[cantastoria]

Ah in gallops tptacek on his trusty steed. Dead horse indeed.

As usual, any submission concerning improving the ratio of women to men in our industry immediately becomes a coatrack for digs about "radfem".

Just because they don't appear controversial to you doesn't make it so. And am I not allowed to take issue with the "table stakes"?

[idlewords]

The problem is you're hijacking a thread about specific, quantifiable steps that one group took, and the results they achieved, in order to spin the kinds of hypotheticals that have a proven track record of spiraling off into wank.

Don't do it. Write a blog post or something. Call your mom.

[cantastoria]

I'm doing nothing of the sort. The code of conduct was clearly cited as one of the steps taken. I have issue with that step. And I have as much right to comment here as you do. You're free to ignore me. Please do.

[angersock]

It's an article about how a group running a retreat targeted their message to change their customer demographics, no more no less.

Whether or not the mechanisms for doing so have sound philosophical and social underpinnings is quite beside the point--they did X, Y, Z, and it appears to have worked.

Go piss and moan about gender (in)equality elsewhere.

[facepalm]

It worked in attracting women (perhaps a certain kind of women, but still). That doesn't mean it didn't have side effects.

I don't understand your problem with people criticizing some of the things they did. It's just saying they wouldn't be attracted to the conference. It's a piece of information the organizers can ignore or not, it's their conference.

I suppose in economic terms it will work out because having more women will attract more men. What mix of people they'll have is another issue.