Our Culture of Exclusion (or, why I'm not going to *conf)

I don't know how you meant that, but it reads very much like STFU or GTFO to me.

> The reason there's so much alcohol is because it acts as a social lubricant.

Except that alcohol is more than just a social lubricant; it's a disinhibitor.

That in and of itself creates an exclusionary environment for many women, because they can't rely on physical dominance to counteract the dangers that come with a large group of uninhibited men.

Apart from that; the simple fact that it might not be appealing to a large group of people you wish to involve in your community should be reason enough in- and of itself, much like how insisting on things like dirt-bike racing for team activities might be considered exclusionary for certain groups whom this would appeal less to.

Nobody is being forced to drink, but I have a feeling that if the author were to make his own conference, drinking would be explicitly forbidden. That’s the biggest problem with prohibitionists of any type (whether it’s alcohol, recreational marijuana, or whatever). It’s not enough that something is optional and they’re not forced to partake. They must force you not to partake.

An analogy would be a conference where the evenings entertainment is a competition to see who can piss up a wall the highest. It wouldn't exclude women per se, because they don't have to join in if they don't want to, but you can reasonably see why they might not feel welcome, and why they might complain about it. If a conference wants to appeal to a broad range of people it's the organisers job to make sure the entertainment isn't based around one thing that only appeals to one group, even if that group is a majority.

There is a world of difference between being excluded, and feeling excluded. Ryan feels excluded, but I genuinely doubt that people are shunning him because he doesn't have a beer in his hand. He isn't being forced out of interesting conversations because of his sobriety.

I've never once seen binge drinking at a conference. Drinking, sure, but binge drinking implies that people are doing kegstands or something similar.

Now, I don't know Ryan personally, and maybe I'm missing the bigger point, but this blog post reminds me of an Elizabeth Taylor quote: "The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues."

There are clearly groups who don't or can't go to events because alcohol plays a prominent part (i.e other people drinking impacts them).

There's obviously trade-offs between different groups of participants, but they need to be made consciously with awareness of the consequences rather than because they're the default.

"If you don't drink, there will be plenty of sodas, water, juices, etc. at the bar. We want to hang out with all of you regardless of what you're drinking. :)"

Two years ago, as a non-drinker who felt a lot of non-existant peer pressure, just that line would've made me much more comfortable in attending one of these social events. If nothing else, it's a good first step that costs nothing more than the breath to say it out loud.

Many religious and cultural minorities avoid alcohol-based gatherings, because their background forbids or strongly disapproves of such behaviour. Most recovering alcoholics avoid environments where drinking is taking place. As other commenters have said, a lot of women aren't comfortable being alone in a room full of drunk guys; Thanks to the tech industry's problems with gender, they probably already have plenty of good reasons to feel uncomfortable at a tech conference. If your conference is boozy, then a whole bunch of people are going to stay at home for that reason.

Do you not see a problem with booth babes at expos, or game companies who in the past have organised launch events at strip clubs? Would you argue that people who feel uncomfortable with the idea of scantily-clad women being used as props should simply avert their gaze? What if we replaced alcohol with a different drug? Would you be fine holding a tech event in a cannabis cafe or a crackhouse?

If you want to throw an after-party at your conference, fine. Most conferences inevitably have plenty of late-night drinking at the hotel bar and I'm not going to argue with that. But if you allow that drinking culture to encroach on the event itself then you're marginalising a large group of people, you're invoking all the dreadful fratboy stereotypes that the tech industry so desperately needs to shake off.

Perhaps some of the people who don't want to get wasted just stay away from the conference because there is nothing else to do?

I understand that the STATED purpose of the event is not "being white". But an unstated and real consideration for people attending is the opportunity of being with one or several white friends. Not everything operates on the "stated" level.

A better way would be to have several types of such events, cattered to the different demographics. And if some demographic is not big enough to organize one, well, sometimes in life your tastes are different than most people's and you have to accept that.

caveat: to cater

This is self-fulfilling. If you create an environment that repulses non-drinkers, you will only have drinkers to cater to.

The author's point is all about this issue. Essentially, he's implying mission drift: the stated purpose of the event is being subverted, or even subsumed, by the unstated purpose (drinking). In his opinion, too much emphasis has been placed on the unstated, to the point where the stated is getting left by the wayside.

It's an interesting point, though it's very hard to prove, and the author weakens his argument with a lot of heavy-handed moralism of the "This has no place here!" variety.

Nevertheless, it's something to consider. When people drink at conferences, do they have to binge drink? And if a majority (or even a perceived majority) of attendees are indeed binge drinking, might that not exclude a fair number of hypothetical attendees who don't want to? It's not a stretch to think that a woman would be put off, or even physically intimidated, by the idea of being in a clear minority among a large crowd of young, drunk males. Similarly, older would-be attendees might opt out if they feel they're just going to show up to a glorified frat party. In the author's view, the problem isn't so much the presence of alcohol as it is an alcohol-centric conference culture.

The problem with this argument, of course, is its heavy reliance on subjective experience. One person's loud, annoying frat party is another person's good time. One observer's "everyone is binging" is another observer's "only a few people were, and they were embarrassing themselves." One person's "I felt excluded for being sober" is another person's "That's all in your head."

The best way to explore this issue is to get out of the subjective and into the empirical. I'd be very curious to see the results of polling among past and would-be attendees to gauge their feelings on this issue. For those who opted out, why did they? And what patterns emerge in their feedback? We'd probably run into some issues with sample size and selection, but something would be better than pure speculation.

We really have no place speaking on behalf of those who aren't present, no matter how small a minority they might be. (Cf. "tyranny of the majority" on Wikipedia or other sites.) The net solution probably isn't that every conference needs to go straight-edge. But at the same time, it's probably not the opposite: that everything is perfectly fine, and those who don't like it can go somewhere else. The author has raised an interesting point, and we should make an effort to hear from those who feel similarly.

On my own conference, we take great care that beer is served in open areas and that everyone can choose where he sits around. That works very well. It is an issue, it is one that can very easily be solved with a bit of open-mindedness a bit of care.

I get what you are trying to say, but as a guy with a degree in arts who considers Alan Kay one of his big heroes (if old and grumpy), I have to protest against the implied definition of "creative" here.

Never have worked with the old-street set though, so I guess YMMV.

I suggest using crack or heroin for reefermadnessed analogies like that next time. No, go nuts: Krokodil. Let the reader imagine people using krokodil at a conference.

* * *

It's "unprofessional". Never do anything in your spare time that does not further your career and company.

If US tech companies are full of people with the alcohol maturity of a British 19-20 year old then I can see why that might end badly.

Discussing while having beers has been excellent source of new ideas for me. While it hampers the ability to think logically it makes thinking outside of the box easier. And it makes the conversation more fluid.

I, like so many others, am so unsocial when absolutely sober that completely alcohol-free events are actually really hard.