Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

KatieConf

katieconf.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: KatieConf

#41

Post by mikeash »

strictnein wrote: post #16
untog wrote: post #9

In case anyone was wondering as to the point of the parody: > If you are looking for speakers for your conference, why not ask one of the wonderful people featured here? They are all listed with their Twitter accounts, and a link to some of their prior talks. > Do you really need another conference lineup of all men? Or as many female speakers as speakers called Steve? I suspect it is a direct rebuttal to the argumen…

> "Do you really need another conference lineup of all men?" If they are the subject matter experts, then yes, I would prefer they are all present, and none of them be excluded because we are searching for faux diversity. When the subject is one's technical knowledge, the actual genetic makeup of the person making the presentation doesn't matter. It's strange that, to some, this is somehow a controversial statement.

Implying there are no female subject matter experts.

The problem isn't that people choose expertise and skill over gender. The problem is that men greatly outnumber women for no discernible good reason, despite the availability of qualified women speakers.

It's not faux diversity. The fact that you just assume any change from the all-male status quo must be a step down is amazingly sexist and insulting.

Re: KatieConf

#42

Post by HelloNurse »

Torgo wrote: post #36

Limiting this conference to the name Kate is extremely Eurocentric. and I don't see a single black attendee.

What sort of black people do you expect to find in Australia in significant numbers?

Re: KatieConf

#43

Post by eivarv »

HelloNurse wrote: post #42
Torgo wrote: post #36

Limiting this conference to the name Kate is extremely Eurocentric. and I don't see a single black attendee.

What sort of black people do you expect to find in Australia in significant numbers?

Not OP, but what about Aboriginal Australians?

Re: KatieConf

#45

Post by mikeash »

kozhevnikov wrote: post #11
untog wrote: post #9

In case anyone was wondering as to the point of the parody: > If you are looking for speakers for your conference, why not ask one of the wonderful people featured here? They are all listed with their Twitter accounts, and a link to some of their prior talks. > Do you really need another conference lineup of all men? Or as many female speakers as speakers called Steve? I suspect it is a direct rebuttal to the argumen…

http://lanyrd.com/2012/benconf/

Wow, that really says it all, doesn't it?

Set up "BenConf" with an all-male lineup clearly not chosen purely based on their qualifications, and dozens of people will pay money to attend.

Set up "KatieConf" and you get people coming out of the woodwork complaining about faux diversity, saying that gender doesn't matter and you should only choose speakers based on qualifications, saying that conferences shouldn't have to care about combating sexism, complaining that it's patronizing, etc.

Re: KatieConf

#46

Post by JoshTriplett »

Ianvdl wrote: post #29
DanBC wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everytime we try blind auditions we see more women being picked. It's the responsibility of the conference to guard against bias.

Don't conferences already use a blind process to determine speakers?

The vast majority of tech conferences do not.

Re: KatieConf

#47

Post by mikeash »

Ianvdl wrote: post #29
DanBC wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everytime we try blind auditions we see more women being picked. It's the responsibility of the conference to guard against bias.

Don't conferences already use a blind process to determine speakers?

I thought conferences typically wanted to know who was proposing talks so they could look up people's backgrounds and such. Many have speakers in mind and reach out to them, rather than waiting for proposals to come in. I don't recall seeing any that talked about blinding proposals so they could be chosen without knowledge of who was doing the proposing. I'm sure it's been done, but I don't think it's common.

Re: KatieConf

#48

Post by imglorp »

geofft wrote: post #10
cm3 wrote: post #5

What's the joke?

If there are enough women named Katie to fill a compelling conference schedule, anyone running a conference who can't find women named anything at all is clearly not even trying.

Maybe it's not the organizers, but the attendees are exhibiting self selection bias? Maybe males have a stronger urge to seek reputation/fame, so are more likely apply to conferences?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias

Re: KatieConf

#49

Post by mikeash »

rwmj wrote: post #18
untog wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> speaker expert chicken/egg, though. You don't become a speaker expert without having plenty of practise at being a speaker. Irrespective of any demographic quality, we should be open to bringing new speakers to conferences.

If there's evidence that conferences are deliberately excluding women speakers, then that is a bad thing. Not just because of sexism but because the conference would be deliberately narrowing its field of potential speakers. But why would we favour new speakers who are called Katie (or only new speakers who are women?). We should choose speakers who are experts, and new speakers from all possible candidates.

What if conferences are accidentally excluding women speakers? Is that still a bad thing?

Yes, we should chose speakers based entirely on their qualifications. But we don't. The problem is that people somehow assume that the current status quo of speakers almost always being men is what you get when you chose based entirely on qualifications, and any change from that must make things worse.

This is not about adding women by introducing gender bias. This is about adding women by reducing gender bias.

Post reply on HN