Shelley Powers and Jeneane Sessum on Office 2.0

Shelley Powers points out that the Office 2.0 conference has only one woman speaker at this moment:

[from What will work]

This isn’t a conference on esoteric technology where the participants rush out and say, ‘There are no women who do X’, whatever ‘X’ is. This is a conference that encompasses a broad range of interests related to a concept of Office 2.0, and features people like Michael Arrington and Stowe Boyd, both of whom don’t have any specific technical background.

The conference organizer wrote in Tara’s comments that we should suggest some women and to point out the conference, but that makes little sense when the conference is a month away, the speakers have already been slotted, and the organizer is less interested in representing women and more in getting attention directed to his conference. Well, he has his wish: I am giving him attention.

I have been told that the way to make a difference is for women to be more proactive; to submit proposals for conferences, to put ourselves on lists, to create our own conferences and web sites. I’ve been told these things, and I’ve watched as this has become the ‘accepted’ way to generate change in this Web 2.0 world. The thing is, I don’t see that it’s working.

I see Office 2.0, located in the Silicon Valley the very bastion of women who celebrate the concept of ‘working from within’, and there’s only one woman on the list. One.

There are some women, small numbers, at these conferences but it’s the same group of women; the same ones over and over, as if there’s a list that men pass around of women who are ’safe’ to have at these conferences. Isn’t the point of working from within to open opportunities for all women, not just a few?

I agree with the thrust of Shelley's comments, although I think that I do have "a specific technical background" in this area (MS Computer Science, 20+ years in collaboration/social technologies) , but all that may be completely beside the point. The main thing that she is saying is right. There should be more women in the program.

It's perhaps a cop-out to say but a/ I was not involved in the planning of the conference, just supporting it as a presenter, and relatively late at that, and b/ I have had several email exchanges with Ismael Ghalimi, the conference organizer, about the low number of women involved.

I consider it one of the low points of my life to have Jeneane Sessum, who I consider a close, dear friend, say "Fuck You" to me because of this:

The only thing I have to add is a shout out to the men who have been promoting this conference -- those who full well know the speaker page is littered with 53 men and no (Shelley says one--I don't see her) woman.

Fuck You.

Especially to those on the list I consider friends, I say, Fuck You.

Yes, you Stowe, and you Ross, and you Jeff, and you Paul and the rest of you.

If we were standing in a bar and you pulled out this Office 2.0 hard-copy pamphlet and said to me, "Hey, I'm supporting this Office 2.0 thing by speaking there--have a look," I would have opened it, read it, and looked you in the eye and asked, "You're kidding, right?" Then you'd say, "No, my picture and name are right there--my brand. It's co-branded."

And I would say: FUCK YOU.

Fuck me.

I will talk with Ismail, again. I will try to pull in people to solve this problem, and -- yes, I hope it's possible -- to still support the conference. I will suggest that he have a conference call with Shelley and Jeneane -- I'm eager to help, too -- to see what steps he could take to turn this problem around.

I know it's not enough to say I have raised this question. I should have done more, earlier.

I believe that Ismail is just inexperienced, and not paying attention. But of course he, we, should have noticed. When I raised the issue, he was unaware of it, which led to his comment at my blog, asking for help in finding women speakers for the conference.

Nonetheless, he, we... I should not have proceeded this far the way things are.

I will communicate with Ismail immediately, and recommend direct communication with Shelley and Jeneane, and maybe others who'd like to help avert disaster. More to follow.

[Update: 2 Sept 5:35 PM ET -- It looks like several of the women who had been contacted now have been added to the roster of speakers: I saw I think 4 or 5 at this point. I am certain that Ismael will have some sort of update at the conference blog after the weekend, if not sooner.]

tags: shelley+powers, jeneane+sessum, office+2.0, ismael+ghalimi

Comments

[Zoli Erdos]

Stowe, Shelley has just launched a blog war conveniently ignoring a few facts:
- few speakers were invited, most of them signed up on their own, and there was (still is ) a call for speakers, with a registration form on the Office 2.0 site.

- the speaker list went from a handful people to 52 in the last two weeks

- Ismael and other organizers are not happy seeing low female representation, but it takes two to dance - if you don't apply, don't complain of being excluded.

That said, I know Ismael is working on getting more female speakers, and offered to meet those who are currently busy badmouthing him without any fact-checking.

[jeneane]

Stowe, I respect you ENOUGH to say Fuck You. You'd do the same for me. You'll get your chance, I'm sure.

I'm not sure how or who or what I can give you to avert disaster at this point, but I can steer you to some talented women speakers that I'm aware of, that's for sure.

Believe it or not, I'm around all weekend, working. That crazy office 2.0 world. 678-294-0900.

[Harry]

Yes and once you sort out the issue with women, make sure you have enough black people, muslims, gay, christian orthodox, short, fat, disabled and from all economic classes.
I think a conference should be critisised on people's competence or lack of it. Not what they have between their legs.

[Elisa Camahort]

I disagree with the concept that "if you don't apply, don't complain." If one is only asking for speakers via one's own blog/web site then who actually sees that blog/web site? You will constantly limit your resources to your first and perhaps second circle of acquaintances/readers. Sure, go ahead, but don't fool yourself that you're mining the rich trove of competent and relevant people out there. Shock of shocks: not everyone doing stuff reads a million blogs or can keep track of every one of the now gajillion industry events going on.

Moreover if I'm being charged hundreds of dollars to attend an event then yeah, I'd like the organizer to make some proactive effort and not throw his or her hands up in the air and say I only had what fell into my lap to work with. And certainly don't bill it as "a wide ranging group of visionaries and industry leaders."

And why does it matter? Well if you don't think it matters to have a more diverse group then just say it and live by it. Any argument about competence is a straw man argument. In my opinion, it matters because if this is a conference to discuss future applications for the online masses, then the attendees who are interested in building those probably should know and consider and care about the fact that the online masses are far from a homogenous group. Seems like common sense and rational product development process to me.

[Suw]

Zoli, how can one suggest oneself as a speaker if one does not know that the conference exists? It's just not good enough to say 'you could have applied'. If the only people who know about the conference are men where is the opportunity for women to put themselves forward?

Contrast this with the (by some people, highly criticised for elitism) FooCamp where Tim O'Reilly and his team inviting enough women that they made up 17% of the actual attendees. Obviously it can't be that hard to find women in technology, and finding women expert in "Office 2.0" stuff should be even easier.

No, sorry, excuses about 'you could have applied' or 'I didn't know I had to look for women speakers' are just feeble.

[Phil]

"I will talk with Ismail, again. I will try to pull in people to solve this problem, and -- yes, I hope it's possible -- to still support the conference."

Nice one, Stowe.