also cross-posted on Feminism 2.0
Success in Silicon Valley, most would agree, is more merit driven than almost any other place in the world. It doesn’t matter how old you are, what sex you are, what politics you support or what color you are…. Statistically speaking women have a huge advantage as entrepreneurs.
Privileged much? *
The lastest firestorm about women and entrepeneurship got kicked off by Shira Ovide’s excellent Wall Street Journal article Addressing the Lack of Women Running Tech Startups.  Shira’s article has some fine quotes from Dina Kaplan, Yuli Ziv, and Fred Wilson, and this from Rachel Sklar of Change the Ratio:
Part of changing the ratio is just changing awareness, so that the next time Techcrunch is planning a Techcrunch Disrupt, they won’t be able to not see the overwhelming maleness of it.
I thought it was a great read. But not everybody agreed.
Every damn time we have a conference we fret over how we can find women to fill speaking slots. We ask our friends and contacts for suggestions. We beg women to come and speak. Where do we end up? With about 10% of our speakers as women.
Oh please. Fretting, asking, and begging isn’t a plan.
Yes, it’s hard. Stop whining. Take some responsibility.
Allyson Kapin’s Stop Playing the Blame Game, Ja-Naé Duane’s 5 Simple Ways to Help Women as Tech Leaders, and Jessica Wakeman’s 18 Reasons Your Company Might Be a Sausagefest all have some specific suggestions for Michael and TechCrunch — or anybody else who’s working on diversity. Here’s my perspective.
If you really want to make progress, treat it the way you would any other business problem you take seriously. Set goals, put a plan together, hire good people to help you, and do some real outreach. Work with organizations like Change The Ratio, Women Who Tech, Anita Borg Institute, GeekFeminism, BlogHer, Fem2pt0, TechMavens, Women 2.0, ASTIA and so on. Invite them to guest post regularly on TechCrunch. Go to their events. Pay a diversity consultant and invest in their recommendations.  Oh and while you’re at it please work on race, age, and other biases in TechCrunch and your other enterprises.
Or not. It’s up to you, of course. But if you ignore all this input and keep acting defensive, don’t expect people to see you as taking diversity seriously.
There’s plenty more privilege (along with some sexism and misogyny) in the comment thread. More positively there’s some good stuff as well, including perspectives from Michelle Lee of Mamabread, Michelle Greer, LToTheWolf, Cindy Gallop of If We Ran the World, and many others.  Women and allies are underrepresented in the thread but more than holding their own 🙂  There’s also a brief appearance from Fred Wilson, and a great riposte by self-described angry feminist Millercan, who responds to a clueless comment about meritocracy with:
have been in tech (my guess) since before you were in kindergarten. i’ve been rewarded based on merit. but never as well as men who actually shipped shitty products, or took out 16 million organizations with narcissistic behavior.
There have been some excellent followup posts as well, including from Cindy Gallop, Michelle Greer, Jamelle Bouie, K. Tempest Bradford and Terri on Geek Feminism, Eva Smith, Ivan Boothe, Laurie on Seldo.com, Alyson Shontel, Kay on Feministe, clarely on Mavenity, Helena Stone, Fred Wilson, and Irin Carmon’s What Do “Where are the Women” Sh*tstorms Achieve? in Jezebel.
Update, Sept 3: Two more excellent posts: Aliza Sherman’s We Aren’t Blaming Men and Sasha Pasulka’s Stop Telling People How They Should Feel About It (on Seattle 2.0! Go Pacific Northwest!)
Sept 6: But wait there’s more! Gayle Laakmann’s Blame Men — And Women, Audrey Watters “Ambient Un-belonging” Geoff Livingston’s Mindfulness is the Key to Finding Female Speakers and Mackenzie’s Finding more women to speak at Ohio LinuxFest are all well worth reading.
Sept 20: Links from the Arrington/TechCrunch women in tech kerfuffle has a lot more perspectives, as do the comments here
That said, Arrington’s position has gotten some support, too. Here’s what the all-male team at Charles River Ventures has to say on Twitter |
I think of articles like this as a fascinating snapshot of how privilege, combined with the “guys talking to guys who talk about guys” cliquing behavior, leads to a remarkably convenient blind spot for Arrington — as well as a lot of his readers, and so many other privileged white guys.
At the same time, though, it’s also a great sign of the momentum that the women-in-technology networks and their allies are making. The steady coverage in Fast Company, Mercury News, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and other high profile sites, along with the overwhelming evidence, increases the pressure on the “objective” defenders of the status quo. It’s getting harder and harder to deny there’s a problem, and that the advantages moving ahead will go to those who address it most quickly.
So I’m sure we’ll be seeing a lot more “anxious masculinity under threat” blog posts.
Something to look forward to!
jon
Update: See Links from the Arrington kerfuffle for much more discussion
* In fact, most don’t agree. Michael presumably knows the data that’s been published in TechCrunch and elsewhere about the superior performance of women-run startup. And yet less than 10% of the successes are by women. Unless you’re sexist enough to believe that women don’t want to run companies or are for some reason less qualified, there’s no way to reconcile this a belief that Silicon Valley is a meritocracy — let alone that women have systemic advantages.
Jill Miller Zimon | 29-Aug-10 at 11:47 am | Permalink
Isn’t this the truth, and frankly I don’t care if it would be the only reason to get some folks to chill and face the music:
“…the advantages moving ahead will go to those who address it most quickly.”
Guess they have enough success already without changing anything. Funny how different change looks to those who want to control it.
Thanks, Jon – very much.
jon | 29-Aug-10 at 12:21 pm | Permalink
My pleasure, Jill — and thanks for your comment!
Here’s a smattering of the Twitter discussion:
M. Edward (Ed) Boras | 29-Aug-10 at 1:08 pm | Permalink
I was particularly incensed by this rather arrogant turn of phrase in Arrington’s article:
“It doesn’t matter how old you are, what sex you are, what politics you support or what color you are. If your idea rocks and you can execute, you can change the world and/or get really, stinking rich.”
It very much *does* matter how old you are – just *yesterday* Vivek Wadhwa posted http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/28/silicon-valley%E2%80%99s-dark-secret-it%E2%80%99s-all-about-age/
It very much *does* matter what politics you support. Silicon Valley is all about tax breaks for Silicon Valley, more H1B visas to bring in foreign workers, etc.
In short, Silicon Valley seems to me to be far more disconnected from Main Street than Wall Street *ever* was! It is “trickle-down economics” at its most blatant. It is elitist, sexist, ageist and for the most part totally blind to the environmental impact of IT. Only two things seem to matter in Silicon Valley – code and dollars.
M. Edward (Ed) Boras | 29-Aug-10 at 1:18 pm | Permalink
As is often the case, Kurt Vonnegut said it best:
http://akkartik.name/blog/money-river
Faith Dow | 29-Aug-10 at 1:39 pm | Permalink
Thanks for including my Tweet. Of course from my perspective the other elephant in the room is the use of the word women which will typically include white women but not specific women of color and particularly black women. If we looked at those numbers would we find any companies? Not everyone is a coder or developer, has a computer science or engineering degree. Some of us are idea generators. How do we connect with those who can help facilitate and implement our visions – as well as fund them?
jon | 30-Aug-10 at 9:38 am | Permalink
Totally agreed, Ed and Faith. Age and race biases are huge issues as well — and it’s a particularly bad situation for women of color.
Ed, this isn’t really new behavior from Silicon Valley. Paulina Borsook’s Cyberselfish from the 1990s describes it very recognizably. And of course it’s not just the Valley and it’s not just high tech; a lot of other locations and industries and locations are worse.
Faith, excellent point about the need to connect people with different skills. “Techie elitism” is yet another dimension of self-reinforcing privilege. You can really see it on places like Hacker News; Y Combinator and other tech incubators like TechStars are virtually impossible for anybody other than developers to get involved in unless they’re already part of a team.
In the Seattle area, the Northwest Entrepeneurs’ Network and events like Startup Weekend fill this gap to some extent (although it’s still a challenge). Are some similar organizations where you live?
jon
PS: thanks for the comments!
Faith | 30-Aug-10 at 10:15 am | Permalink
I’ve lived in San Francisco for a number of years and have to admit I was remiss in seeking out all of the networking opportunities I should have. I’m temporarily on the East Coast and aside from She’s Geeky, Anita Borg, Women Who Tech, Women 2.0 ,etc I’m not aware of specific organizations that work to facilitate idea generators with those with the technical skills. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any though. If anyone has any recommendations please pass them along. It’s these conversations that will help connect us.
jon | 30-Aug-10 at 10:27 am | Permalink
A few more views from Twitter:
AnnMaria | 31-Aug-10 at 12:25 am | Permalink
Privileged much?
* Best * line * ever *.
I wasn’t going to get in this whole debate as I have work to do, but the notion that there is no discrimination against women in tech because some women have made it was just as off-base as the idea there is no racism because Obama is president. But you put it much better in two words. Hurray you!
jon | 31-Aug-10 at 9:08 am | Permalink
Thanks AnnMaria!
Faith, not sure what to suggest — I’m also on the West Coast. It sure would be great for one of the organizations to set up a wiki pointing to people local information …
jon | 31-Aug-10 at 9:11 am | Permalink
There’s a great comment thread on Allyson Kapin’s Fast Company article, including a question from Krista Neher to conference organizers. An excerpt:
My response is still in moderation on Fast Company; here it is, with some cleaned-up formatting:
Susan | 31-Aug-10 at 9:19 am | Permalink
Thank you for this piece. Wonderfully written and so right on. Wish more people would learn to recognize how privileged they may be and how holding on those advantages hurts everyone.
Mike | 31-Aug-10 at 10:48 am | Permalink
“Every damn time we have a conference we fret over how we can find women to fill speaking slots. We ask our friends and contacts for suggestions. We beg women to come and speak. Where do we end up? With about 10% of our speakers as women.”
This statement is SUCH a lie. I personally have known some of the TC folks for years and have never seen one request, let alone “begging” and they still are unable to find them. Even Sarah Lacy, supposedly a woman in tech – have never once seen her reaching out to her network.
jon | 01-Sep-10 at 6:25 am | Permalink
Thanks Susan … alas when you’re used to privilege, and are surrounded by other privileged people, it’s hard to see how much you benefit from it.
And thanks Mike, too! My views of the TechCrunch universe are strictly from the outside (I don’t know any of the people there, so my closest contact is once seeing Arrington speak — on an all-male panel 🙂 ) so it’s always great to hear from those with closer contacts.
jon | 01-Sep-10 at 9:19 am | Permalink
More from Twitter:
Both from a gender equity and a media perspective, there are some big names here. NCWIT is the National Council on Women in Technology, and the excellent post by Jamelle Bouie they’re tweeting showed up on TAPPED, a high-profile political blog. Terri O. blogs at Geek Feminism. Julia Angwin is at the Wall Street Journal (that’s mainstream media, right) and Elizabeth Stark wrote a great piece earlier this year for the Huffington Post? Sharon Vosmek runs Astia, Rachel Sklar’s retweeting something from Women 2.0, and of course Shelley Powers is the author of the 2005 classics Guys don’t link and When We Are Needed.
Cool!
jon
jon | 01-Sep-10 at 9:24 am | Permalink
A couple of good comments from the cross-post on Fem2pt0 …
Angie Chang of Women 2.0 reminded me that I hadn’t mentioned Astia, led by Sharon Vosmek, and added:
And Harry Waisbren observes about Arrington:
Here was my response:
jon | 01-Sep-10 at 10:39 am | Permalink
Sarah Lacy‘s certainly right that some other women share Arrington’s views. Leah Culver strikes a similar chord in The Daily Beast:
No question about the importance of recognizing and congratulating women on their accomplishments. But Rachel Sklar’s point that kicked off the whole debate is that TechCrunch Disrupt hasn’t been recognizing women, and I think this applies to TechCrunch in general.
Back in January I spotlighted the all-male list of finalists for the Crunchies’ Founder and CEO of the year. And when I looked at the TechCrunch front page,
75% of the articles on TechCrunch’s page today are written by guys and* I’m seeing virtually no mentions of women or women-led companies. Instead I see paragraphs like this one from a story about TechStars:And y’know, I don’t think it’s “blaming” anybody to point that out. If mentioning this provokes knee-jerk defensiveness, that reflects a lack of awareness and double-standards. Like I said above, I understand why he’s frustrated about not getting credit for hiring women at TechCrunch, but that’s only one aspect of gender equity. He doesn’t sugarcoat his criticism of others (and in fact is known for his lack of diplomacy). He should expect to be treated similarly.
Words are actions. They’re not the only kind of actions, of course; I’m working on a post called A few things you can do for the Northwest Entrepeneurs’ Network’s blog with a bunch of suggestions and links to more. [Feedback welcome!] But that doesn’t decrease the importance of words.
So rather than looking it it as complaining, I think it’s extremely valuable to hold well-intentioned privileged people in power accountable and evaluate them on the same criteria they apply to others. And all the excellent blog posts and tweets on this subject help the people who are working towards change understand each others’ positions, and — if they want to — work together to change things.
Update, 4 p.m.: Rachel Sklar has posted her response to Leah on Change the Ratio
* Update, September 2: this may have been an aberration; today, it’s 50-50. my bad for generalizing too soon.
YLi | 01-Sep-10 at 11:24 am | Permalink
If you want to know how predisposition can affect the outcome, please read this article and you will understand what we are discussing here:
“Princeton Economist Finds that Auditioning Behind Screens Helps Women Win Orchestra Positions”
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/97/q2/0425orch.html
Quoted directly from the article:
“The switch to blind auditions can explain between 30 percent and 55 percent of the increase in the proportion female among new hires and between 25 percent and 46 percent of the increase in the percentage female in the orchestras from 1970 to 1996,” the economists write. The study notes that the surge of women in symphony orchestras has occurred despite the fact that the number of positions is highly fixed and turnover is slow.
jon | 01-Sep-10 at 3:10 pm | Permalink
Great point, YLi! Eric Ries discusses this in Why diversity matters (the meritocracy business) discusses reading about this in Blink, and has a great suggestion:
jon
PS: At Qworky, we interviewed several candidates via online chat — which is a good way of approximating this.
jon | 01-Sep-10 at 3:47 pm | Permalink
More from Twitter:
September 13: Anil did in fact get to it, with a great post called The Facebook Reckoning.
jon | 01-Sep-10 at 3:48 pm | Permalink
Aliza Sherman, founder of Cybergrrl, has a great post We Aren’t Blaming Men. A few excerpts:
There’s lots more good stuff … by all means check it out!
jon | 02-Sep-10 at 11:44 am | Permalink
w00t! A #diversitywin after a #diversityfail! 20 Year Old Founder Jessica Mah Gets $1 Million Put Into Banking Startup InDinero, Alexia Tsotis reports on TechCrunch. Congrats to Jessica, her co-founder Andy, and to Y Combinator!
More about Jessica and inDinero in a comment the Guys talking to guys who talk about guys thread.
jon | 02-Sep-10 at 11:47 am | Permalink
The plot thickens …
Linkspam: Sexism Exists Between Keyboard And Chair | Geek Feminism Blog | 02-Sep-10 at 1:45 pm | Permalink
[…] Michelle Greer challenges Michael Arrington on the misogyny of TechCrunch commenters (possible trigger warning). Jon says fretting, asking, and begging isn’t a plan. […]
jon | 02-Sep-10 at 2:04 pm | Permalink
As my friends know, I try to avoid talking about myself*, but since Michael asked so nicely, I will.
To start with I do a lot of mentoring and advising. In fact part of the reason it took me a while to respond is that I had meetings with Shasta Willson (aka @codeamazon) about her new venture Litsam Press, and Miller Canning (aka @millercan), who I connected with after quoting her in this post and was looking for some feedback on what she’s working on. It’s not glamorous but makes a big difference. And my startup Qworky has an extremely diverse team; one of our three co-founders is a woman, and so is the majority of the world’s best advisory board and our incredible community. Plus I’m volunteering with the Northwest Entrepeneurs’ Network and have been leading outreach to women for this fall’s First Look Forum.
Moving beyond entrepeneurs to women in technology more generally, in my last 18 months at Microsoft I led the Ad Astra grassroots strategy/culture change project, which among other accomplishments increased women’s participation in innovations from an initial 5-10% to 25-30% [the population density of Microsoft]. In the political area, I co-founded #p2 (the largest progressive hashtag on Twitter) with Tracy Viselli, specifically with a goal of increasing participation by women. After two years of looking at diversity on the program committee, I co-chaired the ACM Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference, and we wound up with 37% women speakers.
Oh yeah and I blog a lot about it too, here and in comments on places like Restructure and Geek Feminism. As I said earlier in this thread, words are actions. I think there’s a lot of value in keeping snapshorts of the biases against women, people of color, and other marginalized groups, challenging privilege when I see it, and recognizing and linking to the women who take leadership in these and other areas.
Anyhow, enough about me.
Michael, you certainly deserve credit for improving diversity in TechCrunch’s management and employees and giving Vivek a platform for his guest posts. What else are you doing to help women in technology?
jon
* that’s a joke, in case anybody’s wondering
jon | 02-Sep-10 at 4:12 pm | Permalink
Michael’s response:
Update, September 6: The links Arrington’s talking about are to TechCrunch stories by Evelyn Rusli and Alexia Tsotis on women-oriented events. I tweeted back to him asking for statistics on what percentage of TechCrunch stories are about women but he didn’t reply. Oh well.
In “Ambient un-belonging”, Audrey Watters comments
Yeah really. Gayle Laakmann, one of Qworky’s excellent advisors, weighs in as well, with Blame Men — And Women
There’s been a lot of discussion about how we’re all working to similar goals here. True enough (see my response to Steven Levy below for more).
That said, Arrington doesn’t seem to be acting like he’s on the same team.
Liminal states :: Women in technology startups: a few things each of us can do (DRAFT) | 03-Sep-10 at 8:23 am | Permalink
[…] How They Should Feel About It on Seattle 2.0 has some views from the Pacific Northwest community. Fretting, Asking, and Begging Isn’t a Plan on Liminal States has my perspectives, a lot of links and excerpts from the […]
Steven Levy | 03-Sep-10 at 2:06 pm | Permalink
I’m not sure Arrington’s first sentence is literally incorrect: “Success in Silicon Valley, most would agree, is more merit driven than almost any other place in the world.”
The key is “MORE merit driven.” If it’s 35% fair in the Valley and 20% fair in the population at large, then his statement is true… as far as it goes, which isn’t very far.
But 35% fair — or you make up a number — isn’t fair; it’s just fairER than other places. The tech world has made progress, but I think it’s a mistake to say “we’re there,” or “this is as good as it’s gonna get,” or “it must be the fault of the women that they’re not better represented at the top.” Tech folks pride themselves on their ability to spot problems and pitch in as a team to fix them.
Well, it’s still a problem, and it’s a team problem that can be fixed only by pulling together, not by fiat or complaint or ignore-it-and-it-will-go-away.
jon | 04-Sep-10 at 2:30 pm | Permalink
Thanks for the comment, Steven.
via Ryan Tate in Valleywag
Vivek Wadha’s Silicon Valley: You and Some of Your VC’s have a Gender Problem and the comments also have some good perspectives.
That said, I really have no idea whether Silicon Valley is more or less meritocratic than elsewhere. Hmm. It’d be interesting for somebody to do an analysis as background for the all-woman discussion of women’s issues that Michael just announced is being added to TechCrunch Disrupt …
Speaking of which, a big huzzah to Michael and TechCrunch for doing this! As Steven says, it’s easier to fix the problem when people pull together. This session could a good step towards diversifying TechCrunch Disrupt. @navarrowwright, @nakisnakis, and randomdeanna all have some great suggestions, so it’s a huge opportunity.
And talk about perfect timing: on Tuesday, in It’s Time To Disqus Our Community, MG Siegler also a plan announced that TechCrunch is hiring a “social czar” whose job will include moderating the comments and more generally engaging the community. If that goes well, it could really cut down on the sexism (and racism and nativsm and ageism etc. etc.) in the comments and over time that can help make TechCrunch a much more diverse place.
In a lot of ways he is a supporter, and I can see why he feels that he doesn’t get enough credit. On the other hand, at least online, he comes across as uninformed on the broader diversity issues. A friend of mine commented “it’s like he truly doesn’t see the value of what you’re talking about… yet does see the value in the hirings he’s made.” He doesn’t seem to know much about structural oppression and intersectionality, and doesn’t care seem to care how his behavior looks to others.
Oh well. You take your allies as you find them. I’ve been impressed with his willingness to RT and engage with a lot of his critics. While there’s a lot we don’t agree on, we may well be on the same side here. I just wish he’d act that way.
jon | 04-Sep-10 at 7:25 pm | Permalink
Here’s the first frame from Zach Weiner’s latest on Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal.
Check out the rest!
“Ambient Un-Belonging”: Women and Tech Startups | an/archivista | 05-Sep-10 at 7:07 pm | Permalink
[…] Lists, Women, and the Confluence Thereof Arrington is completely wrong about women in technology Fretting, asking, and begging isn’t a plan: a response to TechCrunch on women in technology Too Few Women in Tech: Stop Telling People How They Should Feel About It Blame Men — And […]
Liminal states :: Links from the Arrington/TechCrunch women in tech kerfuffle | 06-Sep-10 at 11:45 am | Permalink
[…] been — including on Twitter (I collected some of the tweets that caught my in various comments in another thread). First though, in a comment that the Arrington’s of the world will no […]
jon | 06-Sep-10 at 1:50 pm | Permalink
Arrington’s got a followup post up called Blogging and psychomanipulation. Here’s Liz Scherer of FlashFree‘s summary from the comments
Shannon Aronin adds
And Michelle Greer, whose comments on Arrington’s first post attracted a huge amount of abuse, says
Indeed.
But as I said above, words aren’t the only kind of action — and we’re actually on the same side on this issue. Here’s Rachel Sklar’s summary on Change the Ratio (1, 2).
Yeah really. Kudos to Rachel, and to Shira Ovide of WSJ for her good choice of quotes!
And while I’m handing out kudos, props to Chiara Atik of Guest of a Guest, who wrote about TechStar New York’s ratio of 46 male mentors and only two women — and to David Tisch from TechStars for his quick when Cindy Gallop brought it up on Twitter. Yet another good outcome — and far less confrontational, too! More of this, please 🙂
jon | 08-Sep-10 at 6:45 pm | Permalink
An n-dimensional chess move by TechCrunch CEO Heather Harde? Pass the popcorn!
From Andy Brett’s Sign Up Now to the TechCrunch Hackathon:
Good news indeed! It sounds like a great event and very cool they’ve got the world’s most influential person as a judge. But wait a second, let’s just look at those underlined names again. I’m noticing a pattern here — and the picture emphasizes it.
Still, especially combined with Michael Arrington’s earlier tweet about adding a panel on “women’s issues” to TechCrunch Disrupt there is an awesome opportunity here. Add a bunch of women judges so that the panel is mostly female. Seek out some well-known female hackers and comp them. Partner with organizations like NCWIT, Anita Borg Instititue, Linux Chix, She’s Geeky, Blog Her, Women Who Tech, Pipeline Women, Astia, Women 2.0, etc. to promote the heck out of it — and find some sponsors to kick in scholarships. Etc. etc.
And then do similar things with other dimensions of diversity as well.
So the stage is set for a brilliant n-dimensional [literally!] chess move by Michael’s boss, TechCrunch CEO Heather Harde — who is conveniently enough on a panel at next week’s Women Who Tech telesummit. Kind of like a 21st century “Nixon goes to China”. Who knows, maybe this is exactly how they’ve planned it all along, they’ve got stuff like this in the works already, and they’re just keeping it quiet. We shall see.
Pass the popcorn.
And there sure is a lot of discussion of women entrepeneurs going on in wake of the kerfuffle. Gotta like that. If you just can’t get enough of this stuff, here’s a a detailed links list (and great example of a structural bias against women). Enjoy!
Meanwhile, part 1 of How each of us can help #changetheratio is up on the Northwest Entrepeneurs’ Network’s blog. w00t! There’s also a a draft of part 2. Feedback welcome!
Liz | 08-Sep-10 at 8:36 pm | Permalink
Thanks for all this analysis and for the links as well.
I think you’re right, people have to devise actual plans for diversity, rather than looking around and then shrugging their shoulders.
As a woman who has worked with startups….eh. I’m not a fan. I might write a post about this at some point on my own blog. So much stuff to parse here.
jon | 10-Sep-10 at 7:54 pm | Permalink
Thanks for the comment, Liz. Yeah, historically very few startups have paid attention to diversity. It’s too bad, because it’s a lot easier to deal with if you build it in up front; accidental biases in your early employee and community base can become more and more self-reinforcing over time. Then again a lot of startups also have historically underinvested in security and privacy and software engineering and a lot of other things you should do up front. It’s tough when resources are so constrained, and I think most people people miss the huge value diversity starts to bring relatively quickly.
Hope you decide to post about it! If you do, please leave a link it in the link list thread. Thanks!
jon | 10-Sep-10 at 8:16 pm | Permalink
Paul Carr, in TechCrunch Has Breached Your Right To Free Speech? Yeah, Shut Up:
From the comments:
And i thought this was a good point too:
Indeed. From a strategy perspective TechCrunch as well as Mashable, ReadWriteWeb, Gizmodo, Engadget, Wired, and a lot of others have all been fighting over the same “techie white male” demographic. How to broaden their appeal without losing their base? Hiring more women as executives, editors, and writers, and inviting diversity-oriented guest posts (like Vivek Wadwha’s on TechCrunch and Jessica Faye Carter’s on Mashable) have been good first steps. At some point somebody’s going to make the next move in the n-dimensional chess game.
jon | 18-Sep-10 at 7:30 am | Permalink
Pass the popcorn indeed! Right before the Women Who Tech TeleSummit, Sarah Lacy’s Women in Tech: Look around the World and Stop Complaining threw down the next gauntlet.
Based on statistics she learned at the World Economic Forum’s invitation-only “Summer Davos” (more about which below), she argues that women in tech in the US have it better than anywhere else so shouldn’t discuss it any further until somebody proves there’s a problem.
Kristen Abell says in Why TechCrunch Misses the Boat … and the Dock in Kristendom on Tech
Rachel Sklar’s Women In Tech: Look Around the World and Keep Complaining is another great response, including this:
Sarah describes bloggers suggesting that gender equity needs attention as “playing to a crowd or just haven’t been doing their homework”. Presumably she’s referring to Rachel here, as well as Caroline Simard of the Anita Borg Institute, whose Saying High-Tech is a Meritocracy Doesn’t Make it So in the Huffington Post has links to the exactly kind of data Sarah’s asking for. It’s hard to know how broadly she means it, actually. Is she also attacking Allyson Kapin of Women Who Tech, Sharon Vosmek of Astia, Read Write Web columnist Audrey Watters, Natalia Oberti Noguera of Pipeline, Iris Camron of Jezebel, super-angel Brad Feld, VC Fred Wilson, TechCrunch’s own Vivek Wadhwa, and all the other women and men who have blogged and written about this?
If so, I certainly hope she’s including me on the list!
jon | 18-Sep-10 at 8:26 am | Permalink
The picture on the right is from the web page for World Economic Forum’s “Summer Davos”, the invitation-only meeting Sarah Lacy discussed in her Women in Tech: Look around the World and Stop Complaining. The Annual Meeting of the New Champions, as it is more formally known, is the Tianjin-based little sibling of the WEF’s annual meeting in Davos Switzerland, a place where the global elite meet, learn, network, and share plans for world domination. Attendees include CEOs, CTOs, chief economists, corporate strategists, heads of government, ministers for energy, science and industry, scientists from around the world, publishers, editors-in-chief, and top columnists.
While this thread is mostly about TechCrunch, can we just digress a moment into the multiple #diversityfails by the World Economic Forum? Let’s start with the picture. The nine superstar mentors listed on the page include Kris Gopalakrishnan, Jack Ma Yun, Wei Jiafu, and Hari S. Barthia, and to my untrained Western eye the partial attendees list seems rather unsurprisingly mostly Chinese and Indian. In the picture, though, it’s white guys in focus up front, everybody else in the background.
And, um, where are the women? Not just in the picture, but also the mentors, where it’s Cynthia Carroll and eight guys for a ratio of 11% — and no women of color.
For more on the World Economic Form and diversity, check out ]Joi Ito’s excellent 2004 Carrying Privilege, danah boyd’s the absurdities of Davos, and Morice Mendoza’s Davos 2009: Where are the Women?, Meghan Asha’s video of the Google Party,, and Linde Wolters’ These are the Women on The Next Women.
Michael Arrington, Sarah’s boss at TechCrunch, has written about Davos too, including this 2009 preview of the three all-male sessions he moderated and the followup Some Things Need to Change. Susan Mernit’s TechCruncher Mike Arrington says he was spit on at Davos, taking a break for a month on BlogHer, has context.
Speaking of TechCrunch, we now return you to the n-dimensional chess match, currently in progress.
jon | 18-Sep-10 at 3:34 pm | Permalink
The term “kerfuffle” came up a few times in Wednesday’s perfectly-timed Women Who Tech TeleSummit, and so did issues of representation. A few examples:
The comments of A #diversitywin as an opportunity have highlights and links.
TechCrunch CEO Heather Harde was on one of the closing panels. Moderator Cathy Brooks’ Moving Forward, Seizing the future had set the tone: women are underrepresented, it’s not really a problem, continually talking about chauvism and misogyny is a waste time, and “PLEASE stop complaining and just start doing the work”.* She struck a similar for the panel. A few excerpts from the Twitter stream give an idea of what Heather covered:
All true — and there were some a very pragmatic suggestions as well, including acting classes and/or improv comedy to reduce flappability. On the intern front, when Michael posted about TechCrunch’s all-male intern class of 2008, he also mentioned in passing that they hired a couple of guys from their 2007 intern crop. I don’t think Heather gave the current numbers but props to TechCrunch if they’ve now got a balanced gender ratio.
That said, Heather didn’t discuss how technology entrenches gender biases in media or anything else about structural barriers to women. Can’t fierceness help there as well?
And what about women who are already adults and for whatever reason didn’t get those opportunities at an early age? Focusing on girls is vital for a long-term solution; focusing primarily on girls entrenches the advantages of adult guys and the relatively-few women who have been good, lucky, and privileged enough to succeed in the current system.
jon
* As I said earlier in the thread, I don’t see challenging under-representation as complaining, and believe you me it is a lot of work.
jon | 18-Sep-10 at 4:40 pm | Permalink
Tarikh Korula’s 7 Reasons Why You Need to Hack at TechCrunch Disrupt makes a compelling case. Admission is free if you’re selected and you can network with the judges: Brett Bullington, Bradley Horowitz, Dean Hovey, Michael Marquez, Christopher Poole, Joshua Schachter, Mike Schroepfer, and Cyan Banister, the founder of Zivity who according to Arrington thinks “women [stink] as entrepreneurs a lot of the time because they are nurturing and not risk-taking enough by nature.”
Meanwhile Erick Schonfeld’s Barry Diller’s Going to Give Us a Piece of His Mind at Disrupt talks about the speakers for the main conference:
Incidentally, Mark is no relation, at least as far as I know. If the name’s familiar, he showed up earlier in this thread as TechCrunch’s CEO of the Year, and was just profiled in SF Weekly‘s FarmVillains: Steal someone else’s game. Change its name. Make millions. Repeat. But I digress…
Both of these lists 90% male.
The only woman in the picture is watching guys code.
The speakers include a VC who prefers to invest in white guys and the author of The Diversity Myth.
Can’t imagine why they’re having a hard time attracting women.
Cathy Brooks | 19-Sep-10 at 9:06 am | Permalink
Just have to chime in on one thing … I’ve been thinking about Cyan Banister’s comment about women entrepreneur and how being nurturing is a bad thing in her mind. I think she’s being both short sighted and frankly silly … there’s no reason one cannot be nurturing AND be okay with risk … if by nurturing she means not firing someone who’s not doing the work they need to do, or not making a move because they’re afraid of hurting someone’s feelings … that’s not nurturing. Frankly I think that working in a high stress, high paced start-up environment with a leader who actually gives a shit how people are doing is nothing but an asset – so long as that caring doesn’t stand in the way of making clear-headed business decisions.
Shellie Holubek | 19-Sep-10 at 10:51 am | Permalink
Just wanted to re-post what I felt was my most important post-event tweet — building on the quote from Heather Harde (“Best motivation and reinforcement you can get is leadership opportunities at a young age”) shown above:
The #WWT pipeline starts here: Encourage girls you know to join science & math clubs, sports teams, Girl Scouts to grow leadership skills.
11:43 AM Sep 16th
We also have this article from Mike Cassidy in the SV Mercury News today: “Let’s keep talking about venture funding for women” (http://is.gd/fibiw). Jed Katz says that women-owned firms comprise 20% of Javelin Venture Partners, the highest percentage he’s seen in 6 years.
jon | 20-Sep-10 at 8:03 am | Permalink
Thanks for the comments!
Shellie, great link! I added it as a comment in the Guys talking to guys about guys thread, where it’s a good companion to Marylene Delbourg-Delphis’ excellent conversation with Cameron Lester of Azure Capital, who also has roughly 20% women CEOs. And agreed about the importance of encouraging girls as a key part of a long-term solution to “the pipeline problem”.
Cathy, I totally agree. Since when is employee development (aka nurturing) a bad thing for a CEO — or for that matter any other manager?
There was a good discussion of risk on the fierceness panel, and it had come up earlier in the “Launching your own startup” panel as well where Rashmi Sinha said some great things. Yes, there are differences in risk perception: risks tend to be judged lower by men than by women and by white people than by people of colour. Women who are looking for VC funding, where they’re looking for high-risk/high-return investments, may need to learn to tolerate more risk.
Easier said than done, of course, as a couple Twitter comments during the WWT panels point out:
Women tend to have fewer resources then male entrepeneurs, the risks really are higher for them. Like education, this is another one of those aspects of the problem where solutions will only happen in the long term — although as the AAUW reminds us, passing the Paycheck Fairness Act is a good next step.
That said, there’s some evidence that the risk-lovin’ white guy entrepeneurs who the risk-lovin’ white guy investors have historically funded may not actually be the best. As Restructure! says after quoting John Doerr in White, male startup companies get funding for being white and male
Well said. the links, by the way, go to the Illuminate Ventures white paper and Vivek Wadhwa’s Silicon Valley: You and Some of Your VC’s have a Gender Problem on ….
TechCrunch!
In retrospect, quite a significant move in the n-dimensional chess match …
jon | 20-Sep-10 at 9:22 am | Permalink
Ooooh!
Vivek says that as well as discussing the dearth of women in technology, he’ll also ask Michael about advice for students on education, entrepreneurship, career, dealing with ethics situations, and Silicon Valley.
It would be great if Michael could talk about internships, which is particularly relevant to college students. What advice does he have for students seeking internships? And Heather Harde made a great point last week about internships as a key way of helping the pipleline; I’m curious what TechCrunch has done differently since their all-male intern class of 2008 and what results they’ve seen.
And Tereza Nemessanyi’s got a good suggestion too:
I’m not sure about the time or hashtag yet — I’ll update this once I know. In the interim …
Pass the popcorn!
jon | 21-Sep-10 at 8:37 am | Permalink
From Vivek’s Twitter feed last night:
jon | 21-Sep-10 at 9:05 am | Permalink
The Agenda of Awesome at next week’s TechCrunch Disrupt conference, according to Michael Arrington:
Indeed it does! I’ll do a preview post soon, but here’s some quick impressions …
Day 1 of TechCrunch Disrupt, it’s currently Beth Comstock of GE and twelve guys (8% women). If you look at it in terms of time, it’s even worse: Beth’s sharing the 20-minute “Cultures of Innovation” slot with Intuit’s Scott Cook. So it looks like about three hours of guys talking and 10 minutes of women. Sigh. Anyhow, it should be interesting to hear John interviewing his partner Bing and Zynga’s Mark (TechCrunch’s CEO of the year) about building internet treasures. I wonder if they’ll talk about Peter Jamison’s recent SF Weekly article FarmVillains?
Day 2 is up to 27% women, thanks to the all-female panel on “Women in Tech” discussion that was added as a result of the kerfuffle. I don’t know much about the panelists — Lauren Leto of Texts from Last Night and Bntr, Leila Chirayath Janah of non-profit Samasource, Sara Chipps of Girl Developer, and Zivity’s Cyan Banister — but it looks interesting. During last weeks Women Who Tech TeleSummit, Lynne d Johnson was talking about the important role the 2005 SXSW “Blogging while Black” panel played, and hopefully one day we’ll look back on this similarly. More about this panel soon.
The rest of the day, though, is all-male. Deanna Zandt’s tweet on the left, after Michael first announced the panel a few weeks ago on Twitter, highlights the missed. Why not add a woman to the “Design vs. Engineering” panel currently featuring Bradley from Google, by Mike from Facebook, Jason from Twitter, and Charlie from Quora. No disrespect to any of them, but not only are they all guys, but their companies’ design and engineering approaches are relatively similar; it would be a much more interesting discussion with a broader range of perspectives. Heck, they could even go crazy and add a female designer and a female engineer. Now that would be awesome.
Day 3 is back down to 17% women, with Christy Wyatt of Motorola on a panel about mobile apps and e-commerce and Marissa Mayer of Google doing a product introduction and then judging the closing panel. Y’know, Marissa would be a great addition to any of the other panels, or subject for a Fireside Chat. It’s really a shame that her only appearances are pitching product and judging others. Oh well.
For what it’s worth, GE, Motorola, and Google are all listed as “partner sponsors” for the conference, so presumably they got to choose who was speaking. Props to them for choosing at least one woman. And there’s an interesting pattern: all the women speakers at the conference are either from partner sponsors or talking about “women’s issues”.
Today’s the last day for early-bird tickets, a steal at $1995. Tomorrow the price goes up to $2995. Admission includes three “conference badge required for admission” afterparties, including one with special entertainment by MC Hammer at 1015 Folsom. Here’s a couple comments from TechCrunch:
Awesome.
jon | 21-Sep-10 at 8:48 pm | Permalink
Melody Akhtari (whose Twitter bio is “Web TV revolutionary soldier!!! Boxee marketing. Girls in Tech Board of Directors. Student at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business. In that order”) did a great job of tweeting Michael Arrington’s appearance at Vivek Wadhwa’s Berkeley class — and took the pic on the right, too.
Here’s a few highlights from the tweetstream:
Vivek certainly had some good opportunities to get punches in. He might have pointed out that while encouraging girls to get and stay involved in technology is vital, focusing only on the next generation reinforces the advantages of currently-successful guys (and the women who have succeeded in this system). It also would have been great if he had reminded the students about all the evidence he and others have presented about the different kinds of discrimination against women, and asked them why they thought it was so hard for Michael to see it. Oh well, maybe the format wasn’t right for either of those … hopefully he’ll cover it in their next class.
Anyhow, great discussion. Thanks again to Melody and others for tweeting!
Liminal states :: “Angelgate”: Collusion’s such an ugly word | 22-Sep-10 at 9:00 am | Permalink
[…] Still, what a great lead-in to TechCrunch Disrupt! As well as a Super Angel vs. VC smackdown with several of these guys, there are also fireside chats with several male investors and an all-woman panel on women in technology. […]
jon | 22-Sep-10 at 1:59 pm | Permalink
The comments aren’t all that bad by TechCrunch standards. There’s a couple of clueless guys going on at length, but Carla Thompson of women-focused Q&A site Sharp Skirts (who used to work for Chris Shipley putting on the DEMO conference) fights the good fight, gets reinforcements from Julie Gomoll, Michelle Greer, Tina Cannon, and K. Warman Kern.
AJoyner has a great response to a guy trotting out the tired chestnut that “you can’t solve discrimination with more discrimination”:
Well said.
Cyan Bannister, who’s on the Women in Tech panel at TechCrunch, helpfully criticizes the whole idea of women’s only-events. Way to support your fellow woman entrenpreneurs, Cyan!* More positively, K. Warman Kern brings up an excellent point:
Yeah, really. And I think I’ll give Carla and SharpSkirts get the last word here:
jon
* Cyan also says she’s against collectivism in all forms, and links off to an article by Shelby Steele on White Guilt. For more about Shelby, see dnA’sA bound man on Jack and Jill Politics and A few words for the other Mr. Steele on The Field Negro.
jon | 24-Sep-10 at 2:36 pm | Permalink
My first reaction was to agree with Dare: the comments on Sarah Lacy’s Now that the Recession Officially Ended….Whatever Happened to that Other Shoe? on TechCrunch are almost all critical. And it’s not hard to see why … here’s an excerpt:
Then again I can see Shelley’s point too. While a lot of the comments in Michael’s rant (especially from guys) agreed with him that women should stop blaming men, there were a heck of a lot of responses elsewhere. Hmm, hard to know. I can see arguments both ways. I guess they’re both right.
Meanwhile, Michael alleged a conspiracy by Silicon Valley angels and a huge controversy erupted involving several TechCrunch Disrupt speakers and some excellent promotion of Quora, as well as a lot of guys linking to each other. Angelgate: Collusion’s such an ugly word has more, along with some observations by Dare’s former colleague Robert.
jon | 24-Sep-10 at 5:32 pm | Permalink
Meanwhile on TechCrunch, front-page posts from Erick and Michael:
Liminal states :: TechCrunch, disrupted: the third wave and the agenda of awesome, part 1 (DRAFT) | 27-Sep-10 at 6:41 am | Permalink
[…] a kerfuffle broke out. Â Fretting, asking, and begging isn’t a plan has the details.Rachel and Cyan are on the panel, along with web marketing strategist Michelle […]
Liminal states :: Changing the ratio: part 2 of “TechCrunch, disrupted” | 28-Sep-10 at 9:27 am | Permalink
[…] the last few weeks, I’ve been blogging about Rachel, Michelle, and Cyan in Fretting, asking, and begging isn’t a plan. Â Â So now’s a great time to take a quick look back at the kerfuffle that leading to this […]
Liminal states :: Hold that thought: part 5 of TechCrunch, disrupted (DRAFT) | 10-Oct-10 at 9:43 am | Permalink
[…] posts in the series: Fretting, asking, and begging isn’t a plan, Collusion is sooo hot right now, The third wave meets the anatomy of awesome, Changing the […]
Want More Women on Tech & TED Panels? Reject Meritocracy and Embrace Curation | 27-Oct-10 at 11:34 am | Permalink
[…] The criteria that leads TED curators and Tech Conference organizers to put mostly white men on stage can reflect outright outright gender bias (e.g., we prefer men, we think men are smarter) or indirect gender bias (e.g., theories that women promote are less interesting than the ones men promote), but in the end, it’s gender bias. It is criteria that goes beyond merit, and reflects the curators’ judgements. […]
Want More Women on Tech & TED Panels? Reject Meritocracy and Embrace Curation | 27-Oct-10 at 12:49 pm | Permalink
[…] The criteria that leads TED curators and Tech Conference organizers to put mostly white men on stage can reflect outright outright gender bias (e.g., we prefer men, we think men are smarter) or indirect gender bias (e.g., theories that women promote are less interesting than the ones men promote), but in the end, it’s gender bias. It is criteria that goes beyond merit, and reflects the curators’ judgments. […]
TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington launches $20m VC fund | Firstpost | 02-Sep-11 at 9:10 am | Permalink
[…] let’s not even get started on the women in tech furore from last year, wherein Arrington reacted to valid criticism of his male-dominated TechCrunch […]
Liminal states :: Suggestions from Last Year’s Hackathon Winner (part 7 of TechCrunch, Disrupted) DRAFT!!!!!! | 09-Sep-11 at 10:40 am | Permalink
[…] year’s TechCrunch Disrupt conference in San Francisco took place in the aftermath of the the Arrington Kerfuffle and Angelgate, and wound up with AOL acquiring TechCrunch. This year, it’s in the midst of […]
jon | 13-Apr-13 at 3:12 pm | Permalink