SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Female-free speaker list causes PHP show to collapse when diversity-oriented devs jump ship
Under the heading, "Diversity Matters!" the website for the PHP Central Europe developer conference (PHP.CE) says, "PHP Central Europe Conference is committed to creating a conference that is as inclusive as possible."
Over the weekend, organizers of the conference, which had been scheduled for October 4-6 in Dresden, Germany, ended the event evermore after two scheduled speakers issued public statements that they would not be attending this year, citing concerns about the lack of diversity.
PHP.CE on Saturday posted a note on its website, stating "The conference has been cancelled and won't be continued*. Sorry for the inconvenience."
The asterisk points to three online posts as the reason for the decision. The first, a July 17 Tweet from Karl Hughes, CTO of educational consultancy The Graide Network, chastises the conference for a speaker list made up entirely of white men.
You can see how it was in 2018, including the list of speakers, presentation schedule, and a 9m41s "after-movie".
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @12:00PM (11 children)
Yep, still rationalizing.
On the one hand you note that there are averages and that they don't matter to you. A conference should attract the exceptional as presenters, right? Yet on the other hand you're saying that women on average might not be attracted to coding so therefore it makes sense there are no exceptions who would volunteer to be presenters. At least that's what it seems like you're trying to say. Wouldn't there be exceptional female coders.... yet even if fewer in number none of them choose to present. Hmm.
Let's see if you grasp bell curves. Let's say you have two bell curves, 'exceptionalism/skill' on the X and number of coders on the Y. One curve for males, one for females. Your peak on males would be higher, and the ends of your curves would be higher. Because there are more men. But, when calling for presenters, why wouldn't you have a proportionate representation of each volunteering? You'd like to write this off to, "Because they don't choose to," but reality suggests that if you have say 74% men and 26% women in coding but closer to reality would be you would see 1 female presenter to every 3 men. I'm not sure how many presenters they had at that conference but if you take whatever that number is how do you explain that it isn't in that proportion? "They don't choose to," doesn't wash unless you've got some actual evidence - as in polls of women saying they don't choose at presentations because they just don't like it. Even then, "Why?" would be a relevant question and one you can't explain by your opinions alone.
On the one hand you're readily willing to write off that none of them chose to present because they don't want to. On the other hand... you don't really know that, do you. You just think that.
On the one hand you think there are "endless female coders out there." On the other hand you're suggesting that women don't enter coding because they're not genetically predisposed to.
This might help you open your eyes. [ncwit.org]
Yep. You still don't want to see.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @12:16PM
You missed the part where they didn't apply. Ergo, they didn't want to present. No mystery.
If there's a legitimate problem with the conference, then please -- do bring it up. I don't see anyone finding a reason why, no one is saying "But.. but, they made it hard to apply for women!" or "Women are booed off the stage!". Nope. Just, it's their fault. Yup, no women, someone must be blamed.
This is the problem I have, and many other posters here have. There is no "reason" given. Just "LOOOK!!!! NO WOMEN!!!!!!". Provide a real, legitimate reason why.
It's not 1919. It's 100 years later. In my country, more women have university degrees than men. They can choose any field they want. There is literally no limit to what field, where a woman can work where I live.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday August 28 2019, @12:57PM (1 child)
The truth you seem to be working very hard to be oblivious to is this...
...which actually represents reality, whereas...
...is actually bullshit.
The problem — and certainly there is a problem — is both that the first premise is subsumed by actual unjust prejudices of various kinds, which we would be considerably better off without, and that the second premise represents a myopic and foolish attempt to remedy those prejudices using statistical parity where the problem isn't a result of, or represented by, statistical parity in the first place.
--
The gene pool is shallow. And polluted.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @04:09PM
Yes, but when you have people who express, "There is no problem, see! NO PROBLEM! NOOOOO PROBLEM!" then it is time to take some actions to fix the problems that many (most) do their damndest to deny or suppress. Or at least call attention to the fact that this is not true.
And yes, most places you expect some degree of statistical parity. If there is not parity, then there is a reason to question why parity is not existing and do actual research. Not jump to gender-based stereotype conclusions which is where this particular subthread began and why I chose to respond to it specifically. Flip ten heads in a row and sure you may just have gotten that lucky, but it is more than worth being suspicious that something odd is happening. Flip 24 hours worth of coins and get nothing but heads one might well question what is going on. And no, I won't buy arguments that women just aren't of quality or don't want to do presentations.
Is that what happened here? Not necessarily. Maybe it's just 10 heads in a row. Maybe nobody close by had a topic and nobody wanted to travel. And sure, maybe it was just a fluke that there only happened to be one woman who submitted a presentation that wasn't what the conference was looking for. But it is foolish to just think that it is normal just to have flipped ten heads in a row and go on one's merry way. And again, it would be interesting to see how many presenters there were going to be to have an idea of just how large an anomaly this might have been.
There is also, of course, a whole universe of meaning in TFA not replicated here. But when questions of diversity are instantly and vehemently met with, "SNOWFLAKE!!!! SJW!!!!!!!!" Then I'd say there are reasons to question the system, not just the event. Or as TFA noted, if a couple of social media posts and pulled presentations can completely derail a conference, maybe there were other existing problems with that conference that now the misogynists want to conveniently blame on calls for diversity from two presenters. Or simply recognize that there might be systemic reasons why parity isn't occurring and actually take the time to investigate them to see if there is a remedy that will work - like not being so insecure that one jumps immediately to "Nope! They don't have any obstacles!" [except that other women have already reported attending a conference is a likely way to get hit on at best and assaulted at worst if you're female... well, 25% report harassment, anyway... but those who deny this will find reasons to deny that too [chicagobusiness.com]]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @12:57PM (5 children)
But isn't all this brouhaha precisely because the OBSERVABLE reality once again suggested otherwise? Just like it does, well, always?
Your faith contradicts experimental evidence. Misapplied imagination is no fix for that.
For all we know, women simply are too smart to want to waste a chunk of their time on this useless event. Posturing is the pastime of the males of the species.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @06:23PM (4 children)
First of all, a "rationalization," among it's many other meanings, is a psychological defense. Just as denial, repression, displacement, sublimation, regression, splitting, and a whole bunch of other ones you may or may not have heard of. In psychology it is the justification of behaviors, and justifications which avoid a more true explanation or defend's a person mind against an unpleasant truth.
"All I care about is skill!", as expressed by the GP, is a rationalization in this case. Even if that is true in the GP's individual case, and it may well be, it denies the reality that women are systematically discriminated against as well as harassed and abused in the industry in significant enough numbers to make it more than individual bad apples acting. That this occurs really isn't an opinion, though those who are threatened by the reality want it to be so. GP is trying to state that he doesn't understand the situation because he is "good" and so why is there any problem? It denies that there might be any possible systemic problem because devs are "good", and "good" devs don't discriminate, and maybe we shouldn't have any gender references then if anyone things discrimination exists or that there are in fact barriers.
Then he goes direct to insult, questioning whether people concerned with this [using the euphemism of women] are, "precious little flowers, that they need all sorts of shade and extra water, or they will wither?" And then he slams down on his straw man that he doesn't know any. And I'm sure all his best friends are black, too.
Then he concludes that if there are threrefore any problems, it is that person's fault. Blaming the victim.
Anyway, so much for your title. Now to your points:
So you're trying to say OBSERVABLE reality is showing something different from..... what one expects to see as representation? That this is ALWAYS what happens? However do you function in this world if your observable reality is always differing from what is expected? How do you function with others if you go through it never having any expectations? Oh, wait, you mean that no women ever present at any conferences? Never seen a female presenter at a conference? I certainly have. And that's before we go down the road as mentioned earlier that women certainly do have reasons to stay the hell away from conferences. Given that, it's amazing that any women do go to conferences or present at them, I guess.
But what are you saying observable reality actually shows, then? Not really sure what you think my "faith" is... other than women do want to code, there are women who do want to present (though whether at this particular conference can be questioned), and that there are very real obstacles and barriers to their doing so. As all the defensive posturing here shows.
But what I'm more concerned about is that diversity issues are immediately met with such a wall of psychological defense that it's pretty transparent that what is being threatened is the superiority of those who currently feel on top. Probably people fearful of making good anywhere else in life because technical skill is actually not terribly uncommon, once people are given proper education, practice, and reasons to want to try. Relational skill, however, is what keeps people from killing one another, something those with technical skill often have problems with.
I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree about what reality is. But I'm seeing the defenses and the BS for what they are in the meantime. Not explanations. Rationalizations.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @06:36PM (3 children)
NO it does NOT. It is YOU who laboriously deny the reality that, discriminated or not, women DO have different priorities than men, and DO behave differently when in SAME position. Having worked for a number of years in a company led first by a man, and then, after he passed away, by a woman, I can definitely attest to that.
Discrimination is bad. But idiocy is no better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @09:01PM (2 children)
No, not really. [nih.gov]
One can often find reasons why there may be systematic selection going on, and it isn't the fault of women. [asm.org]
You can find other professions where an increase in women in the profession lead to increased female speakers at conferences. [jamanetwork.com]
You can find instances where pushback suddenly changed the tide at certain conferences. [sciencemag.org]
You can find studies showing gender of the organizers makes a difference. [plos.org]
I'm not arguing that women aren't different, and may have different priorities. Some of the articles above confirm that, in fact. The last one in particular notes that women may prefer posters to presentations. Another above analyzed that women generally speak for less time than men.
But none of them suggest that women don't present at conferences. There is little variation that I've seen between number of male and female presenters and number of persons employed in a given industry. In women-dominated professions the majority of the presenters are women, big surprise! But that doesn't mean there are not male presenters in those places.
And again, it is a little surprising that a conference which mouths that it is inclusive and committed to diversity (did you miss that part of the story) would reject the one and only woman who submitted present at it because the material had been presented elsewhere.
However, when presented with reasonably clear evidence that there is bias, all kinds of excuses suddenly get made about what women are, and weirdly none of them are supported by any kind of peer reviewed data. Only that "everybody knows" or "I experienced" something.
Now, do you want to give me your peer-reviewed study data, or just continue on with analogy?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @11:49PM (1 child)
Please produce data on FOSS projects that women started. The excuse for this preachfest was a programming event, was it not?
I expect no patriarchy can serve as an excuse not to write code on your own machine in your own free time, nor to not upload it to a public hosting.
The point is, in a conference on programming, you need to have something interesting to say on programming matters. "On my job I do what my boss says from 9 to 5, and then I go home and forget all about it till the next workday" would get quite old quite fast.
Programming differs from academics in that you are not paid to indulge your curiosity; you have to sacrifice some of your remaining free time to do that. And women are much less prone than men, to make their work their whole life.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 28 2019, @11:57PM
If you say so, bud. Maybe I'll do some legwork on it..... If you can justify any of that beyond, "Yep, this is my opinion, so it's right, see????"
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday August 29 2019, @02:47AM (1 child)
A few years ago I presented to Soylent News a study that looked at the STEM abilities of men and women. On the average, women were *superior* to men. But the men had a much greater *variance* than the women. So many men were impressively better than average women, and many were abysmally worse. If you were to hire the best candidates, you'd be hiring the outliers on the men's curve, and maybe a few of the best women.
Anyone with better search skills than me is welcome to try to find my post in the archives. I haven't made many posts here (as opposed to comments).
-- hendrik
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 29 2019, @06:09AM
You mansplainer!