Kay lives here

working with the web

iStock_000014841479SmalliStock_000015412601Small

Gender and conferences, yet again

mosaic4384013.jpg

WebDU was on in Syd­ney last week. I didn’t go along, although sev­eral of my col­leagues did. I thought about going, but we’re really busy this period of the year. I also feel slightly bad because I also went to Web Direc­tions South in Sep­tem­ber (pic­tures from that con­fer­ence above), and poor Dave doesn’t get to go to the devel­oper con­fer­ence for his devel­op­ment plat­form of choice because it costs more for entrance alone than both WebDU and Web Direc­tions put together.

I did go to three MXDU con­fer­ences in pre­vi­ous years, and enjoyed them very much. How­ever, if I had to pick one con­fer­ence only to go to, it would be Web Direc­tions (and in fact that has been the case these past two years). My rea­sons are varied:

  • Web Direc­tions cov­ers a wider range of tech­nolo­gies that I can actu­ally use, and I like the fact that web stan­dards and acces­si­bil­ity under­lie every­thing else that is dis­cussed. The con­fer­ence is no longer about best prac­tises in web devel­op­ment — every­thing that is pre­sented assumes best prac­tises to start with. My kinda people.
  • The speak­ers are the rock stars of the web world — peo­ple I am really excited about meet­ing, lis­ten­ing to, and hang­ing out with. Peo­ple like Molly Holzschlag, Derek Feath­er­stone, Doug Bow­man, Andy Clarke, Kelly Goto, Jeff Veen, and Eric Meyer. And that’s just some of the inter­na­tion­als — there are plenty of Aus­tralian lumi­nar­ies as well. I can’t get as excited about the WebDU speak­ers. Per­haps because I’m not a Flash/Flex developer.
  • There is an incred­i­bly strong feel­ing of com­mu­nity and togeth­er­ness. At both Web Essen­tials in 2005 and Web Direc­tions in 2006, I have really felt like I was part of some­thing amaz­ing. My cir­cle of col­leagues and friends has expanded each year, and these are peo­ple I con­tinue to com­mu­ni­cate with. I didn’t really get that from MXDU.

I just read a post on Gary’s blog about Sex­ism at WebDU. It’s an inter­est­ing read — and I must say I’m quite sur­prised. I didn’t really see or hear any­thing sim­i­lar in the years that I attended the con­fer­ence, and I know that Geoff Bow­ers usu­ally runs a very tight ship. How­ever, I can eas­ily believe the kinds of things that Gary and Kat­rina are report­ing — the “boy’s club” men­tal­ity is evi­dent in any kind of IT-related event, and the more developer-centric the event, the stronger the bias tends to be.

I remem­ber arrang­ing to meet up with an online col­league at MXDU — the exchange went some­thing like:
Him: I’ll be the tall guy with glasses, wear­ing a red t-shirt.
Me: I’m female — more than likely I’ll be the only one.

While that wasn’t strictly true — there were a cou­ple of other women, includ­ing pre­sen­ters, although most weren’t Cold­Fu­sion devel­op­ers — we were def­i­nitely in the vast, vast minor­ity. Being from the far west­ern end of the con­ti­nent enhanced the feel­ing of being out­side of the clique.

After read­ing Gary and Katrina’s posts, I’m look­ing deeper into my deci­sion to skip WebDU and go to Web Direc­tions instead. I think I’ve realised what it is: even though the male:female ratio still strongly favours the male side, the atmos­phere at Web Direc­tions feels friend­lier and more inclu­sive. I can’t quite put my fin­ger on it, but it’s def­i­nitely there.

I hope that Dae­mon take this kind of feed­back seri­ously and do some­thing about it for next year.

Much has been said in web stan­dards cir­cles lately about the lack of female pre­sen­ters, and what can be done to encour­age women to be more vocal in their par­tic­i­pa­tion, while not includ­ing under-qualified speak­ers for gen­der equity’s sake. I don’t really have any answers. I feel I’m doing some­thing pos­i­tive with our local Web Women net­work­ing group — help­ing to pro­vide a small amount of com­mu­nity sup­port for local women in web devel­op­ment. If every town and city did some­thing sim­i­lar — and I know many are — surely things will start to improve.

Update: any­one else who went to WebDU care to com­ment? Did you see or hear any­thing that made you uncom­fort­able or that you thought was in ques­tion­able taste?

45 Comments

  1. The Port80, AWIA, and Web Women events that I have attended have all been held in a sup­port­ive, friendly and pro­fes­sional way.
    As for the Web Direc­tions con­fer­ence I took the lovely inclu­sive atmos­phere for granted!

  2. @rosemary — that’s what I used to think, but under­cur­rent of the male atti­tude at webDU07 was just not on. I don’t think Geoff was really aware it was hap­pen­ing either.

  3. Pingback: Man with no blog : » Sexism at WebDU - Gary Barber

  4. Kay, its worth look­ing at the Day One keynote adverts. It adds a degree of con­text to the com­ments being made.
    http://video.onflex.org/2007/03/22/webdu-day-1-cartoons-from-nectarine/

  5. Hi Kay,

    I went along to WebDU this year for my first time, and I enjoyed it thor­oughly. I didn’t feel any of the sex­ism that’s being dis­cussed. There were not many females, and the ones I spoke to seemed to be design­ers. I did meet another female Cold­Fu­sion devel­oper from New Zealand and we switched con­tacts because it was soo nice to know there are oth­ers out there!

    As I said this was my first WebDU and I have not been to Web Direc­tions so I cant com­ment on how it com­pares, but I learnt stuff, made some con­tacts and gen­er­ally had a fun time, soo to me it was ALL GOOD!

    Cheers
    Christine

  6. Hi Geoff and Chris­tine — obvi­ously I wasn’t there so I can’t com­ment on WebDU 2007. How­ever, the fact remains that at least two com­mu­nity mem­bers who also fre­quent other con­fer­ences — one male, one female — felt a sex­ist under­tone and were were moved enough to blog about it. I think that points to a sig­nif­i­cant issue and is not some­thing that should be ignored or swept under the carpet.

  7. Obvi­ously we have dif­fer­ent def­i­n­i­tions of the word “sig­nif­i­cant”. We have one per­son who has blogged about it, of which some of the so called exam­ples of sex­ism being ridicu­lous (a car­toon about wash­ing pow­der, talk about twist­ing some­thing to suit an agenda).

    Then we have Gary Bar­ber jump­ing on the band­wagon some­one who has made numer­ous posts about women and their lack of rep­re­sen­ta­tion at con­fer­ences well before he even came to webDU. He now makes unsub­stan­ti­ated claims about so called sex­ist com­ments he allegedly over­heard in pri­vate con­ver­sa­tions. I can’t help but believe he had an agenda to push and has con­ve­niently con­jured up some unsub­stan­ti­ated facts to fur­ther push this.

    This is my third con­fer­ence and what i find incred­u­lous is the major­ity of con­ver­sa­tions I was in were geeky enough to actu­ally be about the sub­ject at hand. Maybe creepy peo­ple attract creepy people.

    In any case I do not find this to be a “sig­nif­i­cant” rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the peo­ple who attended (which included my wife).

  8. Deri — I’ve read your com­ments on Gary’s blog as well, and you’re chang­ing the entire char­ac­ter of this dis­cus­sion. We’re try­ing to exam­ine the issue and you’ve started insult­ing peo­ple. Ad hominem attacks sig­nal the end of any con­ver­sa­tion as far as I’m con­cerned — and do noth­ing but under­mine your argu­ment — so please don’t bother com­ment­ing again.

  9. I’d wager the audi­ence is sim­ply dif­fer­ent all round. I could argue the amount of con­fer­ences i’ve been in the past 2 months has had dif­fer­ent scales of women from both local to international.

    WebDU isn’t also known widely over­all, I mean the Adobe devel­oper world found within blog aggre­ga­tors like MXNA are pretty much the bulk of the viral mar­ket­ing. Web Direc­tions has its own world of mar­ket­ing around it.

    I’d wager two things here:

    - It comes down to both con­fer­ences and how they mar­ket to a seg­mented audi­ence. Females or Males be damned, its a mat­ter of appeal­ing to both gen­ders touch­points through press, events and so forth.

    - Women in IT are an entirely seper­ate issue and blam­ing con­fer­ences are a weak argu­ment at best. As in order to that, then why didn’t you speak Kay? You don’t strike me as somone being shy? — prob­a­bly because of finan­cial rea­sons or bet­ter yet, you didn’t want to. Free­dom of choice is a funny thing and its easy to say to the organ­is­ers “You didn’t work hard enough to recruit women to the cause” — and to be hon­est, know­ing the grief Geoff goes to i’m suprised he hasn’t responded with “I didn’t have time to organ­ise the cur­rent speaker lists, let alone recruit gen­der specific”.

    It then begs the ques­tion about sex­ual pref­er­ences and how they could play a role in con­fer­ences and IT sec­tor. I know quite a lot of IT envi­ron­ments that berate gay men and so one could eas­ily lump that as being unfair in terms of ration of speakers.

    It could also be a sim­ple case of merit based selec­tion and the num­ber of female vol­un­teers weren’t there.

    Sorry, I’ll sup­port any cause that pro­motes equal­ity but in thise case of the WebDU Sex­ism thing, I think its an entirely seper­ate agenda being hid­den deep within the WebDU as its launch vechile.

    Unfair.

  10. Hi Kay,

    As the cre­ators of the ani­ma­tion that Katrina’s found objec­tion­able, we’ve made a com­ment on her blog that (hope­fully level-headedly!) explains why we’re sur­prised by the sex­ism label.

    But that’s not what I want to focus on here. It’s this:
    “just read a post on Gary’s blog about Sex­ism at WebDU. It’s an inter­est­ing read — and I must say I’m quite sur­prised. I didn’t really see or hear any­thing sim­i­lar in the years that I attended the con­fer­ence, and I know that Geoff Bow­ers usu­ally runs a very tight ship. How­ever, I can eas­ily believe the kinds of things that Gary and Kat­rina are reporting “.

    I’m a bit sur­prised that you end up giv­ing two posts (which have con­flict­ing posi­tions about the level of sex­ism in the ani­ma­tions and the Web­Jam) more cre­dence than your own per­sonal experience.

    I’m not deny­ing that sex­ism is an issue, and that the level of female par­tic­i­pa­tion could be greater. But as you noted, Geoff (and Julie!!) run a tight ship.They put out a wide call for papers. Bek from Nec­tarine couldn’t present this year, and they only had two other sub­mis­sions from females (nei­ther of whom were pre­vi­ous female speak­ers). So part of the solu­tion is for more great female devel­op­ers to present their work!

    I cer­tainly under­stand all the other rea­sons you like Web Direc­tions as some­one who’s not a Flash/Flex dev. Con­versely, it’s because I am that I enjoy that focus!

    But I found the fact that the main thrust of your post was a gender/sexism issue based on some­one else’s opin­ion, and over­rid­ing your own expe­ri­ence, a lit­tle dis­turb­ing. Isn’t it worth doing a lit­tle more inves­ti­gat­ing before writ­ing off a great con­fer­ence? If you’ve been pre­vi­ously impressed by Geoff and Julie’s efforts, wouldn’t it be worth drop­ping them a line before post­ing pub­licly? Guess I was just never a fan of the Salem Witch trials ;-)

    All right, that’s my 2c. I’m off to make sure peo­ple realise that we had our tongues firmly in cheek with our ani­ma­tions, and that peo­ple under­stand that a kid smok­ing five Flash­Lite cig­gies at once won’t make him 80% faster, stronger and cooler; FlashOs cereal doesn’t actu­ally come with a free boom­box; Flex won’t trans­form you into a mus­cle­bound hunk of homo­erotic hot­ness (sorry guys); and that Cold Fusion won’t make you a blood-crazed housewife…

  11. Scott, you’re accus­ing me of putting a lot more into my post than I actu­ally did!

    Minty, Gary is a mem­ber of the Perth com­mu­nity and I con­sider him a friend as well as a col­league. Kat­rina is some­one I met at Web Direc­tions. I have great respect for both of them and have no rea­son to dis­be­lieve any­thing they say.

    What it comes down to is that if some atten­dees were uncom­fort­able about per­ceived sex­ism at the con­fer­ence that points to a prob­lem. Rather than loudly deny­ing that any­one could pos­si­bly be offended by any­thing, per­haps Geoff should ask those that dared to speak up about specif­i­cally what the prob­lem was, and take steps to ensure that sim­i­lar things don’t hap­pen in future.

    As for accus­ing me of par­tic­i­pat­ing in some kind of witch trial, it’s a pub­lic dis­cus­sion. I haven’t attacked any­one, unlike some of the com­menters here and on Gary’s blog (I believe he’s closed com­ments due to the abu­sive mes­sages). I was hop­ing to stim­u­late some con­struc­tive dis­cus­sion. I should know better :)

  12. Oh, and also Minty, for the record: I watched the video of Nectarine’s ani­ma­tion and chuck­led. I showed it to a col­league — a Cold­Fu­sion and Flash devel­oper — and he thought it was in poor taste for a pro­fes­sional con­fer­ence. Kat­rina didn’t like it, while Gary thought it was funny, in the con­text it was intended. So I think you’re going to find dif­fer­ent opin­ions on that kind of thing.

    What I find more inter­est­ing is the things that Gary is say­ing about atti­tudes of speak­ers. I haven’t had a chance to cor­ner him at the pub and get a more detailed report of what he was offended by, but I will do that because now I want to know. That is the kind of thing that changes the atmos­phere of an event, and that’s the kind of thing that organ­is­ers really need to watch out for.

  13. Hi,
    Sorry to jump into this, but I wan­dered over after fol­low­ing this debate via other sources. I wasn’t at WebDU, but I’ve fol­lowed the dis­cus­sion, and know Rowlirowl well. And it seems like this is a sig­nif­i­cant debate, in that the issue of women in IT mat­ters, and any dis­cus­sion which may assist in improv­ing gen­der equal­ity within the field is going to be worth hav­ing. Plus I really liked Kay’s post,.
    Any­way, just a cou­ple of minor points from my per­spec­tive. First off: Minty, while I can see where you’re com­ing from, the core prob­lem is that (so far) three peo­ple felt offended by what they saw as sex­ism at WebDU. And sex­ism is very much in the eye of the beholder — if they felt offended, then they were. We can debate whether or not we also feel offended, or whether or not some­thing should or should not have been done any­way (such as the ani­ma­tions — I can see a good argu­ment that no one was aware any­one would be offended, or that offend­ing peo­ple is always a risk with humour), but I think we have to accept that offence was caused. So, at least in my case, I per­son­ally don’t see that I need to talk to organ­is­ers about whether or not there was a prob­lem — there clearly was for three peo­ple. I would talk to the organ­is­ers if I wanted to under­stand the extent of the prob­lem, but that isn’t my main con­cern.
    My actual inter­est is with some com­ments made by both Scott and Minty. When­ever the issue of not hav­ing a fair rep­re­sen­ta­tion of women in con­fer­ences shows up, the con­fer­ence organ­is­ers quite rightly say that they did their best — they adver­tised, but they didn’t get sub­mis­sions from women. While I accept that they did their best — indeed, I’m con­vinced that this would be the case — the fact remains that for some rea­son a higher per­cent­age of women chose not to be involved than did men. And that says not that the organ­iser didn’t try, but that there is an under­ly­ing issue that should be addressed. Thus I’d be ask­ing if the man­ner by which peo­ple are invited to present is flawed (and the model described by Geoff else­where looks, at first glance, like it will tend to favour a sta­tus quo); or if there is a prob­lem with the rep­u­ta­tion of the con­fer­ence amongst women (per­ceived sex­ism, as described by oth­ers, could be doing this) or, indeed, all con­fer­ences; or per­haps there is a prob­lem in the way in which the con­fer­ence is adver­tised. I’d even be will­ing to exam­ine a claim that the indus­try is such that it doesn’t encour­age women to be involved with pro­fes­sional con­fer­ences, and that there is noth­ing organ­is­ers can directly do (but indi­rectly? Maybe — it seems to me that indus­try con­fer­ences should be address­ing this prob­lem in how they present women, if noth­ing else). But I’m uncom­fort­able with sug­gest­ing it is the fault of women for not choos­ing to attend, as that seems like too easy an out. Not to men­tion bad busi­ness.
    Adam.

  14. Hi Kay and Adam,

    I’m glad to see this dis­cus­sion head­ing along rea­son­ably level-headed lines!

    Rather than loudly deny­ing that any­one could pos­si­bly be offended by any­thing, per­haps Geoff should ask those that dared to speak up about specif­i­cally what the prob­lem was
    Where is the loud denial? My com­ments explic­itly (here and else­where) state that sex­ism is an issue. Hey, as some­one with a bril­liant female dev part­ner, I’m at least aware vaguely of the sit­u­a­tion ;-) Geoff and Julie have openly asked Kat­rina and Gary to con­tact them to deal with this. It’s just that once things are posted, they’re pub­lic. And accu­sa­tions of run­ning an inher­ently sex­ist con­fer­ence are a hard label to drop at anyone’s door, let alone two peo­ple who I think work very hard to put on a con­fer­ence that I really enjoy.

    As Adam noted, “sex­ism is very much in the eye of the beholder”. It’s a per­sonal issue. Which is why I feel it could of at least started as a per­sonal com­ment to the organ­is­ers on the day, and which may have been more effec­tive too. Hey, if there was no joy there, then by all means go pub­lic. But as I under­stand it, the only direct request from Kat­rina was for free entry into the ban­quet din­ner (which, iron­i­cally, included a pair of Kath and Kim imper­son­ators as enter­tain­ment, that seemed in gen­eral to be accepted as par­ody, despite some lap-dancing and Kimmy boob-thrusting. Whew!)

    Kay: As for accus­ing me of par­tic­i­pat­ing in some kind of witch trial, it’s a pub­lic dis­cus­sion. I haven’t attacked any­one
    I cer­tainly wasn’t going that far (hence the smi­ley face). But once you post some­thing that val­ues other blog com­ments above your own per­sonal expe­ri­ence, before you even touch base with Geoff (or Julie!) whom you feel runs a tight ship, then it’s trial by media. It leads to things like Adam’s com­ment:
    the core prob­lem is that (so far) three peo­ple felt offended.
    Well, if that’s Kat­rina, Gary and Kay, then Kay’s talk­ing about some­thing she didn’t per­son­ally expe­ri­ence, and Gary didn’t have the same issues with the ani­ma­tion or Web­jam as Kat­rina. So we’re down to per­haps 1.5. It’s a small but impor­tant dif­fer­ence, because once it’s three, it can be six. Or twelve. Or more than the num­ber of actual atten­dees, if more peo­ple place their faith in Katrina’s post than their own per­sonal experiences!

    I guess I just want the focus to go back to the issue, rather than be cen­tred on second-hand expe­ri­ence or one par­tic­u­lar con­fer­ence. Peo­ple seem (as per Adam’s com­ment) to accept that Geoff and Julie tried to increase the per­cent­age of female par­tic­i­pa­tion, but feel their model might be flawed. So far, there’s been no real­is­tic sug­ges­tions of how to increase this. I was care­ful to say that part of the solu­tion is for more women to sub­mit; but Adam’s sug­ges­tion that I was lay­ing all the blame on women them­selves is wrong.

    I would like things to change for the bet­ter as much as any­one. In the end, how­ever, I’m a man, and short of some­thing along the trans­gen­der lines, I’m per­son­ally not going to raise the female demo­graphic. The best I can see is to actively call for women to sub­mit and lead from the front, and ask oth­ers to spread the word about doing the same. I say this on a per­sonal level; I have no involve­ment with the run­ning of WebDU, other than the animations.

    I’d again say that if you expe­ri­ence sex­ism at a con­fer­ence, talk then and there to the organ­isors first. That’s most effec­tive; in WebDU’s case, Geoff, Julie, Vanessa or Eri­etta were widely avail­able. Then post sec­ond if you have no joy (or post pos­i­tively if you do!).

    As far as the ani­ma­tions, we do a lot of com­edy and par­ody, and we expect some flack. We believe that it’s pos­si­ble to take the piss with­out being inher­ently offen­sive (the abil­ity to laugh at 50s stereo­types, for exam­ple, because things have moved on so far). I’m con­fi­dent in our work, but if you have a gan­der at the com­ments on Katrina’s blog, you’ll see that the laughs con­tinue: peo­ple are see­ing things that aren’t even there (“2–3 toasts in front of a woman’s breasts”)! Still, I live in hope that the cen­tral, seri­ous issue won’t get lost in the periph­ery and urban legend…

    Cheers
    Minty Hunter
    Nectarine

  15. Hi Minty,

    Me again. I hope there’s no prob­lem with hav­ing this debate here – I don’t think an LJ account is the right place, though, and – once again – I liked the approach Kay made with her orig­i­nal post. Just to clar­ify a cou­ple of things:

    Rowlirowl (sorry – it is a habit that I’d rather not break. If some­one posts under their LJ pseu­do­nym, I tend to attach their com­ments to that pseu­do­nym) was very clear about why she posted, and I think she was very rea­son­able about it. She felt, as she put it:

    I think it is impor­tant, that I as a female in the IT world, blog about my expe­ri­ences at WebDU, par­tic­u­larly after the dis­cus­sions of late con­cern­ing women in con­fer­ences, both attend­ing and presenting.”

    I liked this dis­claimer, as she made it clear that she was post­ing about her per­sonal expe­ri­ences. So while I agree it might have been bet­ter in one sense for her to just qui­etly men­tion the prob­lems to the orga­niz­ers, I can still see why she chose to dis­cuss things on LJ. I should add that as the issue has had con­sid­er­able pub­lic dis­cus­sion in recent months, a pub­lic account of her expe­ri­ences seems rea­son­able in fur­ther­ing the discussion.

    Beyond that, though, I don’t see any­thing else about her as rel­e­vant to the debate – what mat­ters is that peo­ple were offended, irre­spec­tive of who they were. If we go beyond that and talk about the nature or per­ceived agen­das of those who were offended, we run the risk of being guilty of com­pound­ing the prob­lem. (And here I’m specif­i­cally think­ing of Deri).

    Just to clar­ify the “three peo­ple” ref­er­ence, I was refer­ring to Rowlirowl, Greg and Sherif, all of whom expressed con­cerns as WebDU del­e­gates on Rowlirowl’s jour­nal. I didn’t count Kay, for the rea­sons you’ve outlined.

    Any­way, as to more con­struc­tive issues. :) The prob­lem with these debates it is that it is easy to mis­read com­ments as per­sonal attacks, when no one intended them that way, as the debate is so emo­tional. That makes them very hard to hold, so I hope it is clear that noth­ing I say is meant to be an accusation.

    So my has­sle, even with the claim that “part of the solu­tion is for more women to sub­mit”, is that it seems to me that the claim is look­ing at the symp­tom. The prob­lem isn’t that there is a lack of female pre­sen­ters. That’s the symp­tom. The prob­lem is that women aren’t sub­mit­ting. So the solu­tion is not to get more women to sub­mit, but to address why they don’t. It is a sub­tle dif­fer­ence, but as an aca­d­e­mic I live for sub­tle dif­fer­ences. And it does make a big dif­fer­ence to how the debate is addressed.

    So at this point, I’d be look­ing at three issues: how can the call for sub­mis­sions be improved; how can the per­cep­tion women have of these con­fer­ences be improved (not­ing that I find Kay’s com­ment, “How­ever, I can eas­ily believe the kinds of things that Gary and [Rowlirowl] are report­ing”, to be telling); and how can the con­fer­ences lead the way in the pre­sen­ta­tion of women in the industry.

    Actu­ally, if you don’t mind, as this is Kay’s blog I’d like to return to her post. My feel­ing is that Kay has expressed con­cern with how wel­com­ing some con­fer­ences feel, and that this gen­eral con­cern means that she could accept Rowlirowl’s and Gary’s com­ments, even though she respected the orga­niz­ers. (I hope I’m read­ing this right, Kay). This sug­gests to me that there is a prob­lem with how the con­fer­ences are per­ceived. In addi­tion, Rowlirowl has said that she didn’t feel safe and wel­comed at WebDU. I don’t know Kay, but my under­stand­ing (sup­ported by com­ments here) is that she knows what she’s doing, so I’m very will­ing to accept that if she says that she sees a prob­lem, then there may well be a prob­lem. I do know Rowlirowl, and I trust her to speak openly and hon­estly. So com­bin­ing the two makes me want to look at the envi­ron­ment at these con­fer­ences to con­firm whether or not their per­cep­tions have a more gen­eral basis which can be addressed. I’d par­tic­u­larly like to find out more about this side of things.

    Adam.

  16. Hey Adam,

    All good points and I think we’re essen­tially in agreement.

    I made note in my orig­i­nal com­ment on Rowlirowl’s blog that I couldn’t speak to some of her points because I wasn’t in those par­tic­u­lar ses­sions, and that I knew she may well have a valid point. How­ever, I still feel that while it’s fine to blog your feel­ings, but in some­thing so per­sonal, it would have been good to make the per­sonal approach first.

    I also feel that peo­ple have men­tioned entirely valid sex­ism con­cerns, but it has been far to heav­ily linked directly to WebDU and Geoff and Julie as organ­is­ers. Gary took them to task for not con­trol­ling the pri­vate con­ver­sa­tion of atten­dees. He called the sin­gle female speaker (from a sub­mis­sion range of two) “frankly dis­gust­ing”. His blog entry is “Sex­ism and WebDU”. All of this seems too much to lay at the feet of a sin­gle con­fer­ence, one that seems to have sup­port from at least a rea­son­able slice of the (small) female atten­dees, includ­ing Kay.

    And if you check out the fur­ther com­ments in RowliRowl’s blog, you’ll see we’re being lam­basted for draw­ing a car­toon woman with breasts at all, regard­less of context.

    Kay, I’ll sign out now. As Adam notes, it is after all, your blog :) But I would ask that we guide the con­ver­sa­tion towards mea­sures that will have a pos­i­tive effect for the indus­try, rather than tar­get­ing one par­tic­u­lar con­fer­ence which seems to have a fairly good track record. Geoff and Julie aren’t big cor­po­rate, cash-grabbing exploiters, and I’m sure they’ll take things on board and be part of mov­ing things forward.

    And we’ll keep try­ing to take the piss in pos­i­tive ways with our animations…

  17. Minty, Kay, Adam

    First of just a lit­tle clar­i­fi­ca­tion — I didn’t take Geoff and Julie to task for not con­trol­ling the pri­vate con­ver­sa­tion of atten­dees. Frankly I ignored attendee com­ments, which for the most part were okay.

    But at a con­fer­ence there are two lev­els of peo­ple, the atten­dees and the speak­ers. The speak­ers while at any con­fer­ence (in the con­fer­ence space) need to behave like indus­try lead­ers. I know it’s a tall order. But there is some respon­si­bil­ity that comes with stand­ing at that podium. A lit­tle pro­fes­sion­al­ism is in order. That’s all I’m ask­ing for.

    For the record some aspects of the “Hubby Email” app at the Web­jam made me uncom­fort­able, but that’s the nature of the web­jam it’s an open mic. If you go along you have to take the good with the bad.

    I still stand by the fact that the web stream could have been lever­age bet­ter with more a greater per­cent­age of tal­ented non male pre­sen­ters of which there are a good num­ber in Australia.

    It’s just most of them may not have even know WebDU was look­ing for speak­ers out­side of Flex/Flash/ColdFusion arena. Prob­lem maybe that WebDU (ex MX) has a rep­u­ta­tion of only being for the Flex/Flash/ColdFusion seg­ment of the web Indus­try. As I have pointed out sev­eral times, this was a minor point.

  18. Gary: I didn’t take Geoff and Julie to task for not con­trol­ling the pri­vate con­ver­sa­tion of attendees.

    If I pub­lished a post enti­tled ‘Sex­ism and Rad­harc’ and wrote:
    “Com­ments made by a Rad­harc client about women to me was just as dis­gust­ing. The room was just a male testos­terone fest at some points. It was the level and type of sex­ism that would not be tol­er­ated in a pro­fes­sional work­place. So why should it be tol­er­ated at a pro­fes­sional web dev premises?”

    Then I would expect that you would feel a lit­tle sin­gled out, and that you might think I was push­ing the respon­si­bil­ity for someone’s pri­vate, indi­vid­ual con­ver­sa­tions on to you. And I’ve only slightly tweaked your real words to cre­ate the quote above.

    You might not have intended to take Geoff and Julie to task, but if you title some­thing ‘Sex­ism and WebDU’ and take a good, objec­tive read of your post, I’d find it dif­fi­cult to believe that you really can’t see how you’re are link­ing Geoff and Julie con­fer­ence with sexism.

  19. @minty hon­estly, what you like me to do pull the post entirely, it was just an hon­est assess­ment of what I saw and heard. You may not like the pas­sion of the words. But there was a sex­ist undercurrent.

    Tell me if you where a ven­dor at a con­fer­ence and one of your sales team was mak­ing sex­ist com­ments, would you pull them up on it. Or would you let it ride. It reflects back on your com­pany. Do you take the respon­si­bil­ity for the actions of your team. Or because they where not at your booth, but still at the con­fer­ence 9–5 it’s all okay.

    So hence the speak­ers at a con­fer­ence reflect back on the con­fer­ence itself. Not the organ­is­ers, but the con­fer­ence as a whole. Because of the close nature of the WebDU com­mu­nity peo­ple seem to asso­ciate webDU with Geoff and Julie. From an out­siders view it is not like that.

    The point is peo­ple are get­ting side tracked on dis­sect­ing my post word by word, and not look­ing at the nature of the prob­lem. Or is it the case that peo­ple don’t believe the prob­lem exists, or just want to avoid it.

    Maybe it would be bet­ter if next time I just smile at the sex­ist com­ments and add one of my own to be “one of the boys”.

    As an out­sider i did notice it, It did leave me a lit­tle uneasy by the end of day two. I sup­pose peo­ple are going to quote the usual “why didn’t other peo­ple notice”, well I don’t know the answer to that one.

  20. @ Gary, I’m not ask­ing for the post to be pulled. Nor am I try­ing to get side­tracked from the prob­lem. In none of my com­ments have I denied that sex­ism and the small female demo­graphic of our indus­try is an issue.

    The prob­lem for me is that so much of this seems to be being laid at WebDU’s feet. WebDU isn’t run by a big cor­po­rate: it’s very much a per­sonal project by Geoff and Julie. So when you try to make a dis­tinc­tion between the critis­ing the con­fer­ence with phrases like “frankly dis­gust­ing” and “male testos­terone fest”, as opposed to Geoff and Julie per se, it’s a very long bow to draw to say that the two are so separate.

    If WebDU was a con­fer­ence with a his­tory of bar­ring female speak­ers, a litany of sex­ism com­plaints and an unfriendly atmos­phere, fair enough. But to the best of my knowl­edge, the polar oppo­site is true. Kay’s per­sonal expe­ri­ences seem to uphold this, and so do the pre­vi­ous female speak­ers and atten­dees I’ve per­son­ally spo­ken to.

    I have no prob­lem with RowliRowl voic­ing her con­cerns either. But it would seem that if she felt com­fort­able enough talk­ing to con­fer­ence staff about try­ing to get free entry into the din­ner ban­quet _during_ the con­fer­ence, then per­haps she could have also raised the sex­ism issue at that time too. Oth­er­wise, the first time they find out about it is see­ing a post enti­tled “Sex­ism and WebDU”, and that seems a very con­fronta­tional way of tack­ling the issue.

    If there are spe­cific things that WebDU does (as opposed to other con­fer­ences) that you or any attendee feel increases the level of sex­ism, please raise them directly with Geoff and Julie, or Vanessa and Eri­etta. They’re not avoid­ing the issue.

    Oth­er­wise, it would be good to get some industry-specific suggestions.

    If you have con­crete ideas about how to lift the level of speak­ing sub­mis­sions from women (beyond a gen­eral call on var­i­ous forums and con­tact­ing pre­vi­ous female speak­ers), then please post them.

    Adam, if you have action­able ways to over­come any obsta­cles to increased female par­tic­i­pa­tion, then post those too.

    Finally, as far as the ani­ma­tions, we’re shortly going to post them with some sort of frame­work that will help us assess whether we need to re-assess _our_ atti­tudes, or whether good com­edy will always offend at least some people.

  21. So lets take a san­ity check at this point in what is a thread of disaster :)

    We had a report that a female in the audi­ence felt one Web­JAM pre­sen­ta­tion was sex­ist an rude, I’d wager mostly rude and not so much sex­ist as it was more belit­tling men then women per say.

    We have Gary stat­ing there was an under­cur­rent of sex­ism, but yet is able to actu­ally stip­u­late specif­i­cally where, how and when these events allegedly took place.

    We have Kay, whom never attended and has no evi­dence of what it was like to attend this years WebDU, chim­ming in with her 2c on why the “vibe” for Web­Di­rec­tions South is bet­ter then WebDU (not say­ing it isn’t but going from vibe to sex­ism is a big leap is all)

    Yet, what the hell is going on and can I just say, Nec­tarine & WebDU Team are far from sex­ist and all freak­ing know this, so I’m just won­derin what would it take to sat­isfy one and all that WebDU isn’t a sex­ist breed­ing ground.

    As some­one whom has attended every year except one, I have to say that even in the “party” set­ting (ie bar) the girls have been shown noth­ing but respect (well when I was there at anyrate).

    I’m just won­der­ing if there is a under­ly­ing agenda here and its not sexism?

    Lets be real­is­tic and more impor­tantly, put our grownup hats on.


    Scott Barnes
    Devel­oper Evan­ge­list
    Microsoft — I’m not sex­ist, but I am agnostic?

  22. Sug­ges­tions on how to stop some of the sex­ist attitude.

    1) lead by exam­ple
    2) make all peo­ple speak­ing vol­un­teer­ing dis­play­ing at the con­fer­ence aware at least that there is a code of con­duct for the con­fer­ence
    3) encour­age peo­ple to come for­ward and report things, make your­self or your team avail­able. Treat a con­cern seriously.

    How to get a greater speaker mix:

    1) pro­mote early, the web site wasn’t updated till a few three months out.
    2) call for speak­ers across other com­mu­ni­ties not just the coldfusion/flex/flash ones
    3) make it clear first time speak­ers will be sup­ported
    4) sup­port peo­ple vol­un­teer­ing at the con­fer­ence to get an idea of what is involved with speak­ing etc.
    5) men­tor peo­ple or encour­age other speak­ers to men­tor peo­ple
    6) sup­port (ie at least tell them you are look­ing for speak­ers) women’s speaker/ indus­try sup­port groups.

    It’s not the ulti­mate list, its just a few quick ideas. Any other sug­ges­tions would be welcome

  23. Hi.

    So the dis­cus­sion con­tin­ues. Actu­ally, I’m find­ing this use­ful, in that it is clar­i­fy­ing my own stance, and I’m becom­ing con­vinced that it is prob­a­bly time I got actively involved in the Women in IT debate – col­leagues have been ask­ing me to pub­lish some of my work in the area, but so far I’ve been post­pon­ing it. But this has prob­a­bly been an error.

    Any­way, I don’t really have many prac­ti­cal sug­ges­tions yet, Minty, but I’ll out­line what I would do at this point any­way. How­ever, first I’d like to address the issue of the debate. I can only speak for myself, but it seems to me that this is an impor­tant con­cern which prob­a­bly is being dri­ven by agen­das – but that this is no bad thing. Per­son­ally, I don’t see this as about WebDU or Nec­tarine. I’ve heard from almost every­one that Geoff and the organ­is­ers of WebDU are great peo­ple, and the posts I’ve seen from Geoff do noth­ing to dam­age this impres­sion. I have read a lot from Minty, and if I take him as a rep­re­sen­ta­tive of Nec­tarine, then again I have noth­ing but respect for them, and believe that they would never inten­tion­ally offend any­one. This isn’t about them. It isn’t about Rowlirowl either, which is why I’m dis­ap­pointed when ref­er­ences are made about her per­son­ally. (It should also be noted that she had a follow-up post where she tried to bal­ance her ear­lier one by cov­er­ing what she liked about the con­fer­ence, and I still sup­port her ear­lier deci­sion to post her expe­ri­ences on LJ).

    What this is about is an issue that has been sim­mer­ing for months (and has been around for years). There is con­sid­er­able dis­cus­sion in the Port80 forums, we’ve got some inter­est­ing posts from late last year and early this year from the likes of John All­sop, Jason Kot­tke and Erik Mey­ers among oth­ers (all of these were men­tioned in Port80, and prob­a­bly every­one read­ing this is well aware of them). Thus I see the cur­rent dis­cus­sion as being a con­tin­u­a­tion of the ear­lier one. So the three (and a half) per­spec­tives – Rowlirowl’s account of her impres­sions at WebDU as a woman, Greg’s account of his impres­sions, and Kay’s account of her impres­sions of the respec­tive atmos­pheres of dif­fer­ent con­fer­ences – all fur­ther this dis­cus­sion. So while I agree with Scott that this shouldn’t be about WebDU and Nec­tarine, I don’t think that it is about them – instead it is about a major issue which has been recog­nised as some­thing that should be addressed.

    Which brings me back to Minty’s ques­tion about what I would do. I’m an aca­d­e­mic, so what I would do is dri­ven by how I work as an aca­d­e­mic. While I agree with all of Greg’s ideas, I’d start by try­ing to fig­ure out where the prob­lem lies – is it that many women aren’t hear­ing of the con­fer­ences; is it that some women don’t feel wel­come (the sex­ism issue being part of this); is it that they aren’t given the oppor­tu­ni­ties to attend; or is it that they just aren’t inter­ested? So I’d rec­om­mend talk­ing to women who attend these con­fer­ences about their impres­sions (hence my strong inter­est in Kay’s and Rowlirowl’s posts), and then branch­ing out to talk to women who don’t attend. I’d then prob­a­bly look for pat­terns in what they are say­ing, and run a wider sur­vey based on find­ings from this. Given that some con­fer­ences are more suc­cess­ful than oth­ers, I’d com­pare the pro­ce­dures for the call for papers at con­fer­ences with a high per­cent­age of female speak­ers with those that have a low per­cent­age. I’d also look at why some women are more com­fort­able at par­tic­u­lar con­fer­ences – again, I’d want to spend a lot of time talk­ing to peo­ple like Kay about their expe­ri­ences. (Actu­ally, this sounds like an inter­est­ing research project).

    As short-term, con­crete steps, I’d do every­thing that Greg rec­om­mended (and I really liked the encour­ag­ing first-time speak­ers idea – we don’t do that at the aca­d­e­mic con­fer­ences per se, and it would be a great move). In par­tic­u­lar I’d revise the call for papers pro­ce­dure – if you did increase the num­ber of women attend­ing a con­fer­ence, but they then saw few women speak­ing, my guess is that they would be uncom­fort­able with the sit­u­a­tion (and rightly so). From what Geoff described else­where, my feel­ing is that the cur­rent pro­ce­dure would tend to favour the sta­tus quo – peo­ple who visit the site are prob­a­bly those who have gone before and are thus pre­dom­i­nately male, and prior speak­ers are pre­dom­i­nately male, so rely­ing on these to sources seems prob­lem­atic (he did men­tion three other sources, but I’d need more detail). Prob­a­bly I’d try to reach groups such as Women in IT in my hunt for speak­ers. For atten­dees, I’d push things a bit more at the uni­ver­si­ties focus­ing on mul­ti­me­dia (mul­ti­me­dia courses tend to have more equal gen­der dis­tri­b­u­tions). And at the con­fer­ences I’d grab some of the stuff from the aca­d­e­mic con­fer­ences: things like a “Web Women” break­fast on the first day, use the launch to high­light who to speak to if you have any prob­lems, and add a code of behav­iour (as Greg sug­gested) for speakers.

    Sorry for another long post, Kay. This is a cool dis­cus­sion, though, and your blog has been the best forum for it so far.

    Adam.

  24. Wow — thanks every­one for this intrigu­ing dia­logue. Thanks espe­cially to Adam for mak­ing the point about the exis­tence of sex­ism rely­ing on the per­cep­tion of the per­son who was offended, not the per­cep­tion of the per­son who wasn’t offended — that was some­thing I was try­ing to say, but couldn’t find the proper words.

    I’d also like to say that I have every respect for Geoff and the Dae­mon team who put on WebDU. It’s unfor­tu­nate that this kind of thing has hap­pened but impor­tant that it’s dis­cussed out in the open. Scott, I realise that you don’t think it’s an issue, but the fact that other peo­ple do itself means there IS an issue. WebDU is not the first techy con­fer­ence to come up against it, and unfor­tu­nately it prob­a­bly won’t be the last.

    At the moment I have a lot to think about, and not much time to do it. There’s some great sug­ges­tions here and lots for con­fer­ence organ­is­ers to take on board.

  25. Kay,

    It’s not that I don’t think it’s an issue, I just think it’s being played out in the wrong forum and not only that, but its asso­ci­a­tion with WebDU over­all isn’t being por­trayed fairly and accurately.

    Adam,

    I under­stand your posi­tion here and I’d argue that actively recruit­ing women for the sake of it, kind of deval­ues the offer­ings that women in IT can con­tribute. If there is to be equal­ity in the IT indus­try and women con­tinue to gain more and more respect for their efforts in such con­tri­bu­tion, mak­ing “allowances” is counterproductive.

    Fur­ther­more, men in the IT indus­try can be at times imma­ture, much like other ver­ti­cals and the only thing that folks like Gary and oth­ers like him can do is, ensure that they stay as a minor­ity but this is more of a social behav­ioural prob­lem and far more wide­spread then “one indus­try”. Its wider per­spec­tive and you can’t solve it indus­try by indus­try as new prospects arrive and leave in such indus­tries, and so it will be like herd­ing “cats”.

    If you look at the work­place 20 or even 40 years ago and com­pare now, there has been dra­matic behav­ioural changes taken place. I’ve worked with folks whom make rude remarks, jokes and so forth from both gen­ders, change their pos­ture when the room dynam­ics changes. There is aware­ness and any­one whom breaches this “unsaid” rule, is left out in the open and are either brushed aside or iso­lated and a form of dis­ci­pline takes place.

    Again, this isn’t about IT, it’s about men and women co-existing in a pro­fes­sional envi­ron­ment which has both an attrac­tion of both power & notoriety.

    What Kay is talk­ing about in terms of a “vibe” is really about a tribal approach to a social set­ting. WebDU is some­what for­eign to most we fly into a dif­fer­ent loca­tion, meet with peo­ple whom most don’t actu­ally know and some­how are sup­posed to get along like old friends.

    Kay’s been to Web­Di­rec­tions South, and I’d wager she would know more peo­ple there then WebDU and more to the point, the sub­ject mat­ter appeals to her more so then WebDU (which let’s face it, is prob­a­bly a deep dive con­fer­ence into Adobe prod­ucts where as Web Direc­tions South is a mix­ing pot of Web)

    I find the expe­ri­ences i had with say Bar­Camp much more appeal­ing then WebDU, but the only rea­son for this is because Bar­Camp was new, it wasn’t about tech­nolo­gies I’ve worked with and so I felt a sense of “learn­ing”. Each to their own.

    At Bar­Camp there was a girl who was wear­ing a reveal­ing amount of cloth­ing, a few guys made some slight remarks about that and is that fair? No not really, as now we cross the thresh­old between sep­a­rat­ing of sex­ism and phys­i­cal attrac­tion towards another gen­der — in a sad way it could be argued that it’s the guy(s) in ques­tions way of express­ing their attrac­tion towards such female.

    Point: It’s not about Bar­camp, it’s about the social com­plex­ity of how gen­ders inter­act with one another on a much wider and diverse play­ing field. There are right and wrong ways of engag­ing this kind of thing in a num­ber of cul­tures and depend­ing on which tribe you belong to, it varies.

    Lastly, just to illus­trate how the human social set­ting is really weird I’ll men­tion some research we found with how peo­ple inter­act with one another in another secluded envi­ron­ment such as a train.

    An elderly lady sits at one of the train, and 4 young males jump onto the train at the other end. This elderly lady will mon­i­tor their move­ments fre­quently, keep­ing close guard on her own pres­ence, where the secu­rity options exist and so forth.

    She’s basi­cally scared.

    Exact same sce­nario, but the elderly lady is wear­ing a Bris­bane Bron­cos foot­ball jer­sey and then the same exact 4 males get on this train also wear­ing a Bris­bane Bron­cos jersey.

    She feels safe, as now she can relate to these 4 guys, think­ing some­how if trou­ble were to brew, they would aid her.

    We humans are a fluid con­cept yet to be fully under­stood in how or why we act in the way we do.

    Just leave WebDU out of it, as it’s a brand worth cel­e­brat­ing not attack­ing — whether by intent or not, you’re inflict­ing crit­i­cism on the brand by threads like this.

  26. @ Scott — With your com­ment about the Bar­Camp (or any other event) atten­dees and the girl with reveal­ing amount of cloth­ing; how do we change the atti­tude. That’s my ques­tion. I don’t have a good answer, I wish I did as it really irks me.

    For the record, I’m not out to drag WebDU into the mud. It was a good con­fer­ence. Very focused, enjoy­able, it had an aver­age feel about it, I wouldn’t say it was overly friendly or stand­off­ish in vibe.

    Should the con­fer­ence be crit­i­cised or not is another mat­ter. I have no real attach­ment with the con­fer­ence series, you all feel that you do, that can be seen in the level of pas­sion this topic has pro­duced. Hence maybe your views are a lit­tle skewed. If we put WebDU aside. and just con­sider the prob­lem occur­ring at a generic con­fer­ence I won­der if you would have both­ered with this discussion. :)

    @Adam , who is Greg… ? :)

  27. Dis­agree :) I have friend­ships with the organ­is­ers but I also have friend­ships with many more of the web com­mu­nity and respec­tive organisers.

    I at times am the biggest critic of WebDU and good or bad, it’s con­struc­tive. Skews are good, it means that peo­ple can weigh up dis­cus­sion points for them­selves as it pushes peo­ple harder to think for themselves.

    ..Progress is a nice word. But change is its moti­va­tor. And change has its ene­mies..” — Robert Kennedy

  28. Hi Scott,

    I’ll try to be shorter this time. :) But a cou­ple of issues were raised which were well worth com­ment­ing on.

    First off, every time this issue is raised, peo­ple rightly point out that women should be there on merit. I agree. But one of the cool things about the web indus­try is that we’ve all worked with a wide range of peo­ple, so we know that the women in the indus­try have just as much to con­tribute and are just as capa­ble as the men – from our own expe­ri­ence. We also know that women com­prise a sig­nif­i­cant pro­por­tion of web devel­op­ers in Aus­tralia – cer­tainly higher than that rep­re­sented at many of the con­fer­ences. Thus I’d argue two things:

    a) That the con­fer­ences are miss­ing out on a sig­nif­i­cant num­ber of tal­ented speak­ers if women are choos­ing not to attend (for what­ever rea­son). So we need to exam­ine why they aren’t attend­ing to see if it is pos­si­ble to redress this problem.

    b) Con­fer­ences can poten­tially be proac­tive in their treat­ment and encour­age­ment of women within the field. By show­cas­ing skilled women, con­fer­ences can pro­mote to young girls and women; “We, as an indus­try, respect what you can do, and you are wel­come here”.

    @Gary: String Greg = “Gary”; (Sorry — it is part of my job descrip­tion to be absent minded)

    Adam.

  29. I think we are all in agree­ment that there is this large pool of female tal­ent that is just slip­ping under the radar, that for what­ever rea­son these women don’t want to attend for­mally organ­ised events . As Adam has stated we need to find out why.

    So I ask, if you are a woman why don’t you attend the many web indus­try con­fer­ences or organ­ised events that are cur­rently on offer?

  30. Okay, some good sug­ges­tions com­ing through. Given how bloody hard it appears to be just organ­is­ing a con­fer­ence, I’m not sure that adding men­tor­ing into that as well is fea­si­ble. But fur­ther inves­ti­ga­tion into the low sub­mis­sion rate is worth chasing.

    And Gary’s on the right track; we can spec­u­late as much as we like, but in the end it’d be good to hear from a range of poten­tial female presenters.

    If only there was some kind of group of women work­ing in the web who met reg­u­larly. My feel­ing is if such a group did exist, they should be called some­thing straight­for­ward; per­haps, for instance, “Web Women”. Ah, if only such a thing existed…

  31. “it’d be good to hear from a range of poten­tial female presenters.”

    Fun­nily enough I have pointed some of the women on the mail­ing list to this post — maybe some will chime in.

  32. Over­all, I got to con­fer­ences in total to hear expert opin­ions on mat­ters of inter­est — that or — to be entertained.

    Gen­der be damned :)

  33. Over­all, I got to con­fer­ences in total to hear expert opin­ions on mat­ters of inter­est — that or — to be entertained.

    Scott, I do that too — but at the same time, you don’t wanna hear the same old peo­ple time and time again. Encour­ag­ing peo­ple who have some­thing use­ful to offer to con­sider speak­ing — espe­cially peo­ple out­side of the usual gang of sus­pects — just makes it more inter­est­ing. I dare say most reg­u­lar speak­ers didn’t plan to get into speak­ing, it just turned out that way for them.

  34. Kay,

    You’ll have no dis­agree­ment from me in this :).

    I want to hear what Kay has to say on Web 2.0. I also wanted to hear what Michael Wise, a co-Flexer locally had to say on the mat­ter and so on…

    If i wanted to hear what the Adobe crew were going to say, i’d read the glossy brochure that comes out.

    I feel your pain in this regard and its prob­a­bly why I loved Bar­camp / Web­Jam the most so far .. it was raw and unmoulded :)

    I am com­ing to Perth soon to visit our Microsoft folks there in the web space… I want to hear what Perth has to offer and espe­cially Port80 folks..

    I got this job because of pas­sion and i look at these con­fer­ences as a way of sim­ply find­ing oth­ers like me whom love the web.

    Gen­der though has no points on my com­pass in this search :)

  35. Hi all
    I just wanted to chime in with my com­ments…
    Given that I didn’t attend WebDU, the ques­tion I wish to address is why women don’t attend more con­fer­ences, and take a more for­ward role in the industry.

    I think a lot of it has to do with the way we present our­selves. I con­sider myself a non-expert — I am a gen­er­al­ist, a lover of the web and a pas­sion­ate col­lec­tor of use­less and use­ful infor­ma­tion, which I then use in the work­place to inspire others.

    I am often under­whelmed at con­fer­ences as they can be a chance for some to show how ‘good they are’ and some­times in this show­case of self ado­ra­tion, the real pur­pose of debate and the exchange of ideas is lost. I think the con­fer­ence machine has got so slick, and some have taken par­tic­i­pa­tion as a pro­fes­sion, that it is dif­fi­cult for non-insiders to feel welcome.

    One of the things I enjoy about Port 80 and Web Women in Perth is the lack of pre­ten­sion and the fact that peo­ple are free to exchange gen­uine ideas — I hear Scott’s ‘raw and unmoulded; comment.

    To bring this back to the gen­der debate — I don’t know — I think that a ‘female’ web voice is prob­a­bly required, but whether this is in an explicit form, as in — here is the ‘female’ part of our con­fer­ence — well, per­haps not, but cer­tainly in mak­ing the envi­ron­ment more cre­ative, less intim­i­dat­ing and more open to gen­uine exchange of ideas rather than an ego fest.….

    Per­haps this is a lit­tle off topic, but.. my gen­uine answer to the ques­tion — why we don’t go to con­fer­ences.
    1. chil­dren!!!!! — why don’t con­fer­ences have creches.….
    2. I am tired of feel­ing intim­i­dated and stu­pid, and would appre­ci­ate real, open debate spaces.

  36. Kay et al,

    I’m late on this — had my own fires to put out today ;-(

    As a con­fer­ence orga­nizer, I always have sym­pa­thy for other orga­niz­ers. We under­stand their chal­lenges more than any­one else can — that old “walk a mile” thing.

    At Web Direc­tions we get 40% plus women atten­dees, and aim for 25% plus women speak­ers. We had 40% last year.

    I think we are “lucky” — in the “web” part of the IT indus­try — par­tic­u­larly front end, and in gov­ern­ment and edu, women are more preva­lent than in the more tra­di­tional IT, and more “back end” side of things — Kay is def­i­nitely far from typ­i­cal in that regard in our industry.

    But, it is also becase we have made it a con­scious thing we work on. We seek out women speak­ers, ses­sion chairs, and other pub­lic faces of the con­fer­ence.
    We’ve been very for­tu­nate to have not suf­fered from some of the things which have been men­tioned in rela­tion to WebDU this year. But I don’t think its all luck

    I’ve been to many con­fer­ences, web, and more IT gen­er­ally over the years, though not WebDU. So these com­ments are directed at the indus­try gen­er­ally, but not WebDU specif­i­cally. An under­cur­rent of what I would call sex­ism per­vades many, par­tic­u­larly in the “social” events. I can­not count the num­ber of times that con­ver­sa­tions turn to mat­ters sex­ual. Many of the atten­dees are men away from home, on expense accounts.

    In “the world of men”, whether sport­ing or “pro­fes­sional” the absence of strong women mod­els far from helps men respond pos­i­tively to women. And what char­ac­ter­izes almost al the con­fer­ences I attend is a woe­ful male to female ratio. 90/10 is not uncommon.

    I hon­estly don’t think men are ever in sit­u­a­tions where they are that far out of their com­fort zone.

    Seem­ingly lit­tle things like “funny ani­ma­tions” have a far more pow­er­ful “val­i­dat­ing” effect — laugh­ter is a pow­er­ful thing, and “it’s just a joke” is a com­mon defence for behav­ior that is far from acceptable.

    Yes, at times, peo­ple go over­board in their reac­tion to things, which may not help the over­all cause, but over­all, rather than try­ing to down­play what appears “triv­ial” we should lis­ten care­fully, and be more attuned.

    If peo­ple can’t feel safe in a pro­fes­sional envi­ron­ment, where can they feel safe? And if you pro­vide an envi­ron­ment, it is quite lit­er­ally your duty of care to make it a safe place.

    Let me tell you from expe­ri­ence, not a sin­gle man will not come because of that, but many more women will.

    I’m actu­ally proud we can have a largely intel­li­gent, thought­ful dicus­sion about this issue in Aus­tralia. Else­where things seem to devolve into rhetoric and recrim­i­na­tion very quickly.

    john

  37. Thanks John, I think you make a valid point about what hap­pens to a group of men on expense accounts — Like you, I am enjoy­ing read­ing the debate on this issue.

  38. I just left a post on the orig­i­nal blog and this is all get­ting out of hand. Shouldn’t we be talk­ing about the new prod­ucts com­ing out or some crazy new way of doing some­thing we did not know?

    I wasn’t offended at all, I agree with Cristine, it was ALL GOOD. Every­body should take a chill pill and not try to make this con­fer­ence turn into a bor­ing, cor­po­rate, cen­sored event.

    I have been attend­ing con­fer­e­ces since 2000 in SF, NY, Vegas, FL, etc… it has always been mostly guys. So what? It doesn’t make any dif­fer­ence if the rea­son why you are attend­ing is to learn, net­work and party. I got my best jobs out of these con­fer­ence and I already have another pos­si­ble project out of the last webDU.

    Don’t get me wrong, I respect all the com­ments but don’t find it nec­es­sary to take it to the next level.

  39. I’m going to (www.visitmix.com) MIX07 … who’s going? :)

  40. @John:Seem­ingly lit­tle things like “funny ani­ma­tions” have a far more pow­er­ful “val­i­dat­ing” effect — laugh­ter is a pow­er­ful thing, and “it’s just a joke” is a com­mon defence for behav­ior that is far from acceptable.

    I under­stand this. In this case, how­ever, I still stand by the ani­ma­tion as not being sex­ist. It par­o­dies 50s ads, and by def­i­n­i­tion is only funny because it high­lights how far we’ve come since then (will, obvi­ously, still some dis­tance to go!). Var­i­ous women viewed the ani­ma­tion before it screened pub­licly (includ­ing one of the ani­ma­tors) and there was no reac­tion other than laugh­ter. FWIW, it’s up at http://animation.nectarine.com.au for any­one who wishes to make their own interpretation.

    I was fairly shocked that some­one took it as a seri­ous state­ment that all Aus­tralian men con­sider all women to be house­wives (not the least because I’m in NZ, the first coun­try in the world to give women the vote, and with a great female prime min­is­ter). I was shaken that we had a hand in mak­ing some­one unhappy with a con­fer­ence we really respect.

    How­ever, I com­pletely under­stand that peo­ple will react dif­fer­ently, and have said I respect RowliRowl’s POV. As a con­fer­ence organ­iser, how­ever, you must appre­ci­ate that it’s hard to do some­thing about things you don’t know about. The ani­ma­tion was the very first thing in the con­fer­ence. Geoff, Julie, Vanessa and Eri­etta were widely avail­able. Rowli was com­fort­able enough to ask them about get­ting a free pass to the ban­quet, but didn’t raise the sex­ism issue. I’m glad she blogged it, because it’s an issue that needs focus, but if, as you sug­gest, an apol­ogy might have been appre­ci­ated, that’s cer­tainly more forth­com­ing if you approach some­one pri­vately rather than hav­ing them hear about it from posts enti­tled ‘WebDU and Sex­ism’ (a response to Rowli’s post).

    I cer­tainly would have been happy to chat directly with her if she wished, explain our mind­set in writ­ing the scripts, and if that made lit­tle dif­fer­ence, apol­o­gise unre­servedly. A friendly response at least might have made her feel more com­fort­able with the rest of the conference.

    I too am glad to see that a fairly level headed con­ver­sa­tion has taken place (well, check out the exchange with Haya in the com­ments on Rowli’s post for an alter­na­tive real­ity take ;-) . And I’m sure that when they’ve decom­pressed, Geoff and Julie would be inter­ested in chat­ting to you about your expe­ri­ences as an organ­iser, and any tips you’d have…

  41. Damn I love Nectarine’s cartoons..

    So much tal­ent, and I don’t have it… if only I could be that guy off Hereos whom steals peo­ples powers…

    (I just thought of a great Microsoft joke then, but bet­ter not tap it out).

    Kay: Can you declare this thread dead :) … last drinks ladies & gents?

  42. But as I under­stand it, the only direct request from Kat­rina was for free entry into the ban­quet dinner

    Minty, you make me sound evil. I am not. All I did was ask to ensure my under­stand­ing that my ticket didn’t include the din­ner, was cor­rect. I did not request free entry into the din­ner. (Even if I did, that does not affect the speak­ers or animators).

    I reg­u­larly ask things I think I already know. I’m not the only per­son who does this. A good exam­ple from last night: a fel­low grad­uand got off at the train sta­tion she believed cor­rect for her, and made sure by ask­ing the con­duc­tor. Con­duc­tor informed her she was incor­rect so she quickly hopped back into the train.

    If you want to make me out as evil, I’ll help you: Even bet­ter, ear­lier on the day, I received com­pletely free infor­ma­tion I didn’t earn: I was directed towards the toi­lets. How dare I! :)

    All that is dif­fer­ent about my post is that I posted it. The real­ity is that it is my impres­sion, and when peo­ple ask about it, that is what I am going to say. The organ­is­ers are in a unique posi­tion due to the web to access the com­ments, and either decide to lis­ten to it or ignore it. What they do is up to them.

  43. OK,

    I’ve just (to my shame, I should have done it before) seen the car­toon in ques­tion. Kinda Cute — Jon K-esque pomo kitchy thing. The par­tic­u­lar shame on my part is that I have been called sex­ist for show­ing a 30 sec­ond clip of one of the ear­li­est ever films — the exe­cu­tion of Mary Queen of Scots — by way of exam­ple of what a new medium (cin­ema) was like about the same age as the web was when I have that pre­sen­ta­tion. So, I should have appre­ci­ated more the pos­si­bil­ity of an over reac­tion (swhicbh I think on th face of just seein gthat one short ani­ma­tion it is fair to char­ac­ter­ize the neg­a­tive responses as). But I think the over reation was prob­a­bly con­tex­tual. The orig­i­nal poster puts it in the con­text of other slides, pre­sen­ta­tions and so on at the con­fer­ence which used clearly more prob­lem­atic images. All together, per­haps there is a pat­tern to which the orig­i­nal posters response seems a lot more rea­son­able than the spe­cific issue we’ve debated in detail here.

    And all of this is in the broader con­text of the place of women in the web, and IT indus­tries, an issue that keeps bub­bling away, and has really come to the boil with the recent events around Kathy Sierra’s blog.

    Clearly it is an impor­tant issue to many peo­ple, and it won’t sim­ply go away. So when it comes up, it bears care­ful atten­tion, and rather than quib­bling and defen­sive­ness, per­haps a bet­ter response is to ask — why? whats going on? why is there some­thing I can’t see that oth­ers can, and feel strongly about? Some­times they’ll be being unrea­son­able — but that should be what we dis­cover after a good hard look, after than being the default posi­tion, at least in my opinion.

    john

  44. @Katrina
    Minty, you make me sound evil. I am not.

    Heh. I think you’d strug­gle to find any­where that I called you evil or even sug­gested you are! I’ve con­sis­tently defended your right to post, and stated I fully agree that sex­ism is an issue in this indus­try. I’m in agree­ment on the need to raise the level of female speaker (and attendee) representation.

    How­ever, people’s reac­tions to the events you raised have obvi­ously (from the wide-ranging com­ments) var­ied immensely. Feel­ing dis­crim­i­nated or objec­ti­fied is a very per­sonal thing. As such, I still feel that some sort of ini­tial per­sonal con­tact would been a good start­ing point. I can under­stand it could be a dif­fi­cult issue to raise, but there were at least three extremely capa­ble and savvy female staff widely avail­able, any of whom I’m con­fi­dent would have taken your com­ments very seri­ously. As I’ve said before, you still would have been able to blog about it after­wards, espe­cially if the response had been lack­ing (or even if it had been positive!).

    I think you’re being a bit fey in say­ing “The organ­is­ers are in a unique posi­tion due to the web to access the com­ments”. That cuts both ways: the lack of fric­tion on the web means that before they had a chance to make any sort of response, there was another post enti­tled “Sex­ism and WebDU” and a raft of com­ments from peo­ple who hadn’t even attended. I’d imag­ine they felt some­what ambushed, and I don’t know that’s the best posi­tion to begin from to tackle a seri­ous issue. (Coda: I’m not Geoff and Julie, so this is only my per­sonal assess­ment and opinion!)

    I wasn’t at the other ses­sions you talked about, so I can’t com­ment there. But in terms of the ani­ma­tions, I unre­servedly apol­o­gise for any dis­com­fort they caused. That cer­tainly wasn’t the inten­tion (although I know intent isn’t everything).

    As I noted above, some­times hear­ing some­one else’s view­point can ame­lio­rate angst. Did my expla­na­tion that it par­o­dies 50s ads, and by def­i­n­i­tion is only funny because it high­lights how far we’ve come since then, make any dif­fer­ence? Or do you still feel that we seri­ously stat­ing that “Aussie men still think of women as being house­wives and not pro­fes­sion­als”. You noted that “all of the other char­ac­ters were male” as one of its faults; does it make any dif­fer­ence that the char­ac­ters were a man, a woman, a boy and a dog (of inde­ter­mi­nate gen­der)? The char­ac­ter in the Ruby on Rails skit shown just before the Cold­fu­sion one also meets a fairly hor­rific end­ing. Did this ani­ma­tion also make you uncomfortable?

    I’m seri­ously inter­ested in your opin­ion, because we’re actively involved in try­ing to make peo­ple smile rather than feel beaten down. I’m more than happy to con­tinue to com­ment here, or to fol­low up off-list: minty@nectarine.com.au. Or if you think things have run as far as it’s worth on this point, that’s fine too. I’ll leave it in your court.

    And I don’t think you’re evil, any more than I believe we’re the supreme male over­lords of sex­ist animation ;-)