4 ms·

I understand why people want to talk at conference that have a diverse array of speakers. However, the fact there is an extreme shortage of a specific gender sh

I understand why people want to talk at conference that have a diverse array of speakers. However, the fact there is an extreme shortage of a specific gender shouldn't really fall on conference organisers. One conference that was blasted for only having one or two women speakers was organised by a women who pointed out that every women who applied got to speak. It's got to the point from what I've noticed from conference organisers talking on Twitter/X in the past the only way they can get women speakers in a decent amount is for them to approach women who don't give talks and invite them to talk. That is a bit worrying since anyone who has given a talk will know, your first time is completely terrible. So conference organisers are sometimes putting on a lower quality conference to tick boxes.

raziel2p 3y ago
Good. We don't need every conference to be of top quality speaker or content wise, the same way companies don't always need to hire all the top tech talent - especially if it comes at cost of inclusiveness and diversity.
mcphage 3y ago
This was a conference where people don’t apply to speak, you only got to speak by invitation. So that excuse doesn’t work here.
vidarh 3y ago
Is there an extreme shortage? Or is there an extreme shortage of women who applies to speak because they're not used to seeing many women speak and assume they wouldn't get a slot? I genuinely don't know, but I have met enough women in tech with speaking experience as a total introvert that I do find it astounding that someone making a living of arranging events don't have a sufficient network to be able to line up some women as speakers. Makes it very hard to think this doesn't reflect their attitudes. > It's got to the point from what I've noticed from conference organisers talking on Twitter/X in the past the only way they can get women speakers in a decent amount is for them to approach women who don't give talks and invite them to talk. Then they should do that. As a man, of the times I've been speaking in public-ish contexts in my life, I've volunteered or applied less than half. I'm not at all surprised it takes work to line up speakers, and more work to line up speakers of any group that has a history of being underrepresented in this field. If you expect every speaker you sign up to be drawn from applicants, it's also not just diversity you throw over-board, but you lose out on a whole lot of perspectives from people who for other reasons aren't really that interested in speaking, or are too busy with other things, but who might be willing to if asked. > That is a bit worrying since anyone who has given a talk will know, your first time is completely terrible. The way to fix that is to ensure more women get a first chance to hold a talk. If they don't want that to be at their conference, then try to work with user groups and the like to find women who have held talks there, or arrange events to provide a feed. Once is understandable - people may well not realize what is needed to fix the problem. But if they then don't act, or if they lie and deceive people about it, it's another matter. This reminds me of when my ex worked for a major investment bank where she as a black woman was promptly put on a "diversity board" to figure out how they could fix their diversity without actually changing the one thing that made fixing their diversity impossible: They heavily weighed in their hiring candidates from certain schools which skewed significantly white and male, to the point that even if they hired every black person and every female from those schools entire graduating classes, they'd still have a diversity problem. They did not want to hear that. They wanted nice quotes for their website and some token photos (and eventually got a significant bill for settling employment law cases instead) The point is that if you genuinely want to address diversity, and your applicant pool isn't diverse, then you need to look beyond your applicant pool. If you choose not to, then you don't really care about addressing diversity; in that case, you're just trying to do enough to be able to throw your hands up, and it's in that case entirely fair for people to judge the organizers accordingly.
- that_guy_iain 3y ago
  > Is there an extreme shortage? Or is there an extreme shortage of women who applies to speak because they're not used to seeing many women speak and assume they wouldn't get a slot? We see at user groups women don't often give talks and user groups are normally begging for people to give talks. The fact they're not often giving talks in the smaller setting would hint that there is overall an extreme shortage. Realistically, women are a small percentage of tech and considering there is only a small percentage of people who want to give talks since public speaking is a common fear it makes sense there is an extreme shortage. > I do find it astounding that someone making a living of arranging events don't have a sufficient network to be able to line up some speakers. Most conferences aren't making a profit. Most a volunteer ran and people are doing it in their spare time for no compensation. They depend heavily on call for papers where people submit then they do blind appraisals of the submissions. Personally, I think it's very demanding and entitled to demand these people spend even more time just because you want to virtue signal. > Then they should do that. As a man, of the times I've been speaking in public-ish contexts in my life, I've volunteered or applied less than half. I'm not at all surprised it takes work to line up speakers, and more work to line up speakers of any group that has a history of being underrepresented in this field. When you have a CFP and hundreds of talks submitted rejecting them and looking for other people because the people applying are of the wrong gender or race is discrimination. > The way to fix that is to ensure more women get a first chance to hold a talk. Which would be at the user group level where men five their first talks. When you go to a user group you know it's going to be a bit rough, it didn't cost you anything, you haven't booked a hotel room, you haven't gone anywhere, etc. I have no problem listening to people's first talks, I often hang out in uncons if the conference has one and listen to all the random stuff, however, I do feel for people who see conferences as a serious chance to improve their skillset and end up with a reduced quality product all for the sake of virtue siginaling. > The point is that if you genuinely want to address diversity, and your applicant pool isn't diverse, then you need to look beyond your applicant pool. If you choose not to, then you don't really care about addressing diversity; in that case, you're just trying to do enough to be able to throw your hands up, and it's in that case entirely fair for people to judge the organizers accordingly. The paragraph above seems to make it that they were getting the applicants but were ignoring them because of details in their education. It seems they had the applicants and just didn't hire them. To legally improve your diversity you need to increase who is applying. Not to ignore your applicants because of their sex or race. That is discrimination and illegal. Overall, I highly suspect your way of thinking is going to result in lots of settlements and lawsuits because people weren't hired because they were white/male. Sexist and racism should not be acceptable and is illegal! Quite simply that is what is often being suggest.

raziel2p 3y ago

Good. We don't need every conference to be of top quality speaker or content wise, the same way companies don't always need to hire all the top tech talent - especially if it comes at cost of inclusiveness and diversity.

mcphage 3y ago

This was a conference where people don’t apply to speak, you only got to speak by invitation. So that excuse doesn’t work here.

vidarh 3y ago

Is there an extreme shortage? Or is there an extreme shortage of women who applies to speak because they're not used to seeing many women speak and assume they wouldn't get a slot? I genuinely don't know, but I have met enough women in tech with speaking experience as a total introvert that I do find it astounding that someone making a living of arranging events don't have a sufficient network to be able to line up some women as speakers. Makes it very hard to think this doesn't reflect their attitudes. > It's got to the point from what I've noticed from conference organisers talking on Twitter/X in the past the only way they can get women speakers in a decent amount is for them to approach women who don't give talks and invite them to talk. Then they should do that. As a man, of the times I've been speaking in public-ish contexts in my life, I've volunteered or applied less than half. I'm not at all surprised it takes work to line up speakers, and more work to line up speakers of any group that has a history of being underrepresented in this field. If you expect every speaker you sign up to be drawn from applicants, it's also not just diversity you throw over-board, but you lose out on a whole lot of perspectives from people who for other reasons aren't really that interested in speaking, or are too busy with other things, but who might be willing to if asked. > That is a bit worrying since anyone who has given a talk will know, your first time is completely terrible. The way to fix that is to ensure more women get a first chance to hold a talk. If they don't want that to be at their conference, then try to work with user groups and the like to find women who have held talks there, or arrange events to provide a feed. Once is understandable - people may well not realize what is needed to fix the problem. But if they then don't act, or if they lie and deceive people about it, it's another matter. This reminds me of when my ex worked for a major investment bank where she as a black woman was promptly put on a "diversity board" to figure out how they could fix their diversity without actually changing the one thing that made fixing their diversity impossible: They heavily weighed in their hiring candidates from certain schools which skewed significantly white and male, to the point that even if they hired every black person and every female from those schools entire graduating classes, they'd still have a diversity problem. They did not want to hear that. They wanted nice quotes for their website and some token photos (and eventually got a significant bill for settling employment law cases instead) The point is that if you genuinely want to address diversity, and your applicant pool isn't diverse, then you need to look beyond your applicant pool. If you choose not to, then you don't really care about addressing diversity; in that case, you're just trying to do enough to be able to throw your hands up, and it's in that case entirely fair for people to judge the organizers accordingly.

that_guy_iain 3y ago
> Is there an extreme shortage? Or is there an extreme shortage of women who applies to speak because they're not used to seeing many women speak and assume they wouldn't get a slot? We see at user groups women don't often give talks and user groups are normally begging for people to give talks. The fact they're not often giving talks in the smaller setting would hint that there is overall an extreme shortage. Realistically, women are a small percentage of tech and considering there is only a small percentage of people who want to give talks since public speaking is a common fear it makes sense there is an extreme shortage. > I do find it astounding that someone making a living of arranging events don't have a sufficient network to be able to line up some speakers. Most conferences aren't making a profit. Most a volunteer ran and people are doing it in their spare time for no compensation. They depend heavily on call for papers where people submit then they do blind appraisals of the submissions. Personally, I think it's very demanding and entitled to demand these people spend even more time just because you want to virtue signal. > Then they should do that. As a man, of the times I've been speaking in public-ish contexts in my life, I've volunteered or applied less than half. I'm not at all surprised it takes work to line up speakers, and more work to line up speakers of any group that has a history of being underrepresented in this field. When you have a CFP and hundreds of talks submitted rejecting them and looking for other people because the people applying are of the wrong gender or race is discrimination. > The way to fix that is to ensure more women get a first chance to hold a talk. Which would be at the user group level where men five their first talks. When you go to a user group you know it's going to be a bit rough, it didn't cost you anything, you haven't booked a hotel room, you haven't gone anywhere, etc. I have no problem listening to people's first talks, I often hang out in uncons if the conference has one and listen to all the random stuff, however, I do feel for people who see conferences as a serious chance to improve their skillset and end up with a reduced quality product all for the sake of virtue siginaling. > The point is that if you genuinely want to address diversity, and your applicant pool isn't diverse, then you need to look beyond your applicant pool. If you choose not to, then you don't really care about addressing diversity; in that case, you're just trying to do enough to be able to throw your hands up, and it's in that case entirely fair for people to judge the organizers accordingly. The paragraph above seems to make it that they were getting the applicants but were ignoring them because of details in their education. It seems they had the applicants and just didn't hire them. To legally improve your diversity you need to increase who is applying. Not to ignore your applicants because of their sex or race. That is discrimination and illegal. Overall, I highly suspect your way of thinking is going to result in lots of settlements and lawsuits because people weren't hired because they were white/male. Sexist and racism should not be acceptable and is illegal! Quite simply that is what is often being suggest.