MJ, when you put everything under Equality, it dilutes each individual purpose.  I find this type of response aggravating, actually (and enough that I'm actually sending an email (which I never do) about this!)
Women have different issues than other groups - even stuff like when you have a kid and take a year off, how do you keep up on your mad programming skillz?  Or program with pregnancy-brain?
We often have different ways to look at things - obviously not less, but different. But in a predominantly male field it's easy to get lost or feel like an outsider (or heck, to be assumed in marketing!)

If you want to be inclusive, you need to have a supportive environment.  It's probably hard for anyone to imagine themselves a part of community when being outnumbered 20 to 1, especially with responses that dismiss something that multiple women are interested in.

-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of MJ Ray
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 7:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Question abt the code4libwomen idea

> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Bess Sadler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > There have been some contradictory statements made about 
> > #libtechwomen because it was an emerging idea, and like code4lib, 
> > there is no formal power structure or authority. There is no 
> > requirement that one be female to participate, [...]

That is good to know and a big improvement.

> > The suggestion has been made that the name "libtechwomen" might not 
> > be welcoming to someone who wants to participate but does not 
> > identify as a woman. We have already discussed changing it and 
> > welcome suggestions.

I suggest libtechEquality - any progress with other suggestions?

Cary Gordon <[log in to unmask]>
> Are there folks out there who think that you can only be in one IRC 
> room at a time? If I want to be in the #190cmtall room, nobody in 
> #code4lib would know, nor would it be any of their business. Are there 
> people here who really feel threatened by this?

That's not really a similar thing, but might indicate other problems.
Would we not be troubled by code4lib<anything>, just because it could be kept hidden and you could use code4lib anyway?

Regards,
--
MJ Ray
Setchey, Norfolk, England