If I Were A Woman, I'd Be Pissed
March 1st, 2007
I’ll keep this short and sweet because I promised myself that this blog would be more of a technical rambling than a discussion of current blog memes.
However, I can’t help but wonder why there aren’t more woman standing up and telling people like Anil Dash (specifically, look at his articles “The Old Boys Club Is For Losers” and “The Essentials of Web 2.0 Your Event Doesn’t Cover”) where to stick it. I’d be fuming if someone dropped my name as a potential speaker at a conference purely based on my gender, race, creed or other property unrelated to that of the conference itself. An anecdote may help:
About 6 months ago, my parter graduated from university and needed to find a job. At the time, Google was on a drive to hire more women, and had specifically approached her university requesting that female graduates go along to an open house – so she went along. The decision (on Google’s part) pissed me off.
If Google had approached the university and asked for a list of the graduates with the best marks, she would have been among that list too. Instead, she was invited along because of something she didn’t work for. Her academic achievements required hardship and dedication. The fact that she started out as an X sperm did not – that part was chance.
Thankfully, she wrote up a fantastic résumé, performed well in her interview, and got a job at another respectable IT company who saw merit in her achievements rather than her gender.
This is the way it should be. I’d be just as disappointed to see my Mum or two sisters treated differently in their respective industries (Medical, Law and Architecture).
I guess when you reduce the discussions down to their base level, it’s a question of “do you believe that positive discrimination is necessary in our industry?”, or even any industry.
My opinion, is no.
March 1st, 2007 at 11:34 AM
“I’d be fuming if someone dropped my name as a potential speaker at a conference purely based on my gender, race, creed or other property”
I find it astounding that you could look at a list of people with the talents of those I mentioned and think that they were picked on the basis of anything other than merit. Aren’t you more offended by the shoddy presenters who haven’t accomplished anything of note who are given speaking slots simply because they’re male and willing to pimp themselves out?
March 1st, 2007 at 12:02 PM
”...think that they were picked on the basis of anything other than merit.”
The list consists only of women – denying that gender was not a criteria in your selection is absurd.
”...given speaking slots simply because they’re male…”
This is a point of contention, and where our opinions fall on either side of the fence. I’ve seen poor presenters of both the male and female variety. Some crappy presenters I’ve seen were Jewish, some were Catholic, others were indifferent. Many, in fact, were Caucasian. You’re saying that talented non-Caucasian presenters were turned down, just because the organisers went with the safer option?
I 100% disagree that better presenters were turned down, purely because of gender, race or creed, or because they were less willing to “pimp themselves out”.
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:08 AM
So you’re saying Anil’s list must have been chosen on the basis of gender rather than merit, because it happens only to include women. I wonder if you make the same objection when you come across a list that happens only to include men?
I’m not actually interested in how you would feel if you were a woman. You’re not. Don’t presume to speak for us.
March 2nd, 2007 at 01:24 PM
“So you’re saying Anil’s list must have been chosen on the basis of gender rather than merit, because it happens only to include women…”
No, not “rather than merit” – read carefully. I’m saying that gender was an irrefutable criteria in addition to merit. The context of his article makes that clear.
Would I have the same opinion about a list of men in the context of an article about men? Sure, I’d say the same thing. It’s ridiculous to think otherwise. Why is it that discussions on gender imbalances immediately bring out accusations of bias? I am the child of a single mother, and have been the only man in a household of three women for years now. If anything, I’m biased towards women – hence why I stated that I would be disappointed if those that I’m close to were included on a list for reasons not limited to their competency and/or merit.
“I’m not actually interested in how you would feel if you were a woman. You’re not. Don’t presume to speak for us.”
Clearly I don’t need to be told I’m not a woman – I’m well aware of that fact, just as I’m sure Anil is. That doesn’t preclude either of us from responding to this topic. Not only that, but I don’t presume to speak for anyone other than myself. If you read carefully (I take it you skimmed or read through once) and don’t respond defensively, you’ll realise that I’m expressing my opinion and haven’t stated that this is an opinion shared by those I’m defending.
I’m happy for you to disagree, but attacking my objectivity and then stating your lack of interest in my opinion is not grounds for an open discussion. It also doesn’t reflect well on those who are attempting to contribute to the conversation, from either side of the discussion.
March 11th, 2007 at 12:53 AM
Nathan,
I’m in complete agreement with the conclusion of your article but I do think that “that girl again” has a point. You wouldn’t begin an article with “If I were a midget …”. If your trying to be objective you chose a poor title for the article.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Myles: That’s true. On reflection, the title makes no sense because my opinion wouldn’t be different “If I Were A Woman” – it would be exactly the same. The reason I chose such a title was mainly to question why more women aren’t taking a negative stance towards the discussion. I was slightly puzzled by it, I guess.
July 18th, 2007 at 08:18 PM
What if Google just wanted to have a little bit more of mixed people in their group? If you were going to start a company. Wouldn’t you take care of that? Would you only get the best people? Even if there were 199 mens and 1 woman in your company?
I think that when companies look for women they are mainly looking in making the social life a little bit more diverse than just man inside the building.