Eric Muller did a nice job dispatching them here: http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2007/07/why_the_federal.html

I tried to be clear that I am not criticizing Dan’s reaction, I am just saying I think that many women would react differently, but in a room full of mostly men at YLS that alternative reaction would get diluted and minimized.

Here’s another reaction to that article, somewhat different than mine, from another feminist:

http://feministing.com/archives/008222.html

Contact CNN medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen. Incidentally, Alessandro Acquisti had used that example at the symposium (he learned about it from 11/5/07 Salon.com article)

So I suppose Dan’s tepid reaction to this was based on the fact that he had heard about it very recently and thus didn’t express surprise.

Today (above)(here: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/12/the_woes_of_web.html ) Dan Solove linked to a CNN article entitled “Young women drink, party, post” here:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/12/10/face.book/index.html

Dan’s take on the article is very different than mine. Of course Dan doesn’t speak for all men, and I don’t speak for all women. But I find it telling that CNN took a special interest in a Facebook group featuring purported images of drunk women, and has now brought levels of publicity to the site that the participants could never have expected for planned for. The article notes that the women are “not anonymous” but does not give their full names, which to me is an odd and noteworthy approach to the issue of identifying them publicly. CNN has facilitated their identification but can duck responsibility since the article didn’t do any actual naming.

I also found the most interesting part of the article to be something Dan did not highlight, and that was this passage:

The group’s moderator said she knows some people look down on her and other women in the group, but it doesn’t bother her.

“[They think we're] sloppy, unladylike, low class,’” she wrote in a recent instant message conversation. “[But] I’ve noticed when college boys do stupid things when they’re drunk, they’re just being boys.”

I’m not faulting Dan for anything here. I’m just trying to explain that he and I had very different reactions to the article, and I think there is a gendered reason for this. At a conference where 20% or fewer of the participants are women, gendered issues are likely to get short shrift, and this is in part a function of tallying up the gender of the speakers, to see whose opinions are regarded as more valid and important.

That link was part of my work in 2005 (which continues through today) in trying to understand/document evidence of the bias in the social/technological space. It’s not academic, but it was part of the chain of effort which led to the BlogHer conference that year. And with my meager contribution to this field of study, I don’t think Ann’s criticism of the conference was valid. She merely tallied the planned speakers ten days before. I went to the conference, and I didn’t see any of the manifest bias that I have seen at other conferences. (I posted such to Ann’s blog, and it’s stuck in moderation. I also must say that I have emailed with Ann before on related issues, and I was very appreciative of her help, so I mean no personal slight to her here.)

I’ll add that Danielle Citron’s presentation was terrific, and important. The whole second panel (host here included!) was well run, and I appreciated their work in preparing for the symposium.

Jon