In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Your startup is inferior to that guy with the mobile app for golfers

In case you needed a reminder that ventures traditionally associated with women are inherently inferior to things that are manly and such, tech reporter Jolie O’Dell is happy to remind you via Twitter.

Women: Stop making startups about fashion, shopping, & babies. At least for the next few years. You’re embarrassing me.

After a few of her followers call her to task, she eventually backs down to “there’s a glut of them & it bothers me” and “[a]ll the DEMO female-led companies are one of those three niches. I was disappointed, clearly.” But ultimately, she arrives at the classic girl-stuff burial ground: Girl stuff is stupid because it’s pointless, because it’s girl stuff.

Because I refuse to believe those smart, talented women are making the best use of their time & skills to change the world.

(Background: O’Dell made her comments in regard to DEMO 2011, a tech conference with some amount of focus on emerging tech and entrepreneurship–lots of pitches, presentations, and demonstrations. In her 140-word tweets, she doesn’t get around to mentioning exactly which girly startups she found so offensive, so one can only speculate.)

I get where she’s coming from, almost. A little. In the business world, where women still struggle for acceptance and recognition, it can be jarring to see women make it to the big show and start talking about shoes and diapers. It’s not an image some women want to see promoted. But O’Dell’s complaint has nothing to do with female business founders flashing cleavage or tittering through demos–they’re giving women a bad image simply by offering products of a traditionally female nature.

Read More…Read More…

On tech conferences and the amazing invisible women

I spent most of yesterday at our local BarCamp, a free “unconference” where the organizers, speakers, and attendees are pretty much all the same people and speaking slots are open to anyone who shows up on the day of the event with a presentation they feel like delivering. They’re lots of fun and generally attract a fun, fairly diverse crowd. It’s all very self-driven–if you feel like attending, you attend, and if you feel like presenting, you do. And if you decide on the spur of the moment halfway through the morning that you want to present, you throw something together and sign up for an afternoon speaking slot.

Of course, we all know that women, particularly women in tech, aren’t interested in presenting. There aren’t many women in the field anyway, they never volunteer to present, they’re always afraid of speaking in public, they lack confidence, they never think they have anything worth proposing, probably something here about having babies, and that’s why they’re vastly underrepresented on the speaking rosters of tech conferences and events. This is a universal truth. If you look at similar events on a much smaller scale, what you won’t see is representation commensurate with the average gender breakdown in the field, and active presentation and participation in areas like search engine optimization, Web design and development, social media and marketing, community-building, or startups and entrepreneurship. Except for the fact that everything I just said there is complete bullshit, women just aren’t interested in tech conferences.

“Why don’t women speak at tech conferences?” is at least in my top-ten favorite questions, somewhere behind “Where are all the women bloggers?” and “Why aren’t there more women CEOs?” And like those questions, it usually seems fairly rhetorical. The above concerns are mentioned, conference organizers shake their heads and wish that women would be more proactive in asking to get involved, women sigh and go proactively start their own tech conferences where they proactively present their proactive presentations, and everything quiets down until the subject is raised next summer.

If only there were answers to those questions.

Why should I go to the effort of finding female speakers? A qualified speaker is a qualified speaker, right? The list of answers to that question are epic, but I’ll try to hit a few of the high points.

Read More…Read More…

Posted in Uncategorized

There’s an app for that. (Yeah, I went there.)

The fight against violence against women has reached the Office of the Vice President–which is good, because there are a lot of other offices that would have let it sit in the foyer without even offering it a cup of coffee until it gave up and went home. Even better is the surprisingly modern approach Joe Biden is taking: He’s harnessing the power of crowdsourcing and the technology of smartphone apps in a contest called Apps Against Abuse, “envisioned to empower young people, in real time, to look out for their friends in order to prevent violence or assault before it occurs.”

To open: I think that’s pretty cool.

To continue: I think there are a lot of potential applications for women dealing with domestic violence. Apps that could connect with 911 from your home screen, help find both immediate and long-term assistance for women with kids, or even act as a kind of a live-man switch in particularly urgent situations could be helpful. (Of course, this assumes we can ensure that vulnerable women have access to smartphones, which we really can’t, so that becomes its own issue.)

To continue further: Raise your hand if you see the inherent weakness in this plan.

Unless there’s an app that could help a guy step in when one of his friends is about to rape someone–or help a guy recognize when he’s about to commit rape and stop in time–there aren’t a lot of options that don’t, per usual, put the burden on women to prevent sexual assault. This is hardly universal, of course, but a guy who’s thoughtful enough to download an anti-sexual-assault app probably isn’t the type who’s likely to end up committing rape anyway. And the guy who’s likely to commit rape probably isn’t going to think to download such an app before he goes out.

Read More…Read More…

Getting More Women to Tech

On Friday, the Wall Street Journal published a piece by Shira Ovide, one of its media reporters, about the lack of women in the leadership among tech companies and talked about the protests over the separately branded TEDWomen conference that was announced last month. Short version: There are too few women in tech.

Only about 11% of U.S. firms with venture-capital backing in 2009 had current or former female CEOs or female founders, according to data from Dow Jones VentureSource. The prestigious start-up incubator Y Combinator has had just 14 female founders among the 208 firms it has funded.

Then, a response came from Michael Arrington in TechCrunch.

I could, like others (see all the links in that Fred Wilson post too), write pandering but meaningless posts agonizing over the problem and suggesting creative ways that we (men) could do more to help women. I could point out that the CEO of TechCrunch is a woman, as are two of our four senior editors (I’m one of the four). And how we seek out women focused events and startups and cover them to death.

But I’m not going to do that. Instead I’m going to tell it like it is. And what it is is this: statistically speaking women have a huge advantage as entrepreneurs, because the press is dying to write about them, and venture capitalists are dying to fund them. Just so no one will point the accusing finger of discrimination at them.

Arrington is filled with some Real Talk: It’s not the men that are to blame for so few women in technology fields, it’s the women. He’s not going to “pander” to women or “cover [women-focused events] to death.” Sound defensive much?

All too often when discussions of diversity get opened up, it is those who benefit the most from current structures (usually white men from upper middle class backgrounds) demand they not be blamed for the lack of diversity. They’ve worked a lot to remedy the problem. But they give up! There’s nothing more they can do.

I recognize this is a well-intentioned approach, but it also comes from a perspective that is largely blind to greater forces at work. As the amazing Jamelle Bouie over at The American Prospect writes, “It’s less that there is a dearth of entrepreneurial talent among women, and more that women are socialized away from math and science at an early age.”

He’s right: Even though two-thirds of both boys and girls say they like science, the numbers of women who earn degrees in the traditional STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and math) drops sharply as they get older, according to a sociological study [PDF] Kristine De Welde, Sandra Laursen, and Heather Thiry. Though women earn the majority of bachelor’s and master’s degrees in the biological and agricultural sciences (sometimes referred to as “soft STEM“), women make up far less than half in physics, math and statistics, computer science, astronomy, and all forms of engineering. One notable exception is chemistry, where women earn roughly half of all chemistry bachelor’s degrees.

It’s true that the numbers, especially of degree-seekers, has improved in the last few decades, but still “men outnumber women (73% vs. 27% overall) in all sectors of employment for science and engineering.” Furthermore, when you get into high levels of academia, women seem to disappear, “At higher levels of STEM education, the percentage of women continues to decline; this is the so-called “leaky pipeline.” For example, though women earn nearly half of mathematics bachelors’ degrees, they earn only 27% of doctoral degrees.”

There are also other pressures at work: Women aren’t often found in leadership positions, often because women are socialized away from taking on leadership roles. I can’t tell you how many talented women I’ve talked to who have told me something along the lines of, “I want to do more behind-the-scenes kind of stuff.” The White House Project recently released a report on women’s leadership [PDF] to coincide withe the 90th anniversary of the 19th Amendment last week. They found that across all industries, despite the fact that nearly 90 percent of Americans said they were comfortable with women leaders, “today women account for only 18 percent of our top leaders.” This was true across all industries, “from academia and business to media and the military.” There’s little doubt that there’s a dirth of women’s leadership generally, not just among the tech industry.

Arrington’s not wrong that when you want to highlight women’s leadership — especially in the tech industry — those who want to diversify how it looks can quickly become frustrated. It is true that there just aren’t that many women. But just noting that tells only part of the story. Even from my own experience, I can how women are discouraged from science and math. I took advanced math classes each year and excelled at them. But when my 9th grade geometry teacher suggested I pursue a career in math, I didn’t even consider it. Somewhere I got the message that girls don’t do math. Those messages are sometimes subtle and sometimes not so subtle.

Getting more women into fields science, math, and technology is going to take time and a lot of work. Those numbers are slowly improving. This might be, in part, thanks to an increase in awareness of girl geek culture. Other sites like Skepchick and Geek Feminism try to support and encourage women in non-traditional industries like math, science, engineering, and technology. Rachel Sklar, of Mediaite, co-founded a group called “Change the Ratio” that seeks to encourage women to make their presence felt at tech events. These are just some of the ways tech women are working to support other tech women.

The important thing here to remember is that pointing out the lack of diversity in a field isn’t an attack on those white men — even if they feel that way. Men may have benefited from the structures to deter women from tech fields, but that then means they’re in a good position to also help change that culture. Creating more diversity isn’t a zero-sum game, even if some people view it as such. I understand Arrington’s frustrations, but he’s not the only one who’s frustrated. Plenty of women are, too. They just want to do something about it.

The Impermanence of Light

Tonight I did something I do less and less of these days — I came home and didn’t jump on the Internet. Didn’t rush through my meal to hurry up and check my e-mail only to be inundated with the day’s nauseating blog comments. Didn’t skip reading the book I’m almost finished with to see what’s going on with Twitter. Just fed the animals, changed, ate my dinner, watched Louie, and then sat down in the new dorm-room style circle chair I bought on sale at Target with said book I’m almost finished with.

I don’t want to go all Calculon on you by saying I was filled with a large number of powerful emotions, but I actually was. I was unplugged and I could hear myself thinking without the background noise of the fan keeping my laptop from burning my palms as I type. I thought about how my whole life is in light; fiber optics transmitting my thoughts to people I’ll probably never meet, silicon holding my words only to be revealed by the tickle of electricity sent to circuits triggered by the touch of my finger to a button. Where do my words go when I’m gone? The frantic pace of the Internet makes me feel that if I don’t check in every few hours, or every day, or every other day, all memory of me will vanish. Do people read my blog archives? Or do they simply absorb the missive I’ve sent for the day, then dash off to some other blog, where they’ll read something else that scoots my words out of the way to implant themselves in their place? If I didn’t post for a month, would you remember who I was? All you know of me is light. My picture appears to you in pixels and photons, but you don’t know the flesh behind them. And this is true for all of us who inhabit this world, who put their words out for consumption in blog form or comment form or tweet form or e-mail form. When we’re all gone, — all of us, including you — what will be left of us to know?

I’m a realist, I don’t expect our current mode of civilization to last for a thousand years or even a hundred years if we keep doing what we’re doing with no major modifications. When the time comes that there are no more working DVD players to play our DVDs, when our infrastructure is so dilapidated that we can’t access what’s left of the Internet, when there’s no electricity being generated to power our communications towers and our orbiting satellites come crashing to Earth from lack of maintenance, how will we remember what we are? How will whatever civilization rises after us, comprised of whatever beings have replaced us, know who we were? Civilizations we consider ancient today used decidedly more low tech materials to share their information, and we can pore over them today. We only need other low tech writings to teach us how to interpret the strange symbols their society used to communicate. I can’t even begin to figure out what a shiny CD has on it without benefit of fancy technology that, in our future as it stands to become now, will no longer exist. I can’t take out my laptop’s hard drive and flip through the circuits to find that short story I wrote 2 years ago. I can’t tell you one damn thing about what’s on that drive except through the low tech method of retelling memories — what I can remember about what I had on there. It’s kind of frightening to me, this impermanence. It feels like the knowledge about this golden age of history is a mere electromagnetic pulse away from becoming nothingness. I know, I know, I’m getting all existential up in this piece. But if you sit with it, it leaves you cold.

That’s why I’m obsessed with notebooks and pens and paper and books, why I’m putting together an anthology telling stories of women of color on paper, why I’m not too keen on e-books and I still buy CDs — hey, at least the liner notes and lyrics will still be readable. I don’t advocate some kind of neo-Luddite existence. I don’t think we need to start carving stone tablets. Just write some. Papryus is still around, I have hope that archival quality, acid-free paper will be too. Write your memories, journal daily, write your speculative autobiography. Write your parents’ or your significant other’s biographies. Leave your story for the climate refugees of the 2100s to read. Go out with your friends and tell each other your stories and write those down. Don’t let the only ones remembered be the ones lucky enough to get their words in print before the clock runs out.

Now excuse me while I go finish reading that book I’m almost finished with.

Anti-Choice? There’s an app for that.

The American Life League now has an anti-choice app for the iPhone. I’m sort of confused about what it does, exactly, other than let you upload photos wearing a pro-life t-shirt. Awesome, you guys.

So why this app? Here is why:

“Primarily, we are concerned with getting people to think of the child as a person from the moment of his or her biological beginning,” Carroll said. “It is much harder to murder a person than it is to “remove a lump of tissues,” and it is only when we finally get the nation thinking in those terms that we will be able to restore the right to life of our preborn brothers and sisters. Just by wearing the t-shirt and being out there in public, you will help to accomplish that goal!”

If you take a picture of yourself wearing a pro-life t-shirt and going about your daily business — brushing your teeth, holding a baby, screaming at women in front of abortion clinics, you know, the usual — you get points through the ALL app. The person with the most points gets a free iPod Touch.

So here’s an idea, pro-choicers: Let’s celebrate pre-born babies, and send pictures to the American Life League demonstrating just how much we love the smallest creatures among us. Take a picture of your used tampon, next to the pro-life t-shirt you made yourself (we wouldn’t want to give money to companies that make pro-life t-shirts, after all). Bonus: If you are fertile and have penis-in-vagina sex, there’s a chance that your tampon could even contain a fertilized egg! After all, something like half of all fertilized eggs naturally don’t implant anyway. By the American Life League’s standards, that’s basically the equivalent of taking a picture of you holding a baby. Pro-life! Or, take a picture of yourself holding a used condom. Every sperm is sacred! Aren’t pre-babies adorable when there are thousands of them? Any pregnant ladies out there? Perhaps show ALL what a beautiful pregnant body looks like without its pro-life t-shirt. Or maybe demonstrate via photodiary how you got that way in the first place! Any ladies trying to get pregnant? Let ALL know what that’s all about! Anyone giving birth anytime soon? A minute-by-minute photo shoot — from the doctor or midwife’s vantage point, of course — could be pretty great.

Alternately, we could show the American Life League what preventing abortion actually looks like. Perhaps a photo of you taking your birth control pill (or inserting your diaphragm)! Or if you aren’t the hormonal birth control/diaphragm type, might I suggest pictures of you getting a vasectomy, or putting on a condom! Maybe a nice shot of you having sex with someone who cannot possibly get you pregnant (perhaps someone of the same sex)! Maybe just a nice masturbation photo! (Although I suppose a picture of you protesting outside of an abortion clinic could also fall into this category). Perhaps, on the tamer side, a picture of you talking to your kids about basic biology and safer sex. Or maybe you at a march for universal health care, or you donating to a campaign to mandate coverage of birth control pills. Maybe a photo of you working to secure comprehensive health care coverage for low-income women, or immigrants, or girls. Maybe a picture of you teaching a comprehensive sex ed class. Maybe a picture of you helping a friend out with childcare. Maybe a picture of you doing some feminist blogging. The abortion-preventing options are endless!

Thanks to Amanda for the heads up.

____________________________
In case it’s not clear, I am kidding about sending sexy-time photos to the American Life League. Don’t do that. Or if you do, because let’s be honest it’s kind of hilarious, don’t blame me for it please. But sending photos of what preventing abortion actually looks like (i.e., comprehensive sex ed, birth control access, etc)? Not a terrible idea. And props to the lady who sends in the first tampon pic.

Friday Random Ten – The “If You Put Them All In a Room, Will They Sync Up?” Edition

Or, “Where I Crap on Mac Users,” thanks to this delightful essay pointing out the class aspirations inherent to Apple products, cost, technology, and design. Consider this your daily flame.

…something that to me is so obvious that it barely needs mentioning, and yet I never see people talk about it openly: the real advantage of Apple, for many people, is that Apple products are status objects. Displaying your Apple stuff proudly is just yet another of our culture’s myriad ways to engage in a little subtle classism. Apple products are expensive, some very expensive, and they are often significantly more expensive than non-Apple equivalents. When I bring this up in cautioning people about buying a particular Apple product (even in the course of endorsing such a purchase) there’s a weird defenselessness that happens. People don’t disagree, and yet they don’t weigh that as a negative factor, either…

And that brings us to “Apple culture.” This is a phenomenon we’re all aware of. I can’t tell you how often I’ve discussed a potential purchase, of a computer or phone or MP3 player, where my frank discussions of features compared to price point get held up because of terms like “philosophy,” “individualism,” “creativity,” “personality.” You know– all the things that purchasing a commodity can’t give you? That stuff tends to dominate discussion of Apple products, and has been the essence of Apple advertising for years. There is somehow an Apple culture, and this culture is associated with all kinds of vague (but very real!) virtues. There is, according to many, a category of “Apple people,” and this somehow means more than people who prefer Apple products but instead has everything to do with a person’s personal virtue, and most importantly, how “unique” they are, a term thrown around about a commodity owned by millions with such disregard for its basic denotation that my eyes glaze over when I hear it. All of this stuff, this strange but inescapable reference to Apple culture, is just a way to hide guilt about the frank status projection that prominently displaying your iPhone represents.

I’d argue, too, that this kind of class signaling was prominent in VW advertising in the early aughts, and in more recent auto brand development for cars like the Toyota Prius. And part of the appeal is the whitebread Scandanavian design aesthetic that people really latch on to, Americans in particular, that signals the urban upperclass. And don’t even get me started on the choice to make Justin Long the Mac spokesperson, a guy who looks like he’s never had a hard day in his life. Talk about type-casting.

But that’s just me, and it’s the me that is currently in love with my second-hand iPod that my mom gifted me when she was on serious medication post-surgery, and the me that is in dire need of quality podcast suggestions in the comments.

In the meantime, the FRT, one night early because I “think different.” Videos below the jump.

1) Gary Numan – You Are in My Vision
2) Sharon Jones & The Dap Kings – Answer Me
3) Holly Golightly & The Brokeoffs – Devil Do
4) Q-Tip – Official
5) Black Mountain – Stormy High
6) Edith Frost – Playmate
7) The Fall – Lay Of The Land
8) Johnson & Jonson – Anything Possible
9) Women – Cameras
10) Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds – Sheep May Safely Graze

Read More…Read More…

Testing testing testing

This post is open to comments to test whether the improved database and new template can cope with people commenting. If you can’t think of anything else to write, I’m rather fond of limericks.

Posted in Uncategorized