A few reflections on a plan to help phase out all-male panels at science and tech conferences

I'm sure it was *incredibly* difficult to find not one but two qualified women to speak on this panel.  And, who knows, maybe they weren't qualified at all and the panel was an absolute bore, which is something all-male panels never, ever are. ( Reuters)

On Friday, in response to some chatter about a big tech conference with one sole female speaker, I tossed out an idea that I thought could help discourage this kind of homogeneity in the future: What if men who were invited to speak on panels were to pledge to ask whether the panel included women, and if the answer was no, condition their participation on the panel's organizers finding a woman (or a few!)  who could join?  Since then, that pledge has spread pretty far and wide, and I wanted to here elaborate on it, both because my original post was pretty light on explanation (I assumed -- I think correctly -- that most people would get the idea without much help) and because some of the reactions, both positive and negative, have helped me to think more carefully about the suggestion. 

So here are a few thoughts:

The first thought, which I wish I had made more clear in the proposal right from the start, is that the whole idea of the pledge is premised on the fact that it's not just women who are unhappy about the current state of affairs.  Many men -- men who benefit from or have benefited from playing life on a lower difficulty setting, as John Scalzi put it -- want to see more gender diversity in the workplace too.  And this is awesome.  The pledge comes out of a place of respect for the many men in my life who are advocates for, not adversaries to, the advancement of women.  Implicit in the pledge is a recognition that greater equality is not something women will achieve by forcing it on men, but something both men and women want, believe in, and can work on together. 

That's the animating principle.  But what of the pledge's effect?  Many people said the pledge would commit people to "affirmative action" and that it will tokenize whatever women participants wind up on a panel as a result of its demands.  I think such criticisms rest on an unstated assumption that the reason women aren't on panels is that they are not as well qualified. ( Sometimes this assumption is not so subtle, such as with one person who tweeted at me, "Better idea, have talented, aggressive women that get themselves on that stage, rather than expect men to hobble themselves."  Thank you for this advice!) 

But if you, like I do, reject the idea that there are no women qualified enough for the vast, vast majority of panels, then you have to ask why so many panels don't have any women on them.  My belief is that for whatever reason men who are organizing panels are inclined to think of the names of ... wait for it ... other men.  As Alice Bell tweeted, "Shortlisting speakers for an event?  You'll probably think of men first.  Make yourself think of women, then ask her first.  It's not hard."  That is the purpose of the pledge: to force the thought, or, as Jamelle Bouie put it, to "begin to see homogeneity as unusual."  Once you do, you are likely to come up with plenty of women who would add a lot. ( And, if you have any trouble, Ed Yong sent me this pre-made list of "1,000 Women Speakers Worth Listening To," which has some great ideas for conferences related to science, secularism, human rights, and a bunch of other topics.) 

Does that sound tokenizing?  This notion troubles me, as it assumes that when organizers stop for a moment to think of possible female panelists, they will have to fall back on people whose only value is their sex, but who are otherwise not meritorious enough to be on the panel.  This is messed up.  More than any other, the tokenization charge strikes me as a knee-jerk defense that undermines the very people it purports to defend. 

Another criticism I heard in a few spots was a sort of "bravo, but this doesn't go nearly far enough."  What about race, age, nationality, etc.?  To this I plead guilty.  I wanted to make the pledge narrow, to apply it to the particular situation that was on my mind that day.  But the beauty of it is its flexibility: The pledge is all about getting people in power to recognize what power they already have, and to get them to use that power to make a more level playing field.  There is no reason that principle will only work for gender diversity.  The same goes for the many people I saw tweeting it saying: "We need this in economics!"  or "We need this in foreign policy!"  By all means, take the idea and run with it. 

Toward the end of the day on Friday we started noticing many fake names appearing on the list of signatories (e.g. I know "Steve Jobs" did not sign the pledge.)  We decided to make that list private to prevent people from having their names publicly added to a document against their will.  Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks of this decision was that people could no longer see the hostility the proposal was eliciting.  So, for posterity, here is a non-random selection of "people" who signed the pledge:

GoFuckYourselfWithCactusStupidLiberalCollegeDropout
FUCK YOU BECCA
Die in a Fire, Retards
Mr. Rebecca J. Rosen [I checked with my husband and he swears this was not him. --  RJR]
Men are smarter than women
HaHaHaWhatAVaginaObsessedWhore
get in the kitchen and make me a sandwidch
women complain a lot
JEW DETECTED
dumb cunt

Lovely!  So glad to have that out there. 

But of course, the other major drawback to that decision was that no one could see the list of really awesome people who did actually sign it.  Some of them, thankfully, tweeted about it as well, which verified that they had in fact put their names there.  That list includes Alexis (the first signatory), Jason Kottke, David Dobbs, Anil Dash.  All told, nearly 300 people signed the pledge, though some portion of that is impostors. 

When I reflect on all of this, that's what I keep coming back to -- which is pretty much the spot right where I began.  This pledge exists because I believe that many men care deeply about making the tech and science spheres more equal, and I had an idea for a tool that I think could help them do so.  Despite the pushback, despite the trolls, seeing all those signatures pile up made it every bit worth the while. 

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession.  How did it become so interminably social? 

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance.  This is because there are requirements to being a writer.  Other than being a writer, I mean.  Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them.  We get through it.  We bully ourselves into it.  We dose ourselves with beta blockers.  We drink.  We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation. 

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had. 

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion.  Even if they hesitate to say it. 

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse.  On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer.  Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land.  And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability.  This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person.  It might be called an outrage singularity. 

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject. 

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned.  But Kippnick has no course lectures.  She has no courses to attend at all.  No classroom, no college quad, no grades.  Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors. 

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting.  When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed.  If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject. 

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created. 

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world.  As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS.  And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs.  TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past. 

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank. 

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter.  The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “ If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court.  Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat.  UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.” 

There’s no way this man could be president, right?  Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair.  Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism.  Socialism! 

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation. 

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state.  He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser.  Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned. 

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country. 

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik.  The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS. 

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more.  Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt.  Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo.  On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others.  According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans. 

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths.  It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse.  Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it. 

What is the Islamic State? 

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions?  The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers.  In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “ We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “ We do not even understand the idea.”  In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors. 

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology. 

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere.  In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members.  In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square.  And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53. 

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor.  In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member.  The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise.  For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.”  But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned. 

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing. 

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library.  The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds. 

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon.  The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “ We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “ I do not want to buy all of that stuff.” 

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma. 

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. ( This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real.  An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma. 

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth.  To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand.  The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind.  These steps are repeated throughout the session.