Categories
Diversity Technology Web

Speak softly

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Interesting writing and discussion on another perspective about women in technology. This is from the DevChix group, and though I really dislike the use of ‘chix’ and ‘grrl’ when referencing professional women, it’s a good site to discover women working in the newer Web 2.0 technologies.

In the essay, the writer who goes by gloriajw, believes that one of the reasons women have been dropping out of the field is the hostile nature of most tech environments. She addresses this from the perspective of what makes women’s only groups more approachable:

The material for this article came about through my participation in both women-only and mixed gender groups of many kinds. When I wonder why tech groups aren’t tolerable for many women, I look at the inverse of the problem: What makes women-only tech groups more tolerable for women?

Of the behavioral patterns she’s identified in said groups, she mentions a strong sense of community, and in particular how communication is managed:

Destructive criticism is the best way to keep a site predominantly male. It implies that there is no concern about whether a person can learn from a response or not, or whether they would find offense. It is an outward display of ego, a territorial “pissing rite” in which most women do not and will not participate.

In such groups, the author states, bad behavior is seldom called and typically ignored. Contrastingly, in women’s groups:

If you do something awful to one woman in a women-only community, all will hear and know about it, and you are ousted. Most of the time this is first discussed and voted on by many group members. Many times the women’s group will even make an effort to explain the offense to the oblivious offender. But if the offender is still oblivious and/or offending, the offender is out. This is done to protect the interests and goals of the group. Many male dominated online groups don’t run this way. Most if not all women’s groups run this way, whether online or off.

There is a reason why I won’t join such women’s group, and this paragraph more or less sums it up for me. This ‘group think’ way of dealing with difficulty I find, frankly, repugnant. I happen to agree that ignoring a person who exhibits ‘bad’ behavior is one of the better approaches to take. I’ve seldom seem a troll continue when no responds to what they say.

And what is ‘bad’ behavior? When does such voting take place? In the last week I’ve been called both mean and vicious because of my criticism of a company and a company’s actions. Is it then that one must preface all criticism with something sweet and fluffy in order to ease the difficulty of the words? I can’t think of any better approach to shut down all discussion than to have to struggle through some inner debate about how to coach criticism in ‘nice’ terms in order to express such. Weblogging has demonstrated that nice is relative–having to do with popularity, as much as tone and word usage.

gloriasw, has four suggestions for online discussion areas to make them more inviting for women:

  1. Immediately delete offending and off-topic comments
  2. Return aggressive or overly hard comments back to the creator and have them re-phrase
  3. Treat the space like a community, which I presume means to monitor
  4. Explicitly state the site is ‘woman friendly’

She also has approaches to take for men to communicate with women:

  • Don’t assume when a woman is enthusiastic about their work, they’re hitting on you or has to do with you
  • Leave your libido at the door
  • Women aren’t dressing the way they do because they’re sending you signals
  • Something about guy humor can be OK if the first three items are kept in mind

There is some of this I agree with, but I have to ask the question: do women spend all day running from the men in their groups? I’ve rarely had issues of being hit on, even when I was younger and considered ‘purty’. I’ve rarely seen this happen with other women. Is this happening, now, among the younger men? Younger tech guys, do you spend all your time hitting on the women at work?

Too much emphasis lately on women being perceived as sexual object or victim’, and way too much emphasis on how the problems women are having in technology are because men see us as sex objects. I’m sorry, this is not my perception. I’ve been in the industry 25 years, and I’ve rarely seem women hit on at work, nor do I see such behavior in most of the discussions I get involved in.

Does it exist? I imagine so, but I seriously doubt this is the reason women are not joining and are leaving the tech field. Why? Because such behavior is everywhere–it’s not unique to Web 2.0 environments. The feel of titanium or the glow of an LCD does not trigger men into being primal savages.

As for the aggressive nature of the discussions, again, considering that I’m also seen as a ‘aggressive’ communicator, I don’t know if communication style is the problem as much as lack of respect and the communication only reflects this. To me, the larger issue is that women in tech are not as respected as the men, and hence our work is more easily discredited or ignored, our contributions downplayed, our participation compromised. Worse, when we do get into passionate discussion, our arguments tend to be discredited using the too typical ‘shrill’ or my personal favorite, ‘hysterical’.

What concerns me about writings such as gloriasw’s is that this can actually make things worse, rather than better.

The first writing I ever did on sexism in this weblog was related to Doc Searls –yes beloved, gentle Doc Searls. Doc Searls is a nice man, and yes, he does reference and link to women–more than a lot of other guys. But he’ll never get into a discussion with a woman. He will never debate a woman. In close to seven years of off and on reading of his site, I’ve never seen him actually have a truly engaged discussion with a woman. To this day, I don’t know if it’s because he doesn’t respect us, professionally. Or if it’s because he doesn’t know how to have such a discussion without coming across as bully or being abusive. By not engaging with women, though, he does us more harm than if he wrote that we’re all skanky bitches.

If we keep emphasizing about how women need ‘safe’ places, we’re going to get exactly what we’re asking for: safe, isolated, segregated spaces where we never have to worry about harsh words. We’ll also never have to worry about reaching the top positions in our fields, becoming as well known, being invited to conferences, and so on, either.

Respect is the key, not tone of voice, or words used. If a person respects you, it comes across in how they respond to what you say. They may get angry, and they tell you you’re dead wrong, and they may even say you’re being an idiot in this situation. However, if the overall interaction is one of respect, it doesn’t matter the tone in any particular discussion. That’s the real problem we women have: we don’t have the respect that, frankly, we deserve.

Case in point is the Devchix site, itself. This site has been around almost a year, and covers all sorts of topics, including those of interest to the Ajaxian set. Yet, I don’t think I’ve seen any of this site’s writings linked by sites such as Ajaxian. In fact, the same looks to be true for each individual contributor’s weblog–I can’t see that any of these women have been linked by some of the more dominate or well known tech weblogs.

I first found out about this writing at Simon Willison‘s weblog. Yet this is the first time (that I can find through the search engines) that Simon has ever referenced a writing from the site. Or, from what I can see, the individual weblogs of the authors. Yet they write on many topics related to the tech that Simon is interested in.

Simon does point to the Reddit thread, as demonstration that this confirms the writing, but really doesn’t this just confirm that discussions at Reddit (and Digg) tend to degenerate into three year olds flinging shit no matter what the topic? Frankly, as much as I’d like to blame Reddit or Digg or even Slashdot for women leaving tech, I find it unlikely.

Men and women are both equally capable of being aggressive and mean, and though society has educated each sex to express such in differing ways, we need to stop pointing how women are fragile flowers who can’t handle strong disagreement, while all men do is go toe to toe and spit at each other. What we need to question is when there are women in the field, writing on the topics, speaking of such, going to the conferences, why aren’t we given the acknowledgment? Why aren’t we given either the respect due us as professional or the attention we deserve as active participants. At a minimum, why, in this supposedly equal world where no one knows you’re a man, woman, or dog, why aren’t we given the links?

For all that I disagree with gloriasw, I appreciate her post. At a minimum, it highlights yet more women who are working with the Web 2.0 technologies and such attention is a good thing. I just wish when members of the site write on technology, they would be equally as noticed.

Categories
JavaScript

Ajaxy comments

I’ve incorporated editing into the site–both traditional, link-based, and Ajax. I still need to tweak, and I imagine as people use the comments, things will break.

Both types of edits are available for each item, using the philosophy that a person may want to use a traditional edit page over an Ajax editing approach. The hypertext link for editing takes you to the full edit page, where you can also delete the comment. The Ajax approach is accessible through a ‘button’ added to the post using script.

I had planned on pulling my simple custom library for the background functionality, and either using JQuery, or Dean Edwards Base.dom on which to build. However, I’m concerned about the Safari problem with Dean’s library, and I’m not sure that JQuery fits all my needs. What I may end up doing is pulling in Edwards’ library, and creating my own custom intermediate library.

All I’ve done for now is create a singleton where before I had several global functions. The original approach doesn’t impact on performance or cross-browser compatibility, but lots of global variables can cause problems with merged libraries. I’ve also made some attempts at eliminating IE memory links related to removeChild used with elements with assigned event handlers, but this still needs work.

I have one polling operation that checks to see if there are new comments after the page is loaded, and then pulls these in if found. The new comment(s) are added to the end of the list of comments in the page, with a yellow ‘fade’ to signal the addition. I’ve also added an Ajax preview, but not a non-scripted preview. Lots of real issues doing the latter with WordPress. Mayhap someone else has a plugin for it.

Finally, I didn’t incorporate OpenID. I thought about doing this, and had incorporated OpenID for comments via an existing plug-in at one point. However, OpenID is identity, not necessarily trust or ownership. My main interest is identifying the person who just made a comment and perhaps wants to edit typos–that’s it. For now, I’m using a combination of cookies and IP address. It’s not perfect, but it should be relatively safe, and relatively open.

If I had used OpenID, those people who did not want to get one of these, or who write anonymously wouldn’t have been able to edit their comments. Contrary to popular criticism, anonymous comments do have value, at least in this space.

One big problem I ran into, and perhaps I don’t understand XHTML, is that when I created the URL to edit a comment, which uses a traditional GET with two parameters, ala ?action=editcomment&comment=3333, I received a mal-formed XML error with Firefox. The page validated, and also pulled up in every other browser. Did I miss something related to XHTML with this one?

I have a lot more to do with the site, and the underlying libraries, but I’m starting the book this next week, and will have to finish the bits off as I can. I still have my graphics and photo library, and some meta/RDF stuff I want to incorporate. Once the work I’ve published here gets a chance to be decently tested, I’ll look at packaging for other use. It’s not going to be a simple plug-in, but should be able to be packaged.

update

I had forgotten to encode the ampersand in the URL for the link. The validator did not pick it up, because I also forgot that the link wouldn’t show unless the application accessed it with my logged in cookie.

Yes, it was a particularly stupid error on my part. That’s what’s nice about XHTML: it doesn’t hesitate to let you know when you’ve been stupid. Same as anonymous commenters. <smiley />

Categories
Technology Weblogging

Movable Type: The Princess Time Forgot

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Once upon a time Burningbird ran under Movable Type. In fact, the weblog ran under Movable Type for at least a couple of years. But then, I also ran a Radio weblog, one through Blogger, my own form of WordPress (Wordform), and WordPress off and on–currently on.

At one time, Movable Type was the princess to Blogger’s Queen, a potential successor to the kingdom of Blog, Blog Away. Ben and Mena Trott were feted and fawned over. They were even invited to contribute to the book on weblogging that O’Reilly published, and to which I contributed.

Then that new darling, that rapscallion, WordPress came along with that era’s latest incarnation of wunderkid. Combined with Movable Type’s new, and loathed, licensing system and performance issues, MT still stayed a princess, but of what kingdom, no one really knew.

Today, nudged by Arthur in comments, and announced by Read/Write, Movable Type version 4.0 is on the way out to thee and me, and with its Typepad inspired performance enhancements, and hip, Web 2.0 interface, comes the politically astute move: Movable Type 4.0 will be open sourced.

Of course, there is open source and then there’s open source. To me, open source means I can create a fork of the product. According to Six Apart’s MT open source page, MT will be a true open source, licensed as GPL.

This is a smart move in many ways. First, it reminds us that MT still exists. Today, the big stories in technology related to weblogging tools tend to be about what dumb ass move the tool company or organization has done recently; not necessarily, ooh, look, shiny new release. This includes Six Apart with the recent fiasco of deleting too many Live Journal weblogs in its effort to be ‘child safe’. Open sourcing the MT code raises the noise level around the tool just enough to be heard among the recent Google/Microsoft/Yahoo et al stories–something that’s becoming increasingly difficult.

Secondly, Six Apart can do what it will with regards to licensing MT, including dropping support altogether for the product in order to focus on its more profitable hosted services. If it can get the ‘community’ to take over support, it means Six Apart is no longer trapped into supporting MT forever. I imagine right now that’s tempting.

Lastly, Six Apart can benefit from the creativity and skills of any number of open source developers, none of whom have to be paid. Wow, that must seem like finding a grape lollipop on the ground, still in its wrapper.

On the downside, my first reaction reading this was, “I’d give anything for a really exciting tech story, right now.” Movable Type is part of another era. An era where releasing a new version of MT would cause the news to shoot to the top of Daypop. Remember Daypop? I bet most people reading this do not. They’ll remember Mena and cries of “Asshole!”, but not necessarily the tool that built the castle that is Six Apart.

It was surprising to hear that MT is being open sourced. Surprising, also, to read that Anil Dash is vice president of Six Apart now (when did that happen?) More surprising to see a positive review by Duncan Riley.

It was good, though, to be reminded of this princess that time forgot. To see her crown polished, and her sequined gown fluffed out and shiny. Too bad that she returns to the dance so late; many of us have already left the ball.

Categories
Technology Weblogging

Movable Type: The Princess Time Forgot

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Once upon a time Burningbird ran under Movable Type. In fact, the weblog ran under Movable Type for at least a couple of years. But then, I also ran a Radio weblog, one through Blogger, my own form of WordPress (Wordform), and WordPress off and on–currently on.

At one time, Movable Type was the princess to Blogger’s Queen, a potential successor to the kingdom of Blog, Blog Away. Ben and Mena Trott were feted and fawned over. They were even invited to contribute to the book on weblogging that O’Reilly published, and to which I contributed.

Then that new darling, that rapscallion, WordPress came along with that era’s latest incarnation of wunderkid. Combined with Movable Type’s new, and loathed, licensing system and performance issues, MT still stayed a princess, but of what kingdom, no one really knew.

Today, nudged by Arthur in comments, and announced by Read/Write, Movable Type version 4.0 is on the way out to thee and me, and with its Typepad inspired performance enhancements, and hip, Web 2.0 interface, comes the politically astute move: Movable Type 4.0 will be open sourced.

Of course, there is open source and then there’s open source. To me, open source means I can create a fork of the product. According to Six Apart’s MT open source page, MT will be a true open source, licensed as GPL.

This is a smart move in many ways. First, it reminds us that MT still exists. Today, the big stories in technology related to weblogging tools tend to be about what dumb ass move the tool company or organization has done recently; not necessarily, ooh, look, shiny new release. This includes Six Apart with the recent fiasco of deleting too many Live Journal weblogs in its effort to be ‘child safe’. Open sourcing the MT code raises the noise level around the tool just enough to be heard among the recent Google/Microsoft/Yahoo et al stories–something that’s becoming increasingly difficult.

Secondly, Six Apart can do what it will with regards to licensing MT, including dropping support altogether for the product in order to focus on its more profitable hosted services. If it can get the ‘community’ to take over support, it means Six Apart is no longer trapped into supporting MT forever. I imagine right now that’s tempting.

Lastly, Six Apart can benefit from the creativity and skills of any number of open source developers, none of whom have to be paid. Wow, that must seem like finding a grape lollipop on the ground, still in its wrapper.

On the downside, my first reaction reading this was, “I’d give anything for a really exciting tech story, right now.” Movable Type is part of another era. An era where releasing a new version of MT would cause the news to shoot to the top of Daypop. Remember Daypop? I bet most people reading this do not. They’ll remember Mena and cries of “Asshole!”, but not necessarily the tool that built the castle that is Six Apart.

It was surprising to hear that MT is being open sourced. Surprising, also, to read that Anil Dash is vice president of Six Apart now (when did that happen?) More surprising to see a positive review by Duncan Riley.

It was good, though, to be reminded of this princess that time forgot. To see her crown polished, and her sequined gown fluffed out and shiny. Too bad that she returns to the dance so late; many of us have already left the ball.

Categories
Social Media

Up and coming startups: Bitchrs and Doomrs

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Through the encouragement of my advisers, I decided to publicly announce the beginning of a new super-secret stealth project: Bitchrs. As pitched in comments, the premise behind the service is that …you can pay people to be mean to others for you. That way you can say what you want, without having to be personally accountable. I mean, it doesn’t get more Web 2.0 than that, does it?

I was inspired to begin this effort by Guy Kawasaki, when he wrote on his Truemers effort:

In total, I spent $12,107.09 to launch Truemors. During the dotcom days, entrepreneurs had to raise $5 million to try stupid ideas. Now I’ve proven that you can do it for $12,107.09.

Ha! I can beat that. I can throw together a startup in five days, for $43.86 and a case of diet orange pop.

I’m already contemplating the spinoff once Bitchrs goes big–and we all know it will go big–inspired by Marc Andreessen’s post, Bubble? There ain’t no stinken bubbles!, and his sabre tooth tiger economics:

The human psyche seems to have a powerful underlying need to predict doom and gloom.

I suspect this need was evolved into us way back when.

If there is a nonzero chance that a giant man-eating saber-tooth tiger is going to come over the nearest hill and chomp you, then it’s in your evolutionary best interest to predict doom and gloom more frequently than it actually happens.

The cost of hiding from a nonexistent giant man-eating saber-tooth tiger is low, but the cost of not hiding from a real giant man-eating saber-tooth tiger is quite high.

So hiding more often than there are tigers makes a lot of sense, if you’re a caveman.

Cavemen, tigers, and dot-com bubbles. It fits. So much so that I’m not waiting for the inevitable success of Bitchrs and am introducing the new super-secret stealth project now: Doomrs, where you can hire people to supply all the criticism, caution, and skepticism that you, yourself, believe with all your heart, BUT are afraid to vocalize and still be invited to hang out with all the Kool Kids.

Ladies and Gentlemen, forget Flickr, forget del.iciou.us, forget Google. This is the face of Web 2.0:

Bitchrs. We bitch, so you don’t have to.

Doomrs. Reality hurts. Don’t be real.

For early subscribers, a bonus service: Gripelets for Twitter.