Monthly Archives: June 2012

A modest proposal

Leave a reply

The Olympic brand is big money, and anyone who can get their hands on it gets extremely protective. LOCOG (the organising committee of this year’s games in London) is busy scrubbing the capital clean of any logos not belonging to their corporate sponsors. Their guidelines on prohibited and restricted items [PDF] ban “[a]ny objects or clothing bearing political statements or overt commercial identification” from the Olympic venues. Want to wear your Che Guevara t-shirt to the beach volleyball finals? Forget it. A number of Twitter accounts protesting or satirising the Olympics have been suspended at LOCOG’s request for fear that people my genuinely think “official protesters of the London Olympic Games” are somehow affiliated with the brand. Visa is switching off competitors’ cash points in Olympic venues, lest you get your cash for your £7 pint of Heineken (you guessed it, no other lager allowed) from the Co-operative bank. Coca Cola’s marketing chief feels this level of enforcement is “appropriate given the amount of money that the sponsors are putting in”.
Not to be left behind, the US Olympic Committee have waded in on the action – by picking on knitters of all people. Ravelry, the popular, members-only, social network for crafters, holds an annual event formerly known as the Ravelympics – a bit of highly creative, highly productive and somewhat competitive fun featuring events such as charity rowing and scarf hockey. USOC feels this infringes on their intellectual property rights.

Thus, Ravelry.com’s unauthorized use of the mark OLYMPIC or derivations thereof, such as RAVELYMPICS, may constitute trademark infringement, unfair competition and dilution of our famous trademarks.

Arguably, if you feel you can’t compete with a small, members-only social network of people wielding pointy sticks, your brand has bigger problems. To add insult to injury, USOC also contend that knitting is unworthy of being called “Olympic” (emphasis mine):

The athletes of Team USA have usually spent the better part of their entire lives training for the opportunity to compete at the Olympic Games and represent their country in a sport that means everything to them. For many, the Olympics represent the pinnacle of their sporting career. Over more than a century, the Olympic Games have brought athletes around the world together to compete in an event that has come to mean much more than just a competition between the world’s best athletes. The Olympic Games represent ideals that go beyond sport to encompass culture and education, tolerance and respect, world peace and harmony.
The USOC is responsible for preserving the Olympic Movement and its ideals within the United States. Part of that responsibility is to ensure that Olympic trademarks, imagery and terminology are protected and given the appropriate respect. We believe using the name “Ravelympics” for a competition that involves an afghan marathon, scarf hockey and sweater triathlon, among others, tends to denigrate the true nature of the Olympic Games. In a sense, it is disrespectful to our country’s finest athletes and fails to recognize or appreciate their hard work.

I am willing to bet that there are knitters on Ravelry who have spent considerably more hours perfecting their craft and making beautiful things in the process than most Olympic athletes have spent training. That is, however, beside the point. USOC’s justification for this farcical action is that, in exchange not getting any Federal funding for their activities, Congress has granted them the exclusive commercial use of the word “Olympic” and other associated bits and pieces. Which made me think that all of this ludicrous money-grabbing may present quite a neat solution for a rather different problem.
See, there is a reason that we call them “Olympic” games, and it’s that they are modelled after an event invented by the ancient Greeks which used to take place at the sanctuary of Olympia. I’m envisioning a letter from Greece to the IOC…

Dear IOC,
We note that you are using the name “Olympic” to make lots of money. We kinda have prior art on this, and we have found ourselves in a sport of financial bother. Effective immediately, we will start charging a license fee on the use of the word “Olympic” of $$millions and millions. Oh, scrap that, we’ll make it retroactive, right back to 1904.
Pay up.
Love,
Greece

Just sayin’

Let’s play Stereotype Bingo with the European Commission!

Leave a reply

Apparently, science is a “girl thing”. Thank you for that enlightenment, European Commission! As a female astrophysicist friend put it, the EU’s brand new initiative to attract more women into science is offensive to both men and women – and frankly to scientists. So looking at the teaser video (above) and other content on the site, let’s play Stereotype Bingo!
Stereotype Bingo
Let’s start from the top, shall we?
Women want to know about work-life balance as much as about the job
Looking at the profiles of women in science videos, nearly half the time in each video is dedicated to what these amazing women do in their free time, be it play football, go shopping or look after the kids. Firstly, there are plenty of women out there who just want to know what the job is, thank you very much. More importantly though, perpetuating this stereotype with employers is actively harmful to women’s careers. Women are already seen as a liability because they “they can run off and have kids any time”, with high-profile business leaders like Alan Sugar demanding the right to ask women about childcare plans at interview stage. Sure, if we’ll treat men in the same way, let’s talk about work-life balance. But let’s not make it the most important topic for one gender only.
Women are naturally caring
In Six reasons why science needs you, we are told about scientific careers in healthcare (healing); food security (feeding); transport, energy and climate action (fixing our broken planet); and “innovative and secure societies” (keeping everyone safe). Hang on! Where are my explosions? I demand explosions!
Women like pink!
It is impossible to attract women to our website without pink. Perhaps the European Commission should have a word with Pink Stinks. ’nuff said.
Make-up! The science of make-up!
Apparently the Commission have been cribbing ideas from the German Greens [article in German] who recently suggested that one way to get girls interested in science was to teach them about make-up. Apart from the fact that there are plenty of other more exciting applications of chemistry, physics and biology, one does wonder whether the people behind this appreciate the amount of time scientists researching hair dye spend handling strands of cut-off human hair.
It’s a “girl thing”. Even running your own department you’ll still be a girl.
Brian Cox notwithstanding, most people entering scientific careers do actually age beyond 12. Calling women in science “girls” infantilises them and diminishes the achievements of highly professional women like Dr Silke Buehler-Paschen, featured in one of the role model videos.
Clothes and shopping are supremely important to women
In under a minute, the teaser video features three close-ups of shoes. Award-winning veterinarian virologist Dr Ilaria Capua spends a significant amount of time in her role model video shopping for clothes. This is the woman between us and the bird flu apocalypse! I don’t want to know about her clothes!
Women ask for directions
This one is from Iris Slootheer’s video. She talks about the difference between girls and boys, and how women will ask questions if they don’t understand something, whereas men will just get bogged down. There are two problems with this. Firstly, it depends very much on the context whether women will ask questions. In a large mixed-sex group, even a gender-balanced one, women will rarely ask questions. I’ve been to talks on abortion with largely female audiences where only men asked any questions. Secondly, when women do ask questions in situations where men don’t – generally because they would like something explained in a different way – this makes their peers perceive them as less capable. There are many such differences in the ways the same behaviour is perceived in different genders, and they do tend to make it more difficult to for women to progress in male-dominated professions. (Sheryl Sandberg does a great job explaining some of this, as do Pat Heim and Randall Munroe.)
Event when it’s messy, “girl science” is clean
This is one of the things that struck me about the teaser video. We have a bit of dry ice, we have eye shadow going all over the place, but ultimately, everything is crisp and clean. My mother was a research chemist before circumstances forced her to change career, and she got to set things on fire. Let me tell you – that was messy!
Women like practical and applied things. No theory here.
With the exception of Dr Yael Nazé who is an astrophysicist, all of the women featured in the role modelling videos are in the applied sciences. Where are the theoretical physicists and mathematicians? I’m sure women can cope with theory just as well as men!
A scientific career is a good way to meet men
Look at Microscope Boy in the teaser video! The sharp jaw line; the smouldering looks! Don’t you want to go into science just to meet him? Dr Marieke Huisman also mentions this in her video. Because clearly the reason I want to spend my entire career in a male-dominated field is so I can meet boys. There’s a running joke that Vienna’s medical school is Austria’s largest dating agency, but really, that’s so 20th century!
You have a free choice of career at the age this website is aimed at
This is one of the more insidious messages of the campaign. Let’s face it, if you’re a girl at 16 or 17 looking at this and trying to decide whether to go into science, you have years of schooling behind you during which you will have been subtly (and sometimes not-so subtly) encouraged to think that real science isn’t for girls, that liking science makes you unfeminine, or that femininity and attractiveness to the opposite sex matter more than intelligence and your future career. We have bigger problems that convincing 17-year-olds that science is sexy. Let’s start by removing the requirement for sexiness from everything girls and women do.
Your achievements are not as important as your “passion”
All of the women in the role model videos do a brilliant job of getting across their passion and enthusiasm for science. This is great! Yet why are we not recognising their achievements in these videos? Several of these women are at quite an advanced stage in their career: they have not only doctorates but run departments and have won awards. Why are their titles not used in the videos? Why don’t they get to talk about some of the amazing achievements of their careers? Passion is hugely important, but being able to showcase your results is what will get you up that career ladder!
Women are creative and being so is important to them
Creativity is one of the buzzwords that’s hugely overused across the site and I suspect this has something to do with gender stereotypes. Women are commonly seen as more creative and therefore when marketing careers to them the opportunity to be creative is a selling point. I know enough scientists to know that science is very much 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. You will spend a lot of time on your own, looking at a computer screen. You will stare at data until your eyes are square. You will drip liquids into test tubes until your fingers hurt. And then you’ll do it some more. Setting unrealistic expectations of a job helps no one. Yes, of course there’s room for insight and creativity, but there’s a lot more room for hard work, for Hubble having used the wrong filter on your data so you’ve now misplaced a galaxy, and for staring at your code for hours until your colleague looks over your shoulder and points out the missing semi-colon.
International careers are awesome!
Well, they are, to an extent. Several of the women in the role model videos talk about the fantastic international opportunities they have had. However, what is hidden behind this is the fact that science careers, certainly in the early stages, are extremely uncertain and precarious. When your school friends are on their second baby, you’ll just about be finishing your education. After that, chances are you will end up in a series of itinerant postdoc positions, moving to a different university every couple of years. If you’re lucky, you might become a lecturer one day, though tenure is increasingly elusive. Oh, and you’d better not have met a nice boy-scientist (or another girl-scientist) after all, because their career will almost certainly take them to the opposite side of the world to you!
Women are innately social creatures
A few of the videos emphasise the social interactions of scientific work (teaching students, meeting colleagues, etc.) over the time spent staring at your code or dripping liquids into test tubes. You know what? Some women hate people and will happily sit by themselves with their code and their test tubes. There’s nothing wrong with that!
Boy-scientists will ogle you
This one is actually probably true. Look at how we are again prioritising attractiveness to the opposite sex (see Microscope Boy) over our own achievements!
There are a few things I do like about the campaign. Despite their flaws I like the role model videos. I like that they cover a range of sciences as well as women at very different stages in their career. Role models are hugely important and the range of women we see here can hopefully give girls confidence that there is place and a path for them in a scientific career. Overall though? Could do better.

[Elsewhere] Think of the children!

Leave a reply

I am usually the last person to cry “Think of the children!” It is a rallying cry too often used to restrict the rights of adults without having any measurable impact on children’s lives. Want to impose your 19th-century morality on the country? Think of the children – we need to block all porn on the internet! (And never mind Page three of the Sun – that’s run by our good friend Rupert Murdoch.) Want to read the nation’s emails? Think of the children – by accessing your communications data we’ll catch paedophiles! (If you’re not a paedophile you have nothing to fear! You’re not a paedophile, are you?)
Read more over at ORGZine.

[Elsewhere] Argyll and Bute council v 9-year-old girl

Leave a reply

That politicians and bureaucrats don’t – and frankly often have no desire to – understand the internet is a given. It has also been highlighted over the last week by, among other things, the antics of Argyll and Bute Council.
Quite why the council thought it was a good idea to pick a fight with a nine-year-old girl raising money for a children’s charity is anyone’s guess. For six weeks or so, Martha Payne had been taking pictures of her school lunches and posting them on her blog, together with some evaluation – how tasty, how healthy, how many pieces of hair, etc. Some of the food looks okay – and Martha is quite complimentary about it; some is shocking both in terms of nutritional value and portion size, even for a nine-year-old.
Read more at the Scottish Times.

Lara Croft – The problem with the rape scene

Leave a reply

So Lara Croft is a rape survivor[1]. Guess what – so is one in every four women in the UK. If you put sexual assault (including rape), domestic violence and stalking together, almost one in two women in the UK[2] has experienced this kind of gender-based violence.

There has been a lot of outrage in the feminist community about this new twist in Lara’s story, and some of the points made are valid. The game developers want players to feel protective of Lara – not something they would ever dream of in a male character. Rape is a cheap way of establishing a female character’s vulnerability. It plays to stereotypes and male fantasies, reinforces the rape culture we live in. Yes, to an extent these are all true. The one that struck me though was the argument that we don’t feel the need to show back stories of tough male characters that portray them as vulnerable and depict their journey to becoming the strong, badass characters we know them as. This is problematic in many ways.

My main bone of contention is that we don’t show men as survivors of sexual violence because, unlike women, the vast majority of them aren’t. When a problem affects nearly half the people of one gender but a much smaller proportion of the other, I don’t think a differentiated portrayal is inherently sexist. How those experiences are depicted and treated by any work of art is a separate question and there the developers behind Lara Croft may well have a case to answer. We haven’t actually seen the new game yet. Does it glorify rape and violence against women? Does it reinforce stereotypes and clichés about the experience and the victims of rape? Does it fail to challenge rape culture? Yes, it probably does some of these things – but right now we don’t know yet.

Another issue I have is that the reaction from the feminist community implies that by making Lara Croft a survivor of sexual violence, her character is somehow diminished. She was strong and badass and now we see this part of her past she is somehow “ruined” for us as a potential role model. To the 45% of us who’ve been through gender-based violence and come out the other side this is, frankly, insulting. Has my experience of sexual abuse changed me and shaped me? Absolutely. Has it diminished me? Hell no! If anything, it has made me stronger, fiercer and more passionate when it comes to fighting violence against women.

Realistic and challenging portrayals of gender-based violence in culture are badly needed. Every time I speak out about being a survivor of sexual abuse I get more and more women coming forward to share their own stories. It’s as if one of us speaking openly about it frees others to do the same. Where previously we felt isolated and ashamed, we gain strength from the knowledge that we are far from alone, that it happened to others too; not just one or two others, but half the women we know.

All the stories I hear are different from one another. What’s more, they’re often radically different from the accepted narrative of rape and gender-based violence portrayed in the media and popular culture. Stranger with a knife jumping out of the bushes? Hardly. Father? Husband? Best friend? Boyfriend? Much more likely. Yet those are not the stories we see, which makes us feel we’re alone, makes us doubt the validity of our own experiences and feelings, makes it much easier to internalise blame, to feel we will never be believed and therefore to let the bastards get away with it.

Rather than jump on creators every time they portray gender-based violence for doing it all, we should be challenging them in subtler, more nuanced ways. Was the attacker a stranger who jumped out of the bushes with a knife? Was the victim beaten black and blue? Was she white and blond? Did she break down crying in court? Yes, all of these things occur in real life, but rarely do they all happen on the same case, except in fiction. To tackle the epidemic of gender-based violence we are facing, we will need much more candid, realistic and varied portrayals of the issues in art and media than we currently have. So by all means, let’s call out Crystal Dynamics, but let’s do it for depicting sexual violence badly, not for doing it at all.

[1] Attempted rape actually, maybe.

[2] 45%, source: the British Crime Survey via the White Ribbon Campaign

A brief response to Julie Bindel

Leave a reply

Put three feminists in a room and chances are you’ll get four different definitions of what feminism is. After all, the likes of Louise Mensch and Julie Bindel get to apply the term to themselves. Bindel in particular is a well-known transphobe, and in her latest Huffington Post column she adds biphobia to her credentials.
There isn’t much of an argument in between all the vitriol and nonsense, but from what I can gather Ms Bindel would like me to stop sleeping with men. That’s in those paragraphs where she isn’t questioning my existence in the first place. Yet in the same piece she objects to Camille Paglia telling lesbians to sleep with men, and declares that – while she believes “straight women are missing out on the best sex on the planet” – it is straight women’s right to choose to sleep with men. So hang on. Camille Paglia doesn’t get to tell lesbians who to sleep with. Julie Bindel oh-so-graciously grants choice and agency to straight women in the matter of who they take to their beds. Yet we poor, possibly-non-existent but definitely misguided bisexuals cannot be left to get on with our lives without this vital guidance from our superior lesbian overlord. Would she spot irony if it bit her in the arse?
Here’s the thing: If feminism is about anything, it’s about not letting your reproductive organs dictate your role in life and limit your choices. It’s about giving choices to people – yes, men and women; and while all our choices are by necessity made within a political context, feminism is about levelling the playing field so that said political context is less restrictive. When you find yourself seeking to limit women’s choices and telling them what they should do and how they should behave – in any area of life, let alone sex! – then, Ms Bindel, you have become part of the problem, not the solution.

In this together

Leave a reply

The most family-friendly government strikes again. At the weekend, Theresa May announced changes to immigration rules which will force many families to choose between splitting up or leaving the country. What strikes me about this particular move is that it’s perhaps the first time that this government has admitted that it hates both poor people and immigrants in the same breath. The Tories have a history of playing us off against each other, but in this case, we’re clearly “in this together”.
It’s difficult to get exact numbers at this stage: The Guardian quotes slightly higher figures for the income requirement than Conservative Home, but it looks like in order to be able to settle in the UK with your spouse who is not a EU citizen, you’ll have to demonstrate that you’re earning somewhere between £18,600 (ConHome) and £25,700 (Grauniad). For a couple with two children the income threshold rises to up to £46,260.
For perspective, the median income of a full-time worker in the UK is £26,244. As by far not all of us work full time, the overall median income is actually considerably lower. The Home Secretary is essentially sticking up two fingers at over half the UK population and saying “Tough, if you fall in love with a filthy foreigner you’d better be prepared to leave the country.” And if you dare to have children with a filthy foreigner, we only want you if your income is in the 90th percentile.
All of this is allegedly to protect the “tax payer” from having to support immigrants coming in on family visas. As in most cases only the UK citizen’s income will count towards the initial assessment (unless the spouse is already working in the UK on a different type of visa), this completely neglects the earning potential of the immigrant spouse and assumes that they will never contribute to the UK economy. Insulting doesn’t even begin to cover it. Add to that the requirement for the immigrant spouse to speak English and the proposed “attachment test”, and we’re beginning to see a certain pattern here of government small enough to fit in our bedrooms. I sat through 20 minutes of Ms May lecturing on the benefits of marriage (gay and otherwise) at the Stonewall Workplace Conference earlier this year, but this makes it clear that some marriages are more equal than others, and that having cash definitely helps make you more equal.
The Guardian estimates that somewhere between 45 and 60% of the 53,000 family visa applications a year will not be compliant with the new rules. Brooke Magnanti has some thoughts on what exactly the government is trying to achieve with this new measure. Suffice to say that’s a lot of families the “most family-friendly government in history” will be breaking up.

[ORG board elections] Answers to questions from members

Leave a reply

A bunch of questions came in this morning for Open Rights Group board election candidates. I’m sure my answers will go out to the election mailing list in due course, but I’m putting them up here for general reference.
1. Do you believe that individuals have the right to collect and manage their own personal data and control who they share it with using what ever tools and technology they feel most appropriate to their needs
The short answer? Yes. The long answer is a bit more complicated. I believe that digitisation of information and personal data poses new challenges to our concepts of privacy and identity. It has significantly altered the balance of power between the state and the individual as well as corporations and the individual. Addressing this, while still harnessing the power of digital information is the problem we are faced with. This goes beyond technological tools. It involves creating the right legislative framework, encouraging corporations to innovate and create business models which do not infringe individuals’ rights, as well as educating the general public on digital rights issues and enabling them to take back control of their privacy and identity.
2. do you believe an individual should be if they wish an active participant in processes which make use of their own personal data rather than simply being described as the subject in such transactions as currently defined in data protection legislation.
If they wish – yes. Having said that, I believe the systems we put in place – technological, legislative and commercial – should actively encourage and facilitate such involvement, making it as easy as possible for the individual. A good example is the recent EU directive on cookies which came into force earlier this year. So far I have seen only two websites even attempt to comply with it, and even those simply pointed users at their privacy policy which in turn told them how to turn off cookies in their browser. While this is definitely a step in the right direction, it is hardly an approach which encourages active engagement or makes it easy for the user to make an informed choice. There is a key distinction between giving someone the right to do something and actively involving them in the process. It is that extra mile that we need to encourage businesses and legislators to go.
3. how will you ensure that the Open Rights Group continues to work for individuals rights without imposing restrictions on those rights through any form of assumption that individuals are not sophisticated enough to take care of themselves or able to learn how to.
I think ORG’s ongoing move to become a more representative organisation with a much more involved membership (for instance through direct elections to the board and the creation of a Supporter Council) is key here. Having members’ views represented at all levels in the organisation and in key decision-making processes will help us ensure we are not making incorrect assumptions and we focus on the right priorities in the right way. I intend to support this organisational transformation and ensure it is as effective as possible in giving our members a voice.
Of course, ORG is not there simply to represent the views of its members but to campaign for digital rights for all. This is where I believe outreach and education are hugely important. Everyone is able to learn how to safeguard their existing rights, or how to use technical measures to safeguard their privacy on the internet. Yet not a lot of people bother. As a campaigning organisation we need to reach out to the general public and raise awareness of digital rights issues as well as tools which may help individuals look after themselves.
When it comes to effecting real positive change, however, an organisation such as the Open Rights Group is far more effective at lobbying and campaigning than individuals can be. This is where – with appropriate involvement from members – we need to make use of that strength of ORG to educate policy makers and influence corporations to enable us to create a digital rights environment that is fit for purpose for all.
4. What is are the three most important things you will endeavour to achieve during your first 12 months if elected
My key passion is around building diverse, sustainable, collaborative relationships and communities. The three areas I would focus on all fall under that general heading.
I want to fully support the democratisation process that ORG is going through at the moment. To me that means enabling a fast start-up of the Supporter Council, integrating it within ORG’s structures and decision-making processes. It also means enabling ORG to reach out beyond its traditional London base and creating a network of regional organisations.
I also want to look at how ORG uses volunteers, as I have had feedback from members indicating that there are perhaps more barriers to getting directly involved with ORG’s work than there should be. I want to encourage people to volunteer with us, while also putting the structures in place that enable us to make use of every minute of volunteer time we can get.
Finally, as I already mentioned in my candidate statement, I want ORG to become a more diverse and inclusive organisation, allowing us to build bridges with communities who may not have digital rights as their primary interest but whose interests still overlap with ours. This will enable us to raise awareness of digital rights issues among a much wider audience and to build much broader, stronger alliances, thereby increasing our influence.
5. What do you love doing that you are brilliant at and how will that help the open rights group succeed in its mission
Perhaps it’s my background as a technology manager at a multinational consumer goods company, but I have a passion for creating sustainable processes and organisations – either from a blank piece of paper or by improving existing ones. My experience as a trustee of national LGBT domestic violence charity Broken Rainbow UK has taught me that there is always something an organisation could be doing better, and it’s those opportunities that I want to find help ORG realise.
I also genuinely love evangelising about digital rights, be it in writing on ORGZine and my blog, through talks at organisations like Skeptics in the Pub, or in one-to-one conversations. Technology is changing our world on a daily basis, in more than just the obvious ways, and I firmly believe that digital rights are one of the defining political issues of our time. I fully intend to continue these activities if elected to the board and to help ORG gain a wider, more diverse audience for its message in any way I can.
6. What are the top three actions that you think open rights group members should be doing to support open rights group now?

  1. Spread the word. Find a friend who’s not into digital rights and ask them what they think Google knows about them, or how they’d cope without access to the internet once a rightsholder decides to get them disconnected on no evidence at all.
  2. Consider starting or joining a local group. Richard, one of my fellow candidates, has already started up ORG Sheffield. If you’re in his part of the world, join him. If you’re somewhere else, read Richard’s HOWTO and start up a group yourself.
  3. Support ORG’s ongoing campaigns by signing petitions, talking or writing to your MP/MEP or responding to government consultations as appropriate.

Some free advice for ASUS

Leave a reply

ASUS
Monday’s Twitterstorm revolved around ASUS’s Computex 2012 coverage on Twitter. Among a bunch of pictures from the show, this one turned up, along with the Neanderthal comment. The outrage was immediate and came from men and women alike, though there was the odd troll who thought it was funny. For their benefit let me briefly summarise why this comment was a bad idea.
The use of “booth babes” at tech trade shows is a pretty questionable practice to start with. But okay, everyone does it, and I’m sure if everyone jumped off the roof ASUS would follow, so we may perhaps forgive them for that. And if you use booth babes at a trade show a couple of thousand people will see them, but the vast majority of your potential consumers – like me – will continue to be blissfully unaware. If you, however, tweet about your booth babes, you send a number of messages to everyone on the Internet. They are messages like:

  • Women are decoration.
  • We do not value women as people.
  • We do not value women as customers.
  • We do not value women for what they may have to bring to our business other than tits and arse.

This is business suicide on several levels. For those who haven’t dragged themselves out of the 1950s it might be news that women not only influence major household purchasing decisions (such as those on computers) but have disposable incomes of their own. That’s therefore 50% of your consumer base that you have just told you do not value. If I held any shares in ASUS I’d be selling them about now.
What’s worse is the message this sends to any female ASUS employees or women considering working for the company. The technology industry has a well-deserved reputation for being male-dominated and infantile. I occasionally speak to female Computing Science students. Provided they’ve managed to fight through years of teachers and the media telling them that they shouldn’t do maths and science because those are not feminine subjects, and they get to university, I find it’s around the tail-end of their first year that reality hits them in the face. In terms of ability they’re often top of the class. Yet they’ve now spent a few months being shut in windowless labs with their predominantly male colleagues, probably done most of their homework for them, and are beginning to wonder if that’s what the rest of their life will be like. What ASUS has just told these kids is that not only will you have to put up with that, but we will not value you at all beyond your tits and arse.
This is generally the point at which I can offer these kids a career path that may suit them better in an environment that is proactively inclusive and diverse. Which is great for me, but not so great for companies like ASUS. Because here’s the thing: diverse teams consistently outperform homogenous teams, and companies which value diversity and inclusion financially outperform companies that don’t.
It took ASUS over an hour to take the tweet down (by which point of course there were a number of screengrabs of it), and several more before they apologised, promising to “take steps to ensure this doesn’t happen again”. The fact that it happened in the first place doesn’t fill me with confidence in their ability to take the right steps to ensure it doesn’t happen again. So here is some free advice for ASUS – and I’m happy to talk about my consultancy rates if they’d like more.
Often when a company makes this kind of gaffe, this is indicative of a wider cultural problem. I can guarantee you that if you had a company culture that valued diversity and inclusion this sort of thing would not happen. If one of your employees thought it was acceptable to be misogynist in public, on the Internet, and put the ASUS brand on it, chances are lots of your employees think misogyny is okay, both towards their female colleagues and towards potential customers. Sacking the PR intern in question isn’t going to do the trick.
I would start by having a look at the data. How many of your employees are female? From ethnic minority backgrounds? Lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender? Disabled? Now, say you manage to hire a representative work force at entry level, how does that look once people start getting promoted? Do you find that once you’re two or three levels up in the organisation you’ve lost everyone who’s not straight, white and male (or perhaps straight, Asian and male in your case)? Here’s a tip: that’s not because all the women have gone off to have kids and all the gay people have decided to go into hair dressing. It’s because somewhere along the way you as a company have treated them badly.
Start looking at your systems. How do you handle pay rises and promotions? How do you measure success? Do your promotion criteria say something like “demonstrates great leadership”? What does your model of leadership look like? Is it all command and control, being assertive, telling people what to do? Well, guess what: on average non-straight-white-male people do not lead that way. That doesn’t mean they don’t lead, it means they do it differently and you’re not recognising it. What other systems do you have in place that may act as indirect barriers to people who do not fit your default stereotype? Ask your employees. Support the start-up of affinity groups and consult them on policies, systems, and what their experience of working at ASUS is like. Start celebrating diversity and inclusion – let all your staff know that this is something you believe in as a company. Start proactively reaching out, recruiting and supporting diverse top talent.
Once you’ve truly embedded diversity and inclusion in your corporate culture, come out and tell the rest of us. Start by not using booth babes at your next trade show. If your products are that good, you don’t need tits and arse to go with them. By all means do use competent qualified employees from diverse backgrounds at your stand to draw customers in and talk passionately about your products. Go out and work with schools and colleges to get women into technology by inspiring them, showing them what an inclusive workplace looks like and presenting them with some awesome role models. Reach out to female consumers in a way that is respectful and engaging without being patronising and stereotyping. Show some of the humility, integrity, diligence, agility and courage that are part of your cororate “virtues” – because what you did on Monday displayed none of these. Oh, and do apologise in public, in more than 140 characters.