SURVIVOR Silicon Valley

Justice for Gepetto

Every now and then our serene little valley becomes more like a back alley.  That's when the grumpy old men meet the grumpy young men for a good old-fashioned brawl.

Scratch that.

It's a brawl, all right, but it's a tempest in a toybox.

From what I can tell, in what we might call the clash of the puppets, literally and figuratively, the patronizing old guard wouldn't make room for the new kids and underestimated both their talent and reach.  Instead of practicing what they preach -- this is an open community and we must share so that we can all beat The Man at his own game -- the old guard sought to snuff the talent because it wasn't ready to give up what it perceived to be its power.

That's when the fun began for the rest of us.

Puppets began to tell the story of what lies beneath the green grass of our valley home:  a complete absence of humor.  Yes, folks, that dreaded rumor that geeks cannot laugh at themselves was proved true by a new guy from the east coast who just wanted to jump into the community sandbox.  And he told the story with genius.  Sometimes in poor taste.  But that is the nature of the comic, no?  And goodness knows everyone in both guards could benefit from a few lessons with Leticia Baldrige.

Try to tell the old guard that.  Its defensiveness and bitterness gave way not only to the new guard it sought to stifle but one that practices its own variety of elitism.  [Complete with misogyny. That story is for another time.]

So the torch passes and there is another moral to another story.  Or is it the same story with the same moral?  Today's Gepetto should remember what the Blue Fairy has bestowed upon him.  Jiminy Cricket!

Just because you wear lipstick doesn't mean you don't wear brains

So NEWSWEEK decided to publish another analysis of women in technology.  Like its cousin, THE NEW YORK TIMES, the editors saw fit to print the article in the culture section and, surprise, give it a sexual slant.  Of course these days, maybe they don't even recognize a sexual slant when they write one.

Some say we should be happy that they're writing anything at all.  Not me.

Here's the deal.  It's time to pursue some new themes with this women in technology thing.

We are all Bill's and Sergei's and Steve's children.  We come in all shapes, sizes, colors and styles.*  Some of us are engineers, some scientists, some anthropologists, some business types.  If you really are searching for new material, all you have to do is read some blogs by tech women.  If you know how to use a search engine, you can find them.  Do your jobs, journalists.  Believe it or not, some of us go to work and it's not about uncovering the sexual side of a pixel.

And journalists, a good number of men in technology are often the worst enemy of greeting and welcoming anyone new -- not just women -- to the table.  You are not required to follow their lead.  I mean, some are suspicious of anyone in tech who wears clean clothes and combs their hair.

So imagine what happens when these guys encounter someone -- most likely a woman -- who might go beyond hygiene, which is enough, in my book, to express herself via color, fashion or cosmetics.

Not only are some of these guys threatened by someone they didn't anoint for membership to their club, they are afraid of the combination of beautification and brains.  Because it proves it can be done.

Then there are those uber narcissist tech males who believe that any woman who is interested in color, fashion and cosmetics must be a hussy who has her eyes on them.  Because the only way they can compute women is to defeminize them or sexualize them on their terms.

BULLETIN TO TECH MALES:  It's not all about you.  Your hormones.  Your drives, hard or otherwise. 

Well, someone had to say it.  NEWSWEEK sure isn't. 

And for you young women journalists, including the ones who wrote this article, remember that there was much more to the sexual revolution than the ability to assign a sexual component to everything.

*I forgot smells. 

How do you know?

Early in the last decade, before I found my way here to northern California, I had a very wise client.

When I would share with him some nugget of sage advice or piece of wisdom, he would ask, "how do you know?"  Wasn't being obnoxious.  Just wanted the data source.  Or for you to fess up to sharing an opinion.

I loved it. 

Apparently, this is not necessary, or recommended, when dealing with the new luminaries of the web world.  They just don't seem to think they have to answer the how do you know question.  Often, they emit one of those noxious elitist glares.  You know the one.  The "how dare you ask me a question, I'm one of those In The Know" looks.

My latest experience with this phenomenon was today, when one of those major talents -- genius, actually -- first snubbed by the Old Men In The Know and now sponsored by the New Men In The Know, pontificated about how large corporate entities would never adopt microblogging.  I was not there in person, so I don't know if the glare was emitted.  However.  I must have tweeted four times to another guy on the panel as well as to the emoter himself asking for the data.  You see, I actually work with large companies, so I could use this info.

Did I receive a response?  Of course not!  This is the antisocial side of social media.  Here's the message.  We want you to hang on our every word, but don't ask any questions.  Because we're not to be questioned.  Just followed.

Now we've all been around long enough to know that this is a you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours kind of planet.  But.  This kind of behavior is not nice.  Plus, we are an industry that still needs to win points. 

A recent snubbee now feels empowered to be a snubber.  And he's assisted by another guru of socialization in contradicting the reason social tech tools exist.  Not just to further your careers, guys!  But to reach out!  To share!  To connect!

Anyway, back to the data point.  Subsequent tweets revealed that Mr Microblogging Expert proclaimed that web-based video would be a much hotter tool in large corporations.

Guess what he's selling.

STOLEN: Miracle on 34th Street

WHAT is going on?  Why are all those In The Know writing and talking about how if you send users to a competitor that has something you don't, you build loyalty, as if no one has ever heard of this concept?!

In "Miracle on 34th Street" [1947], the Macy's Santa [Edmund Gwenn] sent a mother [Thelma Ritter] to Schoenfeld's to get the toy her little boy wanted for Christmas.  Macy's didn't have it.

Thelma Ritter's enthusiastic response demonstrated the power of putting the relationship above the transaction.  In the movie, Macy's turned the theme into a big campaign, even instructing employees to tell customers where they could find things that Macy's didn't carry.

This is not an obscure little picture, people.  This is considered one of the best films of all time.

Now in 2008, in our little old valley, we've got all these people -- the In The Know crowd -- telling us the very same thing that Edmund Gwenn told Thelma Ritter, as if they invented it!  Heck, the movie's writers probably got it from somewhere else.

I suggest watching some old movies and -- gasp -- reading some books just to get your feet back on the ground.  Having bazillions of followers on Twitter does not a wise man make.

You know, we are really getting too big for our britches around here.

Content spewing

So, who gets to decide whether social content is spewed?  Scintillating? Worthy?  Pontificated?

Let me guess.