Dave Winer Finds it \”Easier to Read and Point to\” a Man

Yesterday, the famed programmer and media entrepreneur Dave Winer noted in his blog Scripting News:

“Jay Rosen’s notes from BlogHer 05. Interesting that I find it easier to read and point to a man’s account of the conference…”

Well, actually, it is interesting that Winer is forthright enough to acknowledge his mental filter. Sadly, it’s not at all surprising that he has voiced a preference for male perspectives. Why, I must ask, is that “easier” for him?

(UPDATE AUG. 2: Dave Winer did respond to me today via private e-mail, which per his request I will not forward or publish. To sum up, Dave felt personally attacked by this article of mine – a reaction which surprised me. I intended no attack and honestly would like a civil public discussion with Dave on this issue, since we might all learn something important from it. I hope that Dave changes his mind and decides to participate in that discussion. However, I suspect that it will happen with or without his participation.)

This reminds me of a peculiarly telling remark one of my former employers let drop several years ago…

Way back when I was a full-time employee, I learned that I was being denied equal pay in the course of a promotion. A few years earlier a male colleague with a less-relevant education, and who at the time had significantly less work experience than I did, got promoted to this same position. Through the grapevine, I knew what his starting salary in that job had been. While I was happy to accept the promotion, I had no wish to be financially penalized because I am female.

While lobbying for equal pay, I asked my boss’s boss (who was in charge of hiring) why he’d previously offered my male colleague significantly more money for the same job. This man responded, “Well, he reminds me more of myself. I can relate to him better. So when we promoted him I felt more certain of his ability to handle this job.”

When I asked him whether a candidate’s actual education, experience, and track record might be more germane to a hiring or pay decision than his personal gut-level sense of familiarity and comfort, that conversation ended.

Yes, I did end up taking this matter to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The bureaucracy chewed on this for a year and ultimately was no help.

True story.

…Now, I’m NOT calling Dave Winer sexist. I respect him professionally, and I don’t know him personally at all. So I wouldn’t presume to make such a judgment. However, his remark today was an eerie echo of my previous experience.

Dave, if you’re reading this, I’d really like to clarify why you “find it easier” to link to a man’s account of an event – especially an event specifically created by and focused on women. It just sounds really odd. I’d like to learn more about your perspective on this.

If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds

Post meta

This entry was written by Amy Gahran and posted on August 1, 2005 at 7:34 pm and filed under Conversations, Media Musings, Voices: Blogs, etc.. Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

4 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

Just like Roger, I tend to roll my eyes at EEOC claims. I prefer less control to more control. Isn’t it, after all, a manager’s right to hire whomever she/he cares to if it’s going to make them comfortable. And, Amy, you hit a sore spot with me when you wrote that you’d heard of someone’s compensation “through the grapevine.” Revealing information that personal about anyone is wrong and is sometimes grounds for criminal charges. You can’t base a claim on information that’s illegal to divulge, IMHO.

You now work for yourself, which is the way it ought to be if you were uncomfortable or felt stifled in a Corporate environment. For what it’s worth, I read Contentious regularly and like it a lot — and I like you, too, Amy! Keep up the good work!

1. Paul Lewis on August 15th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
In this case, the HR department at my former employer responded to the EEOC inquiry on this matter by contending that the fact that my male colleague spoke a second language (which, by the way, never factored into his job duties one whit) justified his higher salary.

This response satisfied the EEOC, and that’s where it ended. They were unwilling to pursue it further.

My US tax dollars at work.

- Amy Gahran
Editor, CONTENTIOUS

2. Amy Gahran on August 1st, 2005 at 10:55 pm
“When I asked him whether a candidate’s actual education, experience, and track record might be more germane to a hiring or pay decision…”

IMO, of the items on that list, only the last is really relevant in a promotion scenario. If I’m a harder worker doing a better job, I expect to get a promotion over someone who merely passed a bunch of tests in between bong hits ten years ago.

With that said, it seems insane to me that anyone would get paid extra, based solely upon someone’s comfort level. I mean, what’s the logic? “If I pay her less, maybe she’ll learn her lesson and grow a penis for me.” Sheesh.

I tend to roll my eyes at a lot of EEOC claims that make the news, but it sounds like you had a legit beef… was there a particular reason that it never went anywhere?

3. Roger Benningfield on August 1st, 2005 at 9:52 pm
I’d love to hear what Winer says to this. I did link to women’s blogher posts
today. Scoble at least linked to Nancy White, smart move I believe.

4. Denise on August 1st, 2005 at 8:30 pm