« SIGIS: Strategies of Inclusion | Main | New York Times Profile of danah boyd »
November 25, 2003
Or is it infuriating?
Over at eWeek, Steve Gillmor took on (John C.) Dvorak's anti-blog stance by offering a list of "a few of the original blog voices who (he’s) grown addicted to over the last few years." That list of nine names doesn’t include one woman.
Disappointing.
Posted by Gina at 04:16 PM in Media | Permalink
Comments
Oh my! We need to just bomb him with our blog addies.
I'm not one to take this sitting down. lol
Posted by: SzaffireBlue at Nov 25, 2003 4:44:14 PM
I don't know that I'd call it disappointing. It's probably much more likely that those were just the first ones that came to his mind. He even notes that he must stop before he forgets someone significant. Plus, that is his personal opinion.
Posted by: Nicole at Nov 26, 2003 12:36:10 AM
Filter out some of Dvorak's [tiresomely] deliberate baiting of his audience, and I'd agree with a lot of what he says. I do think blogs are being hyped by many of the BigBlos within blogdom for all the reasons for which they *won't* ultimately be important except to a little niche, privileged audience (let's set the term BigBlos up alongside the terms BigCos and BigPubs that some bloggers keep nagging about -- maybe it should be BigBroBlos since most of those BigBlos are guys!!). As with blogs, so with the famous comment about what succeeds in film and why: nobody knows anything. Yeah, I should go into that in more detail but I've written on it before (hee! -- on my own blog) and don't have time at the moment... I think Dvorak is judging what's out there from looking at a pretty limited menu of blogs. And interestingly, Steve Gillmor's defense of the 'unique' voices are all *technology men* writing blogs... I am thinking about how many of the really original blog voices, not tied to mainstream media, are women, and how women blog in greater numbers overall (even if the guys get most of the attention). I was kind of surprised Steve didn't mention Halley at least!
Posted by: Karlin Lillington at Nov 26, 2003 8:44:12 AM
Pretty damn depressing.
Posted by: Donna Wentworth at Nov 26, 2003 2:14:40 PM
It's actually a very interesting article
and I'm glad you pointed it out. He doesn't
realize that he just did a good 'ol boys
network thing yet. He's just a dude writing
about his favorite blogs, at least they weren't
all football related. Oops, you know I think
I'll shut up before it gets lost again (the point).
Posted by: meg at Nov 26, 2003 4:09:09 PM
Female bloggers can't or won't produce content that is interesting to men. How is this men's fault?
Posted by: Julius at Nov 26, 2003 6:02:38 PM
Julius, child, son, if you're going to deliberately bait in such a crude and rather jejune manner, at least show that you're willing to put your words where your mouth is, and put a link to your weblog along with your email.
Oh, don't you have a weblog? Can't produce content of interest to either men or women?
Posted by: Shelley at Nov 26, 2003 6:41:50 PM
I notice that out of a whole nine names that are dropped, there are no Chinese names either. Very disappointing, and very shocking. How can the author ignore such a large population.
Of the people he did mention, there is an senior editor for Linux Journal, a person who was part of bringing us Groupware and who helped port Visicalc - the first spreadsheet. The co-inventer of the spreadsheet is there, as is one of the people mentioned in any discussion of the history of the XML spec. These are big time geeks, and people that Steve chooses to read.
If you know of GEEK blogs that are female authored, feel free to send them to Steve - steve_gillmor@ziffdavis.com
How can you tell someone what pages they should read, or what gender, sexual preference, or country of origin they should read or find interesting?
I don't think Steve needs to feel ashamed.
Anyone who is pretentious enough to use "jejune" in a trollish response to a troll should be the one feeling the shame.
Posted by: richard at Nov 27, 2003 4:13:58 AM
Karlin, I consider you a friend, I've pointed to you many times, because you often have something to say and are professional about it. I don't worry that I'm going to regret having pointed to you. I don't point to Shelley because she's very abusive of me, on a personal level, and I don't want to, in any way, support that. And for the rest who are posting here, I honestly am not familliar with their work. If you want to start a blog to highlight the work of women technologists, I'd subscribe, and when something interesting pops up, I'd happily point to it. But if you use it as a place to bash men, I'll unsusbscribe immediately. There's already plenty of that in the world, I don't need more.
So, imho, you're wrong if you think it's sexism, with Shelley and a few others (who are men, btw), it's fear that keeps this blogger from pointing. Otherwise I just don't know of any women technologists doing interesting stuff in weblogs. Hopefully you'll take that at face value and won't go somewhere personal with it. But if you do, there's the demo of why you aren't getting anywhere.
BTW, male bloggers don't seem to have a problem emailing a link to something interesting. You might try that approach too.
Posted by: Dave Winer at Nov 27, 2003 9:43:21 AM
It seems to me that the people leaping to Steve's defense are missing the point. Nobody thinks he's *deliberately* ignoring women, or that he's trying to be deliberately sexist. But the fact that we can put over a hundred names of women doing interesting technology work in our sidebar, and still find that women's work is invisible in the technology field...that's disheartening.
Dave, why do you think you "just don't know of any women technologists doing interesting stuff in weblogs?" Do you genuinely believe it's because there are none? Or could it be that the women who *are* doing interesting stuff simply don't get linked to or talked about? It's a catch-22--because they're not linked to, they're unknown, and because they're unknown, they're not linked to.
I could email you, and Steve Gillmor, and John Dvorak, and any number of others with some of the links that we're collecting here, but instead we've putting the list right here, in plain sight. It would be nice if there was some proactive effort on the part of the men dominating the technology press to proactively *look* for these women's voices.
Posted by: Liz at Nov 27, 2003 10:05:56 AM
Liz, I made a couple of constructive suggestions. If you want to separate the substance from the flames, great, I'll subscribe.
Posted by: Dave Winer at Nov 27, 2003 11:10:57 AM
I agree with Liz--I sure don't think Steve Gillmor is *deliberately* ignoring women, or that he's trying to be deliberately sexist.
It makes it no less depressing that there isn't a woman on the list, or that a lot of people believe women technologists aren't doing anything interesting.
Posted by: Donna Wentworth at Nov 27, 2003 11:11:49 AM
Donna, it's not just a woman thing. When I was a Mac developer in the late 80s and early 90s, we couldn't convince anyone that there was any new Mac software. I'd meet with reporters, show them our software, and send them info about every new Mac product when it came out, and they still wrote articles saying there's no Mac software.
If you want to actually solve the problem, you're going to HAVE to start listening to your friends, and help them sell your ideas. You're way too picky about who can help, and on what terms they can help. I've now posted three messages here trying to talk you out of your funk but you keep using words like depressing, or ignoring. I know Steve Gillmor, and I know myself. I *like* women. I want to show that they can create technology. But it always comes with an arrogant lesson, a talking-down, a superior attitude, and I don't like being talked-down-to by women any more than women like being talked-down-to by men.
I think YOU are the clueless ones. Snap out of it. If you have anything to show, organize. That's something women do MUCH better than men. Create an RSS feed to showcase your accomplishments and ASK people to subscribe, stop demanding. There's much less resistance than you think.
Donna, we've worked together at Berkman. I think you know that my intentions are good. Will you please help here. Be positive, if there's a story to tell, get it out, and filter out the nasty bits. I'm willing to put some time into this, and take a chance or two. Now are any of you really up for solving some problems, or do you just want to complain?
Posted by: Dave Winer at Nov 27, 2003 11:52:11 AM
I believe Dave makes an excellent point. Would we as women link to any site run by a man that posted things offensive to us (and I would assume that bashing men is offensive to them)? I would think not -- other than, of course, to perhaps point out the offense. I think we are setting a double standard.
Also, since there are statistically fewer of us in the technology field (correct me if I'm wrong), it would make statistical sense that 'our voice' would not be as loud. I think that we can change this, but it doesn't start by one man instead spewing a few women blogger names.
Note: Please don't misconstrue my comment to mean that I believe that misbehaving.net is 'male bashing.' Quite the contrary, that's why I enjoy reading it. It has managed to present topics relevant to women in technology without blaming the opposite sex.
Posted by: Nicole at Nov 27, 2003 11:55:53 AM
Nicole, the power of the link can be used to suppress as well as reward free speech within this sphere. You must realize that some people use their links to try and force others not to cover a subject, period.
For instance, a person, male or female, doesn't have to post to misbehaving.net on posts such as these if they don't like them. But if they say to Gina, "Post more like this and I will unsubscribe and never link you", that's not disagreeing with a post -- that's trying to suppress an entire topic. And this is an important topic. What is offensive about talking about the fact that few, if any, women are being linked when it comes to technology?
The women here aren't 'bashing' anyone -- in fact, I think they've tried to go out of their way to do nothing more than point out how disappointed they were about seeing that set of links with not one woman among them. It was very discouraging, as if we're making no headway at all after years of discussion.
Especially considering how many women (Mena Trott, Meg Hourihan, Rebecca Blood, Scripty Goddess, et al) who have been involved in weblogging technology, and for quite a long time.
There was no blame here -- there was nothing more than honest discussion. Well except for my response to the troll bait, and I apologize to Gina for that.
Discussion that should be encouraged among men and women technologists -- not suppressed.
Posted by: Shelley at Nov 27, 2003 12:19:07 PM
No need to apologize, Shelley. This *is* a topic which *needs* be discussed, and I wrote this post (with some trepidation, mind you) hoping it would happen.
It has, and it's a discussion I'm quite enjoying.
(It's also something that probably wouldn't have happened on my personal blog, as I'm not nearly as linked as mishbehaving, after two years of writing. More evidence of the power of the link.)
Posted by: Gina at Nov 27, 2003 12:48:54 PM
The rhetoric here is getting out of hand. Let me see if I can interpret.
I believe I understand the point that you (Dave) are trying to make: that to be effective in its goals, this weblog should tell the story "We are doing these great things" rather than the story, "We are disappointed about not being included."
Is this your point? If so, it's a good one.
Apart from the matter of effectiveness, I don't think expressing disappointment and/or discouragement about women not "making the list" = talking down to men. It's important to be able to acknowledge a bad situation. This acknowledgement is not meant as "male bashing." It's a critical challenge for anyone interested in true equality to strive to make it so that it doesn't come across that way.
Posted by: Donna Wentworth at Nov 27, 2003 1:36:22 PM
Donna, I don't believe that Gina or I were indulging in rhetoric, but you have effectively reclassified our comments as such, and undermined what we said and weakened the point we were trying to make. You did so to what-- placate Dave?
It never ends, does it? While the links are controlled by the men, the women will never feel free, truly free, to speak their minds.
And yes, that last line was 'rhetoric' if you will.
Posted by: Shelley at Nov 27, 2003 1:55:00 PM
I didn't but should state the obvious: I think Misbehaving is doing an excellent job at this. There is a lot positive being said about *both* men and women.
Posted by: Donna Wentworth at Nov 27, 2003 1:56:45 PM
Iyiyi! That's what comes of being a slow writer. I was talking out of turn, responding to Dave's post. I didn't mean to comment on your post or Nicole's; I just posted the thought too late. And my goal wasn't to "placate" anyone but to lend clarity.
I'll step out now.
Posted by: Donna Wentworth at Nov 27, 2003 1:58:36 PM
er, that would be Gina, not Nicole. Sorry.
Posted by: Donna Wentworth at Nov 27, 2003 2:00:19 PM
Sorry Donna, I didn't see Dave's earlier comment addressed to you specifically. If I had, I would have realized that you were addressing your specifically to Dave. My eyesight is getting to old to distinguish between all these comments. (hint hint).
After reading said comment, all I can say at this point is you're showing remarkable patience with your answer. I wish I could be more like you, but when you reach 45+, you realize life's too short to try to reason with...never mind.
You certainly didn't need me dumping on you when you were already under a huge pile of something to begin with.
When I can afford it, a box of Godiva to you in apology.
Posted by: Shelley at Nov 27, 2003 2:43:27 PM
I just looked at the last 15 posts on my blog and the only people I link to are danah, Sadie Plant, Xeni, Sabrina, Warren Ellis, Cory, Boris, Accordion Guy, Mimi and Andy Baio. Now depending on whether you count Sabrina as a women or a man, that's about 50/50. My guess is that depending on your area of interest, you get a different gender distribution. I think it starts out at Christmas when the little girl gets the doll and the little boy gets the toy truck. There are obviously exceptions (glancing at Shelley) but I think a lot of social expectations push guys towards geekdom. As my current area of focus has started to shift towards identity, sociology and anthropology, I find that I am getting a pretty balanced gender distribution.
Posted by: Joi Ito at Nov 27, 2003 3:51:21 PM
Thanks to Michelle Goodrich for alerting me to this oversight. I'm certainly aware of many of the authors listed on misbehaving, but with the exception of Lisa Rein, who I met at an XML dinner several years ago, am not personally acquainted with. The names I listed (and many who I would have had I not cut the list short) are friends, collaborators, and in most cases, technologists who've crossed the chasm into "publishing."
The central purpose of pointing at those individuals was to refute Mr. Dvorak's conceit that professional journalists make up the brunt of the value proposition in the blog universe. These "boundary players" -- technologists on the cusp of multiple disciplines -- are to my mind a unique byproduct of blogging's low barrier to entry. I view blogging -- and RSS in particular -- as highly transformative technologies that move away from observation and towards participation.
That doesn't excuse my lack of awareness of female bloggers -- nor do I have a good handle yet on how to remedy the problem. I've subscribed to misbehaving.net's RSS feed, noting as I do so its lack of choice of RSS formats. I've scanned the comments above this one, and followed some links sent to me this morning by Shelley Powers. My NetNewsWire unread items stands at 3762, with the addition of 15 new ones from this thread.
I add feeds to my subscription list as they come to my attention. If they reward me with information, knowledge, insight, or just plain save me time, they move up the list. I rarely take the time to remove someone from the list, preferring to let the lack of attention do it for me. This is not a perfect system, just the best to date.
Ironically, the genesis of the Dvorak column (mine, not his) came from a female friend of mine, who figured correctly that I would be outraged by Dvorak's continued intransigence. And further, the comments and posts here and elsewhere in blogspace far outnumber and outweigh the response in the so-called professional BigMedia space surrounding Dvorak's and my column. Forgive me, a little, if I'm disappointed in the lack of attention to the roots of the disagreement expressed between the columns. For my part, I'll make an effort to do better.
Posted by: Steve Gillmor at Nov 27, 2003 4:43:17 PM
My point was actually that Steve seems to confirm some of what Dvorak is complaining about by listing lots of A-list men who tech-blog as a counter to Dvorak's argument that there aren't many interesting or diverse blogs etc etc. The tech A-list is basically men. That's an observation, not an argument about gender.
This site has been great for broadening my own horizons in terms of women tech bloggers. So cool for that!
All of which in turn seems to me to underline why I often think many of the bigbloggers don't really get what it is that is happening out there. The circle is so small, so cozy, albeit full of great people. I too don't think Steve made a deliberately EX clusive list. But it does reflect the A-list tech blog world pretty well, which is kind of... proving Dvorak's point. Yet there are so many interesting bloggers on so many topics -- I'd have expected to see a more diverse list that doesn't reiterate the Usual Suspects to serve as any kind of decent rebuttal to Dvorak. A lost opportunity, alas.
Perhaps didn't separate out these points adequately in 1st post. Thanks, Misbehaving, for creating a forum for such discussions. They wouldn't happen many other places and they are always fascinating.
Posted by: Karlin Lillington at Nov 27, 2003 5:08:11 PM
