Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

It would be interesting to know what common bonds these gentlemen have that make them an associational collective. Are they simply geniuses? There are as many women who rate in that regard. Are they rich? Famous? Do they share certain gifts? Are they influential in some specific part of the economy? What makes them good ol' boys, I wonder? Who or what institution was organizing the gathering, I wonder? Is it significant that the women they asked turned them down? Perhaps these women lack coffee making skills and didn't want to embarrass themselves? But seriously, perhaps there just aren't that many women interested in a bb gun fight down at the municipal dump. Or whatever.

Blame partly the "social Darwinism"... so deeply engrained in the American psyche... so pervasive... so part of the popular culture... so accepted even among the educated class - males being "naturally" the stronger, the fighters, the winners... whatever... such stupidity. It is ridiculous.

I know you're not trolling for compliments but, well done.

(On another topic, do you have a moderation queue for comments that have embedded hyperlinks? Or are they just killed? I replied to someone's question about Alan Watts and Zen a while ago, and got a "Blame the spammers!" notice that left me with the impression that the comment would post after review. Or did it just die? No biggie, either way. Just curious.)

I learned a very important thing from listening to one of the podcasts from BlogHer earlier this year. Women must learn to ask for invites! This is tricky if we don't know what's on, but doesn't help if we have never told anyone we are interested in being involved.

So at a conference last week, I mentioned to a couple of people that I'd have liked to speak at it. I also went up to the organisers and directly asked to speak next year. They were pleased to know what I can talk about and I'm very likely to get a speaking spot next year. I also got an invite to speak at a conf in NZ next year. No-one had deliberately excluded me, they just didn't know I was in the market ;)

David - I applaud you, on three counts:

1) You noticed the gender discrepancy - just supposing the attendees had received the attendee list, how many of them would have noticed? *That* I would like to know!

2) You took action - maybe at some cost to yourself (in terms of lost networking opportunities) - in a way which may lead to an improvement for the future, rather than just taking a personal stand which might have achieved nothing;

3) You wrote about it - not, as Dave Rogers said, to garner compliments, but to help raise the profile that this *is* a problem, that affects everyone, male and female. Women lose out if they're not considered for events where they can a) contribute on merit and b) network, and men lose out (yes, they *do*!) because they don't *get* the chance to get the perspective of some ass-kicking technologists, speakers, thinkers, collaborators...

And well done to *you*, Donna, for picking up on one of the key lessons from BlogHer and reaping the benefit of action! That opening debate really set the tone for the rest of the day, for me - and, as a podcaster, it pleases me no end to know that people are benefiting from those podcasts, even if they weren't there. That's why we did them!

You may be interested in reading my comments to a blogpost in Michael Feldstein's Blog, Eliterate -- about the mostly-male Sakai conference last June.
http://mfeldstein.com/index.php/weblog/comments/262/

I have no idea why this very serious issue isn't talked about more -- and the only place to read about the problem is at websites or blogs that are especially about this issue. As you will read, when I brought it up at the Sakai conference I was met with silence and even slight annoyance.

http://www.misbehaving.net/

What an unbelievably pointless whine.

Kudos. It matters that an A-lister like you says it.

Let me make it clear: This is not an open conference. It's a group of people invited by a private company, probably in part to boost its status. Some of the invitees are people who you absolutely would want in on a discussion of "peer production," but overall it does seem to me that they invited Smart Guys, and thus had plenty of leeway.

Dave, I've been having moderation problems which I have not yet resolved. I was using MovableType's MT-Blacklist which pushes suspect comments into a moderation queue, which is what happened to yours. Because of the high volume of spam comments I get, I've been finding too many falling between the cracks. Plus, I have evidence that some comments were going into a bit bucket somewhere. I've now switched to MT's SpamLookup but I can't get it configured right. In short (too late!), I am sorry your comment didn't get posted, and it was certainly not intentional on my part (unless you suddenly started pushing the benefits of cialis:) If it happens again, could you drop me a line so I can see what the hell is going on? Thx.

BTW, zf, technically _your_ post is the very definition of a pointless - and content-free - whine.

Just thought I should point that out.

My comment about "social darwinism" feels a bit off topic... or too general may be... among the other comments. But how can you argue about a specific problem - in this case the representation of women on conferences - without confronting the underlying attitudes. zf's comment about whining is a perfect illustration - "hey, don't whine... compete..." What would be the terms of aggreement with such "males"... "Ok, let's establish some variation of 'affirmative action'... or 'quotas' for conferences... because, well, women cannot otherwise be equally represented based on their own merits." Is that the conversation we want?

three isn't enough, and the fact they ended up with none didn't strike them as a problem. And that is the problem.
...
We have to get to the point where this is prima facie shameful and unacceptable. We have to get to the point where this is just plain embarrassing.

Nice one, David. You did the right thing for the right reasons.

Inviting women to a conference is a step forward, don't get me wrong, but it's only part of the picture. Those women would be constantly interrupted, cut off, dismissed, and ogled by men, who would likely outnumber them by a very uncomfortable majority. If you can invite women to such an event and not have the above happen, THAT would be progress. By the way, Tom Peters is all over this.

Dave, they just may have invited the wrong people (female) who are not interested in this type of dialogue.

If the forum was really interedted they would pick at least 100 odd females to target for the bare bones participation of at least 10 females.

At a tech level, I am notcing the trend that companies are 'deliberatly' not calling in the right folks (females) !!

Cheers to David! But Michael, this is very troubling to me:

"Those women would be constantly interrupted, cut off, dismissed, and ogled by men..."

While I have no doubt that this may go on in some overtly sexist industries, just because the tech world has been predominatly male does NOT mean women are treated this way, and *especially* at technical events. That notion could be perceived as insulting to both the men who attend these things as well as to the women like myself who attend, speak, and interact with a lot of other women at tech conferences (and I'm practically a tech event junkie) who do not have these experiences you suggest.

Kudos to Donna -- we cannot wait, or expect, invitations. Fortunately, most major events are *not* invite-only, so women ALWAYS have the option of attending. Michael, however well-intentioned, I believe comments like yours could do more harm than good, if they mislead women into thinking that this is what it must be like at a technical event that's predominatly male.

I disagree that for most women it *is* uncomfortable (or any more so than it is for, say, shy men), and what does it say about women if we have to wait until we're made "comfortable" before we start stepping up? If we're perceived as needing to wait until someone tells us it's safe and warm and full of group hugs and good listeners at these things, we're just reinforcing negative stereotypes.

And we need non-whites just as much as we need women -- the point is the value of diversity (the Suroweicki's Wisdom of Crowds). We would all benefit tremendously from a lot more DNA at these things, and David has done something powerful to bring this lack of diversity to light.

Kathy, but to say it doesn't happen is just as inaccurate. I've been at several events that are predominately male. Though I haven't seen women deliberately mistreated, I have seen them (us) ignored, or excluded from the discussions.

The first E Tech conference that O'Reilly put on demonstrated some of this. At times, women would be naturally included; at other times, we might as well be part of the wallpaper.

As for women not being comfortable in a room full of men--from what I saw of photos at Blogher, specifically the table with all the men sitting together and eating lunch, this isn't specific to any gender: people are more comfortable with there are others like themselves at an event.

Gender bias is a huge problem. Women are allowed, but only if they conduct themselves like men. This way it is more implicit. It doesn't matter which industry you are in, though. I've found it everywhere. You are also supposed to perform 10x what a man performs to prove yourself. When you react emotionally or fight for the underdog, you get scolded and told you are immature, not good at 'teamwork' or unstable. The awful truth is that right now it is as important to 'pretend you are a man' to become financially successful as it ever was. Then you have to suffer in silence, lest you be labeled something negative, like, um, feminist. That's a career killer, I'm afraid. Play by the rules...

I even have to conceal who I am here. That's so sad, but I support my entire family.

So, as for not being invited to join these high-fallutin' events, it's tough enough to just get to the point where you can breath easy and be yourself.

And I won't even start with how women internalize this...it's a sad state.

Shelley -- agreed, yes, I reckon being ignored and excluded from some discussions does happen (although it's not just women at these things who may feel ignored and excluded). I also think we have to keep the issues in perspective (as your comment does) with respect to tech conferences--where the problem of how some women may feel about them is clearly a more minor one when compared to whatever terrible working situation Ragegirl is in.

I also think that we all (me included) should try to make distinctions between conferences, tech-related social events, various flavors of tech jobs (including contract and employee) women have (or want to have), and young women vs. older women rather than painting it ALL with one broad women-in-technology brush. (And it varies geographically as well.)

We need to keep pushing on *both* fronts -- encourage women to participate in the things that are more open and female-friendly than they might imagine or have been led to believe, while simultaneously working hard (with you being one of the most dedicated leaders in this) on deeper, more subtle, or more serious areas that need improvement.

But *not* participating can *never* be a useful strategy. If there are perceptions that need to change, it's up to us to work to change them, since there aren't enough David Weinbergers in the world who would even *notice* the imbalance, let alone take a public stand. But we can't do anything unless we show up. The non-invite tech conferences and powerful, relentless (I mean that in a kick-ass way ; ) blogs like yours are a great place to 'show up'.

Oddly enough, the tech industry had a more open feel to it in the 1980's then it does now. When an industry regresses, then something's terribly wrong, and it's up to us to look at the leaders and ask what they're doing to make things better.

Kathy, Ragegirl's work environment is of serious concern, but it begins at the conferences and the events and the meetings. Anytime the public accepts as 'business as usual' the lack of diversity, it encourages the behavior that Ragegirl experiences at her job. After all, the people who go to the conferences from where she works only have their view of women in the industry by the leaders in the industry.

One could also argue that there are women in the world who are virtual slaves to men, and how can we worry about something such as these events and conferences while that's happening. But this is a tool, a way to misdirect because a fight for equality on one front does not take away from a fight for equality on another front.

When Tim O'Reilly not only sticks with his "10% rule" of women invited as speakers, he writes that this is, to him, acceptable and a practice he will continue, this should be cause for concern. At the least, women should not be giving O'Reilly money for books or events.

As for not participating, the blacks in Alabama brought about change by boycotting buses, and the women brought about the vote by threatening and actually boycotting the Democratic party. A boycott is a powerful thing--especially if the group boycotting does so as a group, rather than fragments.

And that's where we fail, we women. Too many women will not fight for change; to many women don't care as long as their careers are assured. I rarely see women in technology rock the boat anymore. The most many will do is 'positively' point out where a woman succeeds; saying it is women who are the ones who have to change.

And that's where I've failed, your kind words aside, Kathy. I've not made a bit of change in this attitude. Google and Yahoo and Microsoft has abysmal hiring records as regards to women; invite-only events are still predominately male; O'Reilly still stubbornly sticks to his '10% rule' when it comes to women speaking at his events, tokenizing an entire sex; and many women in tech--too many--believe that if we would just be the ones to change, it would all be better.

Sorry for all the typos in the above. The preview is such a faint color, I can't really read the text.

At the Web 2.0 conference, there are 106 speakers, of which if my count was right, there are 7 women. This is a conference to supposedly talk about the future of the web, and women speaking represent how much of a percentage of the overall total? I gather that O'Reilly has broken his 10% rule--but I don't think that's what some of us had in mind.

I gather the future web has little or no place for women. That's conforting, isn't it?

But yes, let's buy O'Reilly books and go to O'Reilly events and praise the O'Reilly men--because after all, our money is good.

Shelley: I just commented over on your blog about the same thing. I am by now so filled with ennui when I see the sea of white male faces everywhere I look that yes, I'm less likely to attend their conferences, click through on their emails (AlwaysOn being the prime example of that one) buy their books or software etc. I feel unmotivated to give my money over to people I'm convinced didn't design their event, content, product, service with much of a thought to my requirements as a user.

And the backlash of "oh great, the women are whining again" doesn't end with us women. The first thing I thought of after I read all of this and thought, "way to go david!" was, boy I bet all of those guys are talking about what a wus Winberger is behind his back. You know it.

I would wager that at least a few are laughing behind his back, snickering about how he has to pander to women because he has a lot of women readers or some such thing. In other words, the good old boys paint even their "in" colleagues with a squishy brush when they do break ranks.

Luckily, we know david is certainly not squishy!

And don't ask me what squishy means--I think it means sensitive.

So to what Michael wrote--yes.

I love this discussion here. So much energy! I don't know if y'all will be here in SF at Web 2.0 or not, but I'm here. I can't afford to go to the conference, but I will be at some of the parties (the 'of the people' ones like Web 1.0, Web 2.1 and The Colors of Web 2.0 - not the fancy, "Invite the movers and shakers" ie. mostly male ones).

I would love to have this chat live. Maybe we can stir the room up a bit.

Tara

Is it possible that there aren't that many women expert on the topic? In the IT company I work for we have a shocking ration of women to men ( 1:20 or thereabouts ) the really disappointing thing about this is: the women are generally better at their jobs, and more consientious than the men. We've made offers to all but one of the women who made it through to interview, however in the last year, despite pushing the boundaries of postive discrimination as far as we possibly could ( its illegal here in the UK) we still only managed to get 4 quality female CV's.

Any suggestions how we can attract more good quality female applicants?

Hello David,

Came across this entry via Burningbird...

I was at the We Media conference in NYC yestserday (http://www.mediacenter.org/wemedia05/). This was an amazing conference with at least one woman on every panel and many women in the audience. Gloria Pan, the Communications Director, I'm sure had something to say about who was on the panels.

The fact of the matter is that many conferences are meant to be preaching to the converted. They are costly, for one thing. They are meant to reach a certain audience for another. Their planning committees know that and I'm sure are geared to picking those the attendees will identify with.

So, let's face some facts here-- many of these conferences are elitest little groups not really interested in communicating with others beyond their little ivory towers. They are not cost effective for bloggers who aren't connected to them in some professional/academic way, and most average bloggers don't even know about them (contrary to what so many think.) When the elitest groups are themselves amazingly narrow in their scope and appeal, and keep admission on the q.t., can one really expect, or even ask for, diversity?

As for how I got into We Media: luckily I have a boatload of chutzpah and find nice ways to get myself into these things when I can. I volunteered and they were receptive. That was truly the place to be yesterday--just ask Rebecca MacKinnon.

Tish G
http://spap-oop.blogspot.com
http://lovehopesexdreams.blogspot.com

Well, it turns out Mr Ten Percent is in London at a Geek Dinner next Thursday http://www.geekdinner.co.uk/2005/10/05/tim-oreilly-october-13th-2005/ - so I thought it would be rather appropriate to go to the dinner and call him on his misguided misogyny http://www.geekdinner.co.uk/2005/10/05/tim-oreilly-october-13th-2005/#comment-494

Not that it would do any good - but I'd do it anyway.