AmsterdamPHP Monthly Meeting - August/2015
20 Aug 2015 at True

While I value the subject and it's worth discussing, to me the entire presentation fell completely flat.

The disparity between the 2 speakers was too overwhelming which gave the talk a very weird dynamic.

This would be fine if the message was still strong. Unfortunately to me it seemed the message got lost in personal stories, weird statistics and one sided audience interaction. Why was there no mention of cultural issues, the pipeline problem and (especially in the Netherlands) the glass ceiling/ the part time carreer woman. I mention carreer woman because, while the talk claimed to be about diversity, it seems to only focus the "lacking" mixture of women in the workplace.

I appreciate the effort and I do think this topic is worth way more attention and discussion, but I doubt we get there when the premise of the talk is: either you're with us, or against us. It felt preachy and it made me feel very uncomfortable.

Even though I really appreciate the subject, I didn't much like the talk. It took me a couple of days to figure out what was bothering me.
There was a lot of focus on sad stories about how women and minorities are left out and ill treated. That may be the case sometimes, but thankfully not always. I think it would be better to name certain companies or situations and provide the background why a group of smart people would get blind to that case. This could prevent giving everyone in the audience the feeling they should feel guilty.
The part where you shared practical tips was good. (But the additional gender options were a bit over the top for me.)

Thanks for posting the info to joind.in! I had a great evening and the subject is one that matters. I do have some (hopefully) constructive criticism.

The presentation started off really well. But after the second transition between the presenters the flow of the talk really dissipated. The transitions between presenters just took out a lot of the pace and felt 'forced'. Clearly Juliette felt more at ease in the role of presenting where Wouter had to find his way. Because of the bigger difference between the two this difference was emphasized.

Again, the topic is very important and a subject worth talking / educating about. It did however end up feeling like a sermon where everyone is a sinner and we should all repent... ;) Just by, what felt like, reiterating the points i guess.

I think a better platform for a discussion like this would be to keep the presentation a little broad whilst entertaining an open discussion afterwards. More bidirectional communication instead of lecturing the topic ;)

All in all, as said, very important subject to be talked about. But just not too long / in depth... (defining a border also creates that same border.)

Anyway, hope this helps and i haven't offended anyone... :)