But hiding the women who are making a difference in the tech community, that’s significant. Why? There is currently a backlash: it seems that some young geeks think it’s ok to denigrate women colleagues or to relegate them to 2nd class citizenship. Perhaps women are too smart to put up with such treatment: clearly they are going elsewhere, as female enrollment in IT related degree programs is down (dropping from the whopping 10% it once reached).

We shouldn’t elevate women simply due to gender. But where women are providing leadership, it’s important to represent them as peers to their male counterparts. Well, it’s important if we care about increasing diversity in the workplace.

I see women as bringing different things (a generalization, true) to the workplace. Other groups do the same: people from different cultural backgrounds, those with different kinds of university degrees – or no degrees.

I don’t enjoy working in “boys’ club” type environments, I’d like to see more diversity, more balance. So I, too, will look for opportunities to draw attention to people providing leadership and exemplifying excellence and who break the stereotypes, as a way to encourage others to join the party. One way to provide this balance is to comment on journalism that perpetuates the stereotypes, which is perhaps what Chris was doing with his comment on the BW article.

What I’m wondering is this: is there something about how we women contribute to groups that makes us harder to spot? Do we ourselves need to do something more to be the role models we seek to provide?

deb

And I also wanted to add something. I don’t think the article should have been about me…nor even include a quote from me. I don’t mind that at all and Chris’ quote was great.

But, if we are talking about promoting a project, my greatest and dearest project is increasing the visibility of women in tech. Thus, when Scott failed to add my name to the organizers list, which would have been the same number of words:

Chris Messina, 26, and two fellow Web2Open organizers stood on chairs in one of the Moscone Center’s alcoves, addressing a crowd of about 80

vs.

Chris Messina, Tara Hunt and Ross Mayfield stood on chairs in one….

(somehow the age is applicable, but the fellow organizers are not?)

he perpetuated the invisibility of the women who are organizing these events. Furthermore, Kaliya Hamlin, a long-time organizer of these events was also interviewed for the piece and didn’t get mentioned at all in lieu of the many male characters. See Kaliya’s post:

http://kaliyasblogs.net/unconference/?p=55

(I tried to comment, but wouldn’t accept my password)

I don’t think Scott meant any malice by any of this. Not at all. It’s one of those biases that people don’t even realize they have and that get perpetuated by just not realizing it.

Sure, the fall-out is that Tara Hunt doesn’t get publicity and I lose my wikipedia profile, etc. Really, that’s a side piece that is more a symptom of the issue than a cause. I have no lack of business accolades and, as the other amazing commenters have pointed out, I get more than enough recognition in our community. It’s not about me and I’m sorry if it came across that way.

Helping what, exactly? Not sure what you mean, but I’m usually of the opinion that an open discussion where more than one position is presented and discussed is best. The other option is the Echo Chamber, and we know how Tara feels about the Echo Chamber But perhaps this isn’t the place to have such a discussion…I’ll take it to my blog.

The truth is that, whatever Scott’s angle was, it’s shoddy reporting to make it look like I was responsible for Web2Open when it should have been Tara getting the credit. I worked on it, but it all came together because of Tara’s hard work and determination. That that aspect of reality wasn’t communicated is not just unfair to her and evidence of gender blindness, but it’s just frankly incorrect.

Furthermore, Tara didn’t suggest that the article should be about her; but it should be accurate. That accuracy happens to demand that she be given credit as the organizer is really what’s the underlying issue here. Let’s not lynch Scott for picking characters, let’s take a harsher look at incorrect reporting that results in marginally those who both deserve credit and have a hard enough time being made visible as it is.

First off, let me say that I agree with you and the commenters that there is a real issue with women and tech. Even more than that, we have a problem in this country (as well as too many other parts of the world) in that kids, male or female, aren’t interested in science and tech. It’s a huge issue that will and is affecting the economy worldwide. Pew recently said that 80% of 18-25 year olds said that their biggest goal in life was to get rich. Of that same group, 50% said their goal was also to “be famous”. I’ve worked in tech for nearly 15 years and have seen a lot of things I didn’t like and I’ve worked to do my part in the balance as much as I can.

That said, I’m not ready to publicly flog Scott Kirsner just yet.

I really do understand where you’re coming from: I spent nearly a year and a half on the story that ended up getting featured on the cover of Wired. Without my incessant pushing to make the project happen in the first place, it would have died on the vine. I was disappointed that the article never once mentioned me, sure.

But I remind myself that my task in that situation wasn’t to promote Jake, it was to promote the project. My job as an evangelist was to let everyone else take the spotlight.

Obviously I don’t have all the facts here, but as I understand the story, I’ve been in this situation many many times – an evangelist talks to a reporter, the reporter writes a story that includes everyone but the evangelist. Sorry to say, this is the right way for things to happen.

You have to ask yourself if this interview was supposed to be about Tara or about unconferences. If the former, then the article was a miserable failure. But if it’s the later, then the article is fantastic. Reporters of all genders (I’ve had both men and women do this to me) seem to feel odd about reporting on the person introducing them to a subject unless the subject is that person. My guess is that if roles with you and Chris had been reversed, you’d have gotten the mention, simply because Chris would have been the one talking to the reporter. Sometimes calling out the group/event leader specifically gives the story more weight. But in this article, a look at a grassroots, user generated event, calling out the key/single/main organizer completely undercuts the position of the article.

The way I read the technical structure of the article, the only reason Chris is “introduced” is to prep the reader for the call-out of Chris asking users for speaking ideas on Post-Its. This is an example of how the unconference works, and my guess is that’s what Chris was standing on a chair doing.

Trust me, I know the sting of non-inclusion in articles like this…it’s literally happened to me at least 30-40 times. You work your ass off and you want to be recognized for it. But again, either you’re looking at this from a standpoint of unconference publicity or Tara Hunt publicity. There can only be one first priority here.

Again, not trying to undercut your overall issue with the tech industry and women. I agree that there is an imbalance and that we’d all benefit from improving that balance.