I have had a discussion on this topic with Julie and Geoff.

And comments here are going in the wrong direction.

So comments are now closed.

Example, I work with Anna Liu here at Microsoft Australia. Anna, is a vocal person whom is after the same quest we are talking about here, getting more women into the IT space.

(http://blogs.msdn.com/annali/archive/tags/Women+in+IT/default.aspx)

Anna is also helping to co-ordinate the REMIX conference we are putting on (Downunder Version of VisitMix.com that our US counterparts are doing next month).

I’ll actively welcome any ideas on making this happen, but i’ll be honest in saying that its merit selection first and foremost. It has to be as one could easily argue that men get dropped due to gender selection, so wouldn’t it be fair to state that they aren’t being chosen fairly?

It’s why when you do HR Selection & Recruitment training in all corporations, they strongly disagree with gender preferencing.

It’s not fair.

Women today and generations going forward have ample and if not more and more choices to make on their own accord. I think role models like Anna for example are worth taking stock of, as she not only has a balanced family / work life but somewhere in the middle she managed to gain herself a doctorate.

Point is, there is always a path and choice now and to play the gender war drum, i’m not buying it anymore. 20 years ago, maybe, but in 2007 – it’s not fair.

I draw context to women like Anna Liu, Tracey Fellows and countless more within Microsoft who have gotten to fairly unique and powerful positions because of passion and choice, not gender.

It’s not the number or gender of the speakers (mind you I was I little sick of the Adobe line) that was of major concern.

Or the attendee ratio, that I did expect. I was hoping I was wrong, but no problem really, that’s a bigger issue. It was the conduct of some people that just got under my skin. I think a speaker briefing would have solved this.

My question remains how do we solve this?

Not here that’s for sure. But I just want conference and event organisers to know they have to be aware of the issues at hand.

At this time, there has been no official complaint of any nature made either during or after the conference from any delegate or staff member; male or female. If you have any specific complaints of “sexist” remarks from the podium I would suggest you contact us directly so that we can deal with the relevant speakers accordingly. We have all the audio from all the tracks, with the exception of the webJam, so it will not be difficult at all to verify your accusations.

With respect to delegates, we’re obviously not in a position to instruct adults on how they might conduct themselves in public. However, if you have any substantiated claims of misconduct by individuals we can certainly consider barring them from future events. Again I invite you to help us address the issues you have raised.

Furthermore, we’d be delighted to see more than the lone two submissions we had from female speakers, so anything you can do to spread the word and help increase that percentage would be greatly appreciated.

Julie Steadman
Conference Director

You are being unfair to WebDU and making this into something it clearly is not. Your fight isn’t with WebDU, its much bigger problem and picking a fight with WebDU is giving you only 15mins of soundbytes and thats it.

I’ll be the first to champion the cause of women in the IT Sector (I report to an exceptionally talented female daily, and the big big boss whom we all report to, is just as exceptional and runs Microsoft Australia. Gender has no issue and never has been except until tonight and i say this as now your asking folks like me to draw contrast to the conversation and keep score on women vs men).

I’ve employed countless females in my career, and i’ve always based it on merit. I couldn’t care less if there was 2% women in the industry of choice, if anyone has the guts to frunt an interview with me, gender be damned they better show up with passion and skills to match.

WebDU speaker selection is based on volunteering your topic. Its hard to get accepted into the WebDU program and I was rejected this year as it wasn’t ontopic. I could play the “Hey no fair card..” and begin to spew forth a Microsoft vs Adobe card, but in the end the topic was weak and Geoff made the call. In the end it was the right one.

Point: I could easily turn the entire WebDU into a whole new political agenda, but that just devalues the overall proposition it offers. Instead of berating the WebDU conference for not being aggresive in finding females to talk, why not berate the females you mentioned for not volunteering to talk! what’s their reasoning?

I think this is a whole seperate agenda and its much bigger then WebDU and you are clearly using this as vechile to promote this agenda.

I’ll help in anyway I can to beat the war drum to raise awareness around Women in the IT sector, but not like this as its wrong.

By “third conference” I’ll assume you mean MX, WebDU conference. This being my first webDU conference (but not first conference), I didn’t mingle with one group of people all the time. In general I found people to be of a good nature, some friendly, some very rude and arrogant, this was to be expected, it takes all kinds. But I did find that under current I had not expected.

The immature conversation didn’t come from immature people by the way. It was limited, it was not over heard, but it was uncalled for.

I’m sorry if you found me “creepy”. If I didn’t remember to introduce myself to every single person I “sidled up to” I’m sorry. I think I may have walked to three active conversations the whole time I was there, this was impolite.

Mind you people introducing themselves does cut both ways, when its not done directly by anyone in a group, it can be seen as elitist etc.

Perhaps before you jump on your slander train, it would be a good idea to know Gary.

I find your comments about Gary as being “socially inept” perplexing at best.

Gary is a well respected member of the web community in WA and as far as I’m concerned, you comments aren’t worth the time it took for me to laugh at them.

This is my third conference and all I can say is the people i have socialised with at these events have been intelligent polite people and I find it hard to believe you could have struck out so badly in your random sidling that you ended up associating with so many crass sexist people. Although considering the wide range of age groups and the subject matter (flash/flex/web) i am sure it’s possible you listened in on some immature conversations at times.

Seriously do you live in the same society as me? Are you the guy ringing channel 10 to complain about the TV all the time?

One, the ratio of men to women presenters.
Two, the perceived sexist tone of some of the presentations.

I already mentioned above that I would find it insulting to be invited to speak simply because I am female. I would quite seriously like to see a show of hands by any girl/woman/lady/female who would happily and openly benefit from positive gender-based discrimination.

I know for a fact that the Webjam organisers encourage and seek female presenters. There is a high ratio of women to men at the events and yet very few women have applied to present.

It’s 2007 guys, women in IT are educated, smart people. If someone wants to present, all they have to do is send an email.

In conference settings where presenters are invited to speak, sure there should be a concerted effort to maintain gender balance. But how do you do that with the attendees? Offer discounted tickets to women?

With regard to sexist/discriminatory content, I personally didn’t take offence to anything at WebDU. But I do agree that presenters should be reminded that this type of content is unacceptable, prior to an event. No sane organiser wants to alienate their audience.