It seems that everyone has an opinion about Facebook's stated goal of being a force for good in the world. Feminists online have also raised questions about the company's unusually exclusive all-male Board of Directors and about mega-powerful COO Sheryl Sandberg's public calls for women to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. As a cultural phenomenon of historic proportion, what does the Facebook IPO mean with regard to gender?

The all-male board of Facebook makes you wonder why a company serving a user base of at least 50% half women has no female representation on the board. We told ourselves that women board directors can build value and bring win-win strategies to the table - let's #changetheratio here.

Bloomberg's Carol Hymowitz contrasts the all male membership of the board with Facebook's avowed social mission to empower the world and to Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg's powerful advocacy for women.

Facebook generally declines to comment on issues like this. It's typical of Silicon Valley's libertarian-leaning culture to believe that the best way to overcome injustices connected to gender, race, class and sexual orientation, are to ignore the existence of gender, race, class and sexual orientation. That approach may leave unresolved long-standing institutional, economic and cultural factors that stand in the way of equal opportunity and which cannot be overcome by society as a whole through the self interest and sheer force of will of people on the margins of power.

Sheryl Sandberg is the second most visible person at Facebook and will likely become a billionaire in the IPO. She's often said to be a prominent advocate of women in the workplace.

Doug Barry points out on Jezebel, though, that Sandberg's position is a very particular one: that women are fundamentally responsible for their own career development in corporate America and need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Sandberg is well known for her 2010 TED talk Why we have too few women leaders, which has been viewed more than 1 million times.

Sandberg's message is directed at the elite crowd gathered at TED and adresses women who are not gaining top power positions in the organizations they work at. She offers three primary pieces of advice. "One, sit at the table," by which she means give yourself the credit you deserve and aim high. "Two, make your partner a real partner," or make sure that heterosexual married couples contain parents with equal earning power and responsibility and that men are encouraged to take responsibility around the house. "And three, don't leave before you leave," in other words keep seizing new opportunities despite the possibility you might take time off to have a child.

Those are relatively conservative political admonitions that speak primarily to the problems experienced by the women in society who are already closest to power.

Barry writes on Jezebel:

Not only is Sandberg exceptionally smart, but, after graduating from Harvard Business School, she landed a job at the World Bank as the chief of staff first for Larry H. Summers then the Treasury Secretary. A job at Google followed before she joined Facebook in 2008, an opportunity that Sandberg was prescient enough to take full advantage of. If success really is preparation meeting opportunity, Sandberg was more than prepared for her chance at professional success, but some women believe that when she insists on aiming high, she's discounting the fact that her meteoric rise owes itself, at least in part, to some very favorable circumstances (including the fact that her husband, Daniel Goldberg, is a successful entrepreneur in his own right and the couple doesn't have to worry about finding child care for their two sons).

Barry quotes Sylvia Ann Hewlett, president of the Center for Talent Innovation and director for the Gender and Policy Program at Columbia University:

I'm a huge fan of her accomplishments and think she's a huge role model in some ways, but I think she's overly critical of women because she's almost implying that they don't have the juice, the chutzpah, to go for it...I think she's had a golden path herself, and perhaps does not more readily understand that the real struggles are not having children or ambition. Women are, in fact, fierce in their ambition, but they find that they're actually derailed by other things, like they don't have a sponsor in their life that helps them go for it.

That paragraph had a soft ending; there are far more unpleasant ways that many women are derailed than by a lack of a sponsor at work.

Courteney Martin, on one of the web's most respected feminist blogs, Feministing, says that while Sandberg's message to individual women is valuable, it is just one story.

In essence, her message is tantamount to The American Dream for the 21st century woman: the problem is not sexism or racism or classism, the problem is not pathetic work-family policy at the federal level, the problem is not collective. The problem is you. In the Gospel of Sandberg, individual women must find partners who will share the load and negotiate fiercely, overcome their own guilt about not being able to be fully present parents, and "lean in" to their careers despite the lack of structural or systemic supports that might make that feel even slightly safe or rewarding.

Reading this profile of Sandberg, I was reminded of Nigerian novelist, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's, incredible TED Talk, in which she talks about "the danger of the single story." She explains, "The single story creates stereotypes. And the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story."

I actually think that Sandberg is smart and has great intentions with her message that women need to dig deep and stick to their own dreams. I agree with her in many ways... This is part of the story. But it's not the whole story.

The rest of the story is better told by women who didn't grow up with lots of familial and social support, women who didn't go to Harvard, women who weren't mentored by Larry Summers, women with different definitions of success and leadership.

To look at the bright side, perhaps Facebook's social technology will itself help other women tell their stories and hear the stories of women other than the most privileged elite.

The world's largest communication network between people is taking a big financial step, it's infamously opportunistic with changing ideas of privacy and it's lead by an all-male board and a woman whose perspective on gender is likely applauded by conservatives around the world. That all seems important to discuss.

On Jan 4, the "Shit Girls Say" meme was radically transformed. New York-based graphic designer & video blogger Franchesca Ramsey a.k.a. Chescaleigh unleashed "Shit White Girls Say to Black Girls", and it blew up the Internet. In the video, Ramsey plays her blonde-haired white friend who she portrays as curiously confused, and innocently ignorant. "Why isn't there a white entertainment television? The Jews were slaves too, and you don't hear us complaining all the time," Chescaleigh-as-white-girl asks the camera. Her white friend is completely unaware of fundamental cultural and racial differences between her and her black friend. It's these awkward moments that fuel the humor in this viral video.

When Franchesca appeared on Anderson Cooper a few days after the video blew up, Cooper asked *the question* that mainstream media was dying to know: Is the video racist?

"I don't think that talking about ignorance is racist," Franchesca tells Cooper. "And like I said, I'm not labeling anyone racist because that would infer that the statements were saying someone was better than another race - and that's not what any of the statements are doing." Shortly after her Anderson Cooper appearance, Franchesca produced a sequel, "Shit White Girls Say to Black Girls Part 2."

Soon, more "Shit X Says to Y" versions of the meme began to appear. "Shit White Girls Say to Brown (Desi/Indian) Girls" features an Indian woman portraying her white girlfriend, who asks questions like "Do you want to go to 7-11? Oh oops, is that racist?" It is cutting, and points to some of the underlying racism that Indian-Americans experience regularly.

In "Shit White Guys Say to Asian Girls," actor/comedian Cindy Fang dresses in drag, playing a white dude and points out some of the obnoxious, arrogant statements that some white guys say to Asian women. "Sorry, I have a hard time telling Asians apart," she says, with a tone that conveys how the white guy she is portraying doesn't feel like trying to educate himself. He is blissful in his ignorance. And then, a blatantly, unapologetically racist statement: "Why do they call it Bangkok? They should call it Bang Pussy!!!"

Of course, it's just comedy - and the talented Fang masterfully exaggerates these statements to hammer home the crass, yet serious jokes. "Shit White Guys Say to Asian Girls" takes swipes at sex and race relations. It's almost as upsetting as "Shit Asian Girls Say," another version of the original "Shit Girls Say" meme.

In Latoya Peterson's blog post "Exploring the Problematic and Subversive Shit People Say [Meme-ology]" on Racialicious, she notes that it isn't until "Shit Black Gays Say" (and part 2) and "Shit Southern Gay Guys Say" that the viewer starts to see the performer's subjective interpretation of themselves.

"It's notable that these videos are the principals representing themselves (as opposed to someone else's interpretation of them), perhaps since these groups are still so invisible in the public eye that no one else but them could speak to their experience," writes Peterson.

How "Shit White Girls Say to Black Girls" Shifted the Conversation

"There's a way in which the meme format allows for more granular renditions of identity than you often see in mass culture," says Professor Russo.

Chescaleigh's video shifted the focus from the narrator as subject to the narrator as a vehicle for social critique. Now X is saying something to Y. Other iterations of the meme show X speaking for themselves, or portraying the stereotypical subject in drag. "Shit White Girls Say...to Arab Girls" follows the same format as Chescaleigh's video - a white girl gets to hear how she sounds to her Arab friends.

"Do you know the guy at the liquor store? I mean, I assume you guys all know each other," says the Arab girl portraying her white friend in "Shit White Girls Say...to Arab Girls". "I've never met one of you before! I mean, I've seen Arabs on TV...on the news. Was 9/11 your fault?"

"Friendly Prejuidice"

Writing for The Guardian, Thea Lim points out that the statements in all of these videos imply a sort of "friendly prejudice":

What's friendly prejudice? The most common defence of racism is: "But I didn't intend to be racist." This response relies on the idea that if we didn't intend to offend someone, then their feelings can't possibly be hurt. The Shit X Says to Y videos are delightfully validating because they show that those with the genuinely lovely intentions of being your friend and seeking commonality with you can still be rude and hurtful.

A commenter on the NPR story that questioned if Franchesca's video was "racist" tried the good ol' "role reversal" trick (that always fails), which attempts to deny the existence of white privilege. "If the roles were reversed...Jesse [Jackson] & [Al] Sharpton, would be involved, lawsuits filed, perhaps riots...". Says Lim:

The reason why relationships between white and non-white people, or straight people and gay people are fraught, is because of our history - long gone, recent or ongoing. Racist, homophobic or simply thoughtless comments are insulting not just in and of themselves, but because they are a bilious reminder of the times when straight, white people have dehumanised and denied other groups their human rights. Of course, non-white and gay people can say nasty or even prejudicial things to white and straight people, but those things don't deliver the sting that comes from decades of being on the wrong end of an unequal relationship.

Where Do We Go From Here?

I have watched my friends react to these videos with anger and sadness. I have seen other friends shout "That's me! That totally happened to me." Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The most important aspect of these videos, however, is that people are actually reacting to them, and sharing them with their friends. They're easy conversation starters, a segue into sharing painful experiences past and present.

We all have culturally biased perspectives and cultural baggage. No one comes to the table without their past experiences. The "Shit X Says to Y" iteration of the "Shit People Say" meme forces everyone to acknowledge this. At least humor helps everyone move through the initial strange moments that could lead into meaningful conversations about this meme.

But are we ready for this?

In her post on Racialicous, Peterson points out that, still, "Shit Girls Say" and "Shit Black Girls Say" received a lot more views than their "Shit X Says to Y" social commentary videos. "Maybe that's because, as a culture, we are accustomed to laughing at stereotypes," writes Peterson, "but we aren't prepared to unpack how we perpetuate them."

After a few weeks of Internet madness, the noise died down. Conversations about this meme started to feel stale. The Internet went back to its usual, easy, Twitter-rific type humor. I started seeing these videos on my Facebook news feed: "Shit New Yorkers Say" and "Shit Chicagoans Say." But it's only a matter of time before things start up again.

Image via Chescaleigh's Facebook page.

Of course, this study falls into the same space that all gender-specific studies from big research firms do. It conflates sex (biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women) and gender (socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women). These definitions of sex and gender are from the World Health Organization.

This study sees a clear distinction between "male" and "female," and asserts that boys will be boys, and girls will be girls. It seems to de-emphasize gender-neutral phone features like sending text messages, access to social networks, long battery life and camera/video which score about the same across gender lines.

What if marketers thought more about the Kinsey scale and variations in gender instead of going by the same old hum-drum heteronormative model that conflates gender and sex?

For example, what about people who identify sex-wise as "female" but, if you asked them about their gender, they would respond with "boy" or "male"? How about people whose sex is male, but their gender is located more in the "girl" or "female" side of the gender spectrum? And how about folks who don't see themselves in either realm? This study chooses to ignore them. Perhaps those concepts are too difficult for traditional marketers to grasp. If you want to go by a "two-gender" system, you'll still find the results to this study fascinating and indicative of a much scarier trend: That we're still living in the 1950's.

What women really want more than their male counterparts, it says, is personal email access and pre-installed games. These results are in line with a study earlier this year from Flurry, which found that mobile gamers are more heavily female (53%) than traditional gamers (40% female).

Male smartphone owners are apparently most interested in fast Internet browsing, WiFi, speakerphone, touchscreen, high screen quality, GPS, music players, ability to search contents of the phone, QWERTY keyboard, memory card slot, ability to run more than one app at a time, integrated app store, access to 4G network and access to corporate email.

Basically, the study suggests that women want to use their smartphones for fun and personal use while men are busy conducting business on their phones. By these standards, it looks like things haven't changed a bit since the 1950s.

What is study data like this being used for? Helping marketers create hypergendered products. The study goes on to discuss the gendered nature of Android (crazy red-eyed robot caters to people whose gender is more "male" or "boy," if we're going by the two-gendered system that this study works off of) in contrast with the new Verizon HTC Rhyme phone, which was released in September 2011 and is supposed to cater specifically to women. How does it do this? With a "charm call indicator which dangles from your purse and lights up when you get a call or text message." So boys get the fierce, all-powerful robot from Hell and women get a dangly light-up purse toy trinket?

What marketers are really missing here is the difference between sex and gender, and how gender variance and a move away from the "two-gender" system can be used to make gendered actually marketing work.

Moon: How did you first become interested in exploring the stereotype that girls had less mathematical abilities than boys?

Hyde: Back in the 1980s, I was having lunch at a convention with a woman who is a faculty member at UC Berkeley. We started talking about the stereotype and then we confessed our SAT-Math scores to each other. One of us had an 800 and the other a 780! We instantly began to question the stereotype and think that we should collect good data to test it.

Moon: With your studies on gender similarities in math performance, has there been an increased awareness among parents and teachers on the stereotype that girls have lesser mathematical ability? How have you or others been getting the word out?

Hyde: We've been doing our best to get the word out. The findings in the 2008 Science article received massive media coverage, including newspapers, online sources, and TV. Journalists in other nations covered it as well. We received many emails from parents and teachers saying how much they appreciated the research. Nonetheless, stereotypes are resistant to change, for reasons documented by social psychologists. Even in the most recent waves of data collection, parents still estimate higher math ability for their sons than their daughters. We have to keep plugging away at getting the science out to the public.

Moon: How did we get here? This stereotype that women were lesser in mathematical skills? For someone living in Silicon Valley at the heart of innovation in the U.S., it's disappointing to learn that decades of talented engineers were never developed due to bad stereotypes and false perceptions of what women can do.

Hyde: You are right that we can't afford to lose talent from the U.S. pool in STEM innovation, and these stereotypes do discourage girls and women from entering these fields. The stereotype that women are less intelligent than men dates at least from the 1800s, when articles were written on the "intellectual feebleness of women."

Moon: Your research didn't explain the existing gap between men and women in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) careers. You did hypothesize how beginning in high school there is a gap of interest in complex problem solving, which could explain the gap between men and women in areas such as physics and engineering. What are your thoughts on this? Misguided teachers and academic advisers? Difference of academic interests between boys and girls?

Hyde: You are right that my research didn't explain the gap, but it did rule out one explanation that is often proposed, that women have insufficient math ability for STEM careers. I can't begin to type out a simple explanation for the gap because it involves many factors and the gap itself is complex. For example, women are getting PhDs in biology at the same rate as men today, so it isn't a gender gap in all of science. The big gaps are in physics and engineering.

Moon: Are there any public policy recommendations that you or others discussed based on your research?

Hyde: We should require 4 years of math and 4 years of science for everyone graduating from high school. We need stronger mathematics teachers at all levels, from elementary school to high school, although how to accomplish that is controversial.

Moon: Have you continued look at different areas related to this topic? What is your current research project?

Hyde: Currently I'm working on an intervention to improve parents' and students' understanding of the usefulness of math and science, with the goal of encouraging the students to take extra elective math and science courses in high school.

Moon: Thank you, Professor Hyde, for your time!

Photo by EdwinP

Oh no.

The HTC Bliss will also have a greenish-gray rubber back so "women can have a better grip of the phone," writes Joanna Stern, explaining one of the phone's differentiating features. I'm not sure how that's a feature with female appeal, but there you have it.

The phone will be thin (.54 inches), and will sport "calming" wallpapers in addition to the "calming" green tones of the phone itself. The overuse of "calming" by HTC to describe the device, frankly, is bordering on offensive.

DO I LOOK LIKE SOMEONE WHO NEEDS TO BE CALMED?

Oh.

The phone will also include a charm, which, like many of the cell phone charms sold today, attaches to the phone to provide a little bling. But this charm has a function too, beyond the hook which lets a woman attach it to something inside her purse - it lights up when you have a new message or missed call.

As a woman with a large purse doubling as a diaper bag, I have to admit I don't entirely hate this idea, although I do find the idea of cell phone charms a bit juvenile. Perhaps it's our purses that need these dangling cords built-in instead, complete with phone syncing capabilities and glowing baubles? Then again, I'd be happy to just have a phone whose flashing "missed call" light could be better customized to blink in configurations I specify. Light blue for Twitter updates, dark blue for Facebook, green for SMS texts, etc. But that's just me.

The worst part about this Android phone for girls is the mockup Stern describes which showed shopping comparison and calorie counting applications on the homescreen. I can only hope that these aren't being pre-loaded on the device. Not that I have anything against these type of applications, of course. But I do have something against the idea that a female, by way of her very gender, is going to want these on her phone.

Or any of the above "female-friendly" features, really.

To be fair, I have said before that I'm exactly the kind of person who would buy a white iPhone, not just because it's an iPhone, but because it's pretty, gosh darn it. Still, I know many females who prefer the sleek, black gadgets more than the white or the pink. I just don't think you can (or should) generalize these sorts of gender stereotypes anymore. Liking the white iPhone is a personal preference, not something inherent to my gender.

Why, HTC, Why?

So why is HTC even considering such a device?

Well, over a year ago, we looked at data which found that the Android market tends to skew male. At the time, there was a 78/22% male-to-female ratio in the gender variance among Android owners. This was evidenced by Verizon's "Droid Does" marketing campaigns which features stereotypical "boy" attractions like robots and comments about "racehorses duct-taped to Scud missiles." The current campaigns still have a male-targeted vibe to them, in fact.

A colorful phone with dangling charms would be the antithesis to the Droid, and HTC's own attempt at a big demographic grab. But is it necessary?

Absolutely not.

Smartphone makers like HTC are clearly exploring how to best differentiate their Android handsets from the competition, which makes sense in this crowded market. And if HTC wants to experiment with different colors or accessories, I'm all for that. But don't launch a colorful phone and tell me it's "for girls."

Did Apple tell us the white iPhone was for women? No, of course not. Because the color of a phone doesn't dictate who buys it.

We're not sure how HTC's Bliss is a "phone for women." Last we checked, women want the same things men do here - powerful phones, great hardware and software that delivers a user experience that's easy and fun to use. HTC actually delivers on much of that without having to make "pretty" phones girls can use to load up their favorite diet apps.

Back to the drawing boards, HTC.

Image credits: This is My Next (mockups they made, FYI)

Findings of the study show women's transcendence to leadership roles has not occurred, inequality remains entrenched in terms of pay, career advancement, as well as career satisfaction. Shockingly, study respondents weren't just any other Joanne or Joe Schmo in the workforce. The study tracked the smartest and brightest grad students from elite MBA programs, around the world, from 1996 to 2007. These are motivated and talented men and women.

In the words of Harvard Business Review, "Pipeline's Broken Promise, examines the past two decades in which leaders have counted on parity in education, women's accelerated movement into the labor force, and company-implemented diversity and inclusion programs to yield a robust talent pipeline where women are poised to make rapid gains to the top. "

The survey took into account experience, time since MBA, first post-MBA job level, industry and global region of work at the time of survey, and found that:

• Men were twice as likely as women to be at the CEO/senior executive level.
• Men's pay out paced women's.
• Men significantly outpaced women moving up the career ladder when starting out in similar level roles.

These findings are not specific to any industry, including technology. Even I was shocked looking across this Microsoft org chart. For some reason seeing things in list format made the differential of men to women in Microsoft management even more striking. Note this isn't for lack of women candidates as women make up almost half (49.9% in October 2009) of the workforce - no, we aren't leaving work to have babies either!

I am stereotypical myself. I personally have clawed my way all the way to middle management after 20 years working in the tech industry, while men younger than I hold more senior roles. Is this simply because I am a woman? These findings would say, "Well, yes." So what is it about men and women? Will there ever be a time where women aren't looked on as women in the tech industry, but just as smart people with skills that fit a certain role, best?

I personally know a lot of extremely smart women, all of whom that have had to go out on their own to make it above the glass ceiling. So is it just men in management holding us back?

I find this study pertinent, not just to my own work experience, but also as we are a month away from the Mobile Summit in San Francisco on May 7. Looking to encourage a stronger female presence, we felt compelled to get out and ask women and men alike the following questions so please take the survey - it is just three questions.

Your thoughts and comments please.

Also see these related articles on other websites from Clay Shirky, Jeanne of Feministing, danah boyd and Gina Trapani, which have some interesting comments and counterpoints on why the glass ceiling still exists.

Photo by Faakhir Rizvi.

I'm a woman, and I'm in technology, and I demand here and now that you stop catering to me. That's right, I'm talking to YOU: brands, marketers, PR flaks, hardware manufacturers, advocacy groups and the women and men in my industry. And while we're at it, stop referring to me and my female colleagues as "girls."

How do you feel about women in tech? Let us know in the comments.

For some time, I've been courted by a few organizations purporting to address the issues of women in technology. And issues there are, I'm sure. Certainly, many women have a hard time being taken seriously in what's traditionally a male-dominated industry.

For example, those of us who are fortunate enough to have good hair days and decent posture get flaunted as sex symbols, and those who have better things to think about than what shade of lipgloss to wear get criticized, overlooked, underpaid, or even - gasp! - taken seriously.

I've been fortunate enough to (usually) be on the former end of that equation, and I can tell you it ain't all roses for cute women, either, especially when you cross the line into "too cute" territory and are accused of being brainless, opportunistic, shallow and far, far worse.

It's true that our male colleagues often undergo the same process of judgement and criticism, but to a much lesser degree. Still, we as a culture have come a long way from the days of Cosmopolitan's 1967 article "The Computer Girls," which vacillated between praising the intelligence of its female programmer subjects and talking about their marriage prospects and hair color.

Or have we?

Google's still listing 8 million results for the search terms "sexy girls in tech" and around 4.5 million for "sexy girls in tech 2009," in case you were wondering whether the sexism of the past was skewing the results. This is compared to a mere 1 million results for "sexy girls in tech 2008." I have thus very unscientifically proven that tech is becoming more sexist, not less, by continuing to marginalize and objectify "sexy girls" in our industry.

Moving on from Google and sexy girls, how are brands treating women? Just last year, Dell tried to foist off a horrendously sexist site aimed at women; the content suggested that their pastel-hued laptops could help us count calories, plan meals and listen to Sarah McLachlan clones to our heart's content. The site was ripped to shreds (rather brilliantly) by The Register and promptly removed from the tubes. In other hardware news, Sony's just issued a Barbie pink Vaio (with a floral pattern!) that's well out of the price range of the Barbie-buying market, and others just can't stop pitching us on "fashionable" laptop cases to match our handbags.

So who's responsible for putting women in a pink, perfumed corner? Is it the women-run groups, who segregate us from the rest of our colleagues and still insist on calling us "girls?" Is it the men who slaver shamelessly over "sexy geeky girl" posts with more regard for cup size than intellectual caliber? Is it the computer manufacturers who cater to women by slapping flowery shells onto devices and gadgets? Or is it women themselves, who sometimes rely too much on their gender and looks, counting on the fact that the "male-dominated" industry will more likely be charmed by those factors than impressed by their intelligence or talent?

Technologists don't have to treat women like men, but perhaps we should all make an attempt to treat one another with a little more neutrality. And for goodness sake, can we all agree on a moratorium for script fonts, sparkles, the word "girl" and the color pink? We might be females, but we're not 4-year-olds.

I'm fully aware that this point of view will tick off quite a few readers, so be sure to tell me exactly why in the comments. We welcome all opinions in these open threads, whether you disagree, concur or simply have a different point of view.

Read more ReadWriteWeb articles from the Gender & Tech archives. Also see these related articles on other websites from Clay Shirky, Jeanne of Feministing, danah boyd and Gina Trapani.

The Fox tweet was deleted an hour after it was posted, so the password may not have been changed. The Facebook account on Twitter just posted a link to porn, so it appears that the situation remains unresolved. Update: Twitter says it's been resolved but that users should change their passwords! The Twitter blog has just posted an explanation of the breach. Screen shots of the hacked accounts below below.

Some suspected that the hacks today were associated with the weekend's phishing attacks, but the Fox News account isn't following anyone - so no one could have direct messaged it. That's how accounts were taken over via phishing. Something else is afoot.

If the hacker is associated with the affiliate link sent out over Obama's account, it may not be hard to discover who did this. Time will tell.

Twitter co-founders Evan Williams, Biz Stone and lead engineer Alex Payne have posted no messages since the attacks emerged. This can't be good for Twitter. What major brand will be excited to sign up for the service now? Who would pay, even, to be put at such risk?

An excerpted transcript and the text of Rose's apology sent to us by email when we inquired this morning are below.

"there is only one time you can strike [a woman -] if she kicks you in the balls, you have the ability and the right, to punch her in the teat - it's just like that - it's kinda like tit for tat [Albrecht talks then Kevin again] It hurts them, it does too - or take a scissors to the teat" (Kevin makes cutting action with hand)

The part of the statement about cutting was offensive, juvenile and inappropriate, even in jest. It's sadistic and the double standard that society applies should be clear: if a woman went on Diggnation and talked about how it's ok to cut men's genitals with scissors that would be a very big deal to a lot of people.

It was also ironic given that Digg and Rose in particular had banned a number of Digg users last month for making offensive, sexist comments on a Digg post about an article in FastCompany by Saabira Chaudhuri about women in technology.

Rose sent the following reply this morning in response to our inquiry about the incident.

"I'd like to apologize for some comments I made in the latest episode of Diggnation, which came off as insensitive on the topic of violence towards women. Alex and I have always viewed Diggnation as an outlet to push the limits in a comedic fashion. Obviously, violence against women is serious and something we don't advocate in any way."

Why It's Not OK to Say Things Like This

We're glad Rose has publicly apologized for the inappropriate statement and hope that he'll act as a good role model for the many young people who watch his show. Violence against women is endemic around the world and the kind of violence that Rose joked about goes beyond self-defense and enters into the realm of all-too-real tragedy for many people. Pop-culture humor making light of such violence contributes to a cultural climate in which some people mistakenly consider this type or related behavior acceptable.

No one is perfect but when some lines are crossed it's important to discuss why such statements are inappropriate. We hope that Rose and Digg can continue working to make Digg, and the increasingly large part of the world that it influences, a better place. Anyone who reads the comments on the site regularly knows that both Digg and the world we live in have a long way to go. Censorship isn't necessarily the answer, but discussion, apologies when needed and not saying stupid things in the first place are probably big parts the best solution.