Category: Culture

Categories
Connecting Technology

Debate continues?

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Instead of writing a new post, I updated the Bombs away posting to reflect new view, opinions, what have you.

I also gave my opinion of the Coders Only Club (COC), this tendency on the part of some elite technologists to respond to expressed concerns and arguments with exhortations to a) deliver code; b) stop practicing stop energy; or c) variations of create your own softare and/or join the organization and help from within, then.

Can one only discuss RSS or other technologies if one delivers RSS aggregagors? Can one only express concerns about Creative Commons if one is willing to join Creative Commons? And isn’t asking questions, or even expressing criticisms considered part of the growth equation?

If the only way I can give opinions is by being “one” of you, fuck it. I’m not interested. I don’t like members only clubs. If I write software for people to use its because it’s something I want to do, not to become part of this ‘technology elite’.

Categories
Diversity Political

Color-blind

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I have been enjoying the take down of Trent Lott this week. In particular, the Washington Post and a weblogger, Eschaton have done an excellent job of roasting this man’s chestnuts over an open fire.

What really caught my focus about this whole thing was Trent Lott’s statement, and his talk about a color-blind society. We want a color-blind society that every American has an opportunity to succeed… he says, and to a point, I agree with him. But I also disagree with him.

You see, I want a color-blind society, but I don’t want it now. Now I want people to look for color, to see color. I want them to look at those in power and see, really, see, face after pure white face. And I want them to look at photos from conferences and businesses and within state and federal leadership and I want the lack of diversity to sound a jarring note. And I want us to be uncomfortable, and to squirm in our chairs because we know that for all our finger pointing at Trent Lott, all that white isn’t the result of one man’s action, or inaction.

Personally, I think we’ve been color-blind too long.

Categories
Diversity Weblogging

Diversity, Inc

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

All that talk the last two days about diversity gave me a great idea for a business. I am so excited, I just can’t tell you how excited I am about this incredible new opportunity.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I introduce to you:

Diversity Dolls

Yes, you heard about it here, first! Diversity Dolls! Now, the next time you have an important meeting or conference and you want to show that you’re interested in diversity, just blow up one or more Diversity Dolls, dress it in the appropriate clothing and position it in the room or around a table. Instant diversity!

Diversity Dolls are very lifelike, and you can order them with the hairstyle of your choice: sophisticated short or slightly weedy, techy long. And you can get Diversity Dolls in all races, sexes, and ages.

Not enough Blacks and women coming to your meeting? No Problem! Order a couple of black female Diversity Dolls and you’ve solved two problems with one purchase. You can’t beat that! Need to show religious diversity? No problem! Rent a Priest Diversity Doll!

These dolls inflate in minutes, can be posed sitting or standing, and all have lifelike expressions. In fact, you’ve seen Diversity Dolls at the last conference or meeting you attended and didn’t even know it, that’s how lifelike these dolls are. And unlike real people, Diversity Dolls won’t drink up all the Starbucks Lattes, eat up all the Krispy Kremes, or ask questions during the meeting!

However, for those times when Diversity Dolls just won’t do, then step up—rent a real Diversity Person! Yes, you can rent a real live, walking, talking person of your preferred demographic, attired in appropriate garb, and with characteristics and speech to match the focus of your meeting or conference. Is this a deal or what?!

Business meeting? Diversity People will wear suits and make a lot of useless marketing statements. Technical conference? Diversity People will wear jeans, button down shirts, and talk about Linux and Open Source a lot.

But what if you don’t need a real person? What if all you need is a name? For instance, if you’re holding a technical conference and the ratio of men to women speakers is 10:1, you don’t need more women — you need more women’s names.

No problem! Diversity Inc. is proud to offer you a fine selection of Diversity Names, names guaranteed to sound female regardless of culture and language. For instance, one of our choice Diversity Names is the following:

Shelley Powers

Now, isn’t that a nice name? Well, it’s yours for a small fee! You can rent this name by the day or week for an incredibly low price. What’s more, if you need to have your Diversity Name blog the conference, we can provide this service for an additional, nominal fee, and no one will be able to tell the difference between the weblog of a real attendee and a Diversity Name weblog!

Folks, I have to tell you, it’s not often that I can fulfill a genuine need for my fellow webloggers. It brings a tear to my eye when I think about all the good I’ll be able to do here for you, at Diversity, Inc. Thank you for giving me this opportunity.

Air to blow up dolls not included

inflatable_doll.jpg

Categories
Diversity Technology

We are out there

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Clay Shirky left a gracious comment attached to the Dripping with Irony post. I’m glad because this helped the thread reach a positive note, rather than continue into a downward spiral based on the old “she said/he said” pattern (of which I, unfortunately, contributed my share).

When I replied to Clay, I repeated something I told Tim O’Reilly in response to a statement that Tim made in his comment:

Not to mention the dripping irony that, with three women out of twenty-odd participants, this group was more sexually diverse than the typical computer geek gathering…

I told Tim and Clay: We are out there.

The diversification they want, we all want, we all need is out there. There are women, and Blacks, and Latinos, and accessibility challenged folks and other non-represented people out there. But we can’t continue following the same old patterns of connectivity and communication and expect to see something other than the same old faces, time and again.

If we are discussing social software, then we have to first understand the society we’re trying to enable with this software. And to do this, we have to understand the limitations and challenges each of us, as individuals and as a members of one or more “categories”, is facing.

Clay mentioned that he did try to ensure more even representation of gender at the meeting, and I’m sure he did. As he commented, some of the women invited were academics and most likely couldn’t attend because of school commitments. And two women cancelled at the last minute.

However, rather than not have this representation, couldn’t Clay have used technology to enable these women’s participation without their physical attendance? Most people now have access to conference call capability, and most have access to video cameras for their computers. In fact, the software application Groove enables this type of participation, and the creator of Groove, Ray Ozzie, was there — could this not have been used? What a wonderful opportunity this would have been.

With this type of already available technology, these women could have participated and every one would have been richer.

And let’s take a moment to consider the reasons why the women couldn’t participate. Was it just school commitments? Or was it other constraints, such as family responsibilities or finances?

Speaking only of the United States, over 31% of families are now single parent, and only 5% of these families are headed up by men. When you’re a single-parent, especially if you don’t have extended family around you, it becomes virtually impossible at times to physically attend conferences. Or to even attend meetings of user groups at night.

Additionally, money could be more of an issue to both women and minorities. Statistically, women do make less than men, and are not as prevalent in the positions of technology leadership. I believe the same could also be said of many minorities. Both of these circumstances can make it more difficult for a person to buy a ticket to come to a meeting or conference; or to pay for the priviledge of attending the conference. Or even be in a position whereby the company pays the costs.

If we’re discussing social software, isn’t the first place the discussion should start is the constraints preventing potential audience members from becoming full participants? By doing so, we might begin to understand that what we don’t necessarily need is ways of getting the under-represented to meetings and conferences and training; but ways of getting meetings and conferences and training to the under-represented. This outreach, to me, is what social software is all about. It isn’t about sharing music files in such a way that one isn’t busted by Hollywood.

I don’t want to keep picking on Clay and his social software gathering, because I happen to know that he is a decent person who is trying very hard to open closed doors, and give voice to those who are quiet.

However, I will continue speaking out when I see these opportunities.

Categories
Connecting Diversity

Two things

Two things today:

Jonathon posts an apology to Dorothea and Tish that I thought was well done. And both Tish and Dorothea deserved it.

Sheila has much good to say about feminism and girlism. As does Suzanne in my comments to the posting “Looking Glass Self”. She writes:

Okay, so I took some time to follow the thread a little and I have some questions. Not abstract, big academic questions, but practical, nuts and bolts, if you will, questions. And let’s assume for a moment that the “girlism” theory is posed by someone who has little real education about the concept, scope, or history of feminism, and she’s struggling with what she sees as the possibly limited avenues of power for a woman in her world, which apparently consists of some type of office job, possibly professional, possibly not, and a culturally normal amount of pop tv and and other media influence. Given these assumptions, and I realize they are only assumptions, it’s not surprising she adopted this kind of theory, nor is it surprising that her particular culture is highly invested in her embracing this type of theory. But I digress to abstractions, forgive me. Now to the practicalities.

If a woman is to use girlism techniques as a way to negotiate her work or career situation, I wonder how she would succeed if she didn’t have the requisite physical characteristics, such as relative youth, between 18 and say, 25 in some arenas, maybe up to 40 in others. She’d need to be conventionally pretty, this would include thin, and possibly blond. (depending on which geo-region she’s operating in) If the woman in question has most or all of these characteristics, she may be able to leverage certain benefits, such as getting the freshest cup of coffee from the lunch room pot, preferred vacation days, the bigger corner cubicle, help with aspects of work she may find daunting, or distasteful, maybe even high level kinds of benefits like the good clients, or a chance to attend an important business luncheon. Would she actually be able to pull off a raise or promotion with girlism tactics? Maybe. What happens when a younger, thinner, blonder “girlist” appears on the scene, and we know the laws of nature dictate that there’s always someone younger and thinner and prettier eventually. Does the original girlist get to keep her skillfully won advantages, perks, benefits and even promotions? Does she have to employ ever more advanced levels of “girlist” techniques to compete such as flashing or lap dancing?

What about the women who are in their 50’s or 60’s, or fat women, or physically disabled women, or women with mastectomies, pregnant women. How are they to negotiate power in this situation? Now this is assuming girlist theory takes into consideration all women. If it does, what about women who are muslim, let’s say, and culturally and religiously restrained from interacting in sexually flirtatious ways with men who are not their husband? (yes, virginia, feminist theory encompasses these women in dignified ways) If girlists care about other women, how do they account for the extreme disadvantage suffered by these non pretty, non-young, non-thin, non American-pop-culture defined, non-blond women? What about lesbians in the work place? Or workplace shuch as hospitals? How does a resident surgeon use girlist techniques with success? For real, how does she?

What about other settings, let’s say school. Do girlists train 12 year-old girls to expose their cleavage to their teachers in order to be considered or recognized for academic achievements? And how do we help them deal with the problem of competition with other girls in the classroom for the teachers attention? When do we introduce the more advanced girlist techniques to our young women? 12? 13? 15? Of course, just as with adults, there’s the pesky problem of physical diversity that turns a girlist playing field into a steep hot metal slide. I’m assuming again there’s room in girlist theory for consideration of all girls.
Seriously, how far does the power reach? How far does a girlist have to go to leverage it? And how does girlist theory account for women who are prohibited in some way from using it? And who else benefits from the operation or this theory besides the girlist herself? Yeah, you better believe there’s serious benefit to other interests besides the girlist herself, and I’m not just talking about the lap sitee.

Just a few questions I thought I’d throw out.

 

If you don’t have a weblog, Suzanne, you need to get one. Please.