As I ticked through the major design or design-related (web development, advertising, marketing) agencies in town, I had to admit that there alot of predominantly male companies out there. And some of the firms tend to be overwhelmingly so - 10 to 20 employees with 90% of them being male.

But then, there are a few (that I know of) that have a good balance of women to men too... This got me thinking about the profession as a whole, on a national scale, what is the ratio of men to women designers? Surely the AIGA must have some idea... Does anyone know?

My perception has always been that there are a few more women in the profession than men - like 55% - 60%. But this is purely anectdotal - based on my perceptions of AIGA conference attendance, which is in no way necessarily indicative of national averages.

So I began to wonder about Chattanooga. Is there something about our city that is more appealing to young men? We are in the south after all, is the "good ol' boy" network still alive and kicking? If I had to make a blanket statement, my impression of most Chattanooga professions is that they are male dominated. Is this just part of our culture?

As the owner a small design studio and employer of several people (2 full-timers, 3-4 freelancers) I do have to admit that all of my coworkers are men. But I am rather uncertain that this is intentional or even part of my "corporate" philosophy. It seems to be more a product of our human tendency to gravitate toward those like us...

All of these questions and the new AIGA Diversity Initiative lead me to the following question: what about non-caucasian designers in Chattanooga?

Our city is not exactly a big melting pot of ethnic diversity anyway, but the number of African-American, Asian-American, Hispaño-Latino designers that I have met can easily be counted on a couple fingers. What does this mean? And more importantly, what is my responsibility in regard to this issue?

I'd love to hear Chattanooga's thoughts on this.

as the proud papa of two girls, and a Southern boy who grew up intentionally oblivious to such questions, this is much on my mind. and i can't help relate it to the graphic design/interior design world that i've become part of in the past 2 years.

a great article i found a while back on the topic:

http://www.designobserver.com/archives/020303.html

Boys club? Really?

Don't those with the best work get the job regardless? I thought those who engaged other designers, those who demonstrated interest, involvement, abilities and respect were met with the same. Anyway, that has been my approach.

I can honestly say this has not been an issue in my career. Maybe I carry myself differently than other female designers. Maybe it is because gender/diversity is not an obstacle for me.

So does that make me naive or possessive of a higher thought plane?!

Sure, I may be enduring some form of impunity now as I type — I'm not THAT naive. Things could be said behind my back. Opportunities withheld.

But do I really want those opportunities if they originate from such a place? I deserve better and I will have better.

You really give a damn that I'm female?

In good news, the Board of AIGA50 is split 50-50 male and female.

at my company (not really mine--just where i work), there are women all over the place. of course, if you're talking web design, we don't do that. we publish newsletters and magazines--write, design, etc...

in the design (we call it art b/c those artists feel the need to be validated somehow), there are:

3 men (one recently came on board...from the pulse--sorry bill)

and

7 women

in editorial, we have

3 men

and

11 women (and 2 female interns on the way)

moving into the publishing department, we've got

2 men

and

11 women

in fact, the only department with more men than women is sales--so maybe there should be a big stink over that. in sales, there are

3 men

and

2 women

regardless, we all do pretty doggone good work.

I think this is VERY complicated and have been giving it a lot of thought myself. More questions than answers right now - but ya-- I see the "boys club" trend locally - especially in interactive. It brings up lifestyle questions (how many male designers here have stay at home wives tending their needs keeping the children and social schedule --- this is old school and creates psychological barriers), familial relationships (how many female pro designers here have children?), approaches to problem solving (is half of design sales, is sales inherently an aggressive behavior?), identity (Do women identify themselves by what they do more than men? Can men disassociate from the ethics of questionable design like "creating a market" -- more readily than women?)... even confidence issues (I see this in students re: technology which I'm not sure about... the root. Probably bigger than I think). Diversity takes very very active efforts. Not shrugging shoulders and saying guess that's just how it is. We talk about design making the world a better place and all sorts of grand ideas - but if its the same old perspectives/approaches/social strata --- then communication/ideas stay the same. So Paul thanks for bringing all this up. It is a real situation. Very interesting.

p.s. i realize you were just starting a conversation about the article. reading through my comments, i realize some of what i said sounded a little snooty toward you. i meant nothing by what i said. just saying we have a lot of women here, so it's never really been an issue.

Hmmmmm.... After several interviews and other attempts to find jobs in Chattanooga (which I love, own a condo in, and would never like to have left), I had to move to Atlanta. So either my portfolio really does suck, or Chattanooga might have a problem with females in design firms. I would jump at any chance to get a job in Chatty, and I've lived all over the world (Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, Florida, Maryland, and now the South)..... My heart is in Chatty. But other than possibly starting my own firm in many years, I can't see it happening. I really did try, I've had good reviews on my portfolio.... obviously most is student work, but how else does a graduate get a job? By having hookups. I might sound bitter, but it's not intentional.

In my personal experience, Chattanooga is biased.

Interesting topic, indeed. In my days at The Johnson Group, we had a pretty heavy balance of male designers but at least 3 or 4 female designers, although the male designers seemed to be promoted a bit faster. That aside, I think the male to female designer ratio (when I left) was 7 to 3 (rough estimate). However, in the almost 4 years I was there, there were 3 male CD's and 3 male AD's. No females were promoted to either position during my stay. Any JG'ers are welcome to challenge me on that, as I may be incorrect. ; )

Regardless, I love women. So much that I married one.

Just the fact that a male brought this issue to the forefront - seems somewhat of an anecdote in itself? ;-)(perhaps on the whole, confidence to speak up is gender specific? I hope not! - but our upbringing and environment play a huge part I think)

But based on the responses above, we all felt quite compelled to respond whether it was to disprove or further question the statement. And I think that that in itself acknowledges that this is a matter worth our attention - especially if we hope to encourage the next generation of designers... and create an equal playing field for our children etc.

Personally speaking...after working in a few design shops here, I can identify with the "boys club" tag. But in all fairness, this is not exclusive to design in our town. The lack of ethnic diversity in our field is a moreso alarming topic I think...

Perhaps the lack of lies in how our profession is viewed from the outside. I've often grappled with the fact that design/advertising as a career often seems at odds with common ethics -a self serving role rather than of service.One thing I learned in advertising is that "perception is everything". And how we are percieved has a lot to do with how we interact with our community...and will either draw or repel future designers. Careful treading...my 2 cents of rambling ;-)

Back to Lisa's point, I think this is a really good distinction, and I suppose I didn't really address in my post. I think (and probably most of us think) that we are doing just that - selecting employees or coworkers or collaborators on the basis of design ability, not color, gender, religious affiliation, etc.

My questions arise from observation: when the statistics of reality look as they do, is there an unfair bias? Or is it a whole multitude of factors, none of which should be emphasized over the others? This is an important distinction we need to make.
How do we decide it? Purely on our own personal experience?

RE: hiring + collaborating --- Sure, design 'ability' is the fastest route to profit/succeed in business. Can design be more interesting/enlightening/though provoking/ DIFFERENT than survival of the fittest...?

Paul, why did you remove my post? Chivalry was great for women in the what 14th century(?), but I sincerely think it is something that should be critically considered here.

In general people seem to be supporting sameness here.

Look we have women.
Everything is fine.
I can do it, why can't x?

Is this boring?

In response to Lisa's comments about those who are good being hired, those who are not engaged or who shrink away or are disconnected not being hired (survival of the fittest) -- I feel strongly that an ethos forms those disconnections, and that this ethos is one of patriarchal dominance, one that favors quietness and submission in women. I think that if we're not part of the solution, we're part of the problem and that especially as educators, I and my colleagues have a responsibility to haul those "good girls" out of their learned behaviors, show them that they are viable contributors, and give them the skills to be engaged. I think we have to think about this problem as rooted in culture/environment much earlier than the point of hiring, and this is something that Jessica touches on very clearly. Act affirmatively. Go out of your way to mentor and hire women. That's being part of the solution. And the same goes for hiring people of color who have learned to reside in a certain space in segregated Chattanooga. It's not enough for all of us to be liberal. We have to be willing to see ourselves in everyone and present everyone to the customer. I can easily imagine the range of preferences local companies would have (insidiously, without being stated) for what their contact looks/sounds/dresses like...I may sound like an irate Northerner, and I am. But the same things happen in the north. I've seen too many screaming talents come through my classes who are female and submissive/non-verbal and who come out of our program as rock stars. Why waste them simply because they learned so well to be good?

I have so many thoughts about this topic, I don't want them to all roll out at once.

I remember a few years ago, in your class Paul, an excellent panel of designers (all of whom were male) came and gave fantastic advice about our future career paths. One of those panel members was Ben Horner, a great designer who had just graduated circa 2 yrs before our class. I couldn't help but feel more connected to his work/thoughts just by the age proximity. He came and did a solo-style talk, further explaining how he'd landed his awesome job (one I think many of us are still envious of til this day!). There's no questioning Horner's design ability, but it was strange how his own narrative of landing the job had to do with being an intern who "fit in." How he'd started getting to hang out with his coworkers, eat meals with them, etc. And he just "fit in."

I was propelled to raise hand and ask, "well, but what if you were just a great designer there, but a different demographic.” I jokingly pointed out, “What if you didn't have brown hair, etc." And same for any job in the area, I asked him— did he think based on our design work alone, could we land that job or the same caliber of job, without "fitting in." And I more than expected the response to be, "Oh yeah, definitely." But the truthful Horner responded, that he thought a lot of us, just like a lot of talented designers in his own class had done, were going to have to look for work out of the community because it was very closed in many ways. . . .

That's just an initial anecdote.

I don't think that Chattanooga aggressively or actively tries to make itself a boy's club. I think though, it is interesting to look at who ends up staying in Chattanooga post-graduation from the community’s educational pond—that look might pay homage to who ends up feeling most welcomed by the surrounding design community. When women stay around or we're tallying up respective workplace numbers—Are all jobs equal? What types of jobs are these females taking on. Are more females in production roles vs. creative director roles, advertising vs. information design. . . There are a lot of factors to take in.

It's definitely NEVER as simple as "Don't those with the best work get the job regardless? "

It’s equal parts what you have to offer & what someone is looking for. If what someone is looking for, is as Paul pointed out often a "product of our human tendency to gravitate toward those like us..." then someone who isn't "like" might not be "what's looked for."

It's interesting to see Brian write in about the stats of MayCreate—in prominent Chattanooga design I’ve always seen Brian & MayCreate as one of the exemptions to the abundance of male-dominated design. I have repeatedly in-conversation championed May for being so open to assisting, motivating, equal-opportunity-style. I’m not even sure if it’s a conscious act on his part. But a lot of us have noticed it. Upon moving to Chicago, into a job with a boss who referred to me as "little girl," and belittled me in front of co-workers— It was Brian who I ran and called for advice. I think there’s a real professionalism in actively assisting & seeking out diversity in one’s workplace.

As Lisa's post points out, of course any woman can work there way to the top. Or close to it.

The reak question is does said community welcome with EQUAL opportunity. If it's made "easier" for a male to slip into a position then it doesn't matter whether a female could WORK her way into it.

Paul asks, what I think is a SUPER IMPORTANT question: "Or is it a whole multitude of factors, none of which should be emphasized over the others? This is an important distinction we need to make. How do we decide it? Purely on our own personal experience?"

I think part of that multitude of factors, is—What do we champion? Is diversity one of the most important factors in those decisions? If it is, you have to fight for it! I recently ALMOST printed a dude-party of a magazine. While half the people making the damn thing were female, somehow (volunteered) submissions (which made up 95% of the content) was on males. I had to fight and claw, rearrange, and make sure that the end result came somewhat closer to showing the equalness of talent that's out there.

It hard though. I realized the "natural process" of accepting submissions didn't result in gender-equal content. This go-round I've begun actively seeking that out. The only newly finished content is an interview with my own hero, ROSANNE CASH. heheh.

In answer to Paul's question-If an employer realizes there's a deficit of something, you have to ask how important challenging that deficit is to you? For some employer's it's not worth focusing on, but important to remember that the "natural selection process" doesn't always give equal results.

As has been noted in a couple of places, this could just as well be a conversation about minorities (a much more glaring trend in design, and not just in Chattanooga, is the dearth of African Americans practicing professionally) but the title of Paul’s blog makes it hard not to focus on what we’re all making of our own design community when it comes to gender. Caleb says something really telling when he describes himself as “a southern boy who grew up intentionally oblivious to such questions”. For me this has to do first with the ability to “see” the problem of diversity; and as a white guy, I’m willing to admit that it may be a harder problem for me to see than for others. It’s not a premeditated or malicious state (and that’s what bothers me about the “Boy’s Club” perception – it suggests intent, like a bunch of guys smoking cigars in a back room somewhere pinching the asses of the waitresses… it belittles us all) but you do look around and kind of wonder what combination of forces, conscious or unconscious, leads to an environment where that perception can even take hold? There are a couple of common themes in the posts so far and the most resonant for me is the recognition that diversity is something that must be worked for. Liz’s point is well taken; i.e. even when women (or minorities) achieve measurable success as designers (or anything for that matter), if that path to success has been marked by obstacles not faced by men then we have to question any raw statistic that “proves” unbiased diversity through numbers. In the meantime, it’s naïve for us to pretend that those obstacles are not there. We (men AND women) need to make a conscious commitment to push through those barriers. On one end of the spectrum, that means a young female designer making the decision to enter the profession. On the other end, it means MAKING opportunities (I do think this is an active commitment) for talented female designers to live/work/thrive as designers in Chattanooga. As Michael Beirut points out (thanks for the link Caleb), it’s not a matter of talent. For us, I think it’s a matter of who stays in Chattanooga and who goes, and I can say with absolute conviction that Chattanooga would be a cooler design town if a few of our recent female grads would have chosen (or had the opportunity) to stay.

As Rebecca points out, for some of us this begins in the classroom where we’re responsible for creating a learning environment that rewards passion, commitment, leadership, and talent. Period. I like think we do well at UTC by way of gender diversity but even so it’s hard not to wonder if what we ultimately recognize as “talent” in a historically male dominated field are those things which are, by general agreement, masculine traits? I think that this is what Rebecca means when she says screaming talents who are [comparatively] submissive/non-verbal. We all know enough about the design field to know that active engagement is essential – ours is a profession defined by the ability to communicate effectively – but at the same time there is no good reason to let great talent go to waste because someone does not meet some unspoken standard of masculinity (submissive vs. aggressive, non-verbal vs. verbal, intuitive vs. analytical, and so on). Here I’ll admit to treading water, because these boundaries/barriers are elusive to me. Like one of those magic pictures, I only get fleeting and unsure glimpses of these things maybe because I have not really learned how to see them.

Regardless… for all of our sake, Jessica makes the best point of all, at least as far as design is concerned: diversity is just a more interesting and vital state of reality – plain and simple. There is no better reason than that to work for it, to embrace it, and to celebrate it. And celebrating diversity is to celebrate what is best in design: its constant state of flux; its ability to embrace change; and its willingness to question all that we take for granted.

re: seeing the problem. it is hard to step out of ones own for sure. i like to keep in mind that it is just by pure luck i was born white, middle class, with educated parents. had i been born black, gay, (or any other minority) in the South everything –EVERYTHING– would be harder. not just getting into the design network here - but just getting around things/obstacles like economics, southern heritage with its history of violence and hate, generations of terrible public education and intellectual segregation... and enduring socially acceptable 'Southern Pride' which at times embraces and reveres its ties to the dixie flag (violence)/the southern bell(sexism)/rebellious bad boyness (wreckless judgement) ... and everything those icons imply. i see that i have it easy in a whole lot of ways. i think this helps me approach scenarios with a certain amount of empathy that may not be apparent in the status quo here. without going into much detail i have heard language choices like: "you snooze you lose" and to a colleague in ref to a new intern "he's your new bitch". what are these kinds of choices saying?

questions:
who are the visible design role models here in town? here in the AIGA circle? how did that happen? how can it be different? how can it become an open system? is that important?

more later

Chattanooga's design profession is not diverse. I believe our past AIGA board recognized this when we nominated nearly *all* of the active female professionals in our city for board positions. It was a deliberate decision to address what we personllay identified as an inequality in leadership. The votes of the chapter confirm this and Lisa's commitment and enthusiasm for our community further drives the point home. No one can deny that the chapter is more active than last year.

We still lack ethnic diversity and I think it's characteristic of where we live -- larger than just a design community issue. My perception is that we even tiptoe around it in this thread. Is it possible to deliberately hire a non-Caucasian in Chattanooga without being offensive to the candidates? "We want you here because your talented.... and Latino!" I want to see the want ad. And is it offensive to you Lisa that I thought your were a perfect candidate for President because of your passion AND because you are female?

I think we tread a fine line that is a global struggle. Can we create equality without forcing it through inequality -- by reducing the dimensions through which we evaluate others? Do we do-gooders offend our fellow humans by pointing out their differences and making decisions because of those differences?

I think Michael's last questions are very important because treading lightly, in my estimation, is akin to "just wait a little bit longer" messages that were de rigeur during the beginnings of the civil rights movement. The more we talk about it and don't skirt it, the less we'll have to make up for. Dialog, as Jessica suggests, is key. Open dialog. Also, when instituting change, sometimes we have to do things that differ from the status quo. Should gender be a kind of get-in-free card? No, it shouldn't, but it has been. I believe in affirmative action, in acting out what SHOULD be, the balance and equality that SHOULD be, even before it is. I believe that this is the only way to create change. Until we have created the change, we might have to PUT capable, worthy women and people of color in jobs and positions of responsibility on purpose. With bravery and on purpose. We can say "we only picked you because you're a woman" or we can say "we are so glad to hire you because you're a woman". There's a difference, isn't there?

On Accountability:
(Amen Rebecca)

I think all of the more academic speculation on this topic is interesting, but not as succinct as a more proactive rhetoric that would entail a ‘call to arms’ of sorts. From many of the men I am getting the tone of either gender guilt or comments on how many people they employ that are female – (as if to say “some of my best friends are black”).

But the women quick to point out that there is a problem and go on to speculate on what the problem is (be it historical, psychological, geographical, etc).
I agree with them and believe that the most important thing is to act in affirmative and equal manner.

Liz makes a good point “What do we champion? Is diversity one of the most important factors in those decisions? If it is, you have to fight for it!”

I am fresh out of college and trying to make a name for myself in the graphic design community so there is only so much I feel I can actively do about this other than champion what I believe is right (i.e. to be vocal at the risk of burning bridges) along with working towards having the opportunity to be in a position incubate change in the future. That being said I believe that ideology without activity is useless rhetoric.

As a medium graphic design has a need to have fresh and new perspectives coming in at all times so I do not understand why, in a male dominated design community, it is not of the utmost importance to include a diversity of perspectives in the studio. Seems like that would be one of the greatest assets to those in hiring positions. Look at the numbers of female designers in this town and tell me that all is fair (or interesting). As for all of the liberal posturing, that is all that it is posturing. And we are designers not poseurs, right?

thank you

Regarding Rebecca and Nick's last comments:

I think we need to be wary of mandating belief systems – we run dangerously close to becoming as oppressive as the imposed belief system we seek to supplant. As Nick put it, ultimately actions are much more compelling than words.

The last thing I would want to do is hire a woman for the sake of her sex over her skill set. Put another way, when I applied for an internship with Sagmeister Inc, the last thing I would want to be told is "Paul, you got the internship. Even though there were better applicants, we felt we needed to hire a white, middle class, southern American to balance out all the international interns we have had over the years. You got the job." I wanted to hear "Paul you are a great applicant. We would love for you to work here."

I am quite certain almost everyone feels the same way. Am I wrong?

At Carter's / Oshkosh (the children's clothing company) based in Atlanta.
The ratio there was about 80% women.
Males at this at company are very rare, especially in areas of design.

Paul, we all know you were a great applicant. My questions would be what conditions were in place in order for you to accomplish your edu, take that time off, apply for that internship? Did you have to step out of your comfort zone, push social boundaries, take great risks?

I dont think people do quotas anymore do they? I think affirmative action is about considering a minority over an equal applicant because diversity is good. This isnt being oppressive or mandating a belief system. Isn't it just looking at the big picture?

Yes to Jessica. Yes to Nick. I reiterate my last post: we can frame (both verbally and in our own minds) our decisions as choosing a lesser candidate for their gender or as choosing a candidate with merit and with an eye toward easing the systematic marginalization of a group, a marginalization that is based on qualities which do not affect job performance negatively. Tim Degner's comment underscores Nick's question about the meaning of numbers as a means for delineating a very complex thing. Where does that get us? We have to see the roots of the problem as we identify and work to resolve the effects.

I don’t feel any shame in being told that part of the reason (only part) that I was hired to my current position is because I am a woman. I just didn't feel offended, but respected. They were a company of 3 men who openly admitted that as a one-gender firm, their perspective was limited. I’ve never felt MORE respected for my opinions in the professional community as I do at my current job.

There is always an argument that someone who is better qualified for a job is not going to be hired because of this kind of “affirmative action”. I’d like to offer an opposing view and say that it allows all qualified applicants a fair chance at a position without the bias of race or gender. Qualified applicants are overlooked because of what Liz called the “fitting in” factor. I would never be content with receiving a position only on the basis of gender, but I think we are talking about qualified individuals here, who just happen not to be white or male.

"We allow our ignorance to prevail upon us and make us think we can survive alone, alone in patches, alone in groups, alone in races, even alone in genders." -Maya Angelou

"Advertising is the modern substitute for argument; its function is to make the worse appear the better." -George Santayana

I feel like I'm the epitome of this so-called and now ever so evident "club member"- white, male, southern small-town raised, still living and working in chattanooga, etc. And I hope you keep this in mind while reading this post. And please excuse me while I ramble, as I believe there have been more insightful and intelligent comments posted above this one.

There is an obvious issue stewing in our design community, and finally it's boiling over. I don't think any of us involved in this discussion should feel guilty or ashamed of our roles in this community, unless of course someone has made an outright and conscious decision to hire/work/fire based on gender (I'm keeping this about gender because I feel that seems to be the root topic). I don't think we should be guilty or ashamed because in a way we are all to blame. This is the deepest rooted problem in a historical standpoint and I think it's not going to be an easy one to solve. However, I think just the fact that we are having this discussion could be a start. But what are we as individuals advertising here? Are we just trying to make the bad appear better by acting like we are on a way to solve this problem? What's the solution? Can anyone answer that?

I don't see this as a Chattanooga problem, or a design problem, or even a modern problem. This is a fundamental humanitarian problem. Humanity has accomplished many great things, but the one thing we have not conquered is bridging the gender gap. And for the most part I do not see that as a bad thing. I think that distinction is neccessary for the balance of life. But if being of a certain gender hinders in any way that individual's pursuit of happiness then it is a negativism. Maybe the solution is just being aware that we can't ever be equals. And this is not suggesting that one gender has heirarchy or the other. Both has it's equal strengths and weakness'. What I am simply suggesting is that our own biologic engenering is not uniform in application. But we should embrace it rather than stigmatize it.

It's easy to get defensive and angry as this is a personal subject. We all have our own opinions, of which, I doubt, parallel. But just the fact that people are commenting shows we care. Or at least advertising we care.

Well, I think the last point you made Paul, is a good one. But it should also be thought of a bit differently.

I'll return to the editing a magazine / hiring an employee parallel. In hiring a designer in many ways you're 'editing' or 'designing' the content of your crew. You're managing what you want to put out into the world. You're estimating the return you're going to get on this investment of a new employee, what they have to offer to the outside world. What they have to teach, tell, show, speak to the outside world.

I don't think the idea we're developing in these posts of: "deliberately hiring"-- i.e. "We want you here because your talented.... and Latino!" is the right idea. And I think looking at it in this light promotes complacency and no one wants a one-dimensional pro-activity. The scrutiny should be aimed is at our lens of 'affinity' while hiring. If the final result of the candidate is that they're JUST LIKE THE PERSON HIRING, so be it, just as long as that lens was scrutinized.

When you're "editing" your talent (i.e. hiring), you have to ask: What is it about these candidates, & my perception of them?-- are these candidates all here because it's what is EASY? Am I experiencing this interview with candidate A in a certain way because they've learned to "speak my language" of demographic / personality / style? Because it's what I'm used to?

I spoke to this in previous post but: Out of 15 articles volunteered for the last magazine (many written by females) there was only ONE!, seriously ONE spotlighting a female. I have to see that not as a portrait of the lack of female talent out there (duh.) but how EASY it is to hero-worship [see the article caleb linked to] in particular directions. In a similar manner we hire "heroes" [we're not really talking about lowest-level positions here] in particular directions.

Some of the talent that was EASILY being handed over, was fairly mediocre, but because it was readily available, and well-presented -- warning signals didn't go off. Until the complete discrepancy struck me. Sure this was all fine content, but wasn't there equally as fine content out there that wasn't all the same?

There HAD TO BE something beyond that, something I might have to work for, send out more calls for entries, deliberately ask friends to go after amazing female artists. I couldn't let it be so EASY.

The female artists I ended up getting into the content weren’t "hired" to be there "to fill their POSITION AS FEMALE" they were there because the intended message to the world, the design I hope to put out into the world, has to at least strive toward being equal.

It’s soooo EASY to work on a project with someone, hire someone, do anything with someone who has your same language/background/semantics/aesthetic vocabulary. That’s why we so often do so! It's easier to work with your buddy who is just like you than to decide, “I'm going to take a risk, I'm going to work with someone completely different.” The lens needs to be focused on why the same results are appearing over and over. If females aren’t showing up for these interviews, or people are being picked for jobs out of already existing ‘pool’, WHY?

If the final results are clearly not indicative of the talent that's available, something’s the matter.

Paul a few posts earlier, you wrote:
"I am quite certain almost everyone feels the same way. Am I wrong?"
I immediately stop and think, I'm not even sure I feel that way. For a lot of people, many people, to be even given that CHANCE at something-- is HUGE. If Sagmeister hired me as an intern because he felt worried he’d previously missed out on tennesseans, I'd think "Oh my God! I have a chance!" Clearly this is a bad example. But there are MANY demographics whose voices are continuously unheard and MANY people for whom being given a position through affirmative action would be a breakthrough in their lives.

Liz, you are still my hero. And I am proud to be apart of Mule Magazine because I think it is with projects like ours that one can find equal opportunity and diversity not for diversity's sake.

I think this conversation is pretty great.

What Valerie said made me think of something an angry (unfortunately) client once said to us: "The design is all wrong! It's just so masculine!"

It made me wonder if there is such a thing as "feminine" or "masculine" design, and if the company was being hindered by not being able to do "good feminine design."

I'm inclined to echo Lisa's sentiments: I don't care about the gender, I just want the design to be good. But s there a kind of "good" design that I can't get/understand/evaluate because I'm male?

Also, 1/3 of AIGA50's members are women.

Thank you everyone for contributing to this dialog. I hope this has not been unhelpful... I am not quite sure though.

As I feel a good representation of diverse opinions has been expressed/addressed, I am going close the comments section of this post. If you have something you absolutely have to tell me, just email and if it is useful to the masses I will be sure to share it.

First, I want to personally thank Paul for allowing AIGA|Chattanooga to use the Widgets ALMANAC blog as our forum.

To everyone, AIGA and others, thank you for your perspectives on diversity as it affects design and our chapter. My hope is that the sharing of experiences, opinions and philosophies will move us toward becoming a stronger design community. [and toward our destiny of becoming America's next city for great design]

Last, I encourage all of you to check ALMANAC for other discussions on design as well as a VIRB group Josiah set-up for the chapter [http://virb.com/groups/33086273] and of course, designobserver.com [http://designobserver.com/].

There are many other design blogs out there. Many of you have your own. Get out there and talk design!

Did I get the last word?

Paul you wrote: "I hope this has not been unhelpful... I am not quite sure though." And of course it has been helpful.

It's important not to be polarized by these conversations. We shouldn't walk away feeling further  'pigeonholed' by the factors at hand. [I.e. none of us should walk away made to feel further feminine / masculine / part of the majority / or marginalized].

Discussing these topics doesn't make them more "real." It just makes their already present reality more perceivable and helps equip us to better and constructively address concerns about diversity.

Paul's original concern:
"Is there something about our city that is more appealing to young men? We are in the south after all, is the "good ol' boy" network still alive and kicking? If I had to make a blanket statement, my impression of most Chattanooga professions is that they are male dominated. Is this just part of our culture?"

 Most of us agree there are part-truths in these sentences. Not whole truths, but things that almost every female designer responded to as feeling some components of. It's super important to realize  "It's not a premeditated or malicious state" as Matt pointed out. (also, as a female who's been hired by Widgets and Stone I can clearly attest that the current full-male staff is not a part of your "corporate" philosophy. heheh.) At the same time it's key that when you notice the oddity of such a situation you do stop and think about it, as you are. And also to not feel that because you're of one gender you can't work on the equal-rights of another, just as being caucasian shouldn't assuage me from thinking about social-justice issues that deal with race.

The topic is a Chattanooga problem because it is an EVERYWHERE problem. As our conversations attest, In Chattanooga, it's not been very openly addressed. Where a lot of neighboring cities, by luck of the draw, have had females at the helm of their most prominent/creative/conceptual design firms able to actively pursue these topics for years, this blog might be the first (or one of the first?) truly open and cross-generation discussions within Chattanooga about the subject.

Joseph asks "What's the solution? Can anyone answer that?" and I think the key is what Matt explained: "On one end of the spectrum, that means a young female designer (or person of any diverse demographic) making the decision to enter the profession. On the other end, it means MAKING opportunities (I do think this is an active commitment) for talented (diverse) designers to live/work/thrive as designers in Chattanooga. " It's an ACTIVE process.

That's the most important thing and the answer to the final question: "what is my responsibility in regard to this issue?"

To Be Active.