Chris and Hillary, thanks for the great and thoughtful posts on the topic which I admittedly hijacked the group with. Your respective points are quite valid, and I whole heartedly agree with most of them -- I'd just like to add and clarify on some.
Chris: > This is the argument against affirmative action. And it's the argument > that those who are most threatened tend to make. You are correct, I am not fan of affirmative action, and you're damn right I feel threatened by it. It's like fighting violence with violence, and I see no way it could help things out in the long run. If you have two people of similar abilities but one superficial difference (say, color, or gender), and one of them is selected on the basis of that single trait, I'd certainly call that a racism, or sexism or whatever is the appropriate term. Just because this is done as a response to a previous example doesn't suddenly make it right. The only thing affirmative action is good for is making statistics look better, and I don't care about statistics. Just like vigilante violence, it will break on the backs of individual people, which is what I care for. Also, affirmative action tends to be one-sided, and people tend to stick to it even when it's not necessary after all. Are there any affirmative actions to have more white players in the NBA? The problem is that people -- even those without racist or similar tendencies -- tend to focus on superficial traits of other people: skin tone, gender, looks, age, clothes etc. In a position to make decisions regarding those people, hardly anyone is immune to being at least a bit influenced by those traits, either favorably or not. The whole point is that all the decisions should be made based on the traits that are relevant to our goal, not on anything else. Sometimes your decision simply _has_ to be "racist" (if you're a movie director casting for a role of Martin Luther King, I'm pretty sure you'll discount most white actors from the beginning) or sexist (similarly, if you're looking for a swimsuit model); any affirmative action here would be nonsensical (like the rumors from the Lord of the Rings set that they will make Sam Gamgee black). So, once again: the decisions should be made based on the traits that are relevant to the goal. When organizing the conference, we invited Kathy Sierra for a speaker (she had to decline) not because she was a woman, but because she authored interesting articles and books relevant to the event's topics. Similarly, we invited a top legal expert in the country, who is male, but when he delegated that to a female partner in his firm we were delighted because she happened to be a leading expert for the software and Internet related topics. Hillary: >>> The lack of women is, admittedly, a different topic... > > Berislav, I disagree. Addressing the concerns of gender diversity are > no different than any other type. You misunderstood, Hillary. I was referring to the fact that in a society with so little racial diversity, with no "affirmative action" we could gather any black people at the conference; as the distribution of women is -- on the other hand -- similar to anywhere else, it is a different topic in the sense that we could have done something to bring more of them. Hillary: > I'm not sure > how to be "more accommodating," or how to "value the kinds of special > contributions women make." But I do think Chris is on to something > with the example of Liz Henry & BarCampBlock. I agree here with both of you, and in general it's like any kind of marketing: if you wish to attract more of a certain type of people, you do things that are attractive to that precise type. Hillary: > If I may talk specifically about conferences and similar events, I > believe that the primary way to engender diversity is to be diverse > from the get-go. Two of the four five members of the BarCampBlock > planning team were women. Just like Liz made the planning team aware > of accessibility and child care, I think her and Tara's involvement > led to a much more diverse attendee list. Can't prove it of course, > but I know it encouraged me to not only attend but also really be > present for the event. Well, it's a circle of death that somehow has to be broken. I'm aware that the more women we have the more women will come, and this is something to strive for. But as a new conference in an environment which is not too friendly to such grassroots initiatives (most events here are organized either by the government or by big multi-nationals) we have other concerns to pay attention to first. You see, ours is a conference for and about Web (and software in general) startups. So this is our focus, and we will do what is needed to promote this topic. Which means inviting speakers who will speak about relevant topics, and market to startups, investors and the like. If there was a conference about women in software industry, it will naturally have a different focus, and will do things differently. Hillary: > Another mini-case study -- I'm planning a three-day event for my > company and our top clients. It's an annual conference with the usual > showcase of keynotes, presentations, panels, and entertainment. This > is my first year to handle the planning from start to finish, and it's > shaping up to be much different than previous years. There is a > subtle, and natural, difference in the range of topics, speakers, etc. > simply because I'm organizing it, not my (wonderful, but) male boss. I'm convinced that this is so, Hillary, and I'm really happy for your boss and your clients to have you to do those things. Unfortunately, the number of women in our specific case (IT industry, an underdeveloped country etc) is too small, and simply none joined us in the planning phase (we had a few at the conference itself, doing wonders at the desk and information booth). I'm really hoping that there will be more for the next year. In any case, this discussion has expanded into several directions, and I have a vocal opinion (I tend to :) ) about most of them, so I apologize if I get over too hard, or even as if I'm supporting any racist or similar behavior. I'm not, on the contrary -- to the extent of opposing any such behavior which is nominally done "to right the wrongs". Actually, being from Croatia I have often experienced the bias and stereotypes against such "backwater" countries. Similarly, the majority in this country looks suspiciously towards self-made entrepreneurs as well as towards Internet, and I'd certainly like to see these misconceptions go away. But I'm realist enough to understand that it won't happen anytime soon; in the meanwhile, I'm doing what I can to promote and educate about at least some of these misconceptions. :) Best regards, Berislav --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/coworking?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
