Posts tagged gender

And I am not advising younger women (or any woman) to tough it out. You can lash back, which I have done too often and which has rarely served me well. You can quit and look for other jobs, which is sometimes a very good idea. But the prejudice will follow you. What will save you is tacking into the love of the work, into the desire that brought you there in the first place. This creates a suspension of time, opens a spacious room of your own in which you can walk around and consider your response. Staring prejudice in the face imposes a cruel discipline: to structure your anger, to achieve a certain dignity, an angry dignity.
How to Be a ‘Woman Programmer’ - NYTimes.com (via techladymafia)

The New York Times

Women Who Inspire

Vivek Wadhwa recently wrote:

Women are primed to lead in this new era. Girls now match boys in mathematical achievement. In the U.S., 140 women enroll in higher education for every 100 men. Women earn more than 50 percent of all bachelor’s and master’s degrees, and nearly 50 percent of all doctorates. Women’s participation in business and MBA programs has grown more than five-fold since the 1970s, and the increase in the number of engineering degrees granted to women has grown almost tenfold.

With that in mind, today being International Women’s Day and its theme being The Gender Agenda: Gaining Momentum, we were going to put together a top ten list of women in media tech. So we started compiling. And then we stopped. Because, really, this doesn’t do any good.

It leaves people out, it’s arbitrary and there’s more that can be said. So instead, here’s a slightly wider net that includes things to read by, about and for women in media tech:

So, with the caveat that no list is adequate, we hope that clicking through and reading about the individuals found here leads to searching out many more who inspire.

In particular, do seek out those who work in and on smaller spaces and places. There are many and learning what they do and how they do it is oftentimes beautifully humbling.

Meantime, happy Women’s Day. — The FJP.

If advertising is meant to be aspirational, these ads [in men’s magazines] are presenting a pretty sad version of what American men can aspire to be. And advertisers aren’t selling this hyper-masculine ideal to just any man: They’re specifically targeting the younger, poorer, less-educated guys in the supermarket aisle. In the latest issue of the journal Sex Roles, a trio of psychologists at the University of Manitoba analyzed the advertising images in a slate of magazines targeted at men, from Fortune to Field and Stream. They counted up the ads that depict men as violent, calloused, tough, dangerous, and sexually aggressive—what the researchers call “hyper-masculine”—then indexed them with the magazine’s target demographics. Hyper-masculine images, the researchers found, are more likely to be sold to adolescents, who find higher “peer group support” for manly-man behaviors. They’re also sold to working-class men, who are “embedded in enduring social and economic structures in which they experience powerlessness and lack of access to resources” like political power, social respect, and wealth, and so turn to more widely accessible measures of masculine worth—like “physical strength and aggression.
Amanda Hess, Slate. How Men’s Magazines Sell Masculinity to Young, Low-Income Men.

Congratulations Tom Tomorrow

Tom Tomorrow (nee, Dan Perkins) won the annual Herblock Prize for excellence in editorial cartooning.

Tomorrow’s This Modern World appears in about eighty newspapers and sites across the country, he’s authored ten anthologies and worked with Pearl Jam on their album art.

As the Herb Block Foundation notes: “[Tomorrow] has also been awarded the first place Media Alliance Meritorious Achievement Award for Excellence in Journalism, the first place Society of Professional Journalists’ James Madison Freedom of Information Award, the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism, and the Association for Education in Journalism Professional Freedom and Responsiblity Award.”

He currently edits the Daily Kos’ comics section.

Images: Panels from “A Controversy Erupts”, February 2012, by Tom Tomorrow.

One of the foundational beliefs of the current Silicon Valley bubble is that the Valley is an enlightened place, socially and otherwise. And it is, mostly. Yet the portrait of the tech industry (especially its bleeding edge) and the portion of the media dedicated to covering it is not exactly what one imagines a supremely progressive place to look like: extremely white and extremely male.

A fantastic Storify pulled together by Buzzfeed’s Matt Buchanan.

And That’s How a Woman Shuts it Down

As Republican candidates continue with their odd rape theories, we take a look inside the lady parts to see how a woman can “shut it down.”

Biologically speaking, it all begins with a dinosaur named Marcy.

Gendered News From entertainment to finance to politics to sports, the Guardian Datablog explores how women and men are published in leading UK news sources, and how often articles by gender are shared across social networks. In the interactive they’ve produced, you can sort across different criteria as well as drill deeper into specific publications and their sections. At a macro level, UK news publishing is much like what we see in the United States: it’s dominated by men with less than 30% of news articles published by women across the Daily Mail, Telegraph and Guardian. Drill down a bit, or look at gender participation by subject area, and you see women dominating topics like “lifestyle” and “entertainment” and men dominating, well, most everything else. But the Datablog isn’t just looking at who gets published, but who gets heard. You would think it’s one and the same but with the decline of the newspaper front page — and the Web site home page — as a conversation driver, it’s the social ecosystem of readers and their sharing habits that drives audience engagement and interaction. Via the Guardian: Online, who gets heard is determined by an ecosystem of actors: individuals sharing on Facebook and Twitter, link-sharing communities, personal algorithms on Google News, and citizen media curators. Newspapers only offer part of the information supply; we readers decide who’s heard every time we click, share or use our own voice… …Of course, the reach of an article is much more complicated than likes and shares. What gets seen is often dependent on the time of day and the influence of who shares a link. The definition of likes and shares also changes. Since our measurements in early August, Facebook’s counters have been changed to track links sent within private messages. This year, newsrooms experimented with Facebook social readers and tablet apps to grow their audiences. Bernhard Rieder’s network diagram of the Guardian’s Facebook page illustrates yet another social channel for news. Publishers sometimes can’t agree on what their own data means. Despite these limitations, data on likes and shares offer the best outside picture of audience interest in women’s writing in the news. Read through for analysis and more about the methodology and tools used to suss out the data. As usual, the Guardian also lets you download the data so you can work with it yourself. Image: Screenshot, UK News Gender Ranking: What They Publish vs What Readers Share, via The Guardian. Select to embiggen.

Gendered News

From entertainment to finance to politics to sports, the Guardian Datablog explores how women and men are published in leading UK news sources, and how often articles by gender are shared across social networks.

In the interactive they’ve produced, you can sort across different criteria as well as drill deeper into specific publications and their sections.

At a macro level, UK news publishing is much like what we see in the United States: it’s dominated by men with less than 30% of news articles published by women across the Daily Mail, Telegraph and Guardian.

Drill down a bit, or look at gender participation by subject area, and you see women dominating topics like “lifestyle” and “entertainment” and men dominating, well, most everything else.

But the Datablog isn’t just looking at who gets published, but who gets heard.

You would think it’s one and the same but with the decline of the newspaper front page — and the Web site home page — as a conversation driver, it’s the social ecosystem of readers and their sharing habits that drives audience engagement and interaction.

Via the Guardian:

Online, who gets heard is determined by an ecosystem of actors: individuals sharing on Facebook and Twitter, link-sharing communities, personal algorithms on Google News, and citizen media curators. Newspapers only offer part of the information supply; we readers decide who’s heard every time we click, share or use our own voice…

…Of course, the reach of an article is much more complicated than likes and shares. What gets seen is often dependent on the time of day and the influence of who shares a link.

The definition of likes and shares also changes. Since our measurements in early August, Facebook’s counters have been changed to track links sent within private messages. This year, newsrooms experimented with Facebook social readers and tablet apps to grow their audiences. Bernhard Rieder’s network diagram of the Guardian’s Facebook page illustrates yet another social channel for news. Publishers sometimes can’t agree on what their own data means.

Despite these limitations, data on likes and shares offer the best outside picture of audience interest in women’s writing in the news.

Read through for analysis and more about the methodology and tools used to suss out the data. As usual, the Guardian also lets you download the data so you can work with it yourself.

Image: Screenshot, UK News Gender Ranking: What They Publish vs What Readers Share, via The Guardian. Select to embiggen.

Mapping Gender Income Inequality

A collaboration between Slate and the New America Foundation. The interactive visualization was created using MapBox.

Via Slate:

Women in Utah have it the worst. There, the average working woman makes 55 cents for every dollar the average working man makes. The state is followed closely by Wyoming, at 56 cents; Louisiana, at 59 cents; North Dakota, at 62 cents; and Michigan, at 62 cents. The best states for income equality are Hawaii, Florida, Nevada, Maryland, and North Carolina. In each, women make about three-fourths of what men make.

County-level data illustrate the best cities for pay equality: Washington, D.C. and Dallas lead, followed by San Francisco, Los Angeles, Austin, Santa Fe, New York, and Boston. In each, women make at least 80 cents per dollar that men make. In most other major cities, they make about 70 cents.

For a biggie version, see Slate, Map Shows the Worst State for Women To Make Money.

In Print World, Political Coverage is Manly Business A new study reports that over 70% of 2012 presidential campaign coverage in leading print dailies is written by men. Via the 4th Estate Project: Print election coverage since April 15th, the unofficial start to the general election (Santorum dropped out on April 12th), has been brought to us mostly by male journalists. 72.1% of print articles written on the election since April 15th were written by men and just 27.9% were written by women. During the GOP Primary, the ratio was slightly more skewed toward male journalists. From January 1 – April 14, over three-quarters (76.2%) of election print articles were written by men while only 23.8% were written by women. At Pacific Standard, Vince Beiser looks at the numbers and says that while his gut reaction is to “sniff disdainfully at the way women continue to be treated as second-class citizens in the news media,” there’s something deeper going on. He points out that women head the New York Times (Jill Abramson) and Newsweek (Tina Brown), and are among the top editors at outlets like the AP and Reuters. Then, of course, there’s Arianna Huffington. In the end, he asks, “Could it be that at least part of the numbers disparity is because there are just more men than women who want to be campaign reporters?” At Slate, Emily Bazelon gives an answer: At least part of it? Most definitely, along with the other usual explanations, like mentoring and subtle signals about who is good at what. Campaign coverage is travel heavy and grueling. If you’re the primary parent, which more women still are, you’re less likely to volunteer for it. I say this as someone who gave up her chance to go to both the GOP and Democratic conventions this year for Slate. I’m not the primary parent exactly: My husband and I pretty much share. But he’s an academic, so this is a crazy time of year for him. I thought to myself: Do I really have to go? Politics isn’t my main thing. And I decided, as I did in 2008, that the answer was no—and then when I realized that Slate’s coverage of the conventions will be light on women who are on the scene, I felt predictably bad about it. Caveat: The study, with data gathered by The 4th Estate Project (methodology here) looks at 35 leading daily newspapers. It does not take into account online news organizations. Caveat to that Caveat: Known brands such as the print publications in this study are also among Americans’ leading online sources for the news. Image: A Closer Look: Who’s Writing Nine Newspapers’ Presidential Election Coverage by the Women’s Media Center. (Select to embiggen)

In Print World, Political Coverage is Manly Business

A new study reports that over 70% of 2012 presidential campaign coverage in leading print dailies is written by men.

Via the 4th Estate Project:

Print election coverage since April 15th, the unofficial start to the general election (Santorum dropped out on April 12th), has been brought to us mostly by male journalists. 72.1% of print articles written on the election since April 15th were written by men and just 27.9% were written by women. During the GOP Primary, the ratio was slightly more skewed toward male journalists. From January 1 – April 14, over three-quarters (76.2%) of election print articles were written by men while only 23.8% were written by women.

At Pacific Standard, Vince Beiser looks at the numbers and says that while his gut reaction is to “sniff disdainfully at the way women continue to be treated as second-class citizens in the news media,” there’s something deeper going on. He points out that women head the New York Times (Jill Abramson) and Newsweek (Tina Brown), and are among the top editors at outlets like the AP and Reuters. Then, of course, there’s Arianna Huffington. In the end, he asks, “Could it be that at least part of the numbers disparity is because there are just more men than women who want to be campaign reporters?”

At Slate, Emily Bazelon gives an answer:

At least part of it? Most definitely, along with the other usual explanations, like mentoring and subtle signals about who is good at what. Campaign coverage is travel heavy and grueling. If you’re the primary parent, which more women still are, you’re less likely to volunteer for it. I say this as someone who gave up her chance to go to both the GOP and Democratic conventions this year for Slate. I’m not the primary parent exactly: My husband and I pretty much share. But he’s an academic, so this is a crazy time of year for him. I thought to myself: Do I really have to go? Politics isn’t my main thing. And I decided, as I did in 2008, that the answer was no—and then when I realized that Slate’s coverage of the conventions will be light on women who are on the scene, I felt predictably bad about it.

Caveat: The study, with data gathered by The 4th Estate Project (methodology here) looks at 35 leading daily newspapers. It does not take into account online news organizations.

Caveat to that Caveat: Known brands such as the print publications in this study are also among Americans’ leading online sources for the news.

Image: A Closer Look: Who’s Writing Nine Newspapers’ Presidential Election Coverage by the Women’s Media Center. (Select to embiggen)

When Stupid People Say Stupid Things While we live in an age of “the normalization of formerly reactionary beliefs” it’s good to see that some idiocies are still beyond the pale. So, for example, in the last 36 hours: CNN’s Piers Morgan calls Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin a “gutless little twerp” after Akin backs out of a scheduled interview. Both National Review and The Wall Street Journal editorial boards say Akins should step aside. The Republican establishment and its media allies call on Akins to do the same. And the Onion chimes in as only the Onion can do by penning an opinion piece in the congressman’s name: As a politician, I often find myself in situations where, unfortunately, I express a certain thought or idea poorly, or find my words taken out of context. Indeed, that is what happened this weekend. Upon reviewing the impromptu remarks I made Sunday afternoon, I can now see that I used the wrong words in the wrong way. I would now like to set the record straight with the American people and clear up some confusion about what it was I intended to convey. You see, what I said was, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” But what I meant to say was, “I am a worthless, moronic sack of shit and an utterly irredeemable human being who needs to shut up and go away forever.” Interestingly, the Guardian comes through with an explainer about where the idea that women cannot get pregnant from getting raped. Turns out it comes from a 13th century British legal text called Fleta. It was believed at the time that the pregnancy could only occur with an orgasm. Therefore, the thinking went, if the woman became pregnant it’s because she orgasmed which means she enjoyed it. QED: There was no rape. Image: Tom Toles, via the Washington Post.

When Stupid People Say Stupid Things

While we live in an age of “the normalization of formerly reactionary beliefs” it’s good to see that some idiocies are still beyond the pale.

So, for example, in the last 36 hours:

CNN’s Piers Morgan calls Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin a “gutless little twerp” after Akin backs out of a scheduled interview.

Both National Review and The Wall Street Journal editorial boards say Akins should step aside.

The Republican establishment and its media allies call on Akins to do the same.

And the Onion chimes in as only the Onion can do by penning an opinion piece in the congressman’s name:

As a politician, I often find myself in situations where, unfortunately, I express a certain thought or idea poorly, or find my words taken out of context. Indeed, that is what happened this weekend. Upon reviewing the impromptu remarks I made Sunday afternoon, I can now see that I used the wrong words in the wrong way. I would now like to set the record straight with the American people and clear up some confusion about what it was I intended to convey.

You see, what I said was, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” But what I meant to say was, “I am a worthless, moronic sack of shit and an utterly irredeemable human being who needs to shut up and go away forever.”

Interestingly, the Guardian comes through with an explainer about where the idea that women cannot get pregnant from getting raped.

Turns out it comes from a 13th century British legal text called Fleta. It was believed at the time that the pregnancy could only occur with an orgasm. Therefore, the thinking went, if the woman became pregnant it’s because she orgasmed which means she enjoyed it.

QED: There was no rape.

Image: Tom Toles, via the Washington Post.

OK, Barry Diller, You Can Kill the Print Newsweek Now — Jim Romenesko FJP: When potentially good covers go bad? UPDATE, via Eater: But oops: The UK’s Observer Food Monthly already used the same stock photo on its cover back in April 2008. This same photograph has also appeared in a May 2012 issue of Harper’s Bazaar in Russia. It’s sort a boring re-occurring stock photo, as found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

OK, Barry Diller, You Can Kill the Print Newsweek Now — Jim Romenesko

FJP: When potentially good covers go bad?

UPDATE, via Eater:

But oops: The UK’s Observer Food Monthly already used the same stock photo on its cover back in April 2008. This same photograph has also appeared in a May 2012 issue of Harper’s Bazaar in Russia. It’s sort a boring re-occurring stock photo, as found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
The Internet hasn’t given me a thick skin, because I already had one. I think women are better suited to dealing with commenters than men because we have the experience of having been eighth grade girls. No troll in the comments will ever have as intimate an understanding of all your insecurities as your teenage best friends, so the trolls have no idea what scabs to pick. Men seem more wounded by mean comments, and they expect you to be, too, saying stuff like, “I can’t believe the comments on your post! They’re so personal!” And then you look and it’s like someone calling you “a feminazi with bad hair.” And you think, Are you kidding? I have great hair.
Elspeth Reeve, Staff Writer at The Atlantic Wire, On How the Internet Has Brought Out Our Inner 8th Grade Girl. (via theatlantic)

I VOTE for Women

In 2008, over 51% of 18 to 29-year-olds voted in the US presidential elections. While numbers are usually down across the board during midterms, in 2010, youth voter turnout dropped to 24%.

To counter that and get young people back to the voting booth, a pending nonprofit called I VOTE has launched an issues-based media campaign to demonstrate that people can affect change on the issues they care about. It really comes down to voting.

The appeal here is different by a level of degree than traditional get out the vote campaigns. Instead of appealing to a sense of “civic duty,” I VOTE is attempting to engage people on issues of importance as a gateway to further political involvement and actual voting. Call it an appeal to enlightened self interest: vote because you give a damn.

The video above focuses on women’s health and was directed by Jessica Sanders, an Academy Award-nominated filmmaker.

In the Q&A below, I VOTE founder Haroon “Boon” Saleem talks about his vision for this election season and beyond. — Michael

FJP: What is I VOTE and what is it trying to accomplish?
Boon Saleem: I VOTE is a pending non-profit organization that will produce, acquire and disseminate high-quality, youth-issue based viral campaigns for the 2012 election cycle and beyond.

Specifically, the “I VOTE” campaign will highlight issues that will spur 18-35 year olds to the polls in November — civil rights, jobs, the environment, women’s self-determination, wealth inequality, education, healthcare, and above all, holding government accountable for protecting our future. The multi-platform campaign will utilize social networking, online video spots, organizational partnerships, and cultural creation to funnel the youth into America’s tried and true tool for change: the vote.

FJP: How is it different than other get out the vote campaigns?
Boon: What differentiates I VOTE from current run-of-the-mill campaigns is the quality of the content. The co-creators of I VOTE have worked at the juncture of entertainment and activism and have a particularized knowledge of youth oriented engagement (concerts, comedy shows, debate watch parties, art gallery auctions). There is no group of individuals with a stronger track record of outreach, engagement and activation of 18-35 demographic. Traditional campaigns/politicos simply do not speak in the parlance of the youth. We do.

FJP: Is it partisan?
Boon:I VOTE is proudly non-partisan. We are guided not by political ideology but by American Optimism.

FJP: What is its media strategy and how does reflect I VOTE’S mission?
Boon: The lynchpin of I VOTE is a digital and mobile strategy focused on communicating with the 18-35 target demo through viral videos/PSAs and interactive social media. We will then leverage technology to share the content and promote a two-way dialogue with young voters, inviting them to add their story to the movement using video, photos, blog posts, and tweets.

We will establish this dialogue by tapping into an extensive nationwide network of A-List creatives to produce fresh, original content that resonates with younger voters. Filmmakers, actors, photographers, and musicians, both established and cutting edge, will lend their talents to give voice to the issues facing the youth in 2012.

FJP: What do you hope to accomplish by the 2012 elections, and then what do you want to accomplish afterwards?
Boon: We aim to engage, unify, and motivate the youth aged 18-35 to turn out in November at the same level they did in 2008. We know this will not be achieved by brow-beating them over civic duty - it will only be accomplished by building a cultural groundswell that makes them want to vote.

Moving beyond Election Day, I VOTE as an organization will sustain robust levels of youth political engagement. By continuing to marry fresh creative content with innovative outreach to like-minded individuals, organizations & NGO’s, I VOTE will evolve to fit the issue-based needs of the day, ensuring that the youth culture develops into a dependable activist force — one that participates in the political process every single day instead of every four years.

BONUS: Aren’t registered? You can do so quickly via TurboVote, a nonprofit that uses technology to increase civic engagement.

When These Women Tweet, You Should Listen Via Foreign Policy: When Foreign Policy published its 2012 Twitterati 100 list, we could not help but be struck by the lack of women. Of the 100 tweeters Foreign Policy said “you need to follow,” nearly 90 percent are men. Given the strong presence of smart, powerful, influential women on Twitter, we found this a bit hard to take. So, beginning near midnight U.S. East Coast time on Monday, a group of women from around the world created a list of interesting and influential activists, journalists, analysts, economists, geeks and wonks. Within a few hours, we had more than 200 names and our list had begun to make the rounds on Twitter. How is this list different than FP’s original list? It includes many prominent, influential women who know and tweet about foreign policy and international affairs but were overlooked by FP. It includes women who tweet in languages other than English, or tweet multilingually, and women who work and lecture in areas rarely covered by FP — such as international development. Most importantly, this is a list generated by a global network of inspired and knowledgeable women worldwide who contributed possibly lesser-known but fresh and important voices. The #FPwomeratti list includes the invigorating diversity of local voices with insider information and breaking news who are not to be missed. The women on this new list are by and large listed by region, although there are categories for overall wonks and geeks. Click through to learn more about them and follow. Foreign Policy’s original Twitterati list is here. Image: Collage of some very important and very good to listen to women, by the FJP.

When These Women Tweet, You Should Listen

Via Foreign Policy:

When Foreign Policy published its 2012 Twitterati 100 list, we could not help but be struck by the lack of women. Of the 100 tweeters Foreign Policy said “you need to follow,” nearly 90 percent are men. Given the strong presence of smart, powerful, influential women on Twitter, we found this a bit hard to take. So, beginning near midnight U.S. East Coast time on Monday, a group of women from around the world created a list of interesting and influential activists, journalists, analysts, economists, geeks and wonks. Within a few hours, we had more than 200 names and our list had begun to make the rounds on Twitter.

How is this list different than FP’s original list? It includes many prominent, influential women who know and tweet about foreign policy and international affairs but were overlooked by FP. It includes women who tweet in languages other than English, or tweet multilingually, and women who work and lecture in areas rarely covered by FP — such as international development.

Most importantly, this is a list generated by a global network of inspired and knowledgeable women worldwide who contributed possibly lesser-known but fresh and important voices. The #FPwomeratti list includes the invigorating diversity of local voices with insider information and breaking news who are not to be missed.

The women on this new list are by and large listed by region, although there are categories for overall wonks and geeks. Click through to learn more about them and follow.

Foreign Policy’s original Twitterati list is here.

Image: Collage of some very important and very good to listen to women, by the FJP.