One of the difficulties I have as a slightly older woman in the tech field is catchup. Always trying to find time to catch up. And I have a hard time going to all these conferences on the west coast (I’m on the east coast). I have a family and job to juggle. I suspect other women have the same issue. How about some childcare at some of these conferences? How about some workshops to help some of us catch up? And I think addressing these issues head on is essential. I’m planning to attend SXSW and Etech (despite the latter’s maleness) this year. I’d love to present but I feel so behind the curve at times. I’m interested in the struggle I personally have in getting young women interested in technology–how that is possible, strategies, etc. But I don’t think people want to hear that at these conferences.

The issue with ‘meritocracy’ is that there is an underlying implicit assumption of what is ‘meritorious.’ It’s subjective, value judgment ultimately. Gender is bit less an issue than worldviews (i.e. there are a lot of men that relate to me but that’s because they hold the same worldview or conceptual ‘frames’ or values that I do.) I recently wrote an essay on worldviews and “value memes” for an upcoming book (More Space, edited by Todd Satterson). It really echoes much of what George Lakoff writes about cognitive science and linguistics.

“Neuroscience tells us that each of the concepts we have – the long-term concepts that structure how we think – is instantiated in the synapses of our brains. Concepts are not things that can be changed just by someone telling us a fact. We may be presented with facts, but for us to make sense of them, they have to fit what is already in the synapses of the brain. Otherwise facts go in and then they go right back out. They are not heard, or they are not accepted as facts, or they mystify us: Why would anyone have said that? Then we label the fact [heck, often the person] as irrational, crazy or stupid.” – Don’t Think of an Elephant, by George Lakoff

The fact is that many people have different ideas of what is valuable, meritorious depending on their worldview. Many women do hold different perspectives and frames than corporate executives do. A start-up company had me review their plan briefly. They told me that I asked useful questions on a cursory initial meeting that NO ONE else had brought up. I was surprised; but they realized they’d only asked male executives, engineers and financiers with a common career background.

I’ve had my fair share of labeling as “irrational, crazy or stupid” plus “weak, impractical, idealistic” because of my worldview, which I often keep to myself but it echoes Mother Theresa’s idea that small acts done with great love ARE significant. I try to see what’s common among human beings and refrain from “us” versus “them” thinking which mystifies many people.

Thus, merit is assigned by how much facts and ideas fit into our own existing frames/worldviews. Things that fall outside of that frame are unconsciously ignored.

That said, I am speaking at the upcoming BlogBusinessSummit in S.F. in about 3 weeks – http://www.blogbusinesssummit.org and I intend to bring up new viewpoints with my involvement.

Nancy, I’m glad SXSW is getting proposals from women, and thanks for encouraging women to make such proposals.

Still, I’d encourage women getting involved in traditionally male-dominated conferences (or anyone organizing such a conference) to try to find ways to encourage direct discussion of the potential impact of increasing gender diversity and equity in these fields.

Let’s get the issue on the program, not just female faces.

…Cheryl wrote: “The reason men think that there are no good women IT experts is that they stop listening as soon as a woman opens her mouth.”

I agree that’s the case with some individuals (both men and women, and not just in IT). However, in this case, I don’t think that’s what Dave indicated.

Dave said he finds it easier to “read and link to” male perspectives. This does not necessarily mean that he tunes out female perspectives. It just means that he personally finds it easier to relate to men. That may not be politically correct, but it is honest, and it represents a common starting point for many people.

The reason I’d like to have a civil public discussion with Dave about this is that he is willing to admit to his own mental filter — something many of us avoid doing for fear of criticism. Such openness can be the starting point for a useful, constructive discussion. This is why I’m hoping Dave decides to participate in that discussion, rather than let people put words in his mouth.

- Amy Gahran