This post is mostly an exposition of the author's strongly-held opinion that A) technology communities are all currently meritocracies, which is good; B) self-imposed quotas will result in something that isn't a meritocracy, which is bad; and C) organizations which strive to help minorities (women who code etc) are bad because they try to help minorities.
I'm only going to respond to C because it's the most ludicrous. Recently, I (an asian male) was a teacher assistant at the very first ClojureBridge, and during the training I learned more about why these workshops are useful and important. They create an environment where attendees feel more comfortable learning, making it much more likely that attendees will be successful in learning to program. You can argue whether or not it's "right" that women would feel more comfortable attending a workshop geared specifically toward women, but frankly I think that's irrelevant.
The author says that these organizations give the message that "These people are different from the majority so we need to treat them differently." Well, yes. What's wrong with that? The author doesn't explain. In any case, I think this is a good thing because the majority already has special treatment, thanks to human nature. There is ample evidence that women and black people are seen as less capable, even by people who have no desire to be prejudiced. How easy will it be for you to learn if the people surrounding you all assume that you're not as smart as them just because you're a woman or you're black? It's important that these conscious efforts to combat the results of our unconscious biases exist.
The author says that these organizations give the message that "These people are different from the majority so we need to treat them differently." Well, yes. What's wrong with that? The author doesn't explain.
I think it's pretty obvious - he thinks that those groups are reinforcing the idea that they're trying to dispel. From his POV, if you don't want people treated as different, it makes no sense for you to do the same.
There are several definitions of sexism, one is essentially "taking someone's sex or gender into account when making a decision". This appears to be the definition the author is using by calling quotas "sexist". It's a very simple, easy to understand, easy to identify definition. It also means that in many cases (e.g. choosing who shoul speak at a tech conference), men can be the victims of sexism.
There's another definition, which is "actions that's designed to maintain & reinforce the institutionalised power structure among the sexes is sexist". Right now, if modern UK life was a video game, "male" would be an easier difficulty level than "female". It doesn't mean it's easy, just that it's easier. Many people, including this author did work hard. But there are statistically less problems for the "male" group. Sexist actions are actions that re-enforced that imbalance. This definition is harder for some people to accept because it means that you need to look at yourself and think about what power imbalances you might be benefiting from, and it means you can't just do s/female/male/g and make it just as sexist.
(There are some cases where there's an inbalance in favour of women, any men here ever took up knitting or crochet? Try getting involved in that, you'll see things from the other side)
> This definition is harder for some people to accept because it means that you need to look at yourself and think about what power imbalances you might be benefiting from, and it means you can't just do s/female/male/g and make it just as sexist.
I think it's more Darwinian than that. No one comes to the realization one day that they benefit from institutional power dynamics and then sets out to change the system to their own detriment. The reason men want more women in technology is not that they're worried about women -- not as a first class objective. It's rather that they believe they (and the society they live in) will benefit from more gender diversity in the industry. The fact that this will also produce benefits for women is a happy harmony because it means we don't have to fight about it.
Which is why the "reinforces institutionalized power structure" definition is such a loser. It frames the issue as battle of the sexes rather than everyone cooperating to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome. So then instead of everyone finding a way to help women without hurting men, you create two sides where one is trying to help women by hurting men and the other starts throwing rocks from the top of the mountain because they don't want to be hurt. Which doesn't benefit anybody.
In general I agree with what you're saying and I think that your second definition of sexism is very insightful and something everybody should consider and think about (even if they ultimately find they cannot support this definition).
However, I would like to point out that whether being "male" makes you play life on easier difficulty than "female" depends to a large extent to how you weight different outcomes of the game. While it's probably still true that being male makes it easier to earn more money (especially now, when all the geeky, previously unpopular, mostly male programmers cashed in), but it also makes it easier to be homeless and to die sooner (homicide/suicide).
While I agree that it's important to encourage and educate the young about technology, this article vastly over simplifies, dismisses, and actively works against those working for a positive change. What good will encouraging young girls if they grow up to try and work in an industry that actively dismisses them? That actively seeks to ignore them? No know has all the right answers but focusing only on education seems to miss about half the equation to me. It's a requirement and as father to a young daughter it's something I'm passionately interested in but I also want my industry to be somewhere that my daughter feels safe and comfortable working in. Educating the young won't fix that. Beyond that young people NEED role models to look up to, the only way to accomplish that is to fix the industry to be more fair and safe now.
This is already happening to boys and girls. See my comment below. No one is encouraged to code. It's not a popular activity. Up until recently it was basically asking to be socially shunned. Some boys either didn't care or didn't have any other options. But the discouragement starts very early.
I just want to throw my two cents in as a (very) young woman in college that aspires to become a Software Engineer.
I'm very glad that groups like PyLadies and Women Who Code exist. Unfortunately I'm pretty terrified of meeting men that are significantly more experienced than myself in the industry when it comes to software. I'm terrified of coming off as clueless or air headed. On top of that, the men I have met in the industry are extremely intimidating. I've already had multiple experiences at University where a male peer has looked down at me due to my gender.
This is probably just a simple self confidence issue since I'm young however my point is groups that are women centric are a lot easier to relate to for someone like myself. I love the prospects of meeting other women that can give emotional and professional advice while sharing their work experiences with me. It's much easier to relate to and I'm sure networking with other women makes it easier to transition into the industry from school. Just my two cents.
> Unfortunately I'm pretty terrified of meeting men that are significantly more experienced than myself in the industry when it comes to software. I'm terrified of coming off as clueless or air headed.
Don't worry about that. Making mistakes is one of the best ways to learn. Making a mistake in front of someone or even an entire lecture hall is nothing. They probably won't even remember it. But you will, because it was your mistake and you won't ever make it again.
Leaving wrong ideas in your head instead of saying them and letting someone correct you is how people become clueless. Opening your mouth more will cause you to be wrong less.
> On top of that, the men I have met in the industry are extremely intimidating.
This industry is full of jerks. Defy them by succeeding.
Thanks for putting this out there. I'm not really sure what the solution is but one thing is for sure: I would never want any of my girl coder friends to feel isolated or threatened.
Every single male coder I know would look down on that male peer you mentioned. I don't know if it makes you feel any better but the vast majority of the men I know want women in this field to succeed and feel happy doing what they love.
This article is dismissing a lot of good projects without any arguments. Rails Girls for example has a very good track record of bringing people into the industry and they care a lot about that. I'd like to see proper numbers, no gut feelings. Also, Rails Girls accepts men, they just outreach to a different group.
I may be biased, but I run a conference[1] including a Rails Girls workshop in Berlin and the whole thing just got so much better since we bring new people on board. They are newbies, alright, but hasn't the argument for the IT industry always been on how easy it is to get started, even with a different education?
> By creating anti-diverse groups like [Women Who Code, PyLadies, Girls Who Code, Black Girls Code], people are literally saying “This group of people are different than the majority, so we need to do special things for them. Treat them differently. They’re special.”
Though this was a small part of the post, I believe this is one of the most flawed concepts he has. Having founded a group for black programmers in NYC, I can tell you, we're not asking for special things, nor have any of the women I've encountered from the other groups.
My group, the Black Techies, was founded so that we could have a place free of crap like cultural biases, or people asking "why are the black people sitting together at lunch", or sexist and racist posts that devalue our worth.
The author's version of "true diversity" is one where anyone who is not a white male assimilates into a white male culture of software development.
His vision is one where white males don't have to change; where acceptable groups are blessed; where we can't do anything about the adults in the field, we need to focus on the children and in 20 years, __maybe__ we will look up and see that it worked.
This vision is one that perpetuates the status quo.
For myself, and I would posit the other founders of similar groups, the status quo is unacceptable. And we actively fight, on our own terms, for our own interests about the best way forward. Who knows best about how to hire more "diverse" programmers than those same "diverse" programmers?
Is a "1:1" speaker ratio the right thing? Is it going to produce results? Is it sustainable?
Who knows.
But, it is an active and bold idea. It's taking a stand. It's does a hell of a lot more for the conversation than silently removing a "no girls allowed" sign from the boys club.
Just an idea. If you want to write a serious article on the subject of women in tech, no matter what your views are, you're probably better off not putting a "no girls allowed" graphic on top, no matter how "funny" or "ironic" you may think it is.
So, it's alright to actually run "no boys allowed" schools, dinners and programs in tech, but it's not OK to ironically put a "no girls allowed" image in a blog post?
Do you realize that this double standard is harmful for everyone?
> "Some would say I’ve won the genetic lottery. Others would say I’ve had an easy life. After 15 years in the industry, I would say I’ve worked my ass off to get where I am today."
And you completely missed the point of the concept of privilege.
The author embraces the fallacy that there are clear and objective "best" people to hire for a job or to invite to speak at a conference. Very rarely that may be the case, but in general that is a false idea, and a poisonous one. It's an excuse for being lazy, and it continues the cycle of discrimination that keeps gender ratios so wildly skewed.
There's value in the perspective from the outside, there's value in being challenged by new ideas, there's value in developing the next generation of top speakers and workers, there's value in taking a risk on someone new, there's value in working on new problems with people who've lived a different life than you have.
In terms of conference speakers in particular, you send a message to your audience with your choice of speakers and panelists. You are saying "this is who we are". And if no one on the stage looks like me, I might start to think I'm not welcome as an audience member either.
Coding has become, relativity recently, high status - so people now care about gender ratios, more so than they do in the fields like carpentry or car mechanics. People are so quick to create vast, economically counterproductive misogynistic conspiracies when there's likely a simpler explanation. Perhaps women are just less likely to enjoy coding. Is this necessarily a bad thing so long as those who do aren't treated differently from men of similar skill level? There are already huge economic incentives for companies to not discriminate against highly skilled coders on any criteria other than ability. Even if you grant that there is a vast misogynistic conspiracy, it must be highly unstable, because any company that defects from the conspiracy will have access to cheap high-level talent.
I agree that this is an issue that is best tackled by early education.
In the UK Computer Science is begin taught to all students from Year 1, as of September.
We've currently been delivering CS at my school for only a year, but I'm pleased that a third of the students that have _chosen_ to study GCSE CS next year are female students. This ratio will no doubt continue to increase, as students have a greater exposure to CS in earlier years.
I have little doubt that the gender imbalance amongst developers and academics in the field will decrease as time goes on, and hopefully this will cease to be an issue in the future.
Incidentally, as I write this comment I have three 11 yo students working in my room, all coding in JavaScript, voluntarily, after school. They are all female.
Quotas are numbers that are set and measured. They are not a means for changing hearts and minds, or actually making motion towards a goal.
The quota doesn't even need to reflect the goal, it's just a number, and in the case of this gender equality we're not even scrutinizing if it is meaningful. This is the same metric frat bros use to make sure they don't have sausage parties, why is it good here too? Does a 1:1 ration equate to unblocked opportunity? If so, what does the high ratio of male contributors to wikipedia mean?
I agree that quotas are not the right way to fix any of these issues. The best person should always get the job - race, gender, orientation aside. There are systemic issues that are better treated at the root, rather than covering up symptoms.
That being said, good luck to the OP with getting reasonable responses to this post. If this ends up anything like Twitter, anything other than mindless agreement with certain people appears to cause folks to be hung out to dry.
It will also take decades to improve gender diversity in the technology field.
Well in three decades it actually became worse... Gender diversity was actually greater before (think 70s), we may be one of the few fields were it actually got worse...
> What does having a program like ... Girls Who Code, Black Girls Code, etc… accomplish? The short answer; very little if anything. In fact, I believe groups like this have the potential actually do more harm than good.
> IMO, one place to make the biggest impact on diversity in our field is the next generation of technologists. Kids.
What the heck does he think organizations like Black Girls Code are trying to do? Hint: They're helping make sure tomorrow's generation of technologists includes more women, by teaching girls today.
Using quotas is valid if there is quota bias to start with. So if men are more domininant in the tech industry because they are men, then using quotas will actually increase the merocrity. The problem is how do you calculate the true talent of people?
My favorite "proof" of this comes from the book Soccernomics where they could show that black fotball (soccer for you americans) players where discriminated, because with all other equal the higher ratio of black players in a team would increase the succes of the team.
Why do we (well, you :) keep arguing about this issue as if the gender imbalance in software was a new and strange thing?
Gender imbalances in many industries, along with every kind of policies written to address this, have been around for a long time. Certainly well-thought-out positions and empirical studies have been published. Why is the discussion still completely based on random opinions?
EDIT: removed the "prejudiced", I didn't mean it as a personal attack against OP.
I'm on the board of the group he is talking about. I'd like to share my thoughts that I sent to the group after the 1:1 proposal. I did some light editing for clarity and to redact names.
----------------------------
Dear <original 1:1 author>,
No, because then we'll be judging speakers on a trait that has nothing to do with their coding or presentation skills. I'm not going discriminate against a male simply because he is a male for the same reason I wont discriminate against a female because she is female. Equality of opportunity is what I care about, not equality of results, and right now we have an open call for speakers.
<original 1:1 author>, where do we draw the line? Should i not pick an Asian guy because they're over represented in the tech community (and our speaker selection)? "sorry <asian presenter 1> and <asian presenter 2>, we know you've spoken at all 14 of our events but can only pick one of you since you hail from Asia". Do we need a quota for blacks and hispanics? Do we use their representation nationwide or just in <our state> when we set the quota? Do you want to look <hispanic presenter friend> the face when you announce the quota, so he gets to wonder if he was picked because he gives good presentations or if he was picked because he's brown? Should we put sexual preference on the speaker submission form? I mean, LGBT makes up 6% of the country, right? We should really have at least one. I'm friends with a transgendered female, she is super bright and I've been encouraging her to present. Now she'll get to wonder if she was just picked to fill a quota instead of thinking that I wanted to hear her speak. You tell me if she counts as a female for your quota, I mean she has more testosterone than your average woman and she was born a male. There's a lot of talk about age discrimination, should we reserve 20% for speakers over 60? If an Hispanic 63 year old woman asks to speak, does she fill three quotas at once, or is it only one?
In short, no, I think this is a horrible, sexist idea. If on the other hand you want to have a panel discussion on gender in tech, I'm cool with that. I'd also be willing to reserve X% (20?) of slots for first time speakers. And if someone wanted to give a presentation on how programmers gender actually effects their ability to write an algorithm, I guarantee you I will pick them (regardless if it is a male or female presenter). If you'd like to go on a campaign to encourage certain genders, races, ages to submit a session, feel free, but as long as I'm in charge of speaker selections I'll continue to pick solely on the session abstract and the experience of the speaker.
I'd also like to add that I like diversity of thought and experience. I think we've done an excellent job getting lots of different technologies in front of our attendees and would like to continue doing so.
[+] [-] nonrecursive|12 years ago|reply
I'm only going to respond to C because it's the most ludicrous. Recently, I (an asian male) was a teacher assistant at the very first ClojureBridge, and during the training I learned more about why these workshops are useful and important. They create an environment where attendees feel more comfortable learning, making it much more likely that attendees will be successful in learning to program. You can argue whether or not it's "right" that women would feel more comfortable attending a workshop geared specifically toward women, but frankly I think that's irrelevant.
The author says that these organizations give the message that "These people are different from the majority so we need to treat them differently." Well, yes. What's wrong with that? The author doesn't explain. In any case, I think this is a good thing because the majority already has special treatment, thanks to human nature. There is ample evidence that women and black people are seen as less capable, even by people who have no desire to be prejudiced. How easy will it be for you to learn if the people surrounding you all assume that you're not as smart as them just because you're a woman or you're black? It's important that these conscious efforts to combat the results of our unconscious biases exist.
[+] [-] icebraining|12 years ago|reply
I think it's pretty obvious - he thinks that those groups are reinforcing the idea that they're trying to dispel. From his POV, if you don't want people treated as different, it makes no sense for you to do the same.
[+] [-] rmc|12 years ago|reply
There's another definition, which is "actions that's designed to maintain & reinforce the institutionalised power structure among the sexes is sexist". Right now, if modern UK life was a video game, "male" would be an easier difficulty level than "female". It doesn't mean it's easy, just that it's easier. Many people, including this author did work hard. But there are statistically less problems for the "male" group. Sexist actions are actions that re-enforced that imbalance. This definition is harder for some people to accept because it means that you need to look at yourself and think about what power imbalances you might be benefiting from, and it means you can't just do s/female/male/g and make it just as sexist.
(There are some cases where there's an inbalance in favour of women, any men here ever took up knitting or crochet? Try getting involved in that, you'll see things from the other side)
[+] [-] AnthonyMouse|12 years ago|reply
I think it's more Darwinian than that. No one comes to the realization one day that they benefit from institutional power dynamics and then sets out to change the system to their own detriment. The reason men want more women in technology is not that they're worried about women -- not as a first class objective. It's rather that they believe they (and the society they live in) will benefit from more gender diversity in the industry. The fact that this will also produce benefits for women is a happy harmony because it means we don't have to fight about it.
Which is why the "reinforces institutionalized power structure" definition is such a loser. It frames the issue as battle of the sexes rather than everyone cooperating to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome. So then instead of everyone finding a way to help women without hurting men, you create two sides where one is trying to help women by hurting men and the other starts throwing rocks from the top of the mountain because they don't want to be hurt. Which doesn't benefit anybody.
[+] [-] tomp|12 years ago|reply
However, I would like to point out that whether being "male" makes you play life on easier difficulty than "female" depends to a large extent to how you weight different outcomes of the game. While it's probably still true that being male makes it easier to earn more money (especially now, when all the geeky, previously unpopular, mostly male programmers cashed in), but it also makes it easier to be homeless and to die sooner (homicide/suicide).
[+] [-] jaegerpicker|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exstudent|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zysh|12 years ago|reply
I'm very glad that groups like PyLadies and Women Who Code exist. Unfortunately I'm pretty terrified of meeting men that are significantly more experienced than myself in the industry when it comes to software. I'm terrified of coming off as clueless or air headed. On top of that, the men I have met in the industry are extremely intimidating. I've already had multiple experiences at University where a male peer has looked down at me due to my gender.
This is probably just a simple self confidence issue since I'm young however my point is groups that are women centric are a lot easier to relate to for someone like myself. I love the prospects of meeting other women that can give emotional and professional advice while sharing their work experiences with me. It's much easier to relate to and I'm sure networking with other women makes it easier to transition into the industry from school. Just my two cents.
[+] [-] AnthonyMouse|12 years ago|reply
Don't worry about that. Making mistakes is one of the best ways to learn. Making a mistake in front of someone or even an entire lecture hall is nothing. They probably won't even remember it. But you will, because it was your mistake and you won't ever make it again.
Leaving wrong ideas in your head instead of saying them and letting someone correct you is how people become clueless. Opening your mouth more will cause you to be wrong less.
> On top of that, the men I have met in the industry are extremely intimidating.
This industry is full of jerks. Defy them by succeeding.
[+] [-] e_modad|12 years ago|reply
Every single male coder I know would look down on that male peer you mentioned. I don't know if it makes you feel any better but the vast majority of the men I know want women in this field to succeed and feel happy doing what they love.
[+] [-] Argorak|12 years ago|reply
I may be biased, but I run a conference[1] including a Rails Girls workshop in Berlin and the whole thing just got so much better since we bring new people on board. They are newbies, alright, but hasn't the argument for the IT industry always been on how easy it is to get started, even with a different education?
[1]: http://2014.eurucamp.org
[+] [-] kylewpppd|12 years ago|reply
Though this was a small part of the post, I believe this is one of the most flawed concepts he has. Having founded a group for black programmers in NYC, I can tell you, we're not asking for special things, nor have any of the women I've encountered from the other groups.
My group, the Black Techies, was founded so that we could have a place free of crap like cultural biases, or people asking "why are the black people sitting together at lunch", or sexist and racist posts that devalue our worth.
The author's version of "true diversity" is one where anyone who is not a white male assimilates into a white male culture of software development.
His vision is one where white males don't have to change; where acceptable groups are blessed; where we can't do anything about the adults in the field, we need to focus on the children and in 20 years, __maybe__ we will look up and see that it worked.
This vision is one that perpetuates the status quo.
For myself, and I would posit the other founders of similar groups, the status quo is unacceptable. And we actively fight, on our own terms, for our own interests about the best way forward. Who knows best about how to hire more "diverse" programmers than those same "diverse" programmers?
Is a "1:1" speaker ratio the right thing? Is it going to produce results? Is it sustainable?
Who knows.
But, it is an active and bold idea. It's taking a stand. It's does a hell of a lot more for the conversation than silently removing a "no girls allowed" sign from the boys club.
[+] [-] DavidWoof|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] majika|12 years ago|reply
Do you realize that this double standard is harmful for everyone?
[+] [-] sergiotapia|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] comrh|12 years ago|reply
And you completely missed the point of the concept of privilege.
[+] [-] skywhopper|12 years ago|reply
There's value in the perspective from the outside, there's value in being challenged by new ideas, there's value in developing the next generation of top speakers and workers, there's value in taking a risk on someone new, there's value in working on new problems with people who've lived a different life than you have.
In terms of conference speakers in particular, you send a message to your audience with your choice of speakers and panelists. You are saying "this is who we are". And if no one on the stage looks like me, I might start to think I'm not welcome as an audience member either.
[+] [-] JamesArgo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MarcScott|12 years ago|reply
In the UK Computer Science is begin taught to all students from Year 1, as of September.
We've currently been delivering CS at my school for only a year, but I'm pleased that a third of the students that have _chosen_ to study GCSE CS next year are female students. This ratio will no doubt continue to increase, as students have a greater exposure to CS in earlier years.
I have little doubt that the gender imbalance amongst developers and academics in the field will decrease as time goes on, and hopefully this will cease to be an issue in the future.
Incidentally, as I write this comment I have three 11 yo students working in my room, all coding in JavaScript, voluntarily, after school. They are all female.
[+] [-] droob|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sirseal|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdg|12 years ago|reply
Quotas are numbers that are set and measured. They are not a means for changing hearts and minds, or actually making motion towards a goal.
The quota doesn't even need to reflect the goal, it's just a number, and in the case of this gender equality we're not even scrutinizing if it is meaningful. This is the same metric frat bros use to make sure they don't have sausage parties, why is it good here too? Does a 1:1 ration equate to unblocked opportunity? If so, what does the high ratio of male contributors to wikipedia mean?
[+] [-] vezzy-fnord|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ___anon___|12 years ago|reply
That being said, good luck to the OP with getting reasonable responses to this post. If this ends up anything like Twitter, anything other than mindless agreement with certain people appears to cause folks to be hung out to dry.
[+] [-] brohee|12 years ago|reply
Well in three decades it actually became worse... Gender diversity was actually greater before (think 70s), we may be one of the few fields were it actually got worse...
[+] [-] ForHackernews|12 years ago|reply
> What does having a program like ... Girls Who Code, Black Girls Code, etc… accomplish? The short answer; very little if anything. In fact, I believe groups like this have the potential actually do more harm than good.
> IMO, one place to make the biggest impact on diversity in our field is the next generation of technologists. Kids.
What the heck does he think organizations like Black Girls Code are trying to do? Hint: They're helping make sure tomorrow's generation of technologists includes more women, by teaching girls today.
[+] [-] gingersnap|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] icebraining|12 years ago|reply
Gender imbalances in many industries, along with every kind of policies written to address this, have been around for a long time. Certainly well-thought-out positions and empirical studies have been published. Why is the discussion still completely based on random opinions?
EDIT: removed the "prejudiced", I didn't mean it as a personal attack against OP.
[+] [-] viggity|12 years ago|reply
----------------------------
Dear <original 1:1 author>,
No, because then we'll be judging speakers on a trait that has nothing to do with their coding or presentation skills. I'm not going discriminate against a male simply because he is a male for the same reason I wont discriminate against a female because she is female. Equality of opportunity is what I care about, not equality of results, and right now we have an open call for speakers.
<original 1:1 author>, where do we draw the line? Should i not pick an Asian guy because they're over represented in the tech community (and our speaker selection)? "sorry <asian presenter 1> and <asian presenter 2>, we know you've spoken at all 14 of our events but can only pick one of you since you hail from Asia". Do we need a quota for blacks and hispanics? Do we use their representation nationwide or just in <our state> when we set the quota? Do you want to look <hispanic presenter friend> the face when you announce the quota, so he gets to wonder if he was picked because he gives good presentations or if he was picked because he's brown? Should we put sexual preference on the speaker submission form? I mean, LGBT makes up 6% of the country, right? We should really have at least one. I'm friends with a transgendered female, she is super bright and I've been encouraging her to present. Now she'll get to wonder if she was just picked to fill a quota instead of thinking that I wanted to hear her speak. You tell me if she counts as a female for your quota, I mean she has more testosterone than your average woman and she was born a male. There's a lot of talk about age discrimination, should we reserve 20% for speakers over 60? If an Hispanic 63 year old woman asks to speak, does she fill three quotas at once, or is it only one?
In short, no, I think this is a horrible, sexist idea. If on the other hand you want to have a panel discussion on gender in tech, I'm cool with that. I'd also be willing to reserve X% (20?) of slots for first time speakers. And if someone wanted to give a presentation on how programmers gender actually effects their ability to write an algorithm, I guarantee you I will pick them (regardless if it is a male or female presenter). If you'd like to go on a campaign to encourage certain genders, races, ages to submit a session, feel free, but as long as I'm in charge of speaker selections I'll continue to pick solely on the session abstract and the experience of the speaker.
I'd also like to add that I like diversity of thought and experience. I think we've done an excellent job getting lots of different technologies in front of our attendees and would like to continue doing so.
[+] [-] viggity|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]