In 2023, I had had enough of hearing tech bros blaming unconscious bias for all the ways in which AI was weaponised against women. Decided to demonstrate intent, I wrote Techno-Patriarchy: How AI is Misogyny’s New Clothes, originally published in The Mint.
In the article, I detailed 12 ways this technology is used against women, from reinforcing stereotypes to pregnancy surveillance. One shocked me to my core: Non-consensual sexual synthetic imagery (aka “deepfake porn”).
It was completely horrifying, dehumanizing, degrading, violating to just see yourself being misrepresented and being misappropriated in that way.
It robs you of opportunities, and it robs you of your career, and your hopes and your dreams.
Noelle Martin, “deepfake porn” victim, award-winning activist, and law reform campaigner.
So I continued to write about the dire consequences of this technology for victims and the legal vacuum, as well as denounced the powerful ecosystem (tech, payment processors, marketplaces) that fostered and profited from them.
I also made a point to bring awareness about how this technology is harming women and girls in spaces where the topic of “deepfakes” was explored broadly. I organised events, appeared on podcasts, and participated in panels, such as “The Rise of Deepfake AI” at the University of Oxford; all opportunities were fair game to bring “deepfake porn” to the forefront.
This week, I had 30 minutes to convince over 80 women in tech – and allies – to become advocates against non-consensual sexual synthetic imagery. The feedback I received from the keynote was very positive, so I’m sharing my talking points with you below.
I hope that by the end of the article, (a) you are convinced that we need to act now, and (b) you have decided how you will help to advocate against this pandemic.
The Digital Feminist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The State of Play
All that’s wrong with using the term “deepfake porn”
I had an aha moment when I realised the disservice the term “deepfake porn” was doing to addressing this issue.
“Deepfake” honours the name of the Reddit user who shared on the platform the first synthetic intimate media of actresses. When paired with the label “porn”, it may wrongly convey the idea that it’s consensual. Overall, the term lacks gravitas, disregarding harms.
From a legal perspective, the use of the term “deepfake” may also hinder the pursuit of justice. There have been cases where filing a lawsuit using the term deepfakes when referring to a “cheapfake” — which consists of a fake piece of media created with conventional methods of doctoring images rather than AI — has blocked prosecution.
Recently, I delivered a free masterclass on a negotiation framework that has helped hundreds of women, including me. I targeted women in tech as I know from my own experience how often we miss out on salaries and promotions because we don’t have the tools to negotiate or the confidence to do it.
If I go by their first name, all attendees were women. All was going reasonably well, with positive engagement from attendees in the chat, when, in reply to one of my questions about negotiation, a woman in the audience wrote that my repeated use of a specific word during the session made it unbearable to listen to.
I was so surprised that I asked for details, to which the woman articulated how bad it was, and I’d realise it once I get the recording. I thanked her for the feedback, and I continued with the masterclass.
However, that had a negative impact on the audience’s comments, which stopped for a long while. To my surprise, at the end of the session, somebody said that they knew the person and that, paradoxically, she was part of their women in tech group at work.
When the session ended, I was surprised by how hurt I was. As a director of support with over 20 years of experience delivering services to customers worldwide, I’ve been insulted, shouted at, and interrupted during webinars, training sessions, and meetings.
Why did this feel so bad?
Brains like to find explanations for everything, so it went into the rabbit hole of “What she could have done differently?”
Dropped from the session
Send a direct chat with her comment
Emailed me her feedback
What I could have done differently?
Queried her about her reasons for delivering that kind of feedback in that form
Rebuked her comment
Removed her from the session
And of course, I tried to figure out the causes of her behaviour and my reaction… I’ll spare the details and get to the aha! moment of that internal monologue, “What if that had been a man?”
Based on previous experiences with male bullies, I predict that he would have discredited me or the methodology, e.g. “You don’t have a clue about what you’re talking about,” “This framework is useless.” And I also predict that the female audience would have been supportive, e.g. “Nobody forces you to be here,” “It’s helpful to me.”
But this female bully didn’t attack the method or my credibility. She wanted to shame me. That is, highlight in front of everybody what she saw as a shortcoming in the delivery of an otherwise apparently valuable information.
Another important aspect is that unlike in the case of a male bully, there was no support from the other women. Moreover, the person who had invited the female bully felt the need to apologise to me about inviting her…
It inflicts long-term harm hidden under apparently well-meaning feedback
It reinforces the “moral superiority” of the perpetrator
It silences the victims’ allies due to the veiled threat that they, too, can become a target
More importantly, the aspect that I find most fascinating about shame is its sadistic nature; the primary benefit for the perpetrator is to know the victim will suffer.
Discover seven communication habits blocking your career in tech and how to neutralise them.
Fortunately for the patriarchy, women are excellent at fostering doubt about other women’s capabilities, and behaviours to harm them.
For example, the manuscript casebooks kept by the medical practitioner, and astrologer Richard Napier (1559−1634), who listened to reports of suspected bewitchment in at least 1,714 consultations in Jacobean England, mentioned that the majority of both accusers and suspects were women: Of the 802 accusers in Napier’s records, 500 were female and 232 were male. Among the 960 suspects identified by this group of accusers, 855 were female and 105 were male.
Whilst shame may not aim to kill its target, it can still be very powerful. The premise involves combining a stated norm with how the victim breaks it.
Examples are sentences like;
“You look more rounded. You had such a great body.”
“You’re too thin. You looked better when you had some more weight on.”
“You look tired. Botox is great.”
“If you love your children, you should breastfeed.”
“If you care for your children, you shouldn’t breastfeed them after they are 6 months.”
“Smart women like you shouldn’t be stay-at-home mums.”
“(To a female executive) Women shouldn’t prioritise their careers.”
“It’s great you share your achievements, but it makes you sound too ambitious.”
Shaming as a weapon is most effective when;
It aims to increase the credibility of the perpetrator whilst diminishing that of the victim.
The victim cannot articulate a response off the cuff.
How can we women avoid using shame against other women and in doing so becoming a tool of patriarchy?
As a Victim
Depending on the context, you can,
Ignore it — Continue the conversation as if the comment hadn’t been voiced.
Name the effect on you — You can reply with “What you said hurt me,” “You’re shaming me,” or “Your comment was disrespectful/humiliating/intimidating/intrusive.”
Uncover the perpetrator’s purpose — Ask questions to expose the perpetrator, e.g. “Did you want to shame me with that comment?“, “What’s that supposed to be positive feedback?“, or “What did you choose to share that in public?”
As a Bystander
We’re not absolved from taking action when we’re in the presence of shaming. Again, depending on the stakes, you may,
Support the victim — You can ignore the comment and pivot the conversation to another topic, giving the victim the time to recover. You can also offer a positive counterview, e.g. “I love how you presented”, “I admire women who look confident in their abilities.”
Challenge the perpetrator — You can offer a different perspective, e.g. “There aren’t norms for how much women should weigh” or “What’s the evidence that breastfeeding children for longer than 6 months is harmful?”
And of course, you may shame them back, e.g. “Women should support other women, not attack them”, “Your feedback is not useful”, or “You’re behaving like a bully.”
As a perpetrator
By now, you may think that you’re on the “right side” of the story. Unfortunately, most probably aren’t, like me. How can we ensure we are not shaming other women gratuitously when delivering our opinion?
We must interrogate our purpose and the outcome of our opinion before, during, and after our comments.
Before
What’s the purpose of my comment to help the other woman?
Do you have evidence that this woman doesn’t already know what you’re going to tell them?
If the intent is to assist, is this the best scenario? If not, what would it be (e.g. 1:1 conversation or an email)?
Can they do anything about it right away?
Finally, if in doubt it can shame the other person, don’t say it.
During
How is your comment landing with the recipient? Do they look relaxed or stressed?
How is your audience reacting? Note that the fact that they don’t disagree or agree with you doesn’t mean you’re not shaming the person.
After
If in doubt that you’ve shamed somebody, apologise first and then offer reparation, if possible.
The predator wants your silence. It feeds their power, entitlement, and they want it to feed your shame. — Viola Davis
“Resilience is the process and outcome of successfully adapting to difficult or challenging life experiences, especially through mental, emotional, and behavioral flexibility and adjustment to external and internal demands.” — American Psychological Association
About a month ago, I started listening to Soraya Chemaly’s book The Resilience Myth. I stopped after 20 minutes.
Not because I didn’t like it, but because that was enough to convince me of her thesis that “our modern version of resilience is a bill of goods sold to us by capitalism, colonialism, and ideologies that embrace supremacy over others” and that in reality “resilience is always relational.”
It made me realise how deeply the “resilience” myth — the delusion that resilience is only an individual skill — has been running through my veins, and even how I contributed to its propagation.
The reason? Individual resilience has served me to a point. During times of adversity, I would tell myself that I “just” had to build more resilience because, at some point, things would improve “somehow.” My mission was not to crack until that moment.
But then I realised that’s not serving us well in these turbulent moments. Individual resilience is becoming very close to resignation.
“We “just” need to wait four years for the next election.”
“We “just” need more male allies.”
“We “just” need more diverse leadership.”
And in the interim, we’re asked to “hang in there,” “understand that’s tough for everybody,” and “think that others are worse off than us.” In summary, we’re told to be “resilient.”
Can you imagine somebody asking Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, or Jeff Bezos to be resilient?
Neither can I.
The people we tell to be resilient are those who have been laid off, are disabled and have had their benefits stripped, or have lost their house because they cannot pay their mortgage anymore.
Individual resilience is a weapon against those who suffer, have been disenfranchised, or whom we’re not willing to help. It’s a beautification of “shut up and keep your head down.”
Let’s examine who benefits from the “individual resilience industrial complex,” why it doesn’t serve us well, and what we should do instead.
One of the core beliefs that makes extreme capitalism successful is individualism, aka “survival of the fittest.” Nobody will care for us but ourselves, so pillaging, stepping on others’ rights, and limitless profiteering are to be revered rather than chastised.
And if you happen to be bearing the brunt of this power imbalance? Be prepared to be shamed for not being “resilient” enough if you dare to complain.
But don’t fret. The business of building individual resilience is there to help you.
I speak three languages — English, French, and Spanish — and have lived in six countries: Canada, France, Greece, Spain, the UK, and Venezuela.
Many things are different in my experience as a woman in those countries. Still, one that remains a constant across languages and territories is how women’s speech patterns serve the patriarchy.
What!?!
Yes. We undermine our ideas, wants, and needs by expressing them in a way that detracts from our credibility, minimises the ask, and asks for permission.
As they say that good writing is about “showing” and not “telling”, I won’t waste your time elaborating on why you do that.
Instead, I will show you five ways how you sabotage yourself and what to do instead.
The advice I’m sharing with you today is based on my experience coaching and mentoring hundreds of women in tech.
Disqualifying Yourself or Your Ideas In Advance
The credibility killer sentence: “I’m not an expert”.
Recently, I was speaking with an accomplished woman about her Master’s degree work. I wanted to learn more about it, so I asked her, “As an expert in this topic, what’s your opinion about [X]?“
And guess what? Her reply started with, “I’m not an expert but…”.
My heart jumped from disappointment. I’ve heard this so many times.
But I know the cure for it: Awareness. So, I asked her
“Don’t you think you have more expertise than me on this topic? I told you I’d only read a couple of articles about it.”
She said “Yes” and smiled.
I smiled, too. I’d proven my point.
Unfortunately, I’ve seen this happen repeatedly throughout my career: Women diminish their credibility before stating their opinions on a subject they are experts — or at least know much more about it than their interlocutor.
Saying “I’m not an expert” is telling to your audience
Every year, I have mixed feelings about International Women’s Day. Should I be celebrating or protesting? Acknowledging progress or complaining that it’s too slow?
This year I didn’t have a doubt. #IWD2025 was a mourning day for me. In addition to the grief for the lost women’s rights around the world, an overwhelming feeling of impending doom hovered over me.
My public advocacy about gender issues was triggered in 2015 because I didn’t want to die in a world that was seeing me as a second-class citizen because of my gender.
Today, I’m worried about dying in a world where I’ll have less rights than when I was born.
The drama is that while we throw buckets of money to artificial intelligence initiatives, the answer to massively improving productivity whilst boosting sustainability is not AI but improving outcomes for women.
Global life expectancy increased from 30 years to 73 years between 1800 and 2018.1 But this is not the full picture. Women spend more of their lives in poor health and with degrees of disability (the “health span” rather than the “life span”).
A woman will spend an average of nine years in poor health, which affects her ability to be present and/or productive at home, in the workforce, and in the community and reduces her earning potential.”
Addressing the 25 percent more time that women spend in “poor health” relative to men not only would improve the health and lives of millions of women but also could boost the global economy by at least $1 trillion annually by 2040.
We’d rather invest in generative AI — which so far nobody has been able to monetise directly — than in 4 billion who have demonstrated for millennia that they overdeliver and reinvest in society
When women work, they invest 90 percent of their income back into their families, compared with 35 percent for men.
By focusing on girls and women, innovative businesses and organizations can spur economic progress, expand markets, and improve health and education outcomes for everyone.
Project Drawdown is a cross-functional non-profit organization whose mission is to “map, measure, model, and communicate” practical solutions to global warming.
It has compared more than 100 solutions based on current availability, scaling, economic viability, potential to reduce greenhouse gases, negative secondary effects, and feasibility of simulating their impact globally for 2020–2050.
Their research found that jointly educating girls and enabling family planning are the most powerful solutions to reduce carbon emissions. In other words, the modeling predicts that empowering women could prevent 102.96 billion tons of emissions over the next 30 years.
The equivalent of 722 million cars!
Discover seven communication habits blocking your career in tech and how to neutralise them.
No country can ever truly flourish if it stifles the potential of its women and deprives itself of the contributions of half of its citizens. Michelle Obama
We not only don’t support women’s health and education outcomes but we’re doing our best to undermine them.
For example, we severely restrict funding for studying female medical conditions.
Nature published an infographic about how underfunded women’s health is in the US. For example
In a selection of 19 cancers, ovarian cancer ranks 5th for lethality, but 12th in terms of its funding-to-lethality ratio. Cervical cancer followed a similar pattern. For many gynaecological cancers, the ratio of funding to mortality dropped during the 11-year period.
But let’s not take it personally. We’re told that this is not a human problem but a “female” problem
The infographic also provides insights on what would happen if funding for women’s health increased. I’ll share with you a peek
The study also looked at the return on investment from a boost in funding. For rheumatoid arthritis, for instance, the study assumed a 0.1% health improvement, which had huge impacts on quality of life and productivity that together reduced the costs of the disease by around $10.5 billion over 30 years, equating to a staggering 174,000% return on investment.
Closer to home, breast cancer is the most common cancer for women in the UK, accounting for 30% of new cancer cases. Recently, I attended TEDxManchester, where Professor Simona Francese presented a revolutionary non-invasive method she’s developing to detect breast cancer from fingertip smears. Can you imagine swamping a mammography for a fingertip swab? Unfortunately, she also shared that it took her 6 years to get the £45,000 to fund the proof-of-concept study.
In addition to all of the above, as I mentioned in a recent article, disaggregated clinical trials by gender and sex are the exception, not the norm.
And that’s not all.
We continuously try to erode women’s control over their bodies and fertility.
Eric Schmidt (former Google CEO) and Sam Altman (OpenAI CEO) have advocated disregarding concerns about AI’s sustainability — including its voracious datacentres — claiming that in the future, Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) will solve all our problems, from healthcare to economic growth.
The reality? Tech companies have yet to find a business model to make money from generative AI, and definitely AI tools won’t fix the systemic oppression of 4 billion women.
All the opposite. Those in power have consistently weaponised AI against women. Think non-consexual sexual deepfakes, tech-enabled partner surveillance, and policing of female bodies, to mention a few.
Techno-solutionism — the belief that technology is the solution to everything — doesn’t work. Look at the COVID-19 pandemic.
We were told that the “solution” was the vaccine. And we managed to develop three within a year — an impressive achievement. Did that fully solve the problem? No, because it was not only about cracking the vaccine formulation. Enough vaccines had to be produced, transported, and refrigerated to supply the demand around the world. Then, companies decided to patent them — hindering the access to millions of people. Finally, there was the people factor, forgotten by most leaders. Not only was it impossible to vaccinate all the planet at once, but some people didn’t want the vaccine while others wanted it but couldn’t have it.
We must face it: there is no techno-cure for our entrenched systemic socio-economic-political issues.
Thoughts, feelings, actions, and results are intrinsically related.
Thinking that somebody else — allies, AI, and even governments — are going to solve gender oppression may elicit feelings of comfort — or powerlessness — that often may make us focus on keeping our head down and “count our blessings”.
The result? Reinforcing we’re victims of our second-class citizen status.
Instead, I invite you to think that allies, technology, and government have historically let women down for millennia, which in my case provokes feelings of anger, betrayal, and defiance.
And those feelings are powerful. They prompt me to rebel against the loss of rights, participate in communities that foster care and respect, and explore equitable and sustainable futures.
The result? At worst
The pride of standing up for what’s right.
Stopping the world gaslighting our suffering and exploitation.
Offer real hope in the face of techno-optimism.
At best, all of the above and a world where increasingly more people reap the benefits of social, economic, technological progress in harmony with the rest of the planet.
The time for bystanders and “weekend” allies is over. We need warriors.
If you have come here to help me you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.
Do you want to get rid of those chapters that patriarchy has written for you in your “good girl” encyclopaedia? Or learn how to do what you want to do in spite of “imposter syndrome”?
I’m a technologist with 20+ years of experience in digital transformation. I’m also an award-winning inclusion strategist and certified life and career coach.
I help ambitious women in tech who are overwhelmed to break the glass ceiling and achieve success without burnout through bespoke coaching and mentoring.
I’m a sought-after international keynote speaker on strategies to empower women and underrepresented groups in tech, sustainable and ethical artificial intelligence, and inclusive workplaces and products.
I empower non-tech leaders to harness the potential of AI for sustainable growth and responsible innovation through consulting and facilitation programs.
Contact me to discuss how I can help you achieve the success you deserve in 2025.
It’s again that time of year when I get requests to discuss my career in tech and share my insights on gender equality in the workplace as part of International Women’s Day activities.
This year was no exception. I’ve already received three requests, and there is still one week to go!
I’m sharing my answers to one of them, an interview with the DEI team from my corporate job at Dassault Systemes. It made me reflect on my past achievements, my advice to younger women aspiring to be leaders, and the role of men and organisations leading gender equality.
About Me
Can you share your journey so far? What were the pivotal moments or key achievements most important to you?
I can categorise them into five buckets.
Discovering computer simulation: My background is Chemical Engineering, and when I started my master’s, I had to decide on a topic for my thesis. I loved research, but I hated the lab, so when a professor mentioned the possibility of using computers to study enhanced oil recovery using computer simulation, I thought I could have the best of both worlds—and I did. I haven’t looked back.
Joining Accelrys/BIOVIA: Twenty years ago, I joined Accelrys—which later became BIOVIA—as a training scientist. It has been one of my best professional decisions. It has opened innumerable professional doors and given me the opportunity to meet extraordinary people worldwide, both as colleagues and customers.
Daring to say yes to new opportunities: Although I started as a trainer, I’ve worn many hats in the last 20 years. I’ve been Head of Contract Research and Head of Training, and also been part of the team leading the BIOVIA and COSMOlogic integrations to Dassault Systemes. Today, I’m BIOVIA Support Director for BIOVIA Modeling Solutions and also the manager of the Global BIOVIA Call Center. I could have said “no” to each of those opportunities. Instead, I trusted myself and embraced the opportunity of a new challenge.
Diversity and inclusion advocacy: In 2015, I started to talk about diversity and inclusion in 3DS. I remember colleagues asking me, “Patricia, is DEI an American thing?”. The following year, with the support of our Geo management team, I founded the EuroNorth LeanIn Circles to have a forum to discuss gender equity and that, throughout the years, has expanded to a variety of DEI topics such as unconscious bias, menopause, ethical AI, caregiving, and lookism. I publish a biweekly newsletter called The Bottom Line about DEI on the Dassault Systemes community focused on gender in the workplace. I also have my website focused on the intersection of tech and DEI.
Ethical and inclusive AI leadership: In 2019, I created the Ethics and Inclusion Framework to help designers identify, prevent, mitigate, and account for the actual and potential harm of the products and services they developed. The tool has been featured in peer-reviewed papers and on the University of Cambridge website. The next year, I started my work towards championing ethical and inclusive artificial intelligence by collaborating with NGOs focused on AI literacy and critical thinking about AI, participating in the developement of e-learning course of the Scottish AI Alliance and the Race and AI Toolkit, and writing and delivering keynotes and workshops on topics such as AI colonialism, AI hype, sustainable AI, deepfakes, and how to design more diverse images of AI.
Who has been your greatest mentor or source of inspiration and why?
At a couple of points in my life, I craved “the” mentor or “the” role model to follow. However, given my unique background and goals, I realised that this was exhausting and counterproductive.
I’ve been an immigrant my entire life – I’m Spanish, and I’m now in the UK, but I’ve also lived in Venezuela, Canada, Greece, and France – and I’m also used to being the “odd” one. For example, I liked all subjects in the school – from literature to chemistry. I was one of the few women engineers during my undergraduate degree. Then, I was the only engineer pursuing a PhD in Chemistry in the whole department, and the only one using modelling – everybody else was an experimentalist. During my post-doc, I was the only foreigner in the lab. And for many years, I’ve combined my corporate work at 3DS with my DEI advocacy and writing.
I prefer the idea of a “board” of coaches, mentors, and sponsors who evolve with me rather than a unique person, real or imaginary.
If you could go back and tell your younger self anything, what would you say?
First, I’d thank her for her courage, persistence, ambition, and boldness. She made choices aligned with her values and was always eager to learn. Her decisions were crucial to my success today.
Then, I’d tell her that the problem with her not fitting into a mould was not her but with the mould.
Finally, I’d exhort her to invest in a coach and find sponsors. A coach to help remove the limiting beliefs I had for many years about what I could and couldn’t do and maximise my potential. Sponsors to advocate for me in the rooms where decisions were made about my career.
About Others
What advice would you give to younger women aspiring to be leaders?
Don’t waste time trying to convince people who disregard the value you bring to the table. Instead, find those who support your ambitions and challenge you to go beyond any feelings of self-doubt that block your career progression.
Following on the advice to my younger self above, get a coach and find career sponsors.
Discover seven communication habits blocking your career in tech and how to neutralise them.
The issues that span across countries, sectors, and departments are benevolent sexism (e.g. not offering a leadership role to a woman because it involves travelling and she has a baby, instead of giving her the opportunity to decide), tech bro culture (behaviours such as mansplaining, hepeating, maninterrupting, manels), lack of an intersectional approach to work and workplaces (e.g. ignoring the experiences of carers, women with disabilities, LBTQIA+ groups), and for women in business, lack of funding.
This year’s global theme for IWD 2025 is #AccelerateAction. What actions can teams and organisations take to achieve gender parity and equality?
There are four key actions
Mindset overhaul: Moving from playing a supporting role in gender equality to being transformation agents.
Leadership accountability: Teams and organisations’ leaders need to be accountable for gender equality initiatives as they are for other business objectives. Change begins at the top, and that’s where the buck stops.
Transparency: Equality cannot thrive when data and objectives are hidden. For example, I’m a big fan of transparency in pay and promotion criteria.
Embracing intersectionality: We need to move from designing workplaces for the “average” worker—following Henry Ford and scientific management—to appreciating the distinctive value of a diverse and empowered workforce.
What role do you see male allies playing in advancing gender equality?
Gender equity is not a zero-sum game or a favour for women. All genders benefit from equality, and everybody should see it as a duty to advocate for gender equity, no different than everyone should be anti-racist and anti-ableist. Those who do not actively challenge inequality contribute to strengthening it.
Back to You
What are your answers to the questions above? Let me know in the comments.
WORK WITH ME
Do you want to get rid of those chapters that patriarchy has written for you in your “good girl” encyclopaedia? Or learn how to do what you want to do in spite of “imposter syndrome”?
I’m a technologist with 20+ years of experience in digital transformation. I’m also an award-winning inclusion strategist and certified life and career coach.
I help ambitious women in tech who are overwhelmed to break the glass ceiling and achieve success without burnout through bespoke coaching and mentoring.
I’m a sought-after international keynote speaker on strategies to empower women and underrepresented groups in tech, sustainable and ethical artificial intelligence, and inclusive workplaces and products.
I empower non-tech leaders to harness the potential of AI for sustainable growth and responsible innovation through consulting and facilitation programs.
Contact me to discuss how I can help you achieve the success you deserve in 2025.
Last year, at a women’s conference in London, I was disappointed to see that digital inclusion — and AI in particular — was missing from the agenda. I remember telling the NGO’s CEO about my concerns, even mentioning my articles on AI as a techno-patriarchal tool.
Her receptive response had given me hope. That hope was reignited this year when I eagerly reviewed the program and discovered a panel on AI.
The evening before the event, an unexpected sense of dread began to settle in. When I asked myself why, the answer struck me like a lightning bolt.
I dreaded hearing the “we need more women in tech” mantra once more – another example of how we deflect the solution of a systemic problem to those bearing the brunt of it.
Let me tell you what I mean.
Women as Human Fixers
For millennia, women had been assigned the duty to give birth and care for children, rooted in the fact that most of them can carry human fetuses for 9 months. That duty to be a womb endures today, where ownership of our bodies is being taken away through coercive anti-abortion laws.
Our “duty” of care has been broadened to the workplace, where we’ve been assigned the unwritten rule of “fixing” all that’s dysfunctional.
Doing the glue work — being appointed the shoulder where all team members can cry and find an “empathetic ear”.
Do the office work — we’re the ones that are “organised”, so dull tasks pile up on our desks whilst “less” organised peers do the promotable work.
And that “fixer” stereotype now includes “our” duties as women in tech. When the sector was in its infancy, women were doing the supposedly boring stuff (programming) while men were doing the hardware (the “cool” stuff). When computers took off, we trained men in programming so they could become our managers. Then, we were pushed out of those jobs in the 1980s. The only constant has been doing the job but not getting the accolades (see women’s role in Bletchley Park, Hidden Figures).
Moreover, whilst statistics tell us that 50% of women leave tech by age 35, young girls and women are supposed to brush off that “inconvenient” truth and rest assured that tech is an excellent place for a career. Moreover, that they are anointed to make tech work for everybody.
What’s not to like, right?
Then, let me show the to-do list of 21 tasks and expectations the world imposes on each woman in tech.
In a recent podcast, he called businesses to dial up “masculine energy.”
It’s like you want like feminine energy, you want masculine energy. Like I, I think that that’s like you’re gonna have parts of society that have more of one or the other. I think that that’s all good.
But, but I do think the corporate culture sort of had swung towards being this somewhat more neutered thing. And I didn’t really feel that until I got involved in martial arts, which I think is still a more, much more masculine culture.
[…] Like, well that’s how you become successful at martial arts. You have to be at least somewhat aggressive.
Why? Because he’s not talking about others. He’s telling us about himself unleashing his “masculine energy”. For example,
Revamping his clothes and demeanour — from looking like a perennial geeky student to a cool billionaire tech millennial.
Embracing far-right politics — check the inauguration picture where his second row with “chums” Musk, Bezos, and Pichai.
Stopping faking playing nice — He got rid of fact-checkers and told Meta’s 3 billion users that was their job, not his.
Moreover, he’s a more “palatable” version of Elon — equally successful, not so toxic, and has undergone a very public appearance Meta-morphosis —which makes him dangerously appealing to young men… And maybe to women too. After all, he has three daughters and no sons.
Given his extreme financial success and now closeness to political power, I pondered
What would it take for me to unleash my “masculine energy”?
And I came up with 10 precepts.
1.- Recycle
The first iteration of Facebook was “Facemash” — a website Zuckerberg created whilst studying at Harvard — to evaluate the attractiveness of female students. Users were presented with pairs of photos of female students and asked to vote who was hotter.
The students were unaware their images were being used for this rating, judging by the complaint from Fuerza Latina and the Harvard Association of Black Women. The site used ID photos of female undergraduates taken without permission from the university’s online directories.
This “repurposing” of data would become a hallmark of Facebook (see Cambridge Analytica later).
I didn’t know who Cindy was. Later, I discovered she’s a brand and business innovator, consultant, coach, and keynote speaker who participated in the UK Apprentice. She’s been building a business out of teaching sex and she’s also a women’s entrepreneur advocate.
Still, that one-minute video in my feedback was so powerful that I didn’t care who was speaking.
“F*ck data. Data does f*ck all.
We have literally for decades had the data you reference that says female founders exit faster, female founders burn less cash, female founders get to profitability quicker, female founders build better business cultures, but none of that data makes any difference.
[…] Information goes through the heart, not the head. It’s not about rationality. It’s about emotion.
The reason women don’t get funded is due to plain old-fashioned sexism and misogyny.”
My background is in engineering and computer simulation and I’m Director of Scientific Support and Customer Operations for a tech corporation. I’m also a diversity and inclusion advocate. I’ve been using data for 30 years for everything I’ve done.
Using simulation to guide the development of new materials, leading the migration of all our customer support data after an acquisition, monitoring customer satisfaction KPIs, supporting the business case for enhanced maternity leave in the company I work for, and surveying professional women about the impact of COVID-19 on their unpaid work are only a few examples.
Still, Cindy’s post triggered an epiphany.
I began to recall all the ways data — or its absence — has been manipulated to foster gender inequality. From entrenching the status quo to promoting “busy work”, wearing out activists, or even benefiting those who profit from inequality.
Data has been heralded as the key to innovation, solving systemic issues, and exponential growth (Big Data anyone?). We “just” need data, don’t we?
In theory, women have accounted for half of the population throughout humanity. We should have collected millions of data points over millennia. How come we haven’t solved gender inequality yet?
Because we’ve been using data against women.
At a time when we abide by the creed “data is the new oil”, it cannot be a coincidence that we’re solving this “data problem”
Here are the 7 ways data is weaponised against gender equity.
Lack of data
In the absence of data, we will always make up stories.
Recorded historical contributions to science and humanities — medicine, literature, chemistry, philosophy, politics, or engineering — have XY chromosomes.
From that “data”, the world feels very comfortable making up stories about the reasons why “progress” has been driven by men. If we have data, we must have a story about it.
The story we’re told about the lack of data on women’s contributions is that women haven’t contributed. Yes, for millennia, women were just in the background waiting for men to learn about fire, cure their children, or bring money home.
Recently, I had a thinking partnership session with an amazing female professional. These are sessions where two people take turns thinking and listening and through generative attention and questioning they aim to uncover assumptions and produce breakthrough, independent thinking.
My thinking partner was rightly tired because of all her work and family demands. Still, she kept denying herself the pleasure of simple things like reading a couple of pages from a novel or going to a Pilates class.
The reason? She felt guilty for doing so. Like she was “stealing” time she owed to her family.
About halfway into the session, she attempted to persuade herself of the perks of taking some minutes for self-care by repeating the legendary wellness mantra “Put the oxygen mask on before helping others” — that ingrained belief that even when women take time for themselves, it needs to be in preparation to benefit someone else.
However, the trope wasn’t working. Each time she’d try to convince herself that her loved ones would reap the perks of her self-care, guilt crept up and she would go back to her initial thinking that it was impossible to integrate self-care, work, and family.
That involuntary and repetitive act of self-harm in a person otherwise resilient and brave made me realize that her brain was not in the driving seat.
Who then? Patriarchy.
Patriarchy and Self-care
Article 24: Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Rest and leisure are human rights, still, often are marketed as a luxury.
To counter the guilt associated with the patriarchal oxymoron “women’s recreation,” the female self-care industry has adopted the slogan “Put your mask on so you help others” as a rallying cry under the pretense that it’s “empowering” and “feminist”.
Believe me, it’s all the opposite — a reboot of old patriarchy.
Under the hood,this mantra is yet another way to objectify women, telling them that they must be healthy as they are a conduit for others’ well-being. In other words, they are cogs that need to be oiled so that the machine — society — can run.
Going back to my thinking partner, instead of reassuring her that going to Pilates would result in better outcomes for her family or exploring how she could feel more comfortable with her “self-care” guilt, I challenged her assumptions
“What if instead of ‘I need to take care of myself because I can help others,’ you’d think ‘I need to take care of myself because I deserve it?’”
She looked at me blankly and then told me that she couldn’t even think of that possibility.
Throughout my life, I’ve devoted a lot of energy to “solve” for what I call “point blockers” — one-off events that come up as disruptive, beyond my control, or that I’ve given somehow a quality of being life-changing
Somebody’s death
A certification
A promotion
Which is great for short-term survival — all my brain is focused on solving the problem at hand.
What’s not so good is that — as the British say — that had prevented me from seeing the forest for the trees, missing the big picture.
And what’s the forest? The systems, the processes, and the unconscious assumptions that underpin the daily grind — the feeling of a death by a thousand cuts.
Reviewing my thinking and behaviour patterns as well as those of my coaching and mentoring clients — mostly ambitious women in tech — reveals three forces that consistently keep us from doing what we want to do but we’re not doing:
1.- Our brain
2.- Our education
3.-Patriarchy
Whilst I’ve discussed them somehow disjointly in the past — addressing one at a time, or even two — I found new insights from looking at them as interlocked systems of oppression.
Wow, oppression? As I write it appears to be “too” strong. Am I exaggerating?
But what else can we call what crushes our aspirations, makes us feel small, and wears us down?
Not all is doom and gloom though. And to prove it, I want to share with you two ways to uncover — and neutralise— those three majestic forces acting against our best interests.
But first, let’s have a look at the culprits.
Three Forces That Keep You From What You Deserve
Your brain is wired for survival. It loves the status quo. If it was for your brain, you’d spend your days in bed with a hot chocolate.
Your brain is scarred by uncertainty and avoids any new experiences. As a consequence, any change is seen as a threat rather than an opportunity
You don’t leave an uninspiring job because you think that it’d be worse in other organisations, ruining your chances of finding a much better role.
You don’t volunteer for new opportunities — a task, a project, a presentation — because you doubt your capabilities to do something you’ve never done before, even if you have plenty of evidence of how resourceful you’ve been in the past.
You think that your “inner critic” is your best friend because it stops you from ridiculing yourself when in reality is blocking you from greatness.
You’ve been told that if you work hard, you’ll be rewarded. You’re convinced that the higher you go, you’ll have to work harder.
You’ve been indoctrinated that you have to give 150% to all you do. You believe should aim for perfection so
You don’t ask for a promotion because you tell yourself that you’ll have to work more.
You spent uncountable hours on a report until looks perfect only to shame yourself when you find a typo after submitting it, rather than aiming for a good — not excellent — report that would have taken much less effort and time.
You keep doing courses, getting certifications, and pursuing degrees whilst others network and find sponsors to get the roles you deserve.
Patriarchy is about believing that men are superior. Tech — and most sectors — are ruled by patriarchy.
And you bear the brunt of it
You don’t negotiate your salary because you think you’re not worth it, even if statistics show that 94% of job offers made are upheld after candidates negotiate them.
You get drowned in “naturally female” tasks such as admin and glue work — taking notes in meetings, bringing birthday cakes, and providing emotional support — while your male peers focus on promotable activities.
You buy on the trope that imposter syndrome is a “female thing” and spend time binging on webinars and books promising to “cure you”, rather than learning how to use it to your advantage.
The bottom line is that you’ve learned to narrow your ambition and blame yourself for it.
I balance my corporate role as Director of Scientific Support at a Tech Corporation with my business, getting the best of both worlds.
Are We Doomed to Trip Over The Same Stones Forever?
Our brain, our education, and patriarchy appear as formidable forces — and they are!
Moreover, there is no “vaccine” or “magic bullet” to erase them in the blink of an eye.
Our brains stay with us until we die.
It takes ages to “unlearn” our education.
Patriarchy is in the air we breathe — from the roles we take at home to our politicians and institutions.
Is there an alternative? Actually, I have two for you.
One on your own and the other with support.
Alternative #1: Do It On Your Own With 3 Questions
There are two kinds of self-awareness
Self-awareness about yourself — knowing what you think, feel, and do.
Self-awareness about others — grasping how others perceive you.
To battle the three forces that keep you from greatness— brain, education, and patriarchy — it’s imperative to focus on the first kind of self-awareness: Your thoughts about yourself.
How do you do that? You ask yourself three magical questions when you notice that you’re refraining yourself from stepping into boldness.
Question #1: What am I hearing?
You’re about to apply for a job and you hear in your head
This job is too demanding for me.
People won’t like me.
They’ll be disappointed when they read my CV.
Do you see how those “voices” are reproducing the “three forces”?
Question #2: What am I saying about myself?
I have the luxury of meeting amazing women every week. Weaving in our conversations, I often hear them say about themselves:
I’m not the smartest person but I work hard.
I was just lucky to get promoted.
I don’t know how to ask for a salary increase.
How do you expect to get inspired to try new things when you’re kicking yourself down all the time?
Question #3: What am I assuming?
This powerful question comes from my study of the Thinking Environment framework, which posits that
The quality of everything we do depends on the quality of the thinking we do first.
Throughout my own lived experience as well as my decades of expertise as a mentor and coach, I’ve concluded that the best external support to help materialise impossible goals comes as the ideal combination of mentoring and coaching.
I provide a confidential and non-judgmental space with no distractions to uncover the reasons behind your behaviors, enabling true change.
Unlike self-help or quick-fix programs, I address the root cause of the issue and give you tools you can use for life.
I know how to motivate you to do things that you thought were impossible and keep you accountable for massive action.
I have a library of techniques to help you overcome anxiety, procrastination, self-doubt, overwhelm, and self-criticism.
I continually show you how you are growing and improving and tell you the truth without holding back.
In brief, as a coach, I help you to do what you want to do but you’re not doing.
As a Mentor
I share with you valuable insights, knowledge, and experience gained from my own career and personal journey, helping you to avoid common pitfalls, navigate challenges, and capitalise on opportunities more effectively.
I give you guidance on developing specific skills relevant to your career goals. Whether it’s leadership, communication, technical expertise, or other competencies, I can offer you advice, resources, and feedback to help you enhance your capabilities.
I believe in your potential, boosting your confidence. I provide encouragement, validation, and support, helping you overcome self-doubt and imposter syndrome, and empowering you to take on new challenges and pursue ambitious career goals.
I can advise on your career path, educational opportunities, and professional development initiatives, helping you to make informed decisions and progress more rapidly toward your objectives.
As a mentor, I leverage my knowledge, experience, and support to help you accelerate your career progression and achieve your goals more efficiently.
How do I know this works?
Some of the results women in tech have gotten from working with me are
A 70% salary increase within 6 months.
Transitioned from career ceiling to dream job within 10 months.
Promoted from individual contributor to manager within one year.
First trustee role within 4 months.
Got sponsorship and precious advice from experts from mastering social media and cold pitching.
Developed an impactful and authentic communication style that got them a promotion.
Testimonials
Patricia’s coaching was truly transformative. After returning from maternity leave, I struggled to focus on my progress amidst various challenges. Her insightful and compassionate approach helped me reframe my situation and refocus on my goals.
Thanks to Patricia, I achieved milestones I once thought were out of reach. I am incredibly grateful for her exceptional coaching and unwavering support.
Hanlin, Head of BI & Analytics.
I am happy that I’ve met Patricia in time. I am going through a career change period, which has become less frightening and more strategic.
She helped me see the patterns of how my mind is holding me back, and by the end of the coaching program, I noticed a shift in my self-confidence and resilience. In our sessions, we uncovered the root causes of my inaction, and solutions emerged naturally from her insightful questions. She also shared her wisdom and vision when I needed it.
She is passionate about coaching and empowering women and has all the necessary expertise to help. I enjoyed every session. Thank you, Patricia!
Alena Sheveleva, Research Fellow
Patricia was able to look at my experience, and then where I was right now. It literally felt like she was weaving together different strands to then hone in exactly on career blocks and give me some ideas to move past them.
Her style was to ask questions rather than give me a simple to-do list, I also liked the way I felt I could trust her professional experience. She knew what I was talking about from inside my chosen sector.
Ruth Westnidge, Software Engineer
Call To Action
Holding yourself back from applying for a new role?
Thinking your ambitions are “too big” for you?
Feeling “behind” after returning from maternity leave?
Then, pause and ask yourself the three magic questions
Last week, OpenAI announced the release of GPT-4o (“o2 for “onmi”). To my surprise, instead of feeling excited, I felt dread. And that feeling hasn’t subsided.
As a woman in tech, I have proof that digital technology, particularly artificial intelligence, can benefit the world. For example, it can help develop new, more effective, and less toxic drugs or improve accessibility through automatic captioning.
That apparent contradiction — being a technology advocate and simultaneously experiencing a feeling of impending catastrophe caused by it — plunged me into a rabbit hole exploring Big (and small) Tech, epistemic injustice, and AI narratives.
Was I a doomer? A hidden Luddite? Or simply short-sighted?
Taking time to reflect has helped me understand that I was falling into the trap that Big Tech and other smooth AI operators had set up for me: Questioning myself because I’m scrutinizing their digital promises of a utopian future.
On the other side of that dilemma, I’m stronger in my belief that my contribution to the AI conversation is helping navigate the false binary of tech-solutionism vs tech-doom.
In this article, I demonstrate how OpenAI is a crucial contributor to polarising that conversation by exploring:
What the announcement about ChatGPT-4o says — and doesn’t
OpenAI modus operandi
Safety standards at OpenAI
Where the buck stops
ChatGTP-4o: The Announcement
On Monday, May 13th, OpenAI released another “update” on its website: ChatGPT-4o.
It was well staged. The announcement on their website includes a 20-plus-minute video hosted by their CTO, Mira Murati, in which she discusses the new capabilities and performs some demos with other OpenAI colleagues. There are also short videos and screenshots with examples of applications and very high-level information on topics such as model evaluation, safety, and availability.
This is what I learned about ChatGPT-4o — and OpenAI — from perusing the announcement on their website.
The New Capabilities
Democratization of use — More capabilities for free and 50% cheaper access to their API.
Multimodality — Generates any combination of text, audio, and image.
Speed — 2x faster responses.
Significant improvement in handling non-English languages—50 languages, which they claim are equivalent to 97% of the world’s internet population.
OpenAI Full Adoption of the Big Tech Playbook
This “update” demonstrated that the AI company has received the memo on how to look like a “boss” in Silicon Valley.
1. Reinforcement of gender stereotypes
On the day of the announcement, Sam Altman posted a single word on X — “her” — referring to the 2013 film starring Joaquin Phoenix as a man who falls in love with a futuristic version of Siri or Alexa, voiced by Scarlett Johansson.
Tweet from Sam Altman with the word “her” on May 13, 2024.
It’s not a coincidence. ChatGPT-4o’s voice is distinctly female—and flirtatious—in the demos. I could only find one video with a male voice.
Unfortunately, not much has changed since chatbot ELIZA, 60 years ago…
2. Anthropomorphism
Anthropomorphism: the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to non-human entities.
OpenAI uses words such as “reason” and “understanding”—inherently human skills—when describing the capabilities of ChatGPT-4o, reinforcing the myth of their models’ humanity.
3. Self-regulation and self-assessment
The NIST (the US National Institute of Standards and Technology), which has 120+ years of experience establishing standards, has developed a framework for assessing and managing AI risk. Many other multistakeholder organizations have developed and shared theirs, too.
However, OpenAI has opted to evaluate GPT-4o according to its Preparedness Framework and in line with its voluntary commitments, despite its claims that governments should regulate AI.
Moreover, we are supposed to feel safe and carry on when they tell us that ”their” evaluations of cybersecurity, CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats), persuasion, and model autonomy show that GPT-4o does not score above Medium risk without further evidence of the tests performed.
4.- Gatekeeping feedback
Epistemic injustice is injustice related to knowledge. It includes exclusion and silencing; systematic distortion or misrepresentation of one’s meanings or contributions; undervaluing of one’s status or standing in communicative practices; unfair distinctions in authority; and unwarranted distrust.
OpenAI shared that it has undergone extensive external red teaming with 70+ external experts in domains such as social psychology, bias and fairness, and misinformation to identify risks that are introduced or amplified by the newly added modalities.
List of domains in which OpenAI looked for expertise for the Red Teaming Network.
When I see the list of areas of expertise, I don’t see domains such as history, geography, or philosophy. Neither do I see who are those 70+ experts or how could they cover the breadth of differences among the 8 billion people on this planet.
In summary, OpenAI develops for everybody but only with the feedback of a few chosen ones.
5. Waiving responsibility
Can you imagine reading in the information leaflet of a medication,
“We will continue to mitigate new risks as they’re discovered. Over the upcoming weeks and months, we’ll be working on safety”?
But that’s what OpenAI just did in their announcement
“We will continue to mitigate new risks as they’re discovered”
We recognize that GPT-4o’s audio modalities present a variety of novel risks. Today we are publicly releasing text and image inputs and text outputs.
Over the upcoming weeks and months, we’ll be working on the technical infrastructure, usability via post-training, and safety necessary to release the other modalities. For example, at launch, audio outputs will be limited to a selection of preset voices and will abide by our existing safety policies.
We will share further details addressing the full range of GPT-4o’s modalities in the forthcoming system card.”
“We would love feedback to help identify tasks where GPT-4 Turbo still outperforms GPT-4o, so we can continue to improve the model.”
The problem? The product has already been released to the world.
6. Promotion of the pseudo-science of emotion “guessing”
In the demo, ChatGPT-4o is asked to predict the emotion of one of the presenters based on the look on their face. The model goes on and on into speculating the individual’s emotional state from his face, which purports what appears to be a smile.
Image of a man smiling in the ChatGPT-4o demo video.
“It is time for emotion AI proponents and the companies that make and market these products to cut the hype and acknowledge that facial muscle movements do not map universally to specific emotions.
The evidence is clear that the same emotion can accompany different facial movements and that the same facial movements can have different (or no) emotional meaning.“
The acknowledgment that ChatGPT-4o is not free — we’ll pay for access to our data.
OpenAI’s timelines and expected features in future releases. I’ve worked for 20 years for software companies and organizations that take software development seriously and share roadmaps and release schedules with customers to help them with implementation and adoption.
A credible business model other than hoping that getting billions of people to use the product will choke their competition.
Still, that didn’t explain my feelings of dread. Patterns did.
OpenAI’s Blueprint: It’s A Feature, Not A Bug
Every product announcement from OpenAI is similar: They tell us what they unilaterally decided to do, how that’ll affect our lives, and that we cannot stop it.
That feeling… when had I experienced that before? Two instances came to mind.
The Trump presidency
The COVID-19 pandemic
Those two periods—intertwined at some point—elicited the same feeling that my life and millions like me—were at risk of the whims of something/somebody with disregard for humanity.
More specifically, feelings of
Lack of control — every tweet, every infection chart could signify massive distress and change.
There was no respite—even when things appeared calmer, with no tweets or decrease in contagions, I’d wait for the other shoe to drop.
Back to OpenAI, only in the last three months, we’ve seen instances of the same modus operandi that they followed for the release of ChatGPT-4o. I’ll go through three of them.
OpenAI Releases Sora
On February 15, OpenAI introduced Sora, a text-to-video model.
“Sora can generate videos up to a minute long while maintaining visual quality and adherence to the user’s prompt.”
In a nutshell,
As with other announcements, anthropomorphizing words like “understand” and “comprehend” refer to Sora’s capabilities.
We’re assured that “Sora is becoming available to red teamers to assess critical areas for harms or risks.”
We learn that they will “engage policymakers, educators, and artists around the world to understand their concerns and to identify positive use cases for this new technology” only at a later stage.
Of course, we’re also forewarned that
“Despite extensive research and testing, we cannot predict all of the beneficial ways people will use our technology, nor all the ways people will abuse it.
That’s why we believe that learning from real-world use is a critical component of creating and releasing increasingly safe AI systems over time.”
Releasing Sora less than a month after non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes of Taylor Swift went viral on X was reckless. This was not a celebrity problem — 96% of deepfakes are of a non-consensual sexual nature, of which 99% are made of women.
How dare OpenAI talk about safety concerns when developing a tool that makes it even easier to generate content to shame, silence, and objectify women?
OpenAI Releases Voice Engine
On March 29, OpenAI posted a blog sharing “lessons from a small-scale preview of Voice Engine, a model for creating custom voices.”
The article reassured us that they were “taking a cautious and informed approach to a broader release due to the potential for synthetic voice misuse” while notifying us that they’d decide unilaterally when to release the model.
“Based on these conversations and the results of these small scale tests, we will make a more informed decision about whether and how to deploy this technology at scale.”
Moreover, at the end of the announcement, OpenAI warned us of what we should stop doing or start doing because of their “Voice Engine.” The list included phasing out voice-based authentication as a security measure for accessing bank accounts and accelerating the development of techniques for tracking the origin of audiovisual content.
OpenAI Allows The Generation Of AI Erotica, Extreme Gore, And Slurs
On May 8, OpenAI released draft guidelines for how it wants the AI technology inside ChatGPT to behave — and revealed that it’s exploring how to ‘responsibly’ generate explicit content.
The proposal was part of an OpenAI document discussing how it develops its AI tools.
“We believe developers and users should have the flexibility to use our services as they see fit, so long as they comply with our usage policies. We’re exploring whether we can responsibly provide the ability to generate NSFW content in age-appropriate contexts through the API and ChatGPT. We look forward to better understanding user and societal expectations of model behavior in this area.“
where
“Not Safe For Work (NSFW): content that would not be appropriate in a conversation in a professional setting, which may include erotica, extreme gore, slurs, and unsolicited profanity.”
Joanne Jang, an OpenAI employee who worked on the document, said whether the output was considered pornography “depends on your definition” and added, “These are the exact conversations we want to have.”
I cannot agree more with Beeban Kidron, a UK crossbench peer and campaigner for child online safety, who said,
“It is endlessly disappointing that the tech sector entertains themselves with commercial issues, such as AI erotica, rather than taking practical steps and corporate responsibility for the harms they create.”
OpenAI Formula
Anne Fehres and Luke Conroy & AI4Media / Better Images of AI / Hidden Labour of Internet Browsing / CC-BY 4.0
See the pattern?
Self-interest
Unpredictability
Self-regulation
Recklessness
Techno-paternalism
Something Is Rotten In OpenAI
The day after ChatGPT-4o’s announcement, two critical top OpenAI employees overseeing safety left the company.
First, Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI co-founder and Chief Scientist, posted on X that he was leaving.
“I have been disagreeing with OpenAI leadership about the company’s core priorities for quite some time, until we finally reached a breaking point.
I believe much more of our bandwidth should be spent getting ready for the next generations of models, on security, monitoring, preparedness, safety, adversarial robustness, (super)alignment, confidentiality, societal impact, and related topics.
These problems are quite hard to get right, and I am concerned we aren’t on a trajectory to get there.
Over the past few months my team has been sailing against the wind. Sometimes we were struggling for compute and it was getting harder and harder to get this crucial research done.
Building smarter-than-human machines is an inherently dangerous endeavor. OpenAI is shouldering an enormous responsibility on behalf of all of humanity.”
What does that tell us if OpenAI safety leaders leave the boat?
The Buck Stops With Our Politicians
To answer Leike’s tweet, I don’t want OpenAI to shoulder the responsibility of developing trustworthy, ethical, and inclusive AI frameworks.
First, the company has not demonstrated the competencies or inclination to prioritize safety at a planetary scale over its own interests.
Second, because it’s not their role.
Whose role is it, then? Our political representatives mandate our governmental institutions, which in turn should develop and enforce those frameworks.
Unfortunately, so far, politicians’ egos have been in the way
Refusing to get AI literate.
Prioritizing their agenda — and that of their party — rather than looking to develop long-term global AI regulations in collaboration with other countries.
Failing for the AI FOMO that relegates present harms in favour of a promise of innovation.
In summary, our elected representatives need to stop cozying up with Sam and the team and enact the regulatory frameworks that ensure that AI works for everybody and doesn’t endanger the survival of future generations.
PS. You and AI
Are you worried about the impact of AI impact on your job, your organisation, and the future of the planet but you feel it’d take you years to ramp up your AI literacy?
Do you want to explore how to responsibly leverage AI in your organisation to boost innovation, productivity, and revenue but feel overwhelmed by the quantity and breadth of information available?
Are you concerned because your clients are prioritising AI but you keep procrastinating on learning about it because you think you’re not “smart enough”?
Get in touch. I can help you harness the potential of AI for sustainable growth and responsible innovation.
On 29th March, OpenAI – the company that develops ChatGPT and other Generative AI tools – released a blog post sharing “lessons from a small-scale preview of Voice Engine, a model for creating custom voices.”
More precisely
“a model called Voice Engine, which uses text input and a single 15-second audio sample to generate natural-sounding speech that closely resembles the original speaker.”
They reassure us that
“We are taking a cautious and informed approach to a broader release due to the potential for synthetic voice misuse. We hope to start a dialogue on the responsible deployment of synthetic voices, and how society can adapt to these new capabilities.”
And they warn us that they’ll make the decision unilaterally
“Based on these conversations and the results of these small scale tests, we will make a more informed decision about whether and how to deploy this technology at scale.”
Let’s explore why we should all be concerned.
The Generative AI mirage
In their release, OpenAI tells us all the great applications of this new tool
Providing reading assistance
Translating content
Reaching global communities
Supporting people who are non-verbal
Helping patients recover their voice
Note for all those use cases, there are already alternatives that don’t have the downsides of recreating a voice clone.
We also learn that other organisations have been testing this capability successfully for a while now. The blog post assumes that we should trust OpenAI’s judgment implicitly. There is no supporting evidence detailing how those tests were run, what challenges were uncovered, and what mitigations were put in place as a consequence.
The caveat
But the most important information is at the end of the piece.
OpenAI warns us of what we should stop doing or start doing because of their “Voice Engine”
“Phasing out voice-based authentication as a security measure for accessing bank accounts and other sensitive information
Exploring policies to protect the use of individuals’ voices in AI
Educating the public in understanding the capabilities and limitations of AI technologies, including the possibility of deceptive AI content
Accelerating the development and adoption of techniques for tracking the origin of audiovisual content, so it’s always clear when you’re interacting with a real person or with an AI”
In summary, OpenAI has decided to develop a technology and plan to roll it out so they expect the rest of the world will adapt to it.
Techno-paternalism
To those of us who have been following OpenAI, the post announcing the development and active use of Voice Engine is not a bug but a feature.
Big Tech has a tradition of setting its own rules, denying accountability, and even refusing to cooperate with governments. Often, their defense has been that society either doesn’t understand the “big picture”, doesn’t deserve an explanation, or is stifling innovation by enacting the laws.
Some examples are
Microsoft — In 2001, U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally monopolizing the web browser market for Windows. Microsoft claimed that “its attempts to “innovate” were under attack by rival companies jealous of its success.”
Apple — The Batterygate scandal affected people using iPhones in the 6, 6S, and 7 families. Customers complained that Apple had purposely slowed down their phones after they installed software updates to get them to buy a newer device. Apple countered that it was “a safety measure to keep the phones from shutting down when the battery got too low”.
Meta (Facebook) — After the Cambridge Analytica scandal was uncovered, exposing that the personal data of about 50 million Americans had been harvested and improperly shared with a political consultancy, it took Mark Zuckerberg 5 days to reappear. Interestingly, he chose to publish a post on Facebook as a form of apology. Note that he also refused three times the invitation to testify in front of members of the UK Parliament.
Google — Between 50 to 80 percent of people searching for porn deepfakes find their way to the websites and tools to create the videos or images via search. For example, in July 2023, around 44% of visits to Mrdeepfakes.com were via Google. Still, the onus is on the victims to “clean” the internet — Google requires them to manually submit content removal requests with the offending URLs.
Amazon — They refused for years to acknowledge that their facial recognition algorithms to predict race and gender were biased against darker females. Instead of improving their algorithms, they chose to blame the auditor’s methodology.
OpenAI is cut from the same cloth. They apparently believe that if they develop the applications, they are entitled to set the parameters about how to use them— or not — and even change their mind as they see fit.
Let’s take their stand on three paramount issues that show us the gap between their actions and their values.
Open source
Despite their name — OpenAI — and initially being created as a nonprofit, they’ve been notorious for their inconsistent open-source practices. Still, each release has appeared to be an opportunity to lecture us about why society is much better off by leaving it to them to decide how to gatekeep their applications.
For example, Ilya Sutskever, OpenAI’s chief scientist and co-founder, said about the release of GPT-4 — not an open AI model — a year ago
“These models are very potent and they’re becoming more and more potent. At some point it will be quite easy, if one wanted, to cause a great deal of harm with those models. And as the capabilities get higher it makes sense that you don’t want want to disclose them.”
“If you believe, as we do, that at some point, AI — AGI — is going to be extremely, unbelievably potent, then it just does not make sense to open-source. It is a bad idea… I fully expect that in a few years it’s going to be completely obvious to everyone that open-sourcing AI is just not wise.”
However, the reluctant content suppliers for their models — artists, writers, journalists — don’t have the same rights to decide on the use of the material they have created. For example, let’s remember how Sam Altman shrugged off the claims of newspapers that OpenAI used their copyrighted material to train ChatGPT.
Safety
The release of Voice Engine comes from the same playbook that the unilateral decision to release their text-to-video model Sora to “red teamers” and “a number of visual artists, designers, and filmmakers“.
The blog post also gives us a high-level view of the safety measures that’ll be put in place
“For example, once in an OpenAI product, our text classifier will check and reject text input prompts that are in violation of our usage policies, like those that request extreme violence, sexual content, hateful imagery, celebrity likeness, or the IP of others.
We’ve also developed robust image classifiers that are used to review the frames of every video generated to help ensure that it adheres to our usage policies, before it’s shown to the user.”
Let’s remember that OpenAI used Kenyan workers on less than $2 per hour to make ChatGPT less toxic. Who’ll make Sora less toxic this time?
Moreover, who’ll decide where’s the line between “mild” violence — apparently permitted —and “extreme” violence?
Sam Altman has been actively talking to investors, including the United Arab Emirates government, to raise funds for a tech initiative that would boost the world’s chip-building capacity, expand its ability to power AI, and cost several trillion dollars.
“OpenAI has had productive discussions about increasing global infrastructure and supply chains for chips, energy and data centers — which are crucial for AI and other industries that rely on them”
But nothing is free in the universe. A study conducted by Dr. Sasha Luccioni — Researcher and Climate Lead at Hugging Face — showed that training the 176 billion parameter LLM BLOOM emits at least 25 metric tons of carbon equivalents.
In the article, the authors also estimated that the training of GPT-3 — a 175 billion parameter model — emitted about 500 metric tons of carbon, roughly equivalent to over a million miles driven by an average gasoline-powered car. Why such a difference? Because, unlike BLOOM, GPT-3 was trained using carbon-intensive energy sources like coal and natural gas.
And that doesn’t stop there. Dr. Luccioni conducted further studies on the emissions associated with 10 popular Generative AI tasks.
Generating 1,000 images was responsible for roughly as much carbon dioxide as driving the equivalent of 4.1 miles in an average gasoline-powered car.
The least carbon-intensive text generation model was responsible for as much CO2 as driving 0.0006 miles in a similar vehicle.
Using large generative models to create outputs was far more energy intensive than using smaller AI models tailored for specific tasks. For example, using a generative model to classify positive and negative movie reviews consumed around 30 times more energy than using a fine-tuned model created specifically for that task
Moreover, they discovered that the day-to-day emissions associated with using AI far exceeded the emissions from training large models.
And it’s not only emissions. The data centres where those models are trained and run need water as a refrigerant and in some cases as a source of electricity.
Professor Shaolei Ren from UC Riverside found that training GPT-3 in Microsoft’s high-end data centers can directly evaporate 700,000 liters (about 185,000 gallons) of fresh water. As for the use, Ren and his colleagues estimated that GPT-3 requires about 500 ml (16 ounces) of water for every 10–50 responses.
Four questions for our politicians
It’s time our politicians step up to the challenge of exercising stewardship of AI for the benefit of people and the planet.
I have four questions to get them going:
Why are you allowing OpenAI to make decisions unilaterally on technology that affects us all?
How can you shift from a reactive stand where you enable Big Tech like OpenAI to drive the regulation for technologies that impact key aspects of governance — from our individual rights to national cybersecurity — to becoming a proactive key player on decisions that impact society’s future?
How can you make Big Tech accountable for the environmental planetary costs?
How are you ensuring the public becomes digitally literate so they can develop their own informed views about the benefits and challenges of AI and other emergent technologies?
Back to you
How comfortable are you with OpenAI deciding on the use of Generative AI on behalf of humanity?
PS. You and AI
Are you worried about the impact of AI impact on your job, your organisation, and the future of the planet but you feel it’d take you years to ramp up your AI literacy?
Do you want to explore how to responsibly leverage AI in your organisation to boost innovation, productivity, and revenue but feel overwhelmed by the quantity and breadth of information available?
Are you concerned because your clients are prioritising AI but you keep procrastinating on learning about it because you think you’re not “smart enough”?
Another International Women’s Day has passed but how much have women’s rights progressed since last year?
If my social media posts last week were an indication, there have been some important wins but at the core, we’re still living under patriarchy.
More precisely
Abortion became a constitutional right in France
Femicide alarming UK statistics
The feminisation of hybrid work
The unnecessary male context in framing women’s achievements
Let me share my take.
France makes abortion a constitutional right
I love and hate International Women’s Day.
I love #IWD because it tells the world that we won’t close our eyes to gender violence, gender health disparities, gender pay gap, and other gender inequalities.
I hate it because it “reminds” me that I’m still a second-class citizen. For example, I don’t have the same rights about my body that a man has.
Moreover, unlike when I was a young woman when I could see barriers coming down, I now see barriers been purposely built to prevent women from being prosperous, educated, and healthy.
This is not a bug but a feature.
Women keep spending their energy re-fighting their basic rights instead of innovating, creating products that serve us, or investing their money to ensure we have enough wealth to enable us to get a dignified retirement.
Amid these conflicting emotions, an unexpected gift arrived:
This week France became the first country in the world to explicitly include the right to abortion in its constitution.
Of course, there is no free meal in the universe, so reading this BBC article, my heart skipped a beat — or 2 — when I read
1.- “Before the vote, Prime Minister Gabriel Attal told parliament that the right to abortion remained “in danger” and “at the mercy of decision makers”.”
In summary, decision-makers are not on the side of women.
2.- “In a 2001 ruling, the council based its approval of abortion on the notion of liberty enshrined in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man, which is technically part of the constitution.”
We have a Declaration of the Rights of “Man” dated almost 250 years ago that “decision makers” haven’t updated to the Rights of “human being” or “people“.
Until when will we need to keep fighting for laws and regulations that treat women as human beings with the same rights as men rather than Adam’s rib?
(Note: More on the Adam’s rib below)
Femicide alarming UK statistics
The European Institute of Gender Equality defines femicide as the killing of women and girls because of their gender, among other things, which can take the form of
The murder of women as a result of intimate partner violence
The torture and misogynist slaying of women
Killing of women and girls in the name of “honour”
Targeted killing of women and girls in the context of armed conflict
Dowry-related killings of women
Killing of women and girls because of their sexual orientation and gender identity
Killing of aboriginal and indigenous women and girls because of their gender
Female infanticide and gender-based sex selection foeticide
Genital mutilation-related deaths
Accusations of witchcraft
Other femicides connected with gangs, organised crime, drug dealers, human trafficking, and the proliferation of small arms.
When we talk about femicide we may think about Latino America, Asia, or Africa.
But we’re wrong.
A woman is killed by a man every three days in the UK on average.
I have reproduced below the key insights about hybrid work
“Now, LinkedIn data shows that women in the UK are more likely to have a job offering hybrid work than other types of work. More women had a hybrid role in 2023 than a fully remote or onsite role. Across a majority of industries, women are also more likely than men to have a hybrid role. In finance, consumer services, retail and even accommodation and food services, where remote and hybrid roles are less common, women are more likely than men to split their working week between home and the physical workplace.”
My take? I challenge how many men reporting “office” jobs are not doing “hybrid” jobs in disguise.
In my experience, women need to be very clear about the terms and conditions of their place of work because of their caregiving obligations, hence the preference for jobs clearly articulated as such.
For example, my company advertises jobs as office-based but in practice, employees can work up to 2 days a week from home.
Another point: Uneven transparency. Whilst typically women announce that they’ll be late, have been late, or won’t be able to make a meeting because of childcare responsibilities, men simply say that they are “double-booked” or that they cannot make it.
Whilst definitively there are gendered patterns, it’s paramount to recognise that men have the luxury to disguise hybrid work as office work whilst many women don’t.
The Adam’s Rib effect
Why can’t the media highlight a woman without “attaching” her to a man?
It happened again this Sunday.
I’m reading an article in The Guardian and the Headline reads
“ ‘I could have written three plays about her’: Jennie Lee, MP and wife of Nye Bevan, is celebrated on stage
Then, the subtitle says
“The coal miner’s daughter who set up the Open University and the Arts Council and was Britain’s youngest MP is the subject of two new shows”
And then, the first paragraph continues
“ ‘Behind every great man stands a great woman,’ the dated old saying goes. In the case of the celebrated Labour politician Aneurin Bevan, honoured in a new play at the National Theatre in London, the woman is his largely forgotten wife, Jennie Lee, who earned her own independent “greatness” on the public stage, not a domestic one.”
If that was not enough, even the article’s URL mentions her husband
But in the first 4 sentences of the article — title, subtitle, and first paragraph — The Guardian feels is important to to let us know that
She was the wife of Nye Bevan
A coal miner’s daughter
And then repeat that she’s the largely forgotten wife of the celebrated Labour politician Aneurin Bevan
We need to wait until the second paragraph to actually learn about this woman.
“Lee, who was Britain’s first arts minister and established the Open University and the Arts Council, as well as backing the building of the National Theatre itself”
As the article continues, we learn more about a play about his husband and it’s not until the fourth paragraph that we learn more about Ms. Lee.
“she became an MP aged just 24 and had a big influence on British postwar culture.”
Can somebody explain to me why we cannot have a headline highlighting a brilliant woman without “sprinkling” a man — or two — on it?
Why does the media believe that we need to know first about her husband, father, son, brother, and teachers as a preamble to showcasing a woman’s merits?
I’m naming this the “Adam’s rib” effect — providing unnecessary “male” context when highlighting the achievements of a woman.
This is utterly ridiculous and it’s a contemporary version of a not so distant past when women needed their husbands’ signatures to open a bank account.
Two weeks ago, deepfake pornographic images of Taylor Swift spread like fire through X. It took the platform 19 hours to suspend the account that posted the content after they amassed over 27 million views and more than 260,000 likes.
That gave me pause. 260,000 people watched the content, knew it was fake, and felt no shame in sharing their delight publicly. Wow…
I’ve written before about our misconceptions regarding deepfake technology. For example, we’re told that most deepfakes target politicians but the reality is that 96% of deepfakes are of non-consensual sexual nature and 99% of them are from women. I’ve also talked about the legal vacuum regulating the use of this technology.
However, until now I hadn’t delved into the ecosystem underpinning the porn deepfakes: the industry and the viewers themselves.
Let’s rectify this gap and get to know the key players.
Why is so easy to access porn deepfakes?
We may be led to believe that porn deepfakes are hard to create or find.
False and false.
It takes less than 25 minutes and costs $0 to create a 60-second deepfake pornographic video. You only need one clear face image.
I can confirm that when searching on Google “deepfakes porn,” the first hit was MrDeepFake’s website — one of the most famous websites in the world of deepfake porn.
Moreover, the risk of hosting the content is minimal.
Section 230, which passed in 1996, is a part of the US Communications Decency Act. It was meant to serve as protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material.
However, it has become an ally of porn deepfakes as it provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability on third-party content — they are not responsible for the content they host and they can remove it in certain circumstances, e.g. material that the provider or user considers being obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.
So whilst Section 230 does not protect platforms that create illegal or harmful content, it exempts them from any responsibility for third-party content.
Who’s making money from porn deepfakes?
Many are profiting from this nascent industry: Creators, deepfake porn websites, software manufacturers, infrastructure providers, marketplaces, and payment processors.
It bills itself on Instagram as “the highest paying adult content creator platform.”
Paywalled.
Clients may be redirected from sites such as MrDeepFakes afters clicking on the deepfake creators’ profiles. Once in Fan-Topia, they can pay for access to libraries of deepfake videos with their credit cards.
Pornhub
In 2018, the internet pornography giant Pornhub banned deepfake porn from their site. However, that’s not the whole truth
When Pornhub removes deepfake porn videos from their site, they leave the inactive links as breadcrumbs that act as clickbait to drive traffic to the site.
Users can advertise the creation and monetisation of porn deepfakes on the site.
They advertise deepfakes through TrafficJunky, the advertising portal through which Pornhub makes all their ad revenue.
Pornhub provides a database of abusive content that facilitates the creation of porn deepfakes.
Software manufacturers
A couple of examples
Stability AI has made their model Stable Diffusion — a deep learning, text-to-image model— open-source, so any developer can modify it for purposes such as creating porn deepfakes. And there are plenty of tips about how to use the models in forums where deepfake porn creators swarm.
Taylor Swift’s porn deepfake was created using Microsoft Designer, Microsoft’s graphic design app that leverages DALLE-3 — another text-to-image model— to generate realistic images. Users found loopholes in the guardrails that prevented inappropriate prompts that explicitly mentioned nudity or public figures.
Infraestructure providers
Repositories
GitHub is a Microsoft-owned developer platform that allows developers to create, store, manage, and share their code. It’s also
A host of guides and hyperlinks to (a) sexual deepfake community forums dedicated to the creation, collaboration, and commodification of synthetic media technologies, and (b) AI-leveraged ‘nudifiying’ websites and applications that take women’s images and “strip them” of clothing.
A repository of the source code of the software used to create 95% of deepfakes, DeepFaceLab, as well as other similar codes such as DeepNude and Unstable Diffusion.
According to a Bloomberg review, 13 of the top 20 deepfake websites are currently using web hosting servicesfrom Cloudflare Inc. Amazon.com Inc. provides web hosting services for three popular deepfaking tools listed on several websites, including Deepswap.ai.
Marketplaces
Etsy
As of December 2023, AI-generated pornographic images of at least 55 well-known celebrities were available for purchase on Etsy, an American e-commerce company focused on handmade or vintage items and craft supplies.
Moreover, a search for “deepfake porn” on the website returned about 1,500 results. Some of these results were porn and others offers non-explicit services to “make your own deepfake video.”
On the Fan-Topia payment page, the logos for Visa and Mastercard appear alongside the fields where users can enter credit card information. The purchases are made through an internet payment service provider called Verotel, which is based in the Netherlands and advertises to what it calls “high-risk” webmasters running adult services.
The MakeNude.ai web app — which lets users “view any girl without clothing” in “just a single click” — has partnered with Ukraine-based Monobank and Dublin’s Beta Transfer Kassa which operates in “high-risk markets”.
Deepfake creators also use PayPal and crypto wallets to accept payments. Until Bloomberg reached out to Patreon last August, they supported payment for one of the largest nudifying tools, which accepted over $12,500 per month.
Other enablers
Search engines
Between 50 to 80 percent of people searching for porn deepfakes find their way to the websites and tools to create the videos or images via search. For example, in July 2023, around 44% of visits to Mrdeepfakes.com were via Google.
NBC News searched the combination of a name and the word “deepfakes” with 36 popular female celebrities on Google and Bing. A review of the results found nonconsensual deepfake images and links to deepfake videos in the top Google results for 34 of those searches and the top Bing results for 35 of them.
As for the victims, both Google and Microsoft services require in their content removal requests that people manually submit the URLs.
Social media
More than 230 sexual deepfake ads using Emma Watson and Scarlett Johansson’s faces ran on Facebook and Instagram in March 2023. It took 2 days for Meta to remove the ads, once they were contacted by NBC.
Users of X, formerly known as Twitter, regularly circulate deepfaked content. Whilst the platform has policies that prohibit manipulated media, between the first and second quarter of 2023, the number of tweets from eight hashtags associated with this content increased by 25% to 31,400 tweets.
There were a total of 95,820 deepfake videos online in 2023.
The ten-leading dedicated deepfake porn sites had monthly traffic of 35 million in 2023.
What about the deepfake porn consumers?
They surveyed 1522 American males who had viewed pornography at least once in the past six months. Some highlights:
48% of respondents reported having viewed deepfake pornography at least once.
74% of deepfake pornography users didn’t feel guilty about it. Top reasons they didn’t feel remorse? 36% didn’t know the person, 30% didn’t think it hurt anybody, 29% thought of it as a realistic version of imagination, and 28% thought that it’s not much different than regular porn.
That may lead us to believe that indeed those “watchers” felt porn deepfakes were innocuous. That’s until we learn that
73% of survey participants would want to report to the authorities if someone close to them became a victim of deepfake porn.
68% indicated that they would feel shocked and outraged by the violation of someone’s privacy and consent in the creation of deepfake pornographic content.
In summary, non-consensual deepfakes are harmless until your mother and daughter are starring on them.
if they don’t portray your loved ones.
What’s next?
As with other forms of misogynistic behaviour — rape, gender violence, sexual discrimination — when we talk about deepfake pornography, we focus on the aftermath: the victims and the punishment.
What if we instead focused on the bottom of the pyramid — the consumers?
Can we imagine a society where the deepfake porn videos from Taylor Swift would have had 0 views and no likes?
What will take to raise boys that feel outrage — rather than unhealthy curiosity, lust, and desire for revenge — at the opportunity to watch and purchase deepfake porn?
How about believing that porn deepfakes are harmful even if they don’t portray your sister, mum, or wife?
As with physical goods, consumers have the power to transform the offer. Can we collectively lead the way towards a responsible digital future?
PS. You and AI
Are you worried about the impact of AI impact on your job, your organisation, and the future of the planet but you feel it’d take you years to ramp up your AI literacy?
Do you want to explore how to responsibly leverage AI in your organisation to boost innovation, productivity, and revenue but feel overwhelmed by the quantity and breadth of information available?
Are you concerned because your clients are prioritising AI but you keep procrastinating on learning about it because you think you’re not “smart enough”?
The title referred to the weird ways in which women have tried to lose weight. The subtitle pointed out that the culprit was our quest for beauty.
That stopped me in my tracks. A flood of memories of nonstop dieting and judgment — from myself and others — came back.
I repeated to myself, “Our quest for beauty”.
This time, my brain consciously rebelled. I was not buying that argument.
Still, I was intrigued because I know and respect the author, so I decided to keep reading.
The theory
The piece discussed how companies had advertised to women dieting methods such as eating tapeworms, smoking, and even wiring their jaws shut. All with the promise of losing weight.
The writer also shared her journey with diets and weight. A lot of themes resonated with me. The judgment of others about my weight when I was a child, the crazy dieting when I was a teenager, and the feeling of letting the scale become the supreme ruler of whether it was going to be a good or a bad day.
However, the article didn’t manage to convince me that it’s the quest for beauty that sends women to that rollercoaster.
The reality
What does make women embark on this perennial self-improvement project?
It’s the quest for acceptance and appreciation.
We’ve been educated that our worth is in the eye of the beholder. And depending on the year and context, this can be as thin as Twiggy, athletic as Cindy Naomi Campbell, or super-curvy as Kim Kardashian, to mention a handful of the many beauty standards we’re bombarded with.
And whilst we get depressed, feel shame, and spend tons of money trying to fit in the ever-changing cannons of beauty, many others get rich in the process.
I call it the industrial complex of “fixing women”.
And it’s not only about our weight. It’s the same industry that
Shames our wrinkles and white hair and wants to fix us with “anti-aging” products.
Finds disgusting our body hair and pledges to make us “hairless” like babies.
Execrates our stretching marks and promises to erase them.
And the list goes on…
Blame it on the algorithm
I’d love to believe that this obsession with fixing women stems from social media, that it’s the fault of Instagram’ and TikTok.
But it isn’t.
Unfortunately, the algorithm only automates and amplifies what’s already there — patriarchy and its contempt for female human beings.
However, that doesn’t mean that social media is harmless or innocent. All the opposite. It’s a constant reminder of how “inadequate” girls and women are and how urgent is for them to fix themselves. All for a profit.
Beyond fixing the body
If “fixing” women’s bodies is so profitable, why should we stop there? Let’s profit from fixing all aspects of women’s lives
Women leadership workshops and courses that “teach” us how to “sound strategic” and display overconfidence.
“Experts” promise to help us find the elusive — but somehow 100% attainable — work-life balance.
And of course, there is motherhood. Being the “perfect” mother is at our reach provided that we buy every book, workshop, course, and gadget about parenthood.
The alternative
Women are a neverending work-in-progress because “fixing” them is the gift that keeps on giving. Simply put, there is no incentive to stop it.
It’s also embedded in every aspect of our lives.
What would the world look like if we dared to extricate it?
That would be a world where
I’ve unlearned the reflex of comparing myself to other women.
I believe that my worth is independent of how I look.
I’m not penalised for getting older.
Moreover, a world where
The term “beauty standards” is considered an oxymoron because it’s impossible to set “standards” if we’re all considered unique and valuable.
We talk about women from a place of abundance — she has, she is, she possesses — rather than scarcity — she lacks, she should, she needs.
We expect women to prioritise themselves — their body, their mental wellbeing, their dreams, and their callings.
BACK TO YOU: How do you imagine a world where we don’t feel compelled to “fix” women anymore?
Feminist Tech Career Accelerator
Three things are keeping you from getting the tech career you deserve
Your Brain * Your Education * Patriarchy
Thrive In Your Tech Career With Feminist Guidance
Achieve your career goals * Work smart * Earn more
More than 20 years ago, I negotiated my first salary. I could have done much better.
At the time, my future employer asked for my previous salary and offered exactly the same amount. Their bargaining chip was that they knew I was without a job and that I was obviously quite inexperienced in negotiating my compensation package.
My gut feeling was they were taking advantage of me, but I didn’t have proof. I asked my friends for advice, but none of them had much more experience than I did. Still, I negotiated a £3,000 increase, which I got.
To make a long story short, I learned I was severely underpaid a year later. That had three consequences
Feeling betrayed by the organization, I decided to search for another job, which I landed about a year later.
As bonuses, promotions, and pension schemes depended on my salary, that initial negotiation mishap penalized my earnings — and retirement “pot” — for many years.
Given the pervasive practice of asking candidates for their previous salaries several times, it compromised any leverage I may have when negotiating a new role.
Unfortunately, I’m not alone.
In this article, I share why we must keep talking about the effect of gender on compensation. I also dispel some of the most damaging myths surrounding
The impact of gender on workers’ salaries — including those about differences between how men and women approach salary discussions.
How policies may help to bridge the gender pay gap.
What leverage is available during salary negotiations.
Why addressing the impact of gender on salaries is both urgent and important
I’ve been talking about women and money extensively since I started blogging. For example, I’ve discussed
The UN findings showing that women invest 90 percent of their income back into their families, compared with 35 percent of men.
How society profits from women’s unpaid work and how we should rethink it for a better tomorrow.
The way salary increases are one of the ways my clients reap the benefits of my coaching and mentoring program.
Three reasons made me decide to revisit the topic
Not long ago, a client — a woman in tech — shared that she was expecting a job offer from her dream employer — her first job outside academia. After telling her I was “removing my coaching hat and putting my mentoring hat on,” I exhorted her to negotiate her salary. I offered my availability to provide feedback on the compensation package. Her reply clearly showed me that she wasn’t aware salaries were negotiable.
I read the article from Ronke Babajide, “The Sad Truth Is That the Bigger Your Pay Check, the Bigger the Pay Gap.” In the piece, she shares a personal story about how she was paid substantially less than her male counterparts. I was surprised by how many comments she got from women sharing similar heartbreaking stories. It also made me realize that when we talk about how gender influences salaries, often many things get conflated — for example, equal salary and the gender pay gap.
Claudia Goldin was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for her work towards the first comprehensive account of women’s earnings and labour market participation through the centuries. Her research reveals the causes of change and the main sources of the remaining gender gap.
And now, let’s debunk the myths.
Myth #1: Equal pay is the same as the gender pay gap
Equal pay
Equal pay is being paid the same salary for the same work. The right to equal pay has been recognized by EU law since 1957. More precisely, Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) states
Each Member State shall ensure that the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value is applied.
2.For the purpose of this Article, ‘pay’ means the ordinary basic or minimum wage or salary and any other consideration, whether in cash or in kind, which the worker receives directly or indirectly, in respect of his employment, from his employer.
Equal pay without discrimination based on sex means:
(a)that pay for the same work at piece rates shall be calculated on the basis of the same unit of measurement;
(b)that pay for work at time rates shall be the same for the same job.
Although the UK is not a member of the EU anymore, the Equal Pay Act 1970 established that
(a)for men and women employed on like work the terms and conditions of one sex are not in any respect less favourable than those of the other; and
(b)for men and women employed on work rated as equivalent the terms and conditions of one sex are not less favourable than those of the other in any respect in which the terms and conditions of both are determined by the rating of their work.
(1)If an occupational pension scheme does not include a sex equality rule, it is to be treated as including one.
(2)A sex equality rule is a provision that has the following effect —
(a)if a relevant term is less favourable to A than it is to B, the term is modified so as not to be less favourable;
(b)if a term confers a relevant discretion capable of being exercised in a way that would be less favourable to A than to B, the term is modified so as to prevent the exercise of the discretion in that way.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that there are employers that break the law upfront — pay women less than men for the same work — or use subterfuges to pay them less. Two examples:
In 2020, the Guardian reported that since the 2007–08 financial year, employment tribunals in England and Wales had received an average of almost 29,000 complaints a year.
Across the whole period, equal pay claims made up 12% of all cases, which include other complaints such as unfair dismissal, discrimination, and unlawful deductions from pay. Equal pay claims made up 21% of all cases in 2017–18, 14% in 2018–19 and 14% in the first three quarters of 2019–20.
Shop floor Tesco staff, who are predominantly female, launched a claim in 2018 on the basis that “Tesco breached its duty under section 66 of the Equality Act 2010 to pay them equally to men in comparable roles, namely warehouse staff who are predominantly male. The claimants argue that they have been paid up to £3 an hour less than a warehouse and distribution centre staff.” Through the years, several similar claims at other UK supermarkets including Asda, Sainsbury’s Morrisons, and the Co-op have been working their way through the courts.
In the US, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 protects against wage discrimination based on sex. However, as in Europe, that doesn’t mean that discrimination is eradicated. For example
By 1969, the median salary for female computer specialists was $7,763. In contrast, men earned a median of $11,193 as computer specialists and $13,149 as engineers.
Gender pay gap
The gender pay gap measures the difference in the average hourly wage of all men and women in work. Unlike unequal gender pay, the gender gap pay is not unlawful although countries such as the UK have regulations and laws making its reporting recommended or even mandatory.
In 2016, the Women and Equalities Committee published a report outlining some of the main causes of the gender pay gap:
The part-time pay penalty — Women are more likely to work part-time, and part-time workers are paid less.
Occupation segregation — Women tend to work in lower-paid occupations and sectors.
I’ll add two more:
Women are assessed on performance and men on potential. As a result, they are seen as less “promotable material”.
Managers holding “benevolent sexism” beliefs may block women’s professional progression under the premise that they are “protecting” them. For example, not offering a more senior role that involves traveling to a woman with small children under the assumption that she won’t be interested.
Finally, it’s very important to highlight that the gender pay gap is an intersectional issue.
As this report from the Fawcett Society showed, the ethnic gender pay gap is extremely complex. For example, it can range from a reversed gender pay gap of -5.6% for Chinese women in Great Britain to 19.6% for Black African women.
The UK Trades Union Congress published a new analysis in November showing that non-disabled men are paid on average 30% more than disabled women.
Myth #2: Transparency in salaries will eliminate the gender pay gap
I’ve been an advocate of salary transparency since in 2018 I attended a talk by Åsa Nyström, at the time Director of Customer Advocacy at Buffer. She discussed Buffer’s value of “Default to Transparency” which consisted of sharing via their website all their employees’ salaries as well as the formula used to calculate them.
The benefits of salary transparency are multiple
For companies— It increases performance as it promotes trust between employees and employers. A study showed that people at high-trust companies report 74% less stress, 106% more energy at work, 50% higher productivity, 13% fewer sick days, 76% more engagement, 29% more satisfaction with their lives, and 40% less burnout.
For women — Research has shown that women are more prone to negotiate the compensation package when the job description includes the salary ranges.
For governments – Salary transparency makes it less likely for unequal pay to occur, increase wages among women and other low-power groups which in turn will reduce their demands for state benefits.
However, it’s not the magic bullet for the gender pay gap. We need to remember that the gender pay gap is about career progression and gendered careers, so transparency won’t eliminate entrenched conscious and unconscious biases.
Still, transparency is a step in the right direction and there is some good news to celebrate.
help workers or jobseekers better understand their position in the wider pay structure of a company or industry. It also includes collective measures to ensure employers share aggregated pay data broken down by gender, both internally and publicly.
Some of its key points are:
The right for workers to obtain pay information about other workers doing equal work from an employer.
During recruitment, job candidates also have a right to be informed about the pay levels they can expect at the position they are applying for.
Candidates have the right not to be asked about their pay history.
Organisations with more than 100 employees will have to publish their gender gaps regarding total pay and variable pay (such as bonuses), including their internal gender pay gap by job category.
EU Member States are required to implement legislation giving effect to it by 7 June 2026, the date on which the general obligations in relation to pay transparency and information provision come into force. The gender pay gap reporting obligations will come into effect on a phased basis starting on 7 June 2027.
Myth #3: Women earn less because they don’t negotiate
Year after year, I keep hearing that the gender pay gap is due to women not asking for raises or underselling their skills.
Whilst some women may indeed be reluctant to negotiate, either because they don’t know that salaries are negotiable or they don’t know how to negotiate them, there are also other four important reasons:
Many women are actively discouraged by their entourage to have salary negotiations. Over and over, women tell me that they’ve been advised by their mentors and network to “not rock the boat”.
Some studies show that when women negotiate their salaries, they receive backlash: They are seen as greedy whilst men who do the same are deemed assertive. Women know that they need to be perceived as “likable” so they don’t negotiate.
Society tells women how important is their work as family “pillars”. But does society monetarily recognize the kind of work women typically perform in that role — household chores, breastfeeding, child rearing, family caregiving? No. Hence, we’re used to our work being simultaneously praised and not recognized monetarily.
Women have been trained by society that our judgment is not trustworthy and that we need external validation before making decisions. Hence, we’re expected to talk ourselves out of our gut feeling that we’re underpaid and trust the organisations we work for about the monetary value of our work.
Finally, some studies show that women are more likely to negotiate salaries than men. However, while women are more likely to ask for higher salaries, men still receive greater compensation.
Myth #4: I will negotiate my salary once I prove my value to the organisation
You’ll never be in a better position to negotiate your salary than when you join an organisation. Please don’t count on being able to renegotiate your salary later on or at the next promotion — it’s extremely unlikely you have that leverage.
Moreover, by not negotiating your salary, you risk
Feeling regret when thinking about how much you could have asked for.
Fostering resentment against the organisation — if you learn others with similar background and skills are been paid more.
Myth #5: I may lose the job offer if I negotiate the salary
Scoop: You’re expected to negotiate your compensation package. So do it!
Research demonstrates that it’s extremely unlikely that a company withdraws a job offer only because you want to negotiate the salary. Worst case scenario? You get what you got offered in the first place, but at least you know you reached the maximum on the table.
And if you don’t know how much you should negotiate for, ask mentors, sponsors, professional communities, and friends.
Myth #6: I need to be mindful of the ongoing economic situation and settle for less
If you still feel reluctant to negotiate your salary, think about your future self.
For example, an increase of £2,000 in 2024 will translate into £40,000 in 20 years. Moreover, promotions, bonuses, and contributions to your pension scheme are typically calculated as a percentage of your salary, so they’ll increase as your base salary increases.
In summary, those £2,000 will be the gift that keeps on giving!
Call to action
I have two asks for you
1.- Share this article with a woman who will benefit from negotiating her salary in 2025.
2.- Set a salary increase goal for 2025.
WORK WITH ME
I’m a technologist with 20+ years of experience in digital transformation. I’m also an award-winning inclusion strategist and certified life and career coach.
I help ambitious women in tech who are overwhelmed to break the glass ceiling and achieve success without burnout through bespoke coaching and mentoring.
I’m a sought-after international keynote speaker on strategies to empower women and underrepresented groups in tech, sustainable and ethical artificial intelligence, and inclusive workplaces and products.
I empower non-tech leaders to harness the potential of AI for sustainable growth and responsible innovation through consulting and facilitation programs.
The period between Christmas and New Year is supposed to be a moment for families to reunite, share traditions, and celebrate.
Under that benevolent facade, patriarchy and its ally misogyny are plotting in plain sight.
Let’s revisit three patriarchy’s ghosts of Christmas past and discover three strategies to break free from their grip in time for New Year’s celebration.
Three patriarchal principles that underpin this holiday season
There are many ways this time of the year enforces patriarchal norms and processes.
Note that I’m not talking only about sexism — the division of labour based on gender, e.g. women shop, cook, and care for others whilst men converse with the visits — but it’s how we do it.
It’s in the “how” that patriarchy has a field party. Three of its principles particularly shine during this time of the year. Each of them reinforces the others.
Let’s get cracking!
Principle #1: Women are responsible for the “perfect” holiday season
As I discussed before in this article about the patriarchal value of time and women’s unpaid work, women are perceived as “human doings”, not human beings. That means that our worth is correlated with what we “produce” for others.
And what does that mean during this time of the year? That somehow the Powers that Be have bestowed upon women the duty of creating the perfect holiday season for those around us.
BTW, no need to worry about what perfection looks like— leave it to social media, magazines, TV shows, and even ChatGPT to give us their “feedback” on
Cooking the perfect Christmas dinner
Choosing the perfect wine
Setting the perfect New Year’s Eve table
Decorating the perfect Christmas tree
Picking the perfect gift for everybody else
And the list goes on, personalised for each family member, friend, and acquaintance.
Of course, women don’t escape either to this quest for perfection. The perfect body, hairstyle, shoes, and skin complexion are dictated by our always-evolving patriarchal standards and are now reinforced by AI, as the research by The Bulimia Project has surfaced.
As that to-do list is not enough, women are also required to care for everybody else’s emotions.
And how do they achieve that? Go to the next principle.
Principle #2: Women’s job is to make others happy
Patriarchy wants us to believe that everybody depends on women for their emotions. We can magically make them happy, sad, frustrated, appreciated… and so on.
The underlying theory is that people around us are emotional children and whatever women do/don’t say or do will impact their emotional wellbeing.
As the Christmas to New Year period is marketed as “the happiest time of the year” in most of the Western world, women bear the brunt of not “screwing this up” for everybody.
As a result, we should deploy our “innate” social skills and guess when to act as
The cheerleader
The listening ear
The supporter
The clown
The role model
The confidant
The graceful host
The helpful guest
And even the self-deprecating joker.
Failure to cater to everybody’s mood and needs indicates a “lack of empathy” — a capital sin for women — and, more importantly, selfishness.
Speaking of which, let’s check the last principle.
Principle #3: Women are selfless
What happens when making other people happy conflicts with women’s happiness? That’s easy. By default, our own happiness is at the bottom of the list, buried under others’ needs.
This manifests as
Demands on women’s time and attention — who said that Christmas was a period of relaxation for everybody? The reality is that for some to be able to rest and enjoy the holiday, others — women — need to do the work.
Opinions on women — This time of the year women are supposed to shut up and stoically endure jokes and opinions about how we live our lives. Why we don’t have children, have too many children, or not enough children. Why do we have a paid job, work part-time, or don’t have paid employment. Why we’re divorced, lesbian, single, or bisexual… and the list goes on. There is no question intimate enough that’s off-limits provided that the setting involves enough people that can be “upset” if we fight back. And if in doubt, watch or read Bridget Jones’s Diary.
Entitlement to voice entrenched stereotypes and discriminatory beliefs — somehow this season appears to foster the perfect conditions for people to feel emboldened to express racist, sexist, and ableist remarks — as well as any other prejudiced statements against underrepresented groups like immigrants and trans people — expecting to get reassurance from the audience or at least no pushback. And knowing that their host or a female guest is specially engaged in DEI activities is far from a deterrent. Instead, the person should expect to be publicly named and warned that resistance is futile, e.g. “Mary, I know you’re [feminist, defendant of gay rights, DEI activist, etc..] BUT you should agree that [prejudice, stereotype, bias]”.
Women are expected to accept these additional burdens gratefully, as setting any kind of boundaries somehow will destroy the illusion of harmless banter and festive spirit.
Three strategies to fight back against a patriarchal holiday
But not all is lost. Three coaching tools can help you minimise the impact of patriarchy on your enjoyment of this holiday season.
Strategy #1: Embrace emotional adulthood
What if people’s emotions didn’t depend on you? For good or bad, others’ emotions depend on them. More precisely, on their thoughts about circumstances.
Don’t believe me? Then, remember the expression ”Is the glass half empty or half full?” The premise of this famous question is that the same fact can be framed as a positive or a negative, depending on how you look at it.
In contrast to emotional childhood explained above, emotional adulthood is when we believe that people’s emotions are dependent on them and not on us. The reality is that if Aunt Maud is sad because you didn’t invite Uncle Sam to the dinner, it’s not you that causes her sadness but it’s what she’s making it mean.
Next time you’re put on the spot as “causing” somebody’s negative feelings, I invite you to hold tight and resist the emotional blackmail from those around you and instead believe in their power to manage their own emotions.
Strategy #2: Aim for B- work
This is what I’ve learned about perfection
It’s ill-defined — what’s perfect one day, can be a mess later on.
It’s overvalued — when you look back on your life and reflect on the moments that have brought you joy, chances are that by no means they were “perfect”. For example, last summer my mother broke her hip and I remember my joy at seeing her walking after the surgery. Would the moment have been better if we both had perfect hair and makeup? The answer is no.
Makes people feel inadequate —we’re taught that perfection is a gift to others and ourselves. I disagree. It’s often poisoned candy as it leverages comparison to make some people feel like winners at the expense of others feeling like losers.
Our worth doesn’t depend on “producing” perfection — We’re already worthy as we are.
My solution to perfectionism? Aiming for B- Work.
Just to be clear, not only I’m telling you not to go for perfection or even excellence, but I’m recommending you aim for good going down to satisfactory.
If in doubt, imagine how planning for good — instead of perfect — could give you back
Time
Energy
Peace of mind
Isn’t worth a try?
Strategy #3: Decide ahead of time
I’ve talked about this strategy before in this post where I discussed the power of integrating quitting your job into your career success strategy.
Deciding ahead of time is to plan how you’ll think, feel, and act in advance of certain triggers appearing.
For example, how will you react when
Cousin Alex treats you like their personal bartender and waitress during the dinner you’re hosting.
Uncle John asks you — like every Christmas — why are you still single.
Niece Jenny complains — again — about how immigrants steal “all jobs” and also claim “all benefits” somehow forgetting to notice that you’re an immigrant too.
Note that when I say “deciding ahead of time” this includes choosing not to do anything at all, including smiling or leaving the table to make it look like you forgot something in the kitchen. Moreover, you can even come up with a list of things you won’t do!
In the end, the goal exercise is about allowing yourself to choose in advance what works for you.
Conclusion
The Christmas to New Year period is full of patriarchal dos and don’ts. It’s also ripe for disruption.
Let’s start right now.
BACK TO YOU: What patriarchal principle makes it harder for you to enjoy this holiday season?
Feminist Tech Career Accelerator
Three things are keeping you from getting the tech career you deserve
Your Brain * Your Education * Patriarchy
Thrive In Your Tech Career With Feminist Guidance
Achieve your career goals * Work smart * Earn more
Gender violence campaigns traditionally focus on physical violence: sexual harassment, rape, femicide, child marriage, or sex trafficking. The perpetrators? Partners, family members, human traffickers, soldiers, terrorists.
But that’s not all. You may be a victim of digital violence right now — in the comfort of your home.
When talking about deepfakes, most media refer to the threats they may pose to democracy. That was exemplified in the famous deepfake video of Obama in 2018, where he called Donald Trump a “total and complete dipshit”. Although that video was clearly false, it did show the potential of the technology to meddle in elections and spread disinformation.
Capitalism and deepfakes
In addition to the threat to political stability, the benefits and threats posed by deepfakes are often framed in a capitalistic context
Art — Artists use deepfakes technology to generate new content from existing media created by them or by other artists.
Caller response services — Provide tailored answers to caller requests that involve simplified tasks (e.g. triaging and call forwarding to a human).
Customer support — These services use deepfake audio to provide basic information such as an account balance.
Entertainment — Movies and video games clone actors’ voices and faces because of convenience or even for humourous purposes.
Deception — Fabricating false evidence to inculpate — or exculpate — people in a lawsuit.
Fraud — Impersonate people to gain access to confidential information (e.g. credit cards) or prompt people to act (e.g. impersonate a CEO and request a money transfer).
Stock manipulation — Deepfake content such as videos from CEOs announcing untrue news such as massive layoffs, new patents, or an imminent merger can have a massive impact on a company’s stock.
As a result of that financial focus, tech companies and governments have concentrated their efforts towards assessing if digital content is a deepfake or not. Hence, the proliferation of tools aimed to “certify” content’s provenance as well as legal requirements in some countries to label deepfakes.
And many people share the same viewpoint. It’s not uncommon that, when discussing deepfakes, my interlocutors dismiss their impact with remarks such as “It’s easy now to spot if they’re fake or not”.
But the reality is that women bear the brunt of this technology.
A 2019 study found that 96% of deepfakes are of non-consensual sexual nature, of which 99% are made of women. As I mentioned in the article Misogyny’s New Clothes, they are a well-oiled misogyny tool:
They are aimed to silence and shame women. That includes women politicians. 42% of women parliamentarians worldwide have experienced extremely humiliating or sexually-charged images of themselves spread through social media.
They objectify women by dismembering their bodies — faces, heads, bodies, arms, legs — without their permission and reassembling them as virtual Frankensteins.
They are the newest iteration of revenge porn — hate your colleagues? Tired of the women in your cohort ignoring you? You create deepfake videos from them made from their LinkedIn profile photos and university face books and plaster the internet with them.
They disempower victims — Unlike “older” misogyny tools, women cannot control the origin of deepfakes, how they spread, or how to eliminate them. Once they are created, women’s only recourse is to reach out directly to the platforms and websites hosting them and ask for removal.
If 96% are non-consensual porn, why don’t we do anything about it?
We think they are not as harmful as “real” porn because the victim didn’t participate in them. What we miss it’s that we “see” the world with our minds, not with our eyes. If you want to have a taste of how that feels, you can watch the chilling 18-minute documentary My Blonde GF by The Guardian where the writer Helen Mort details her experience of being deepfaked for pornography.
Knowing that it’s fake is of little relief when you know that your family, friends, and colleagues have watched or could eventually watch them. Moreover, there is research proving that deepfake videos create false memories.
As we believe that “it’s not the real you, it’s fake”, victims receive little support from the justice system and governments in general. You can watch this 5-minute video from Youtuber and ASMR (Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response) artist Gibi who has been repeatedly targeted by deepfakes and who shares the very real consequences of this practice that is perfectly legal in most countries.
Talking about governments, let’s check how countries regulate deepfakes.
“Companies have to get consent from individuals before making a deepfake of them, and they must authenticate users’ real identities.
The service providers must establish and improve rumor refutation mechanisms.
The deepfakes created can’t be used to engage in activities prohibited by laws and administrative regulations.
Providers of deep synthesis services must add a signature or watermark to show the work is a synthetic one to avoid public confusion or misidentification.”
On Friday 8th December 2023, the European Parliament and the Council reached a political agreement on the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), proposed by the Commission in April 2021. Although the full text is not available yet, the Commission published an announcement where deepfakes are categorised as specific transparency risks
“Deep fakes and other AI generated content will have to be labelled as such, and users need to be informed when biometric categorisation or emotion recognition systems are being used. In addition, providers will have to design systems in a way that synthetic audio, video, text and images content is marked in a machine-readable format, and detectable as artificially generated or manipulated.”
The remedy of our patriarchal society against physical violence towards women has been to encourage them to self-suppress their rights so that the perpetrators can roam free.
For example, we tell women that to avoid becoming a victim of violence they should stay at home at night, avoid dark places, or don’t wear miniskirts. Failure to do so and get harmed is met with remarks such as “She was looking for it”.
I hope you’re not expecting me to exhort women to disappear from Instagram, get rid of their profile photos on LinkedIn, or stop publishing videos on TikTok. All the opposite. It’s not for us to hide from deepfake predators, it’s for platforms and regulators to do their job.
My call to action to you is threefold
1.- Take space: Let’s not allow this technology to make us invisible on social media — hiding has never challenged the status quo. It’s a survival mechanism. If we hide now because we’re afraid of deepfakes, we’ll never be safe on the internet again.
3.- Demand action: Lobby to make platforms, software development companies, and governments accountable for making us safe from non-consensual sexual deepfakes.
BACK TO YOU: What’s your take on deepfakes? Should they be fully banned? How do you believe the benefits outweigh the risks?
PS. You and AI
Are you worried about the impact of AI impact on your job, your organisation, and the future of the planet but you feel it’d take you years to ramp up your AI literacy?
Do you want to explore how to responsibly leverage AI in your organisation to boost innovation, productivity, and revenue but feel overwhelmed by the quantity and breadth of information available?
Are you concerned because your clients are prioritising AI but you keep procrastinating on learning about it because you think you’re not “smart enough”?
This year I ran the quiz “How much is patriarchy ruling your life and career?” As I mentioned in this article, 94% of you believe that “you should be able to achieve a life-work balance.”
What was the next top patriarchal belief among the survey respondents? 67% of you answered that “Women are naturally more collaborative and empathic.”
Let me demonstrate to you that this “collaboration and empathy female gene” is a myth that hurts women’s careers and what to do instead.
Women are “more” collaborative
Human beings are gregarious species. And it’s not fortuitous. We are rather weak animals and we cannot thrive on our own. We need the protection and support of a group to survive.
So, if as a species we don’t have any other choice than to be collaborative, how come this characteristic is perceived as a “feminine” trait? Because it serves the patriarchy to thrive and women to survive:
The myth that “women are naturally collaborative” is an excellent cover-up to shove all the non-promotable admin work to women — office work — and feel comfortable claiming weaponised incompetence — faking incompetence at any one task (usually an unpleasant one) to get out of doing it.
Society teaches women that we’re “human doings” rather than “human beings “— our “worth” is perceived to be attached to what we do for others rather than inherent to being a person. Hence, women collaborate as a way to show how valuable they are.
Women belong to a lower-power group so they don’t have the choice to be — or appear to be — collaborative with other low-power individuals to achieve their objectives, especially if those goals challenge the status quo.
Simply put, empathy is our ability to guess how other people feel, what their emotions are. They are guesses because we cannot feel others’ feelings — emotions are constructed by us. As psychologist and neuroscientist professor Lisa Feldman Barrett says “The [facial] expressions [of emotion] that we’ve been told are the correct ones are just stereotypes and people express in many different ways.”
Dr. Feldman Barret posits that we’re taught those “emotion concepts” by our parents
You don’t have to teach children to have feelings. Babies can feel distress, they can feel pleasure and they do, they can certainly be aroused or calm. But emotion concepts — like sadness when something bad happens — are taught to children, not always explicitly.
That’s for example the reason that in our culture we have the “sadness” emotion concept but Tahitian culture doesn’t. “Instead they have a word whose closest translation would be “the kind of fatigue you feel when you have the flu.” It’s not the equivalent of sadness, that’s what they feel in situations where we would feel sad.”
So, humans “learn” about emotions and the expectations from others about how to express them since we’re babies, without gender distinctions. Then, why women are the “empathic” ones?
Let’s see what are our expectations from an “empathic” person:
Mimicking the emotional state of the other person in our face and body — if a person cries, an empathic person should “look” sad.
Labeling and reassuring the other person’s feelings — when a person complains, an empathic person may respond “I can see why you’re so frustrated”.
Providing support — when a person shares that they are sad, an empathic person may offer a hug or a comforting hand on their shoulder and ask what they can do to alleviate the sorrow.
It sounds like a lot of effort, doesn’t it? That’s the reason patriarchy has assigned it to women:
If we’re genetically programmed to be empathic, it’ll be our obligation to be attuned to others’ needs and, as a consequence, fulfil their demands.
We’ll be expected to clock countless hours towards emotional labour— checking the team’s mood and being the emotional caregivers of the workplace.
Assigning all carework to us will be a no-brainer — we’re genetically pre-programmed to “sense” others’ needs.
Women expect other women to be collaborative and empathic by default. Otherwise, we label them “bad women” and wish them hell, as Madeleine Albright did in her keynote speech at the Celebrating Inspiration luncheon with the WNBA’s All-Decade Team in 2006.
“There is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.”
Whilst we women are very busy throwing bricks at other women, men reap the benefits of being seen as collaborative and empathic (not too much though, otherwise, they lose “toxic masculinity” points with their colleagues). What does that look like?
We overpraise men that show any kind of collaborative or empathic behaviour — no matter how small.
We absolve men for not pulling their weight and for disregarding the impact of their actions on others. After all, “boys will be boys”.
The good news: Collaboration and empathy are learned skills
We’ve forgotten that we teach children to share their toys and play together as well as to “read” other people’s emotions. Instead, we have bought into the patriarchal tropes about women’s natural talents.
But there is a remedy. If we acknowledge that collaboration and empathy are learned skills, that means that
People can teach them.
People can master them.
People can be held accountable.
Conclusion
The belief that women are naturally more collaborative and empathic is a social construct reinforced by articles, books, and social media. When we stand by it, we reinforce the patriarchal status quo.
On the flip side, we have a lot to gain by remembering that collaboration and caring for our communities are learned skills.
Your homework:
Allow yourself not to be collaborative or “empathic” when it doesn’t serve you well (for example, when you’re snowed under by “office work”).
When colleagues hide their rudeness and individualism behind gender tropes around empathy and collaboration, remind them that those skills can be taught and learned, as we do with children.
BACK TO YOU: Where do you stand on the genetic predisposition of women for collaboration and empathy?
Feminist Tech Career Accelerator
Three things are keeping you from getting the tech career you deserve
Your Brain * Your Education * Patriarchy
Thrive In Your Tech Career With Feminist Guidance
Achieve your career goals * Work smart * Earn more
Each time you’re confronted with a choice, what you do depends on how you think and feel about that decision. Let me show you what I mean with an example:
If you see a job advertised and you think “I already have 60% of the requirements”, that may make you feel energised and prompt you to apply.
On the other hand, if you think “I only have 60% of the requirements”, you may feel discouragement and, as a result, you won’t apply for the job.
Is not amazing how your brain works?
And I have more news for you. Your brain has not made that decision randomly. Instead, it has been “educated” on the “right” choices for you based on your lived experience and the interaction with your environment (other people, your workplace, society, nature…).
This has created a vault of “beliefs”
Your beliefs about yourself (I’m a genius/I’m disorganised).
Your beliefs about other people (people are only interested in money/the rich don’t care about the planet).
Your beliefs about the way the world is organised (I need to go to university to get a good job, promotions go to those that work hard).
Of course, all the patriarchal rules embedded in your socialisation contribute to your beliefs and choices. Some of them appear in more prominent ways than others and I wanted to which ones impacted you more…
So I asked you 🙂
Early this year, I ran a quiz called “How much is patriarchy ruling your life and career?” It had 20 statements that respondents had to ask either as “mostly true” or “mostly false”.
What did you tell me?
By a huge margin, you told me that you believe that “You should be able to achieve a work-life balance.”
Before you start recriminating yourself or wondering if you “got it wrong”, I want to reassure you that my aim is not to shame you for what you believe in — this is a love letter, after all. Instead, it’s to have a conversation about this belief and see how it serves you.
The patriarchal myth of work-life balance
You may now be thinking “Patricia, you have it all wrong, we all should aspire to a work-life balance” or “Patricia, this is not patriarchal at all, it’s not about men and women”.
Let’s start by examining each word in the construct “work-life balance”
First, let’s notice that we say “work-life” and not “life-work” balance. Is it a coincidence that the word “work” comes first?
What does the binary life vs work tell you? Maybe your work is not part of your life? Or perhaps that your work exists in a different universe isolated from your personal life?
And what about balance? Does that mean that you have always to strive for 50% allocation for work and 50% for personal life? Does your “unpaid” work count towards “work” or “life”? What about volunteering? And what about sleeping and eating?
My thoughts about why “life-work balance” is not serving you
You bear the mental and physical brunt of seamlessly making your life look as if it were a scripted musical.
You dismiss the huge impact your personal and professional lives have on each other, which makes you feel overwhelmed.
You shame yourself because you’re unable to achieve “the balance”.
You don’t say “no” to projects, activities, and tasks that don’t serve you well because you tell yourself that you “should” be able to make it all fit in.
You blame your lack of “time management skills” when you don’t manage to cross out all the items in your ever-growing to-do lists (yes, I wrote the word list in plural on purpose).
And my thoughts on how the “work-life balance” trope serves the patriarchy
As a “productive” female employee, society shifts the onus to you alone about handling your personal challenges (caregiving, chronic illnesses).
Your employer is right to assume that you’re committed to your career only if you accept all the projects and tasks thrown at you.
There is for sure a “work-life balance” somewhere and you should be able to find it if you are “smart enough”.
You don’t have too many things on your plate — you only must try harder at time management.
You’re rightly patronised about the choices you make — others know better what you should do to achieve “work-life balance”.
You may be “fixed” through expensive and gruelling programs that promise to teach you the “ultimate time management tools”.
What would happen if you dared to replace the thought “You should be able to achieve a work-life balance” with “Work-life balance is a patriarchal construct and I don’t need to abide by it”?
My answer
You’d congratulate yourself for being able to prioritise accordingly all the hats you wear (paid worker, unpaid worker, partner, student, parent, daughter, sister, activist…).
You’d drop the ball “kindly” for activities that don’t need to be perfect (scoop — 99% of tasks aren’t!).
You’d say “no” without remorse to projects and tasks that don’t serve you well.
You’d know that the patriarchal system plays a role in your thoughts and beliefs so you’d learn how to recognise them for what they are — “thoughts” — and not facts.
You’d step into your wisdom — embracing that you’re an expert in your own life.
Your mission would be to get clarity on what serves you well rather than crowdsourcing “advice”.
You’d be kind to yourself as if you were your best friend.
What about you? What do you think would be the worst thing that could happen if you’d allow yourself to debunk the myth that you should achieve work-life balance”? And the best thing?
I cannot wait to read your answers.
A big hug,
Patricia
Feminist Tech Career Accelerator
Three things are keeping you from getting the tech career you deserve
Your Brain * Your Education * Patriarchy
Thrive In Your Tech Career With Feminist Guidance
Achieve your career goals * Work smart * Earn more
Generative AI — and more precisely ChatGPT and text-to-image tools like Midjourney — have prompted a flurry of strikes and pushback from visual and writing professionals. And rightly so.
The reason? Book authors, painters, and screenwriters feel that’s unfair that tech companies earn money by creating tools based on scrapping their work result of many years spent learning their craft. All that without acknowledging intellectual property or providing financial compensation.
They say that this is “the first time in history” this has happened.
I dissent. This has been happening for centuries — to women. Let me explain.
There are three reasons that typically come up to explain why there haven’t been more women artists and scientists through the centuries:
Women have been too busy with children and house chores to dedicate time — and have the space — to scientific and artistic pursuits.
In many cultures, men have been priorised to go to school and university over women.
To avoid bias against their work, some women decided to publish their work under a male pen name or to disguise themselves as men
But there is a fourth cause. When women’s outstanding work has been credited to a man. So although the work itself may have won a Nobel prize or be showcased in museums, libraries, and galleries, it has been attributed to a man instead of the rightful female author.
Hepeating: When a man takes credit for what a woman already said
Let’s review some unsung sheroes of science and art.
Science and art — a land with no women?
Let’s start with science
One of the most famous cases is that of Rosalind Frankin. Her “work was central to the understanding of the molecular structures of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid)” but her contribution was erased by the academic community that awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1962 to Francis Crick, James Watson, and Maurice Wilkins — who used part of her research — for the discovery of the DNA double helix.
Candace Pert discovered the brain’s opiate receptor during her time as a graduate student at Johns Hopkins University. The discovery led to an award for her professor, Dr. Solomon Snyder. When she protested the fact that her contribution had been neglected, he replied, “That’s how the game is played.”
In the 12th century, “Trota of Salerno” authors a gynecology handbook, On the Sufferings of Women. However, until the end of the last century, sholars falsely assumed Trota was a man.
In 1818, “Mary Shelley publishes Frankenstein anonymously. Her husband pens the preface and people assume he was behind it.”
In 1859, “after 10 years working with engineers to design signal flares, Martha Coston is listed as “administratrix” on the patent. Her long-dead husband is listed as the inventor.”
In 1970, “forty-six female researchers sued the magazine Newsweek, alleging that male writers and editors took all the credit for their efforts”.
And the uncredited others
Healers and midwives — Women were the original healers, using herbs and remedies to cure alignments and help with deliveries, contraception, and abortion. As no good deed goes unpunished, a lot of them would end up burning at the stake. How much of our current medicine is based on those uncredited healers?
Above I shared some examples of women’s extraordinary work stolen by others (or conveniently forgotten).
But the problem runs deeper because we’re educated to consider men’s contributions extraordinary whilst than of women’s ordinary.
Let’s take parenthood. A woman takes her children to school — it’s her job. A man takes his children to school — he’s a dedicated father and a beacon for other parents.
A woman leads a project — she’s organised. A man leads a project — he’s a project manager.
Women are “cooks” and men are “chefs”.
And the list goes on…
What to do differently?
Let’s start acknowledging good work by women — and I’m very intentional when I say “good” and not “stellar” work.
At the same time, let’s stop glorifying each little thing a man does. Is really setting up the washing machine such a big accomplishment?
But how to overcome millennia of indoctrination?
Five years ago, I published a post showcasing a 6-min TED talk from Kristen Pressner where she explained a practical technique to double-check our gender biases. It’s called “Flip it to test it!”
It’s a very simple method: When in doubt, flip the gender and see how it lands.
In practice
Would you praise John for taking his children to school if instead was their mother, Jane?
Would you diminish the role of Rita leading a project as simply being “a good team player” if Mike had led the project instead?
In summary, let’s purposely acknowledge the good work of women around us. We cannot overdo it — we have centuries to catch up on.
Feminist Tech Career Accelerator
Three things are keeping you from getting the tech career you deserve
Your Brain * Your Education * Patriarchy
Thrive In Your Tech Career With Feminist Guidance
Achieve your career goals * Work smart * Earn more
In the last two weeks, I’ve had the privilege to attend four different conferences focused on women and I’ve presented at two of them.
The topics discussed were as complex and rich as women’s lives: neurodiversity in the workplace, women in politics, childcare, artificial intelligence and the future of the female workforce, child labour, impossible goals and ambition, postpartum depression at work, career myths, women in tech, accessibility, quotas… and so many more.
The idea for this article came from my numerous “aha” moments during talks, panels, and conversations at those events. I wanted to share them broadly so others could benefit as well.
I hope you find those insights as inspiring, stimulating, and actionable as I did.
The keynote speakers and panels were excellent. The discussions were thought-provoking and space was held for people to voice their dissent. I especially appreciated listening to women politicians discuss feminist issues.
Below are some of my highlights
The need to find a space for feminist men.
It’s time for us to go outside our comfort zone.
“If men had the menopause, Trafalgar Square Fountain would be pouring oestrogen gel.”
If we want to talk about averages, the average voter is a woman. There are slightly more women than men (51% women) and they live longer.
Men-only decision-making is not legitimate, i.e. not democratic. Women make up the majority of individuals in the UK but the minority in decision-making. Overall, diversity is an issue of legitimacy.
The prison system for women forgets their children.
Challenging that anti-blackness/racism is not seen as a topic at the top of the agenda for the next election.
We believe “tradition matters” so things have gone backwards from the pandemic for women.
In Australia, the Labour Party enforced gender quotas within the party. That led to increasing women’s representation to 50%. The Conservative Party went for mentoring women — no quotas — and that only increased women’s participation to 30%.
There is a growing toxicity in X/Twitter against women. Toxic men’s content gets promoted. We need better regulation of social media.
More women vote but decide later in the game.
We cannot afford not to be bold with childcare. The ROI is one of the highest.
We need to treat childcare as infrastructure.
There are more portraits of horses in parliament than of women.
Empowered to Lead Conference 2023
On Saturday 28th October, I attended the “Empowered to Lead” Conference 2023 organised by She leads for legacy — a community of individuals and organisations working together to reduce the barriers faced by Black female professionals aspiring for senior leadership and board level positions.
It was an amazing day! I didn’t stop all day: listening to inspiring role models, taking notes, and meeting great women.
We ask people what they want to do only when they are children — that’s wrong. We need to learn and unlearn to take up the space we deserve.
Three nuggets of wisdom: Audacity/confidence, ambition, and creativity/curiosity.
Audacity— Every day we give permission to others to define us. Audacity is about being bold. Overconsultation kills your dream. It’s about going for it even if you feel fear.
Creativity & curiosity — takes discipline not to focus on the things that are already there. Embrace diverse thinking.
Question 1: What if you were the most audacious, the most ambitious, and the most creative?
Question 2: May you die empty? Would you have used all your internal resources?
Baroness Floella Benjamin DBE
Childhood lasts a lifetime. We need to tell children that they are worth it.
Over 250 children die from suicide a year.
When she arrived in the UK, there were signs with the text “No Irish, no dogs, no coloureds”.
After Brexit, a man pushed his trolley onto her and told her, “What are you still doing here?” She replied, “I’m here changing the world, what are you doing here?”
She was the first anchor-woman to appear pregnant on TV in the world.
“I pushed the ladder down for others.”
“The wise man forgives but doesn’t forget. If you don’t forgive you become a victim.”
‘Every disappointment is an appointment with something better’.
Jenny Garrett OBE
Rather than talking about “underrepresentation”, let’s talk about “underestimation”.
Nadine Benjamin MBE
What do you think you sound? Does how you sound support who you want to be?
You’re a queen. Show up for yourself.
Additionally, Sue Lightup shared details about the partnership between Queen Bee Coaching (QBC) — an organisation for which I volunteer as a coach — and She Leads for Legacy (SLL).
Last year, QBC successfully worked with SLL as an ally, providing a cohort of 8 black women from the SLL network with individual coaching from QBC plus motivational leadership from SLL.
At the conference, the application process for the second cohort was launched!
Women in Tech Festival
I delivered a keynote at this event on Tuesday 31st October. The topic was the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the future of the female workforce.
When I asked the 200+ attendees if they felt that the usage of AI would create or destroy jobs for them, I was surprised to see that the audience was overwhelmingly positive about the adoption of this technology.
Through my talk, I shared the myths we have about technology (our all-or-nothing mindset), what we know about the impact of AI on the workforce from workers whose experience is orchestrated by algorithms, and four different ways in which we can use AI to progress in our careers.
The talk was very well received and people approached me afterwards sharing how much the keynote had made them reflect on the impact of AI on the labour market. I also volunteered for mentoring sessions during the festival and all my on-the-fly mentees told me that the talk had provided them with a blueprint for how to make AI work for them.
I also collected gems of wisdom from other women’s interventions
Our workplaces worship the mythical “uber-productive” employee.
We must be willing to set boundaries around what we’re willing to do and what not.
It may be difficult to attract women to tech startups. One reason is that it’s riskier, so women may prefer to go to more established companies.
Workforce diversity is paramount to mitigate biases in generative AI tools.
I found the panel about quotas for women in leadership especially insightful
Targets vs quotas: “A target is an aspiration whilst a quota must be met”.
“Quotas shock the system but they work”.
Panelists shared evidence of how a more diverse leadership led to a more diverse offering and benefits for customers.
For quotas to work is crucial to look at the data. Depending on the category, it may be difficult to get those data. You need to build trust — show that’s for a good purpose.
In law firms, you can have 60% of solicitors that are women but when you look at the partners is a different story — they are mostly men.
A culture of presenteeism hurts women in the workplace.
Organisations lose a lot of women through perimenopause and menopause because they don’t feel supported.
There was a very interesting panel on neurodiversity in the workplace
Neurodivergent criteria have been developed using neurodivergent men as the standard so often they miss women.
The stereotype is that if you have ADHD, you should do badly in your studies. For example, a woman struggled to get an ADHD diagnosis because she had completed a PhD.
Women mask neurodivergent behaviours better than men. Masking requires a lot of effort and it’s very taxing.
We need more openness about neurodiversity in the workplace.
The title of my talk was “Seven Counterintuitive Secrets to a Thriving Career in Tech” and the purpose was to share with the audience key learnings from my career in tech across 3 continents, spearheading several DEI initiatives in tech, coaching and mentoring women and people from underrepresented communities in tech, as well as writing a book about how women succeed in tech worldwide.
First, I debunked common beliefs such as that there is a simple solution to the lack of women in leadership positions in tech or that you need to be fixed to get to the top. Then, I presented 7 proven strategies to help the audience build a successful, resilient, and sustainable career in tech.
I got very positive feedback about the talk during the day and many women have reached out on social media since to share how they’ve already started applying some of the strategies.
Some takeaways from other talks:
I loved Becki Howarth’s interactive talk about allyship at work where she shared how you can be an ally in four different aspects:
Communication and decision-making — think about power dynamics, amplify others, don’t interrupt, and create a system that enables equal participation.
Calling out (everyday) sexism — use gender-neutral language, you don’t need to challenge directly, support the recipient (corridor conversations).
Stuff around the edges of work — create space for people to connect organically, don’t pressure people to share, and rotate social responsibilities so everyone pulls their weight.
Taking on new opportunities — some people need more encouragement than others, and ask — don’t assume.
The talk of Lydia Hawthorn about postpartum depression in the workplace was both heartbreaking and inspiring. She provided true gems of wisdom:
Up to 15% of women will experience postpartum depression.
Talk about the possibility of postpartum depression before it happens.
Talk to your employer about flexible options.
Consider a parent-buddy scheme at work.
Coaching and therapy can be lifesaving.
Amelia Caffrey gave a very dynamic talk about how to use ChatGPT for coding. One of the most interesting aspects she brought up for me is that there is no more excuse to write inaccessible code. For example, you can add in the prompt the requisite that the code must be accessible for people using screen readers.
Finally, one of the most touching talks was from Eleanor Harry, Founder and CEO of HACE: Data Changing Child Labour. Their mission is to eradicate child labour in company supply chains.
There are 160 million children in child labour as of 2020. HACE is launching the Child Labour Index; the only quantitative metric in the world for child labour performance at a company level. Their scoring methodology is based on cutting-edge AI technologies, combined with HACE’s subject matter expertise. The expectation is the index provides the investor community with quantitative leverage to push for stronger company performance on child labour.
Eleanor’s talk was an inspiring example of what tech and AI for good look like.
Back to you
With so many men competing in the news, social media, and bookstores for your attention, how are you making sure you give other women’s wisdom the consideration it deserves?
Work with me — My special offer
“If somebody is unhappy with your life, it shouldn’t be you.”
You have 55 days to the end of 2023. I dare you to
Leave behind the tiring to-do list imposed by society’s expectations.
Learn how to love who you truly are.
Become your own version of success.
If that resonates with you, my 3-month 1:1 coaching program “Upwards and Onwards” is for you.
For £875.00, we’ll dive into where you are now and the results you want to create, we’ll uncover the obstacles in your way, explore strategies to overcome them, and implement a plan.
This is the final article in a trilogy based on my summer holiday. Each piece marks an important milestone in my evolution as an activist for women’s rights and also as a person. The first one was about the invisibility of women in public spaces (Monumental Inequity: The Missing Women). The second one was about the visibility of harassment in the workplace.
This one comes full circle. It’s about the invisibility of a very specific kind of work: caregiving.
The invisibility of carework
On August 25th my family and I traveled from Malta, where we had spent one week of holiday, to Vigo, in the Northwest of Spain. My plan was to spend 10 additional vacation days with my parents and brother before coming back to the UK.
We had a fluid plan for the remaining days: Going to Porto one day, visiting my grandmother on her farm, going to Santiago de Compostela for shopping, celebrating my mother and sister-in-law birthday’s, and visiting some cool restaurants.
The next day, August 26th, my mother broke her hip whilst walking to Vigo downtown.
From there, it was all a roller-coaster. All comes in flashbacks
Going in the ambulance with my mother.
Waiting in the emergency ward for the doctors to confirm what my mother had sensed, she had a broken hip.
Learning how to help my mother whilst minimising hurting her.
Sleeping in a hospital care chair.
Trying to guess went my mother was suffering because of her tendency to put up with pain.
Going to the hospital cafeteria for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
Unfortunately, I was not surprised by the amount of work involved.
My current research for the book How Women Succeed in Tech has confirmed the huge penalty imposed by eldercare on women. It’s typically not recognised in the workplace leave entitlements — like parental leave — or by the state, so women are left to shoulder the brunt of the care to reduce the financial burden even to the extent, in some cases, of being pushed to make the hard decision to not have children.
All my life, I’ve seen the women in my family – my grandmother and aunts – assume the care of their elders and sick husbands on top of their work. Without transition and, as expected, without retribution.
What did surprise me was the mental load of my conflicting emotions. Feeling
Guilty when thinking that I was not doing enough in my role as caregiver.
Selfish the nights I shifted turns with my father and I went to sleep at my brother’s house whilst he slept at the hospital.
Resentful and angry because after so many months and years of waiting for this reunion, I felt we didn’t deserve to spend it in the hospital.
Sad when my mother would blame herself for “ruining” the holidays for everybody.
Inadequate for not knowing off the bat how to move the hospital bed or make work the pay-as-you-go TV.
What helped? Remembering my training as a life coach. Through self-coaching techniques.
I limited useless rumination. Early in the ordeal, I was able to pause and ask myself, “What is the true purpose of this holiday?”. I answered, “To be with my family”. From that moment, I decided that the whole incident had not detracted from the purpose of the trip and that from that point of view, the holiday was a success.
It also helped to reduce the tendency to give advice to others about what to think or feel. Instead, I was often able to shift into curiosity and spend more time listening and asking about their thoughts and feelings.
I put things into context. I asked myself, “If my mother were to break her hip anyway and I could be anywhere in the world, what would have been my choice?”. The answer was straightforward. It would be exactly as it happened.
I gave myself permission to name and process my emotions. Not only anger, disappointment, or sadness but also relief when my mother came back from the successful surgery and joy when I saw her walking the next day.
Coming back to the UK
I was not prepared for the exhaustion and mental fatigue that I experienced once back in Manchester. I guess that I thought that as soon as I’d be home, I’d resume my normal life.
Nothing farther from the truth. I felt depleted mentally and physically. I had plenty of deadlines but my brain and body wanted to rest.
Then, I did something unusual for me, I pushed back on agreed deadlines.
I consider myself very dependable, so it was hard to share with people what happened and ask for more time to send an article, prepare a presentation, or record a video.
The good news was that everybody was very understanding. Deadlines were extended and I delivered the work.
I felt relieved and thankful.
Still, I thought, “What if this was a common occurrence?”, “Would the people around me have been so understanding?“
My learnings
Reading a book teaching how to drive a car is not the same as driving it. Watching a video about unconscious bias doesn’t mean that we stop being affected by stereotypes.
My research into unpaid caregiving opened my eyes to this invisible sink of women’s work. Through the data and the stories of women, I was able to quantify the effort not recognised, the time invested, the unearned money, and the lost career opportunities.
But this experience made it personal and urgent. Because in a world that still grapples with recognizing childcare as an infrastructure, eldercare is invisible, even if our societies get older and older.
Recently, I was at the feminist Fawcett Conference 2023 with the theme Women Win Elections! Of course, support for mothers was at the top of the agenda from the early morning. And rightly so.
What concerned me it’s that it was presented as “the” item to tackle, even if during the event it became clear that eldercare — among other challenges — needs to be addressed for women to present themselves as political candidates.
Then, why do we only focus on childcare? Because we continue to think of women as second-class citizens who have only the right to one “ask” at a time. And that is “childcare”.
However, this is not a contest. Chances are that as a woman you may become a “sandwich carer” at some point — those who care for both sick, disabled, or older relatives and dependent children.
In 2019, the UK Office for National Statistics reported that sandwich carers (about 3% of the UK general population) were more likely to report symptoms of mental ill-health, feel less satisfied with life, and struggle financially compared with the general population. Moreover, the prevalence of mental ill-health increases with the amount of care given per week.
In summary, asking our societies to recognise the multiple identities women can embody beyond motherhood is “too much”, so we keep invisibilizing and minimising our efforts. We think that by patiently staying in line and asking for one “favour” at a time we’ll get to the finish line of gender equality.
I don’t want to die feeling that I’m the child of a lesser god. Do you?
We women need to stop conforming ourselves with less and demand much more from our partners, our families, our workplaces, our society, and our governments.
We need to stop “being mindful” of the inflation, the NHS crisis, the strikes, the wars…
We need to stop believing that we need to be the adults in the room, the ones that are ready to make sacrifices for the common good, the half of the humanity that is expected to “shut up and do the work”.
Let’s be bold and put ourselves first. Because when women win, 8 billion people win.
Thanks for your support
When I started writing these three articles, I thought of them as three distinct episodes with the common thread of my holidays and women. I was surprised how “visibility” weaved into each of them naturally.
Allowing myself the time for this exploration has been liberating and, at the same time, constraining. Liberating because of the format but constraining because of my self-imposed commitment to both exploring the uncomfortable aspects of the topics as well as reflecting on the alternatives.
Thanks again for accompanying me along this trilogy.
Work with me — My special offer
“What if the rest of this year is the best of this year?”
You have 75 days to the end of 2023. You can continue to do what you’re doing. But there is a different way.
What if you could master your mind so you could take your life and career to a whole new level?
What if you could learn how not to depend on others’ praise and criticism so you could feel worthy of love and success from the insight?
What if you could stop the habits that don’t serve you well and have a better work-life balance?
If that resonates with you, my 3-month 1:1 coaching program “Upwards and Onwards” is for you.
For £875.00, we’ll dive into where you are now and the results you want to create, we’ll uncover the obstacles in your way, explore strategies to overcome them, and implement a plan.
I cannot recall how many times I’ve heard women saying that their problem is “time management”. They want to get coached on how they can finally can tick all the items off their to-do list and “don’t feel behind” anymore.
I’d love to tell you that I fix them, that I have a magic wand that makes them “less lazy”, “more focused”, and “better at prioritisation” — their words, not mine. But they’re not the ones that need fixing.
The reality is that when we look in detail, the problem is somewhere else.
Patriarchal brainwashing
Our brains are rotten by patriarchal conditioning:
Women have been trained to people-please — As women, we’re “human doings” not “human bodies”, so our value resides on what we do for others. How does that work in practice? We’re taught that “good girls” don’t say no. In the end, the happiness of 4 billion on this planet depends on us making their lives easier.
We’ve been indoctrinated in the idea that “women are innate multitaskers” — which we often showcase with pride as an advantage over men. Really? And all that in spite of scientific evidence that our brain is made for processing tasks one after the other and not in parallel. Often, when we think we’re “multitasking”, we’re simply task-switching: spending 1 minute on one task, 1 on another, coming back to the first one, and so on. This is extremely taxing — and takes longer than performing the tasks sequentially — as task-switching has a cost for the brain that each time has to stop, remember where it was previously, and restart.
The mental model that our body shouldn’t be a hindrance — It’s up to us to catch up. Do you have menstrual cramps? Hot flashes? Excruciating pain from endometriosis? Heavy bleeding from fibroids? Or are you breastfeeding? Keep working and ensure you make up for the lost time so nobody can say that you’re not as reliable, hardworking, and valuable as your male colleagues.
The “give back” tasks — If you’re a professional woman, you’ll be expected to give uncountable hours of your time towards free mentoring, coaching, and inspirational speaking to younger women. The more successful you are, the more hours. In the meantime, the men around you will focus on their careers.
Women are the joker for any unexpected task — A child gets sick? You’re the mum. Catering didn’t arrive for the company happy hour? You’re the one to go to the supermarket and save the day. Your manager doesn’t have the time to onboard the new trainee? You’ll take one for the team.
The tasks inherent to being “seen” as a professional woman — It’s a job in itself to dress professionally — get the perfect sartorial choice that exudes confidence, “good” taste, and feminity — and look professionally — makeup, nails, and hairdressing. However, not all women have the same experience… for some, it’s even worse. For example, Black women “professional” hairdressing is especially taxing. Countless number of hours and money towards straightening their hair to mitigate the discrimination they suffer against Eurocentric stereotypes around what “professional” looks like.
Living in a world that is not made for women
Our own resignation at the fact that some tasks will take us more time because we’re women:
Toilet queues — I bet that if I add up all the time I’ve spent queueing on public toilets during my life, it’d amount to at least half a year of my existence. And that’s even worse if you have children — it goes without saying that the burden is on you to take them to the toilet/changing room with you.
The duty of moving as fast as the slowest person in the room — Welcome to the misery of public transport: underground and train stations without lifts for when you take your old mother to the doctor, buses that require folding pushchairs, and toddlers with a mind of their own.
Getting the same pension as a White man — because of the gender pay gap and unequal pay, women should work longer if they want to cumulate the same pension pot that White men. Again, not all women are created equal. Ethnicity, disability, and LGBTQUIA+ identities have a compounding negative effect on the gender pay gap.
Maternity leave — no need to expand on the well-documented harm of the #MommyTrack to women’s career prospects.
Male medicine — Women are at the mercy of a healthcare system that doesn’t want them. The 4 billion women in the world are extremely inconvenient with their hormones. The solution so far has been to ignore women’s pain altogether, perpetually underfunding research on their illnesses and how the same health conditions affect them differently than men. As a consequence, when we go to the doctor, we never know if our symptoms will be addressed or will be diminished with an “it’s probably in your head” or if the medicines that we consume will come with terrible secondary effects — and even life risks — because they haven’t tested in women.
Because whilst we’re blaming ourselves for our lack of time management skills and spiralling towards burnout, our writing, painting, sculpting, researching, volunteering, and leading go to the back burner.
That’s the true reason that most best-selling authors, CEOs, artists, and researchers are White men. They are not smarter. They simply have more time to focus and work on their areas of interest. They also have a room of their own.
This week, I invite you to commit an outrageous act — or an everyday rebellion — against patriarchy. Some ideas
Intentionally dropping the ball on any of the gendered tasks mentioned above.
Taking a paid sick day because you feel unwell — even if you’re not dying.
Resting as a form of self-care.
Reading a book for pleasure whilst there is a pile of dishes in the sink or the laundry pile is looking at you.
Shutting up when your brain screams at you that you should volunteer to bring a birthday cake to the office, take the meeting’s minutes, or carpool the neighbours’ children to a party.
Ignoring the emails of that colleague that’s trying to make you do that non-promotable work for him.
BACK TO YOU:Email me — or comment below — about your plan to impose your own agenda on the patriarchy this week.
Feminist Tech Career Accelerator
Three things are keeping you from getting the tech career you deserve
Your Brain * Your Education * Patriarchy
Thrive In Your Tech Career With Feminist Guidance
Achieve your career goals * Work smart * Earn more
I’m delighted to be featured in the last issue of The Mint Magazine on the digital economy. The piece, entitled Motherboard Matters, is my first contribution to an economics journal!
In this article (5-min read), I highlight how the pervasiveness of patriarchy, exceptionalism, and meritocracy in the technology sector is at the core of women’s battle for fair access to leadership positions in tech.
I also share how we need to overhaul tech so it moves from extracting to contributing to society and the planet.
Motherboard Matters
I’ve now been working for over 15 years as a head of services in the tech industry. Throughout my career, I’ve strived to support other professional women with the determination to see workplaces reach gender equity during my lifetime.
The pandemic has wrecked that hope in the tech sector even though it is thriving financially. The reason? Tech hasn’t seen the opportunities to challenge practices such as unpaid care work and the revered 40-hour workweek that keep women away from leadership positions. Instead, it has brushed off the problem with platitudes: flexible working… work from home… hybrid working…
This lack of questioning is the product of the pervasiveness of patriarchy, exceptionalism, and meritocracy in technology, which hinder the deep transformation required to upend the status quo. These characteristics are part of its DNA and have long stayed under the radar of most people, including myself.
When I started in software, I wasn’t particularly uncomfortable in a sector where you must work much harder to progress in your career if you are not simultaneously white, heterosexual, able, and male. I’ve been an immigrant all my life, so I was used to being “the other” and to have to prove myself over and over.
Then, in the early 2010s, Anne-Marie Slaughter wrote Why Women Still Can’t Have It All and Sheryl Sandberg published Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. In different ways, those powerful women sent the message that women didn’t have the same opportunities as men to get to the top and that imbalance had to be fixed.
Around that time, I was promoted. I quickly noticed that often I was the only female senior manager in projects and meetings. The smart and promising women that I had met years earlier had come back from maternity leave to unappealing part-time jobs, without access to the plumb assignments that lead to career progression.
The motherhood penalty revealed to me systemic patterns where before I’d seen only coincidences.
The tipping point was when I joined a group of professional women working in various industries and at all career levels. Our honest conversations about men stealing ideas, the harmful effects of unconscious bias, or the motherhood penalty revealed to me systemic patterns where before I’d seen only coincidences. That prompted me to create the first employee-led group focused on fostering gender equity at my company, which positive impact was recognised with the 2020 Women in Tech Changemakers UK award. I also spreadhead other initiatives to grow diversity and inclusion in other organisations. I also discovered that power asymmetry was not a bug but a feature embedded since the birth of tech.
In the 1930s, women were hired to solve mathematical problems that were considered at the time as repetitive work. Some of those calculations were as complex as estimating the number of rockets needed to make a plane airborne or determining how to get a human into space and back. When computers took off in the 1960s women became the programmers while men focused on the hardware which was regarded as the most challenging work. As programming gained status during the 1980s, men pushed women out of those jobs. That prompted a sharp increase in the salaries of software developers, institutionalising patriarchy and the gender pay gap.
Historically, tech has approached these issues by “fixing women.” For example, women in the sector are coached to develop stereotypical male leadership traits. In the past decade, tech leaders have promoted the abdication of responsibility for solving gender inequalities and charged women with mitigating the damages. For instance, female executives are expected to act as role models on top of their full-time jobs. This can go all the way from agreeing to be the company’s speaker at STEM events to sponsoring the female employee network.
This transfer of responsibility is also alive and well in start-up tech businesses. A venture capitalist shared with me his view that the key to increasing the funding received by women’s businesses was that they were mentored by successful female founders. I replied that those top performers were often overburdened by the demands of paying back to society and that men could also mentor women. Later that day, he asked me to mentor a woman with a promising business idea that he was trying to help. He introduced us via email mentioning my interest in supporting her and inviting us to connect. His “helping” was done.
In recent years, the most popular software development approach, agile, has become a staple of the business jargon. The origin of this methodology can be traced back to 2001 and 17 software developers unhappy about what they considered excessive planning and documentation practices. They came up with their own set of rules: The Agile Manifesto.
The rationale is that tech is special and its regulation is counterproductive and stifles innovation.
But agile is more than a project management approach. It buttresses tech’s deep cultural belief in exceptionalism, the idea that our sector is inherently different from, and even better than, all the others. This helps to explain how we allow tech companies to go fast and break things while we impose strict regulations on the food and drug industries. The rationale is that tech is special and its regulation is counterproductive and stifles innovation.
The debates about the ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI) are perfect examples of how this sector dodges the rules applied to other industries. For example, I recently met with other professionals to discuss future trends in support software. Everybody was very excited about the use of AI tools such as sentiment analysis to improve the user experience. Then, I brought up the proposal for regulating those applications released by the European Union a month earlier. The participants – who were unaware of the document – quickly asserted that the directive had nothing to do with support. In summary, norms are for others.
This framework conveniently disguises the dearth of opportunities for underrepresented groups as being the result of a lack of intelligence and skill.
And the most pernicious cultural tenet in tech is its self-proclaimed meritocracy. How do we heal a system that considers itself virtuous? The idea that tech is inherently fair is rooted in its connection to logic and mathematics which commonly translates as objectivity and reason. This framework conveniently disguises the dearth of opportunities for underrepresented groups as being the result of a lack of intelligence and skill.
Can we extricate patriarchy, exceptionalism, and meritocracy from tech? Yes, we can but it’ll need an overhaul of its vision, mission, and purpose. It’ll need humility.
What does that mean in practice?
First, it means moving away from methodologies that could foster power asymmetry between creators and users. Instead, we should adopt systems thinking and multi-stakeholder co-creation practices for the development of products, services, and workplaces.
Second, recognising that the financial success of our sector relies on innovations funded by governments and products purchased by customers. Hence, paying taxes that are commensurate with tech business profits is not philanthropy but a fair contribution to society.
Finally, abiding by the same rules and regulations imposed on any other sector with the potential of affecting billions of lives. Only then, will tech be able to deliver on its “Don’t be evil” promise.
Further reading
System map of the factors accounting for the low representation of women in leadership positions in tech companies.
Life under lockdown: Report on the impact of COVID-19 on professional women’s unpaid work
BACK TO YOU: What are your views on the topic? How does my story resonate with yours?
Feminist Tech Career Accelerator
Three things are keeping you from getting the tech career you deserve
Your Brain * Your Education * Patriarchy
Thrive In Your Tech Career With Feminist Guidance
Achieve your career goals * Work smart * Earn more
