be more aggressive to avoid being marginalized? They should, although I wonder how that would go over...
My point is that many guys might not even think twice about the above examples if they were seeing them unfold in front of them. In fact I even know many women who have just accepted this is just "the way it is" or "as good as it's going to get" anyway.
Final example: I was at another recent conference where a rather prominent gentleman in our industry talked about two very prominent start-ups, mentioned the male half of their co-founding teams and in each case referred to the guy as "the" creator of xxx. Later various women in attendance confirmed that I was not the only one who noticed his turn of phrase and felt that familiar sting.
Those women rolled their eyes and moved on, probably thinking (and accepting) that it's always twice as hard and takes twice as long for women to get recognition for their accomplishments.
I spoke to said gentleman later and pointed out that he neglected to show the female co-founders even the courtesy of calling the guys "one of the" creators. I tried this approach because I think the guy is a good guy. His reason was that it was the guys he met and first learned about the products from. But it's years later, dude, by now he certainly knows who the women were. He knows their names. He assumed (without foundation, i confirmed directly from him) that the women had nothing to do with the actual creation of the product. I'm not sure what he thought they were doing. Probably something "soft" like P.R. or cooking the boy developers dinner?
Let's be clear: I don't know how all the responsibilities broke down at those companies either. But his assumption was that the women weren't "really" involved with development.
And he was also surprised that that assumption and the resulting blithe references to "the" (as in single) creators of companies would be offensive or hurtful to anyone.
What I told him was this: For people who don't know the history, you just re-wrote it. For people, particularly women, who do, you just marginalized and invalidated the work of women who could be considered role models for the next generation.
This is par for the course, even, sometimes, from the good guys. Should women not care? Soldier on? Shut up and take it? Prove their individual worth by whatever means necessary and become an individual exception? Actually I do believe in proving your individual worth. i just also happen to believe in stirring the pot and speaking up and trying to take action...and being willing to take the heat when you do.

Posted: Sun - February 25, 2007 at 10:09 AM       EmailFeedback

©