Last year we spoke about the ridiculous disparity between the amount of women and men speaking at industry events. After writing that post I had the pleasure of speaking to some of the people men who organized a few of those events.
Their defense was that basically, gee, they just don’t know any girls. That’s fair. Girls are intimidating and they smell pretty. So, I pointed them to a list that Jen Bekman put together for just this kind of thing, hoping that the next year’s set of events would be a little more gender diverse.
They’re not.
Jason Kottke has a great run-down of this year’s events. He did math and everything.
Since I’m much more childish than Jason, and he’s already done the smart work, I’ll merely point out, in my charming Eddie Haskel-like manner that this year the ‘Future of Web Apps’ Conference (26 men, 1 woman) went as far as incorporating a penis into its logo. At least there’s truth in advertising.
Written by Mike Monteiro on February 22, 2007 | 
14 comments so far. Add yours below.
molly says:
I pointed this out recently to someone speaking at one such conference (male).
"You seem cranky. Is it your time of the month?" he responded.
The Web does not Get It.
February 22, 2007 9:08 AM
Ryan Carson says:
Hey Mike,
I responded to Jason in detail and he's chosen to publish parts of my email without actually responding to me over email. It's as if he wants to have a dialogue about this, but he won't open comments. Anyway ...
Here is my email to him:
--------------------------
Hi Jason,
Just read your post on women speakers at conferences. As you singled us out, I feel the need to defend ourselves and answer your incorrect figures.
It's frustrating that you've taken a shot at us and turned comments off - I would've liked a chance to explain why there weren't many women speakers at FOWA London.
I'm not sure if you tried to contact one of us to check your facts, and we didn't respond. If so, I apologize. However, your facts just aren't correct.
We didn't have 25 speakers at the conference. The 25 includes the day of workshops (which are very different).
The actual number of speakers that we had control over is 13 (several spots are given to sponsors and they choose their speaker).
We originally had Tara Hunt and Gina Bianchini lined up. But Gina backed out at the last minute, so 2 out of 13 would've been 15%. Obviously not 50% ...
However, I don't think that it *should* be 50%. Why? Because the industry is not 50/50. I am an ex-developer and I have been a part of the web app world since 2000. It's never been 50/50, so demanding that speaker lineups are 50/50 just doesn't make any sense.
In addition to this, you have to understand that conferences are businesses. People buy tickets to events where big-name speakers are on the lineup. The majority of famous names in the web app business are men. Why is this? Is it a self perpetuating cycle? Possibly.
However, I (and Lisa, Mel and Gillian - all women!) all agree that women aren't as pushy in getting themselves known and in the spotlight. Are we, as conference organizers, meant to lose profit because of this? That hardly seems fair.
Is there any chance you could update your numbers on that post?
Kind regards,
Ryan
---------------------------------------------
As a side point, I noticed you've listed ALA on your blogroll. Why have you chosen to pick on FOWA, yet AEA has the same ratio of men to women as us?
A bit inconsistent, don't you think?
- Ryan
February 22, 2007 1:18 PM
Katie says:
Hi Ryan! RE: Kottke's closed comments, please check out http://kottkekomments.com !
February 22, 2007 1:40 PM
Mike Monteiro says:
Hey Ryan,
Thanks for posting. I don't usually deliver Jason's mail. Perhaps you can have one of the girls in the secretarial pool handle it.
Honestly, your email is defensive. And after I posted about this issue last year me and you had a couple of IM conversations about it where I honestly thought you'd strive to do better this year.
As a side point, I noticed you've listed ALA on your blogroll. Why have you chosen to pick on FOWA, yet AEA has the same ratio of men to women as us?
You're right. I should pick on them too. However, I wonder if taking the "we're no worse than those other guys" is really where you want to plant your flag.
February 22, 2007 2:04 PM
Jen Bekman says:
Ryan forwarded me an identical email (which for some reason he declined to post in my totally! open! go right ahead! speak up! comments thread.) My response to him:
Ryan
I've been down this road with you before and I really don't care about your fuzzy math. (Nor your absurd excuses.)
If you cared, you'd have more women on your speaker rosters. If you cared, you'd be pro-active rather than reactive.
You can focus your energy on massaging Kottke's stats and sending out defensive form letters or you can put energy towards making sure you have women on your roster and/or engaging your detractors in order to come up with a solution.
I'd expect that the latter option will have a more favorable effect on your company's public image.
Thanks,
Jen
February 22, 2007 2:58 PM
Lisa says:
In the interests of equality (strange how Ryan is the focus for external commentators on all things Carson Systems) I've added my two-penneth at http://www.personism.com/2006/10/11/list-of-women-speakers-for-your-conference/
I find your comment on the 'men' who organise these events and on a 'secretarial pool' highly insulting and ironically similar to the prejudiced attitudes you seek to discourage.
Oh and I notice that no-one is mud-flinging about ethnicity - maybe we improved on that this year, so that's all good.
February 22, 2007 11:53 PM
MikeBC says:
why do you need men to let you into their events? the framing of the issue suggests you've bought into the underlying patriarchal assumptions
February 23, 2007 7:17 AM
Mike Monteiro says:
why do you need men to let you into their events? the framing of the issue suggests you've bought into the underlying patriarchal assumptions
The framing of your comment suggests that these ARE men's events. They're not. They're events that women are being excluded from because they're not part of the boys' network.
Are you suggesting 'separate but equal' events?
February 23, 2007 8:44 AM
Mike Monteiro says:
Strange how Ryan is the focus for external commentators on all things Carson Systems
Not really, he puts himself out there as the face of the company. Maybe you should talk to him about that.
Oh and I notice that no-one is mud-flinging about ethnicity...
I'll be happy to run those numbers if you'd like.
February 23, 2007 8:46 AM
Judith says:
However, I don't think that it *should* be 50%. Why? Because the industry is not 50/50. I am an ex-developer and I have been a part of the web app world since 2000. It's never been 50/50, so demanding that speaker lineups are 50/50 just doesn't make any sense.
Yup! Because nobody ever uses a conference platform to talk about what should be, just what is! Especially a conference that calls itself the "Future of Web Applications". Good work, folks.
Also, I have no words to express my sorrow that you might lose some profit because of the "lack of pushy women".
February 23, 2007 9:18 AM
MikeBC says:
why do you need men to let you into their events? the framing of the issue suggests you've bought into the underlying patriarchal assumptions
___________
The framing of your comment suggests that these ARE men's events. They're not. They're events that women are being excluded from because they're not part of the boys' network.
Are you suggesting 'separate but equal' events?
___________
No, although I am sympathetic to those that argue that separate forums for women are necessary or desirable in some situations. I guess I am suggesting that the people who are unhappy with what certain other people in positions of power are doing, themselves have the power to set up other conferences the participants and topics of which are more to their liking. I'm not suggesting men vs. women, more like, 'people who are conscious of sexism and are working to overcome it' vs. 'people who aren't (and perhaps get defensive when someone suggests that they haven't).' I'm not even necessarily suggesting that, I'm more suggesting that the dissatisfied people examine why it is that they are asking other people for access to prestigious positions--in other words, what is unique, if anything, about the conference in question, and can it be replicated in a way that accomplishes the same goals and has the same prestige--without replicating the gender-based exclusivity. At the end of the day, it's unfortunate but true that it's very difficult to force one's way into the social networks that form the boundary we're talking about here, and these guys are clearly reacting defensively rather than taking the criticism to heart. So while the attempt to make things truly egalitarian is definitely worthwhile, I think it is also worthwhile to pursue alternatives in the meantime and in the process learn about power and where it comes from. I'm not suggesting a "women's conference," just a different conference that happens be more welcoming to women.
February 23, 2007 2:24 PM
Mike Monteiro says:
As usual, Anil Dash proves he is the smartest person I know.
February 23, 2007 7:18 PM
deb schultz says:
Mike - as your post demonstrates - you ain't no dummy either!
February 27, 2007 10:47 AM
dertyhiyu says:
very smart =)
May 7, 2007 7:13 PM