Showing posts tagged changetheratio
Our jam! #changetheratio (Taken with instagram) View high resolution

Our jam! #changetheratio

(Taken with instagram)

This. #nofilter #changetheratio The New Yorker has come out with its profile of Facebook COO Sheyl Sandberg: “A Woman’s Place: Sheryl Sandberg & Male-Dominated Silicon Valley.” Stop for a second - it’s 2011 and it’s sort of nuts that such a title should even work. And yet! Sandberg is terrific and Auletta shines a light on the issue of access, and visibility, and opportunity - all of Change the Ratio’s favorite obsessions. It’s a great time for Sandberg’s message to be magnified (raise your hand; don’t leave before you leave; lean in) and a great time to be an awesome woman doing cool shizz ready to catch that spotlight now that it’s finally swinging around. This is great for CTR, too. I was psyched when David Remnick emailed me back in March to hear my thoughts on the matter and more psyched to get to bend Ken Auletta’s ear for 90 minutes in the Hashable office - but he spoke to lots of people and seemed focused on Sheryl and the Valley, so who knew what would make the cut. But we did - with our core mission of visibility front and center. He also included a precis of the contretemps with Michael Arrington not even a year ago - and my God, how out of date it sounds now, eh? See below:  Sandberg and many other women in Silicon Valley think the problems women encounter are usually more subtle than blatant sexism. “I think it is largely innocent,” says Rachel Sklar, a New York writer and entrepreneur who has actively protested against digital conferences that invite too few women to speak. Sklar co-founded a women’s organization called Change the Ratio, and she tries to make sure there are more women onstage. “You can’t know about what you don’t see,” she says. Some suggest that women are also to blame. Michael Arrington, the editor of TechCrunch and the organizer of the TechCrunch Disrupt conferences, defended venture capitalists and Silicon Valley males in a blog post last summer. “The problem is that not enough women want to become entrepreneurs,” he wrote. Referring to Sklar, and her campaign, Arrington added, “Yeah ok, whatever, Rachel. Every damn time we have a conference we fret over how we can find women to fill speaking slots. We ask our friends and contacts for suggestions. We beg women to come and speak… . And you know what? A lot of the time they say no. Because they are literally hounded to speak at every single tech event in the world because they are all trying so hard to find qualified women to speak at their conference.” It is SO not hard to find qualified women to speak at tech, digital and entrepreneurship conferences - good Lord, I trip over all of you every day. I can’t imagine that all but the most clueless and narrow-minded readers won’t think to themselves, huh, that doesn’t sound quite right, as they mentally go through all the amazing women who are making incredible stuff happen more and more visibly every day. This article will swing that spotlight around even more, and hopefully further illuminate the blindspot where guess what? There are lots of qualified, amazing women raising their hands and leaning in.  This is a good day!  (Taken with instagram) View high resolution

This. #nofilter #changetheratio

The New Yorker has come out with its profile of Facebook COO Sheyl Sandberg: “A Woman’s Place: Sheryl Sandberg & Male-Dominated Silicon Valley.” Stop for a second - it’s 2011 and it’s sort of nuts that such a title should even work. And yet! Sandberg is terrific and Auletta shines a light on the issue of access, and visibility, and opportunity - all of Change the Ratio’s favorite obsessions. It’s a great time for Sandberg’s message to be magnified (raise your hand; don’t leave before you leave; lean in) and a great time to be an awesome woman doing cool shizz ready to catch that spotlight now that it’s finally swinging around.

This is great for CTR, too. I was psyched when David Remnick emailed me back in March to hear my thoughts on the matter and more psyched to get to bend Ken Auletta’s ear for 90 minutes in the Hashable office - but he spoke to lots of people and seemed focused on Sheryl and the Valley, so who knew what would make the cut. But we did - with our core mission of visibility front and center. He also included a precis of the contretemps with Michael Arrington not even a year ago - and my God, how out of date it sounds now, eh? See below: 

Sandberg and many other women in Silicon Valley think the problems women encounter are usually more subtle than blatant sexism. “I think it is largely innocent,” says Rachel Sklar, a New York writer and entrepreneur who has actively protested against digital conferences that invite too few women to speak. Sklar co-founded a women’s organization called Change the Ratio, and she tries to make sure there are more women onstage. “You can’t know about what you don’t see,” she says.

Some suggest that women are also to blame. Michael Arrington, the editor of TechCrunch and the organizer of the TechCrunch Disrupt conferences, defended venture capitalists and Silicon Valley males in a blog post last summer. “The problem is that not enough women want to become entrepreneurs,” he wrote. Referring to Sklar, and her campaign, Arrington added, “Yeah ok, whatever, Rachel. Every damn time we have a conference we fret over how we can find women to fill speaking slots. We ask our friends and contacts for suggestions. We beg women to come and speak… . And you know what? A lot of the time they say no. Because they are literally hounded to speak at every single tech event in the world because they are all trying so hard to find qualified women to speak at their conference.”

It is SO not hard to find qualified women to speak at tech, digital and entrepreneurship conferences - good Lord, I trip over all of you every day. I can’t imagine that all but the most clueless and narrow-minded readers won’t think to themselves, huh, that doesn’t sound quite right, as they mentally go through all the amazing women who are making incredible stuff happen more and more visibly every day. This article will swing that spotlight around even more, and hopefully further illuminate the blindspot where guess what? There are lots of qualified, amazing women raising their hands and leaning in. 

This is a good day! 


(Taken with instagram)

The adorbs @emilygannett, co-foundress of #changetheratio. We’ve been busy lately. More to come. (Taken with Instagram at Caffe Falai) View high resolution

The adorbs @emilygannett, co-foundress of #changetheratio. We’ve been busy lately. More to come. (Taken with Instagram at Caffe Falai)

Okay, Sarah Lacy, I’ll Bite.

Here’s the thing: A headline on TechCrunch reading: “Women in Tech: Look around the World and Stop Complaining” is meant to be inflammatory. I get it. I certainly would not have clicked on just the URL: http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/14/how-did-i-get-more-bullish-on-chinese-innovation-than-kai-fu-lee. That’s not sexy, controversial, muscle-flexy, bird-flippy. HEY YOU UNGRATEFUL WOMEN, STOP COMPLAINING! is. And hey, I’m writing about it! So, I get it. 

I saw that headline and first thought it was a plea for perspective in the face of global problems that we could be using our collective power to address. Pakistan relief? Millennium Development Goals? Orgs like BPeace or Kiva? There’s all sorts of things to be done on any and all of those fronts. Then I thought about orgs like Goods4Good, Foundation Rwanda, Haiti Rewired, and also how looking around the world impelled me to start Charitini and Cindy Gallop to start If We Ran The World. Oh but wait that’s not what she was talking about. 

Sorry, I have to read it again to figure out what she was talking about. Because first it seemed that she’d looked around the world, well, Asian tech-industry wise, and seen pretty much the same patterns (“Not enough role models, not enough mentoring and problems with work-family life balance….at least everyone in the world seems to have the exact same issue”). But then there was this: 

According to the World Economic Forum’s statistics, there is almost gender parity when it came to technical and professional jobs and leadership roles in the United States. Huh?

You don’t have to be a business reporter for fifteen years to know CEO and director level jobs are highly lopsided towards men. Tech or not in tech, there are simply not as many of women in successful, high-profile leadership roles…I challenged the numbers and was told they get thinner as you go up the ladder, which explains the disconnect.

Okay so am I crazy or does this sound like Lacy is agreeing with the central thesis of CTR and the like? I have used that word “lopsided” so many times when discussing the ratio - or The Ratio as it were - and the WSJ article that kicked this whole thing off was about different groups which had identified the problem and were taking action toward a solution. (As a side note, it’s funny how little that article is returned to. Guess it’s easier to dismiss that action as “complaining”). 

Lacy goes on: “But the numbers show that in the US women are equal to men in getting a foot in the door, which is more than developing markets can claim…Statistically you are the envy of the world.” So look at that headline again: “Women, look around the world and stop complaining!” Translation: Be grateful for what you have. To which I can only respond: Blergh. 

Lacy, however, made an extremely cogent point: That a lot of women who start out on par with men voluntarily exit the pool to have kids or whatnot. Said Lacy: “Here’s what we need: A serious study that looks at choice. Are more women not in management decisions by choice or because the chose not to be or because of a glass ceiling?” The headline there would have been: “Women In Tech: Just How Much of the Ratio is a Function of Choice?” Great headline, highlighting a new and thoughtful element to the discussion. Alas, Lacy declined to go that route. 

I find it sort of ironic that she’s tired of all the bellyaching yet supports complacency and serene acceptance of the thing that people are bellyaching about. Sort of bizarro logic, really. Not to mention the reiteration of the “don’t complain, do something!” meme which dismisses advocacy and agitation as inaction. And, you know, I will say that when I make a claim I back it up - with this statistic or that study, with links underscoring the claims being made. I would have welcomed the same from Lacy here, with such unsupported assertions as “Maybe you’re at a disadvantage, but for most immigrants, women or other minorities being at a disadvantage has made them stronger.” Stronger how? Richer? More influential and successful? Or the generic “we learn from our obstacles, and don’t forget that there are two sets of footsteps on the beach, except for when it’s really hard when God will carry you.” Come now. Of course obstacles make us stronger - Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and any other super-success story would say that. But to suggest that the challenges of a lopsided ratio are the reasons for women to be MORE successful and thus overcome the ratio so if the ratio doesn’t change it’s their fault - well, that’s just a tad insulting.

p.s.I cut out a bit of that blockquote above, where the ellipsis is, because of a non-sequitur - that many of the most successful female CEOs “don’t want to do media interviews because they are sick to death of this topic that some people say – constantly—doesn’t ‘get enough attention.’” I took it out because whether or not someone wants to do interviews does not have any bearing on whether they are in a high-profile leadership role. Also, as I said in my last post, probably they’d be sick to death of being only asked about being a woman as opposed to being asked about all sorts of stuff across the board. Note again who was, and was not, quoted in that NYmag piece.

All right, I’m done making people at TechCrunch hate me for the day.  Onward!

Why Do People Keep Sending Me This Cartoon?

clayman:

via

My two favorite dolls both did something: Dancerella, which had a motor that spun her around by a thing in her head, and a doll that would walk, and I would lie down and measure myself against her steps. They may have gotten haircuts. 

(Reblogged from clayman)
annaholmes: Rebecca and I wrote something. That Rebecca is Rebecca Traister, author of the forthcoming Big Girls Don’t Cry: The Election that Changed Everything for American Women (as in tomorrow!); Anna Holmes if you don’t already know is the powerhouse founding editor of Jezebel, and the “something” is their great op-ed, “A Palin of Our Own,” about how the Dems fail to spot, promote, groom and celebrate women.  The temptation on this site is to conflate many issues across many industries, and though I have definitely reached beyond tech (and beyond women) to make the CTR point, I am mindful of the fact that there aren’t always equivalencies between, say, Sarah Palin’s Mama Grizzley act and the world of start-ups and entrepreneurship. (Though there are lessons to be learned from how she’s used Facebook as a platform for her message, I will say that. Yowsers.)  But as someone who covered the Hillary Clinton candidacy beside Traister and Holmes, there are definitely things you notice, like the casual way sexist comments were let pass and how that’s still very much part of the discourse. These examples are in the political sphere, and again, I don’t want to conflate the two. But more generally, one does see assumptions being made, like in the comments section of Arrington’s post (and yes, even here). You shouldn’t see X and automatically apply it to Y, but if both take place within the larger framework of Z then you’re an idiot if you don’t look for correlations. I’m assuming that works just as well for a startup.  Anyhow, my point is, basically, that this is an excellent article and Big Girls Don’t Cry looks to be an excellent book (I’ve started reading it and it’s fantastic). On an unrelated-yet-related note, I keep marveling at how Mad Men continues to provide major food for thought as well. Basically if I can find an excuse for a Peggy Olson reference, I’ll take it. Or sexy swimmy Don Draper. Yeah, I just objectified him. I did.  View high resolution

annaholmes:

Rebecca and I wrote something.

That Rebecca is Rebecca Traister, author of the forthcoming Big Girls Don’t Cry: The Election that Changed Everything for American Women (as in tomorrow!); Anna Holmes if you don’t already know is the powerhouse founding editor of Jezebel, and the “something” is their great op-ed, “A Palin of Our Own,” about how the Dems fail to spot, promote, groom and celebrate women. 

The temptation on this site is to conflate many issues across many industries, and though I have definitely reached beyond tech (and beyond women) to make the CTR point, I am mindful of the fact that there aren’t always equivalencies between, say, Sarah Palin’s Mama Grizzley act and the world of start-ups and entrepreneurship. (Though there are lessons to be learned from how she’s used Facebook as a platform for her message, I will say that. Yowsers.) 

But as someone who covered the Hillary Clinton candidacy beside Traister and Holmes, there are definitely things you notice, like the casual way sexist comments were let pass and how that’s still very much part of the discourse. These examples are in the political sphere, and again, I don’t want to conflate the two. But more generally, one does see assumptions being made, like in the comments section of Arrington’s post (and yes, even here). You shouldn’t see X and automatically apply it to Y, but if both take place within the larger framework of Z then you’re an idiot if you don’t look for correlations. I’m assuming that works just as well for a startup. 

Anyhow, my point is, basically, that this is an excellent article and Big Girls Don’t Cry looks to be an excellent book (I’ve started reading it and it’s fantastic). On an unrelated-yet-related note, I keep marveling at how Mad Men continues to provide major food for thought as well. Basically if I can find an excuse for a Peggy Olson reference, I’ll take it. Or sexy swimmy Don Draper. Yeah, I just objectified him. I did. 

(Reblogged from annaholmes)

"As the Journal pointed out, theories abound for why there are so few women in tech. They're risk-averse. They don't have the right backgrounds. They have different timelines. They don't receive proper mentoring. But the hubbub obscures the fact that women long have been business owners and entrepreneurs, in spite of their enormous responsibilities as child-bearers (and, more often than not, child-rearers). Even though they make up only 1 percent of high-tech startup founders and boast fewer million-dollar-plus companies, female-owned businesses could create up to 5.5 million new jobs—one-third of all job growth—by 2018."

Slate picks up the ball of the tech-ratio question. This quote works backwards from where I like to start: where there are a number of factors that don’t universally apply, I just take a step back and say, okay, A may not always be a factor and B may not always be a factor but where the ratio is, say, 9:1 clearly *something* is a factor. That’s one of the reasons I resist when people say to me, “I want to talk about individuals with individual ideas.” Because the reason this blog is called “Change The Ratio” is because it’s addressing a systemic phenomenon. So if you recognize that, you free up those individuals with their individually-awesome ideas to flourish in a more welcoming system. 

But I just want to return to the dichotomy of “talk/action” that was presented last week. Jill Priluck, who wrote the Slate piece linked here, notes that “many female founders of technology startups hesitate when asked about being female. They’d rather talk about the problems their ideas solve, how they got their businesses off the ground or how many users they have.” Totally fair. CTR is trying to change the ratio of women being asked about the problems their ideas solve, how they got their businesses off the ground and how many users they have. That comes full circle back to that NYMag cover story on the NY tech scene last April, and the fact that, except for Caterina Fake of Hunch, no woman was mentioned or quoted until page 6 of the article, i.e. the 2 paragraphs listing off a few of the women in the space…but not talking to them. So that’s what Change The Ratio is looking to change. 

The Fairer Techs [Slate]

No affiliation! But yes, actually happening. I’ll be sure to put CTR on his reading list…and maybe start by noting a few things about the assumptions cited by Page Six: MSNBC legal eagle Dan Abrams is making the case for women, literally. He’s inked a six-figure deal with Abrams Books (no relation) to chronicle ways women are superior to men. In “Man Down,” he’ll present studies, polls and other “evidence” to prove that women actually best the boys in typically male areas like gambling and enduring pain, and even make better hedge-fund managers and cops. Abrams isn’t basing this on his own studies of gorgeous actresses: “If I had any unique insight into women, I would be married. I don’t. This is a fun book written from the perspective of a lawyer making a case. A lot of people will be surprised by what we found.” It’s due around Mother’s Day next year. Enduring pain? I’ve had kids like Dan’s been married, but I’m pretty sure hours and hours of childbirth ranks up there. Also, perhaps Dan’s basing this on his own studies of gorgeous writer/editors and right-hand women. Tsk tsk Page Six.  View high resolution

No affiliation! But yes, actually happening. I’ll be sure to put CTR on his reading list…and maybe start by noting a few things about the assumptions cited by Page Six:

MSNBC legal eagle Dan Abrams is making the case for women, literally. He’s inked a six-figure deal with Abrams Books (no relation) to chronicle ways women are superior to men. In “Man Down,” he’ll present studies, polls and other “evidence” to prove that women actually best the boys in typically male areas like gambling and enduring pain, and even make better hedge-fund managers and cops. Abrams isn’t basing this on his own studies of gorgeous actresses: “If I had any unique insight into women, I would be married. I don’t. This is a fun book written from the perspective of a lawyer making a case. A lot of people will be surprised by what we found.” It’s due around Mother’s Day next year.

Enduring pain? I’ve had kids like Dan’s been married, but I’m pretty sure hours and hours of childbirth ranks up there. Also, perhaps Dan’s basing this on his own studies of gorgeous writer/editors and right-hand women. Tsk tsk Page Six. 

Build It, Make It, Start It (Now)

Amanda Peyton, who first crossed my computer screen as the winner of the Abrams Research Social Media Survey Contest (for reals)  and again a few months thereafter  as the girl who snuck a Foursquare logo onto the Daily Show, is pretty badass. I figured that out at the time (her winning suggestion was really smart) and was reminded a few weeks ago when her named popped up on our ‘XX in Tech’ email list and I remembered why I knew her, Googled, and realized she was even more badass than I knew: hacker, entrepreneur, MBA, astute tech writer, paid newsletter-er, and, as of this past summer, Y-Combinator-er. It is of this last -er that I write. 

Peyton wrote an eminently shareable post yesterday called “I’m a Female Y Combinator Founder and You Can Be Too.” Don’t be fooled, it’s not just for ladies. (I am reminded of that old tagline for Secret deodorant: “Strong enough for a man, but made for a woman.” Related: I remember commercials from the 80s.) Her gist: Being a tech entrepreneur is, essentially, game-able - if you pay attention to what actually works. Some of her tips:

1. “Build some shit. Make something people want. Start today.” -It may be predictable to boil it down to “Find a need. Fill it,” but that’s only because that’s basically what it means to launch a successful business. Says Peyton: “Don’t know what people want? Guess. Or ask.” And then, build a webste so you can actually get it to them. Can’t code? Feh. “Seems to me the most accomplished entrepreneurs start out making ugly, barely-functional stuff. And then they get better.” (NB: That’s not an excuse to cheap out, btw. From another Peyton post: “The tech cannot suck. The product must work and it should be fast. Every single dollar spent on amazing engineering talent is worth it.”)

3. Master The Favor Economy - Every person you’ve heard of was once someone you’d never heard of. Right now, that could be you! And if that’s you, best of luck getting people to return emails/write you up/give you money. Peyton wisely notes that everyone’s got something to offer, and essentially reverts back to the advice above, i.e. “find the need and fill it.” Then you can ask for a favor! “How can you ask people for stuff when you have nothing to offer? Here is what you can offer: talent sourcing and customers/exposure. The two hardest things for any tech startup are finding good engineers and getting traction. So if you can help on either of those, the founder will be eternally grateful.” Making good introductions and connections makes you very useful (that’s initially why Dan Abrams tapped me to help launch Abrams Research, because of my not-inconsiderable network) and writing about people - fairly and smartly - gives you cred, relationships, and Google hits. (Anyone want to write something for Mediaite, give a holla.) 

5. Do Your Homework - Malcolm Gladwell says it takes about 10,000 hours to become an expert in something. Peyton suggests spending about 20 listening to entrepreneurship podcasts and 15-20 lurking on Hacker News, to start (#2 on HN right now, creepily: “How to keep someone with you forever.” Yes, I clicked. But it reminded me of “The Game.” Gross). There’s plenty online to avail yourself of - if you want to learn. Which you should. You can get up any curve after a few hours of research. When you find yourself spending half the day getting sucked into the rabbit hole, you’ll know you’re on the way. p.s. If you really want to understand it, blog it as you go, with links. That will save the info for you in one handy place and jog your mind when you return to it. Why do you think I’m doing this? 

Those are just a few of her tips but there are more. This post on “Popularity Modeling” is, IMHO, an essential companion. And here’s where you order her newsletter, for which I just signed up. Oh and her startup is called Message Party, a location-based chat service.  

p.s. “I’m a Female Y Combinator Founder and You Can Be Too” is currently #11 on Hacker News. 

p.p.s Today was my first time on Hacker News. 

Being A CEO

Fred Wilson wrote about ”What a CEO Does” last week, and it prompted a whole bunch of responsive posts, tweets and comments. Here was the nut graf: 

“A CEO does only three things. Sets the overall vision and strategy of the company and communicates it to all stakeholders. Recruits, hires, and retains the very best talent for the company. Makes sure there is always enough cash in the bank.”

Aside from reminding me of a Christina Aguilera song and an Amanda Bynes movie wherein Colin Firth dons tight leather pants, “What A CEO Does” provides great, simple, focused and focusing advice for people running their own business, or seeking to start one. Of course these are three overall things, and when you break it down there’s a lot of room for other advice. I do, however, like his use of the term “stakeholders.” Because a company may be built off one person’s idea, but the good ones - the growing ones - are built off teamwork, partnership and the sweat of everyone involved. Communication, moral leadership and real appreciation for what it takes to run the gestalt business is, IMHO, key to building something that’s good and something that lasts, that matters not only to you but to your stakeholders. The best businesses are the one where everyone feels invested in their success. 

Here are a few more nuggets: 

“Above all, a CEO *MUST* lead by example.”

- David Semeria of LM Framework in a comment to Fred’s post. Simple, and yet. Can’t tell you how often I’ve seen “Do as I say, not as I do” from people who purport to be leaders. 

“The CEO must remember the principle of NIHITO (Nothing Interesting Happens in the Office) and must spend time in-market.  Get to know competitors well.  Spend time with customers and channel partners.  Actively work industry associations.  Walk the floor at conferences.”

- Matt Blumberg of Return Path in a guest post on AVC. This advice goes for people trying to break in with their startup, and can be modified as such: NIHIFOYC (Nothing Interesting Happens In Front Of Your Computer).  

“Don’t be a bottleneck.” 

- More good advice from Blumberg. As a control freak myself I have let more than one project wither on the vine while I waited for time to give it “full attention.” (That is one thing I am going to repent for on Rosh Hashanah. And then I’m going to do a whole lot of back-editing.) I will give the next tidbit he offered a pass though, about getting a CEO coach - probably for most people that means “Have a good friend outside the biz that you can vent to.” 

“As a CEO of a venture backed business myself and founder of many others, I would add one thing…Thick Skin.” 

- Howard Lindzon of StockTwits, Wallstrip, and Camp Winnebagoe ‘87. I’d add to that a sense of humor, which helps with the aforementioned thickening. 

“Manage time like you manage money.” 

- Alec Ross, Senior Advisor for Innovation in the Office of Secretary of State and Co-founder of global non-profit One Economy, and one of Obama’s tech/internet gurus. Great, simple advice here in this video. Why am I writing this blog post again? Maybe I should twitter instead, but only after I send a few emails…

“Don’t neglect your family or your hobbies.  Keep the bulk of your weekends, and at least one two-week vacation each year, sacrosanct and unplugged.”

- More from Blumberg. I’m going to add a corollary here, from the top: Lead by example. Which means, if you’re going to respect your own personal life and headspace, then extend the same courtesy to - and recognize the same ultimate benefit to the company from - your employees.  

I can’t find the link now, but this weekend I was reading a smart post about minimizing office politics, and basically the gist was, be transparent, have everyone adhere to the same rules, and don’t play people off each other. You’d think that would be obvious, but again, not so much. 

Anyhow - I have to say that in perusing these “CEO tips” posts I did not see too many suggestions from women (though the comments in Fred Wilson’s post seemed to veer off into discussion of where to go in Italy pretty fast). That said, I didn’t really do an exhaustive search, and really only thought to write about this after seeing Howie Lindzon’s tweet on the subject. (Also, hello, I’m a woman, and I know from whence I speak.) Either way, these suggestions are all totally gender-neutral, unless you factor in lessons from Don Draper, like “don’t sleep with your employees,” but again, that’s certainly not limited to dudes. But I did love how Don landed his job at Sterling Cooper (and note his use of the principle of NIHITO to get it). Of course, once he got there, NIHITO was out the window, but whatever. 

Anyhoo, really I just wanted an excuse to link this post to “What A Girl Wants.” I’m sorry, but I loved that movie.