Besides, when I think of libraries and technology, some of the first people I think of are women. I think it’s because there are so many articulate, intelligent women who are out there talking about social software and the intersection of libraries and technology, who are applying it in their workplaces, and who are helping others understand and use technology to better connect users to information.

I also hope that, in context of those recent discussions, a large number of female potential presenters were especially encouraged to submit.

That said, 17-7 is not a bad women-to-men ratio, considering the proportion of women-to-men in librarianship is probably even heavier than that.

I also assume this isn’t the last “Five Weeks to a Social Library,” so, as they say, “there’s always next fall.”

And let me know if you need any extra behind-the-scenes help or support. I think this is a great project and would be super-willing to help out in any way I can.

I have no problem with the idea that women will respond to a situation where societal good/altruism is involved. I have a big problem if there’s an implied flipside, that is, that men (in the library field) are *less* likely to participate for altruistic reasons. But I’m not going to make that inference.

For what it’s worth, I didn’t get involved in Five Weeks purely for altruism; I did it because I want to see low-cost online alternatives to what I view as too-expensive (in time, travel-stress, and money) training sessions and conferences. (Insert obligatory Christensen “disruptive innovation/underserved community” quote here.) Entirely selfish, I assure you; I want Five Weeks analogues that I can go to!

If my hypothesis is right, though — and as you and Ross and even Matthew point out, it’s not the only possible hypothesis! — it does suggest one (relatively simple to implement) way to break the current regrettable impasse for organizers of technology-related events who want to attract more female speakers and writers: explain not just what your event does for its participants, but for a larger world (be that the library world, the tech world, or the world world).

As you point out, Meredith, it’s quite possible that framing an event in this fashion simply attracts more participation from both genders, which is all good in my book.

Also (and this is the downside of blog comments — I’m sure this all comes out as weird) I’m not saying that the blog postings indicated that it was ‘by women, for women’ — I think the problem is that the immediate assumption when I use the term “female solidarity” is that I am using that negatively. Far from that.

I guess I look at this through the lens of the code4lib planet (since majority of the blogs I read are thankfully consolidated there), and in a span of a couple of days there was:

Your initial post followed by a post on your thoughts on the gender thread.

Karen’s mention in a posting about gender

and Dorothea’s mention falls on the tail end of a bunch of postings in her category Grunchy Stuff.

Again, (and I can’t stress this enough) I’m not claiming this is bad (or good or anything), I’m just saying that, contextually, it might have had something to do with your numbers.

But it’s interesting that people saw it that way. I guess it’s unusual that you have an organizing committee comprised only of women, but if I saw an all-male organizing committee (which I often do) I would not think that the conference was not open to me. I just read all of my fellow organizer’s posts about the conference, and I saw nothing to indicate that the group was for women only (probably the most “inflamatory” statement was my own where I wrote “I asked five other amazing women to partner with me in creating Five Weeks to a Social Library”). But I’ll tell you, if Ross or anyone else had written “I asked five other amazing guys to partner with me to develop Code4Lib” I would not have thought the conference was not open to me. Where did the idea of “female solidarity” come from? I find that assumption very interesting.

I do agree with Ross that saying that women would be more likely to be involved in “tech-for-good” is making the same sort of unfair assumption as assuming that a planning committee made up of women would not want proposals from men. Though I do believe that we got more proposals on the whole for this (than HigherEd BlogCon) because of the whole altruism angle.

Still, I think the way this conference was advertised (or rather, how it was blogged by the organizers) certainly came across as a show of female solidarity, and regardless of the merits of the conference topic, is going to have an impact on who submits a proposal.

Although, “tech-for-good vs. tech-for-tech”? That seems unnecessarily loaded and divisive.

Nonetheless, my proposal is now in, and I look forward to seeing the outcomes of the project.