I have a question, and I once again really don’t have an answer, just some sneaking suspicions coupled with some mild and growing concerns. I’m looking for your insight.
See, the other day, as I was gathering posts on Google+ for the Blog Library, I came across a post by the well-known Robert Scoble. The post is called “Why yo momma won’t use Google Plus (and why that thrills me to no end). I read the post and it kind of rubbed me the wrong way, but I was tired and so I figured I was just feeling cranky.
However, I found that as time went on, the post kept kind of bugging me, like one of those darned fruit flies that pops up in July. There are a few things that are bothering me, and coming together with other posts I’ve read, I’m kind of feeling like Google+ is being constructed as a velvet rope, smoke-filled, dancing lady-filled men’s lounge. I don’t have an invite to Google+ so I’m not saying this is so, but I’d like to tell you why I’m feeling this way, and you can then let me know if I’m totally off track.
Deal?
Issue 1: Distinguishing between “Social Media Stars” and “your mom”
Now before you get hot under the collar, I do understand metaphorical language. By “your mom,” Scoble means the average user, and that could (technically) be a man or a woman. However, he uses the word “mom” which is generally speaking not gender neutral. Here is a phrase that caught my attention in his post:
Since most of the people who are on Google+ so far are geeks, insiders, social media stars, journalists, and other people (Google admitted tonight they are only accepting people who have strong social graphs so that they can both make sure everyone has a good first experience as well as test out some of the technology before opening it up to a wider audience) the chances normal people (metaphorically speaking, your mom) won’t hear about Google+ from normal users for quite a while.
First, who are Social Media superstars? What does “strong social graph” mean? It feels like this is this summer’s answer to last year’s Fast Company Influence Project, only now the winners will be touting their Google+ status rather than win a chance to appear on Fast Company’s cover. And why would normal people (aka your mom) be distinguished from an environment where a pleasant online experience can take place? I’ve never interacted with Robert Scoble at all on Twitter, nor have I interacted with Ashton Kutcherr. I’m still enjoying myself rather well. I probably have a lot more in common with “your mom” than I do with some of these super stars and “other people.”
Later in the post, Scoble writes:
Come on now, we geeks and early adopters and social media gurus need a place to talk free of folks who think Justin Bieber is the second coming of Christ. That’s what we have in Google+ right now. Do we really want to mess that up?
Now, granted, I don’t really consider myself a sufferer of Bieber Fever. However, I wouldn’t say that folks who do suffer from that affliction are “messing up” Twitter. They’re using it for their purposes and I’d wager a lot of them don’t know who the “social media gurus” are.
The other problem with this statement, though, hearkens back to the title. To me, feminizing the title and repeatedly using “your mom” equates people who would “mess up” Google+ with women. Am I reading into this too much?
Issue 2: Women and Technology
A lot of women know that there is an underlying belief held sacred by men – “Women can’t do technology.” I have to have my dad talk to the car guys when I take my car in for repairs because the guys simply will not listen to me. When I call the maintenance guys where I live and tell them my freezer isn’t freezing or my dryer isn’t drying, they don’t believe me. It feels like this belief, this sensation that women and technology don’t mix, is also creating an idea that women won’t like Google+ because it’s too nerdy or technologically involved.
Scoble writes, “But they haven’t yet proven that they can convince your mom to use it and that’s just fine with me.”
Again, if the post had been written about “techies versus normal people,” I don’t think I’d have this anti-woman sensation. In a lot of sentences, Scoble does distinguish between “us nerds” and “normal people.” But it’s that use of the word “mom” over and over again that raises my eyebrow and maybe even my dander.
Maybe “your mom” is a woman like Liz Strauss, Charlene Li, Peggy Fitzpatrick, or Carol Roth. Maybe “your mom” is even more geeky than Larry Page. Should she still stay on Facebook?
And doesn’t “stay on Facebook with your kids and grandkids” kind of sound like “stay in the kitchen while us men work on the car?” I don’t know. Maybe it’s just my ancestors whispering in my ear.
Issue 3: It’s mostly men I see talking about Google+
So far, I’ve only seen one woman write a blog post about Google+, and that was Gini Dietrich. Gini doesn’t have an invite to Google+ yet and as of the writing of her post, she felt a bit unsure about it. All of the other posts I’ve seen so far have been by men. So what does that mean? Are women fulfilling the stereotype or do we just not feel welcome?
I’d love to hear your thoughts about this issue – and remember, I could be 100% on the wrong track. I’d be happy to hear it, actually!
http://www.sxc.hu/profile/just4you
View Margie Clayman's profile
Mike Stenger says
July 2, 2011 at 6:09 pmGood points Margie. I’ve been on Google+ since the day it opened, and yeah, there’s more men and also more men talking about it than women. However, I have connected with quite a few women (that sounds wrong) on Google+.
Margie Clayman says
July 3, 2011 at 2:26 pmheeh 🙂 Thanks, Mike. It’s definitely not a cut and dry issue!
Jeffrey Reidy says
July 2, 2011 at 6:14 pmThere are plenty of women in there. In my circles, I’ve got about roughly 70 that are women and 150 that are men. Yes, that’s more than twice as many men as women, but there are definitely a good number of women in there. The posts in G+ have just as many women commenting on them as men.
As to why women aren’t really blogging about G+, I have no idea.
My point of view on the whole “stay on FB” thing is this… I have no problem with Facebook turning into strictly a family and close friends network for me, and G+ being more of a professional network or advanced Twitter (which hardly any of my family or close friends are on).
P.S. My mom is not on G+ and probably won’t be for quite some time, if ever… unless Facebook royally screws up somehow.
P.P.S. My mom is far more tech savvy than my dad is.
Margie Clayman says
July 3, 2011 at 2:27 pmAll very good points, Jeffrey. I guess my only question would be, “OK, Facebook is more family oriented…why does that speak only to “your mom?” I know plenty of guys who are equally happy to be connected with family. In that light, it seems like a slight against men, non?
Jennifer says
July 2, 2011 at 6:32 pmHi,
I really believe you are reading way to much into the language used. I am female, and am loving G+. I know of several more women who are on there, and working it like crazy. Why aren’t more women blogging about it? Maybe they don’t blog, or their niche isn’t a fit for a review of G+. Maybe they are like me and prefer to do a bit more than kick the tires and peer through the windows before reviewing something. It’s only been in limited beta for what….4 days maybe? Trust and believe women will be all over G+ once it goes public just like they are on other social networks. I just hope it never appeals to the teeny boppers and so forth…it would be nice to have a space for the more technically minded to confer together.
Margie Clayman says
July 3, 2011 at 2:29 pmHi Jennifer,
Fair enough. Like I said, I was open to that possibility 🙂 I guess i just found that post a bit alarming 🙂
Sara at Saving For Someday says
July 2, 2011 at 7:48 pmMargie, very interesting take. I don’t have an invite either but a few guys I know who don’t blog, tweet very sporadically and generally aren’t all that in to social media do have invites. And when one gave me an invite I got an auto-responder that Google+ was overwhelmed.
Maybe it will just go the way of Google Buzz and we’ll be none the wiser.
Sara
Margie Clayman says
July 3, 2011 at 2:29 pmThat’s the big question – will this outlast Google Buzz and Google Wave? Will it kill Facebook and Twitter?
Here’s to finding out!
Kyle Thill says
July 2, 2011 at 8:03 pmOut of curiosity could/would you ask Mr. Scoble what he meant by the reference? I think that would be interesting.
My guess is it was a simple reference to the more social aspect of social media, to separate that use from say marketing or brand promotion.
Margie Clayman says
July 3, 2011 at 2:30 pmSomeone told me on Twitter (Bruce Serven I think) that Scoble rescinded his comments a bit and did say that he was meaning “people in general.” Which is how I assumed he meant it, but I still think it could have been worded better.
Robert Scoble says
July 4, 2011 at 12:15 pmYup, and the next day I wrote a post about why “yo daddy” won’t use Google+ just to balance things out a bit.
As to “strong social graph” that means that someone who has lots of people they are following. The average Twitter user, for instance, only follows a handful of people. I, on the other hand, follow 32,000 people. So, who will they invite in? The one with lots of connections and someone who will spend a lot of time tending to those connections. That’s why you see the biases in first invites (those biases are quickly going away as more people get invited in).
Miriam Gomberg says
July 2, 2011 at 9:37 pmMargie, you are 100% right! It burns me up that whenever I feel we live in an egalitarian society, something like this comes along which lowers the glass ceiling.
I am curious as to how this whole Google + thing pans out. I for one am not interested (not that I expect to be invited). Miriam
Margie Clayman says
July 3, 2011 at 2:32 pmThanks, Miriam. I guess to me, google+ is only part of the issue. The other part of the issue is the post itself and the general air of sexism that I picked up on. Those kinds of posts have been roaming around the tech and online world for quite some time, so in that context, I’d advise all parties to be a bit careful with their words when talking about gender and traits associated with those genders. But that’s just a recommendation 🙂
Nancy Davis says
July 3, 2011 at 8:50 amHi Margie,
Interesting points as usual. Branica Underwood did a post on her blog about Google +. I read it the other day. It was a good post.
I don’t like the whole “social media gurus” thing Does this mean a commoner like me can’t get in? That would stunk. I am merely curious. I also do not suffer from any Beiber, or Twilight related afflictions. (but I am a Beatles and baseball nerd 🙂 )
I just think he used strong language to get a reaction, and he got one. Well played.
Margie Clayman says
July 3, 2011 at 2:33 pmYeah, that’s a whole string of different issues. I was surprised that he used that terminology when so many have acknowledged that it just kind of rankles people. Maybe you’re right though. Maybe he was just going for a reaction. In that case – success! 🙂
Judy Helfand says
July 3, 2011 at 10:47 amMargie,
I think this is GOOGLE’s beta mode and their way of building hype. A couple of years ago I wrote about GOOGLE Wave. Eight Google WAVE Invitations – Is Anybody Going to Wave Back .. http://t.co/IOinOK3. One day the WAVE went out and never came back.
And by the way, I didn’t get an invite either.
Judy
Margie Clayman says
July 3, 2011 at 2:34 pmThat’s why I’m waiting a month to see if Google+ is still around and still everybody’s darling. Of course, now that they’re filled to capacity I don’t have much of a choice in the matter anyway, but I had decided that even before they filled up 🙂
Rufus Dogg says
July 3, 2011 at 10:51 amMargie, you are really grabbing onto that third rail, aren’t you? Good, about time someone did.
Making a comment or a blog post that speaks truth like this is akin to being at a Thanksgiving dinner where Uncle Joe makes jokes that degrades women, other races, poor people or any other target. Everyone at the table knows it is wrong but nobody wants to be the one to rock the boat, get cut out of the will or be singled out as the negative Nellie who ruined a perfectly good family get-together. So they all shut up, laugh at the appropriate times and leave without making a ripple. Publicly, they say all the right things that support the family and the artificial nice-nice but privately, they agonize over why they allow Uncle Joe to continue.
But that is the point of view from the dog, staring up at the table waiting for scraps to fall.
Margie Clayman says
July 3, 2011 at 2:35 pmWell, I’m not trying to ruin everybody’s holiday or fun. I don’t want to be a buzz kill..(hardy har har). But there was so much about that post that just bugged me that I wanted to see if I was alone in that, and I also wanted to see if my thoughts about Google+ were correct in light of that post.
You’re a pretty smart puppy, that being said 🙂
Judy Helfand says
July 3, 2011 at 11:21 amOne more thing: You know what I wish? I wish that GOOGLE’s FEEDBURNER would send me a link to your current posts in a timely manner. For example, you wrote this post yesterday and I have yet to be notified by FEEDBURNER. In fact your July 1st post did not end up in my mailbox until July 2 at 9:18AM.
The early invites are about testing/quality assurance QA…now people are TESTING the product, pounding on it, and they will report the kinks.
See you later.
J
Margie Clayman says
July 3, 2011 at 2:35 pmHmm. I wish I knew how to fix that! Yargh.
Sophia says
July 3, 2011 at 11:23 amYou are 100% on the wrong track 🙂 So is Stoble. I think G+ is infinitely easier to use than say FB. The problem with those tech writers is they can’t relate to the real world. We – our moms and us daughters – will do just fine and I think G+ is going to be great. I aleady managed to get my 75 year old mother on and the idea of circles clicked instantly. It is the forced “friendships” of FB that she can’t grasp
Margie Clayman says
July 3, 2011 at 2:36 pmVery interesting, Sophia. That is something I’m hearing a lot of – people are really liking the circles aspect and the non-mandatory follow aspect. Can’t really say I blame ’em!
I’m happy to hear I’m on the wrong tracks. Thanks for saying so 🙂
Shahram Khorsand says
July 3, 2011 at 2:07 pmMargie, well, Lets keep two things separat. The blog your read and Google+. The blog you read and “made” me read… 🙂 is really nothing but some thoughts on one mans head. I will let you in a secret! Some or most of the thoughts in a mans head shouldn’t see the days light. With that said, the blogs opinion should stay with the writer.
The second thing, your blog! well. Google+ is just another tool or place to gather friends and share! The main thing for me is the sharing part. Regardless of the platform or the media. I used to have pen-pals back in the days. If you are a person that creates value and shares it without expecting something in return you will get friends regardless of gender etc.
No doubt there are men’s club in Facebook, twitter and all other clubs as there are women’s club. One last remark, the work Men’s club has a chauvinistic sound to it! hence my reaction. Women’s club is so much more positive and “girl power” sound to it. Why do you think that is? (yes this is is a trap, just answer it )
Regardless I loved you blog and looking forward to more of your insight in Google+ or other plattforms.
Cheers,
Shahram
Margie Clayman says
July 3, 2011 at 2:39 pmHi Shahram,
Well, to be fair, if I was going to parse the post I thought I might as well give him full credit by sending people over there 🙂
In regards to your last point, I’m actually not a fan of “all women” clubs either. In fact, I wrote a post about that a few months ago over here ->
http://margieclayman.com/women-dont-want-a-league-of-our-own
I think any situation where there is exclusion can lead to dangerous environments. We should all be able to interact on an equal plane, although I realize that sounds rather idealistic. However, it really does seem like it should be possible.
Laura Click says
July 4, 2011 at 6:35 pmWell, there are lot of things that I can say about this. But, I’ll just say this – there does appear to be a disparity between the number of men vs. women on Google Plus. I think the reason we’re not seeing a lot of articles from women about it is because there are not as many women using the service. I think that it’s likely because there are fewer women in the social media elite than men. As for why THAT is, I don’t know.
Here’s an article from Forbes that talks about the gender disparity in Google Plus: http://blogs.forbes.com/quentinhardy/2011/06/30/sex-problems-at-google/
Oh, and for the record, I don’t have an invite yet either! 😉
Gini Dietrich says
July 4, 2011 at 7:50 pmOh! I didn’t see you linked to the Forbes article. Thank you!
Margie Clayman says
July 4, 2011 at 8:13 pmhi Laura!
Occom’s Razor would state that the reason for so few blog posts is that few women are using the service. However, every time I have raised that as a possibility, people have responded with some sauce that there are plenty of women on there. Somewhere there is a gap in understanding. I’m just not sure where.
Gini Dietrich says
July 4, 2011 at 7:50 pmI ended up getting an invite on Thursday, right after I published my initial post. Coincidence? So I write this with five days of use behind me. Most of the people in there ARE men. It’s so evident, in fact, that Forbes wrote an article about it. In the post I wrote today, I took screen grabs of the conversations happening in my own stream and, with the exception of one, it’s all men. Your readers don’t know you and I have been hashing this out all day, but I think you’re right. Women don’t fill the tech world so it’s hard to find them as early adopters of a new tech tool. Forbes thinks it’s because the Google programmers are the ones inviting people in and they, well, are men.
Margie Clayman says
July 4, 2011 at 8:12 pmJust left a comment over on your post…I think there is a nugget of an issue here that we really need to pay attention to, in the same way that we need to pay attention to the fact that Liz Strauss was the only woman the Wall Street Journal paid tribute to (at least in the top 10) as top Small Business minds in Social Media. You should have been on there. Amber Naslund, Carol Roth, Becky McCray, and many others. Nothing at all against Liz, but there are women who are powerhouses who are simply not getting credit.
It’s very discouraging. We need to do something about it.
Steve says
July 8, 2011 at 11:55 pmAll I can say is that many of my women friends are on Google +. I don’t see it as being an all boys club but hey. That’s just me. Even if it were. I say crash it, and change it!
Gary Levin says
July 10, 2011 at 12:32 amActually check out ‘the women of google+. http://www.womenofgplus.com/ Lots of girlies there.
Peggy says
September 12, 2011 at 9:40 amMargie
This is a very interesting post, I was reading it with my teenage daughters and they wanted to respond to this: “Distinguishing between “Social Media Stars” and “your mom”” – they said that your mom could be the Social Media star! And to them I am which is all that counts to me. Let’s just go kick some butt on G+ – who cares if there are more men than women, our opportunity to be fabulous is equal. Let’s own it!
Peggy