SLUT

Author's Note:   The theme for this post sprang from the offhand comment that, "EDna has to be cheap and easy."  I contrived that EDna, a made-up character, had a penchant for promiscuous behavior during the strait-laced seventies.  I ridiculously posited that male law students might have been drawn to sexual misadventure with a fetching lass of a sporting nature.  EDna, I imagined, was (in the argot of those with moral compasses truer than mine), a tad "slutty."

Humor about sex isn't everyone's cup of tea.  Based on the comments that follow, I missed the mark.   Some readers felt my Satyrical attempts at humor crossed their lines.  I am chastened, and henceforth, EDna is chaste. 

I've gotten all sorts of interesting feedback on the EDD for Everybody article A/K/A "The EDna Challenge" that ran in the January 2010 issue of LTN.  I'm fascinated by the number of vendors and developers who claim to be poised to introduce an integrated "solution" or contend their existing product could meet the challenge...so long as something is changed to make the challenge less challenging.

Folks, when you think of EDna, I want you to think CHEAP and EASY.  Of course, here I mean the EDna Challenge, not my hypothetical law school classmate (though she was extremely popular).  Need an acronym?  How about, Simple, Low-cost, Utile and Total end-to-end management of ESI.  S.L.U.T.

Seriously,  the EDna challenge solution could be as ubiquitous on lawyer desktops as Adobe Acrobat.  We're talking tens of thousands of potential users, near term.  Not just every desktop of every big firm litigator, but the desktops of all those trial lawyers that are part of the 70-80% of lawyers nationally that practice in law firms of 5 lawyers or less, and every solo.  Don't forget their assistants and support staff. 

These hardworking folks are the people you go to when you need a divorce or to collect a debt or when you've lost a loved one to negligence. 

Does this concern you, dear reader?  Here's a simple test:

If your yacht just won the America's Cup--EDna's not your lawyer.  

If Barack Obama derided your Christmas bonus in the State of the Union, EDna's not your lawyer. 

If you have anyone working in your home named "Jeeves," EDna's not your lawyer.

Else, if you're involved in a claim or suit and you or the other side use computers--which is to say, you live somewhere where disputes are NOT resolved by interpreting chicken entrails--you've likely employed a lawyer like EDna who needs better, more affordable tools to deal with ESI.

Ask most lawyers how much the most expensive single piece of software they own cost per user, and what do you think they'd say?  $250.00?  $500.00?  For most, it will be Microsoft Office or Adobe Acrobat.  Maybe Timeslips.  Almost none own apps that cost over $1,000 per seat; so, how's an EDD vendor going to sell them a piece of software that costs more than their car?

And, yes, there will be some development costs to amortize. 

Case in Point: Today, I got a call from a colleague whose EDna solution was cobbled together from open source tools and ran on Linux.  Consequently, his EDna answer was an "appliance" that EDna would plug into her network and lease for $1,000/year.  I pointed out that most of EDna's effort would be expended reviewing ESI--the biggest cost component in nearly every EDD efffort.  I further observed that the appliance he was hawking didn't include a viewer component.  My colleague responded that to add a viewer would cost $10,000, so EDna would have to get her own viewer or open each file in its native application.

I pressed that EDna can't be much of a reviewer without a viewer.  I could not persuade this developer just how important it is for lawyers to be able to SEE the contents of the documents they're vetting for privilege and responsiveness and to be able to move through each page and document like lightning.  He was unmoved.  I was unnerved. 

Hello?  It's all about the workflow. Time is money.  (Remember, you heard it here first).

So a few more hints for those planning to make their fame and fortune by solving the EDna Challenge:

1. Your application should run under Windows, on an ordinary late model computer with ordinary Internet access.  EDna has no context for a rack-mounted Linux box on a fibre channel.  She thought it was an implement of torture (and she may be right).

2. If it's a hosted tool, get real about the limitations most people face for upload speed.  Just because you can download at light speed doesn't mean you can upload as fast; e.g., using Time Warner in Austin, it takes 38 times longer to upload a file than to download it.   Before you chirp, "EDna should upload the 10 GB she receives to our hosting tool," consider how hard it is to upload even that "small" volume of data and the effect a glacial upload might have on network performance.

3.  Be upfront about what your tool can't handle.  If you can't index the text in an image file, say so, and identify a workaround.  If you can't read an OST, say so and explain how EDna might undertake to convert the data to something your tool can assimilate.  Your proposed answer to the EDna challenge doesn't have to be perfect, but it shouldn't hide it's flaws.

4. EDna is getting the data on two DVDs.  She doesn't care that your tool can acquire a forensically-sound, compressed dd image via a netcat tunneling protocol.  Bells and whistles are nice, but first you need engines and tracks.

5. Don't hide the real cost.  If your hosted solution only works if everything is [shudder] converted to TIFF and load files, don't fail to account for that cost.  The meter starts running BEFORE you say, "point our tool at your load file."  EDna has no load file.  The only load she sees is the load of horse hockey you call "marketing."

6. If your "solution" eats up the whole budget, then it better be all the software EDna needs.  Don't sell her a $1,000.00 application and then point out that she has to get a suitable viewer from another supplier.  Tires are standard equipment.

Comments

[Sarah Brown]

Hi Craig,

Although I'm sure you made a lot of salient points in this posting (I'm particularly fond of the "chicken entrails" interpretation), I'm afraid your overall point was lost on me due to your extremely offensive use of the term slut, and your oh-so-endearing take on your "hypothetical" law school classmate who was very popular.

While I think trying to "spice up" writing about e-discovery -- an inscrutable topic to begin with made more inaccessible by pedantry -- is a worthwhile goal, employing borderline profanity is surely not the way to achieve that spice.

[C. L. Olson]

I think I will have to agree somewhat with Sarah Brown and the creating writing process here. All the more ironic, the Law Tech headline link posted above this article today was "Women in eDiscovery N.J. Mtg Postponed", right above the cartoon! What do you think the talented women in the e-discovery group would have to say? (Not thinking the cartoon was good for any readers.) Otherwise, always look forward to your general commentary.

[Anonymous]

Hi Craig. I have enormous respect for your work and the Edna project. However I have to register my disbelief that you're using the term 'slut' and inventing narratives to cast judgment on other people's sex lives, and women in particular.

I realize that you're chalking this up to a failed attempt at humor, and also that the default answer to any joke about feminists is "That's not funny!" Still, I hope you will seriously consider how perpetuating stereotypes is socially dysfunctional and generally in poor taste.

[Daniel Estrada]

I think everyone needs to lighten up. While Craig's post may not have been politically correct, I hardly think we can accuse him of "perpetuating stereotypes" or casting "judgement on other people's sex lives." I'm not sure how the word "slut" would even accomplish these things...

Craig's perspectives are always interesting, fun to read, and often wise. This post may have been a little brash, but it was also quite funny. Don't take it so seriously!

[Craig Ball]

Dear Anonymous:

Thanks for your comment. I'm sorry you feel that way as it wasn't my intention to cast judgment on anyone, perpetuate stereotypes or demean women. EDna is a fictional conceit of my misremembered youth. She is not a real person (and not simply by virtue of being a lawyer).

I think you and others are reacting to the word "slut" as viscerally repellant. There are some words people apply to women that have that effect when encountered in a certain way. We can probably agree that using sexual humor of any sort is a questionable choice on my part. But, having gone that route, how might I have approached it in a gender-neutral fashion without losing the intended humor?

The comment was that, "EDna had to be cheap and easy." The double entendre was irresistible. "Cheap" and "easy" have different meanings when EDna is personified, but they're really only used as invective against women.

So, if a word HAD to be found, what would be the best choice for an acronym and still be (to some) funny? Perhaps "floozy" would have been less repellant, but it would be tough to fashion into a suitable acronym, and it still isn't gender neutral.

Unfortunately, we face a double standard here. A woman who has sex on her own terms is a "slut," but a man who does it is a "stud." Both are good candidates as acronyms, but one is disparaging while the other is generally seen as laudatory. I think I would have only confused everyone if I'd called a female character a stud.

I tried to make the point of the double standard with the cartoon that originally accompanied the post, but that seemed only to further inflame some readers. FYI, the original art showed two 50's-era women whispering, and one says "Once I thought I was a slut, but then I realized I was acting like a man."

I mention all this because I strongly support everything I understand feminism to stand for. But I also believe that sex should not be a taboo subject and should be mined for its humor potential in ways that don't demean or objectify anyone. I don't like the repressive, judgmental way that we approach sex as a topic in this country. We see sex exploited everywhere, but in a leering, sniggering way.

I think sex is the funniest thing two people do without laughing, and everyone I know got here because mom and dad "did it" (save the girl in high school who swore she got pregnant from swimming in the Saxon Woods pool). I wish we could all relax a bit and stop acting like sexuality isn't a part of life. It seems the very essence of life.

At any rate, I don't want you thinking I have a cavalier attitude about these matters or that I want to perpetuate any practice that diminishes women, even subtly. What diminishes women most is the notion that they are delicate flowers who can't thrive in the rough and tumble of the world in which we live. Strange as it sounds, I want my children's world to be one where men can be sluts and women can be studs. Equal adjective opportunity for all.

Thanks for your comments.

Craig Ball

[Babs Deacon]

Craig:

I'm really trying to appreciate your metaphor but I can't get past the demeaning imagery. The picture really doesn't help, though I'm assuming the blog editors chose that. I think you should rework this concept and try again.

**And men ask me why we need a group for Women in Ediscovery...

[Craig Ball]

Babs:

No, I'm responsible for the imagery. It's my second try since some apparently didn't appreciate the cartoon.

I don't understand who is demeaned by the image. Is it that the woman is dressing suggestively or that she is obviously flirting? She is not showing more skin than the skaters at the ongoing Olympics, and is behaving no more suggestively than we routinely see in ads, on magazine covers or on over broadcast television. Actually, it's no more suggestive than what I see of young people at the mall.

If you were seeking an image of a 20-ish woman whose appearance epitomizes "cheap" and "easy," what image would you have selected? It's not sufficient to say, well, I wouldn't have written about something like that." I did, and I sought appropriate imagery. Let's not pretend that men are the only ones who judge women for what they deem promiscuous behavior.

Isn't the real problem that a man authored the post and selected the art? Would you have been moved to comment if the acronym had been STUD and I'd used an image from a Calvin Klein or Abercrombie ad?

I expect this ISN'T the reason why you need a group for Women in E-Discovery. There's a difference between sex and sexism, and I've been careful not to overlook that difference.

[Sarah Brown]

Daniel,

The influence of language on culture (and vice versa) and the layers of meaning behind specific words actually comprises more than one entire academic field. A little investigation may reveal to you how the word "slut" (or other disparaging terms based on race, gender, age, socioeconomic status, etc.) can indeed perpetuate stereotypes and be quite harmful.

I think if Craig had taken a little time to think about his post in these terms, he may have reconsidered his analogy. That said, I certainly appreciate all efforts on the part of anyone in the industry to make reading about e-discovery a little less snooze-worthy.

[Sarah Brown]

Craig,

I'm impressed that your attitude, like so many on the wonderful world of the internet, is not cavalier, and you indeed seem to have put in a great deal of effort into your post.

I also agree with you that sex is funny, and a huge part of life. However, you say "We see sex exploited everywhere, but in a leering, sniggering way," and that you wish we could all ligthen up.

I wish we could all lighten up, as well. But I think you have fallen victim to the leering and sniggering you point out. It's unfortunate that we live in a society that is extremely repressive, and so any discourse on the topic of sex, whether in advertisements, barroom jokes, or on e-discovery blogs, happens inside the context of that repressive culture. Until we as a society change the environment of judgment sexuality inhabits, it's difficult to make even lighthearted allusions to the topic without offending someone. Furthermore, in a professional setting, it's probably best left alone.

[Craig Ball]

Dear Sarah Brown:

As all of this has been on account of a fictional female, I'm put to mind of another literary lady: your namesake, the lovely Sgt. Sarah Brown of the Save-a-Soul Mission. Confident she knew the one true path, Sister Sarah was pretty hard on the guys and dolls who didn't play by her rules. Before the curtain falls, she learns to see past the rough talk and find the hearts under the rouge and sharp lapels.

You speak of repression as "unfortunate," but you've posted three times today attacking the post. I've explained myself again and again. I've changed the art. I've added a warning caveat and mea culpa. The words only have the power you afford them. Will you not be content until you've forced them from the page? Isn't that just another form of repression?

I can't keep my posts from being snooze-worthy if you won't let them occassionally be flooze-worthy. I'm no Damon Runyon, but I prefer to spin my yarns with some faithfulness to how people really think and feel and speak. Else, I'm just what keeps the press releases from touching.

[Anonymous]

Hi again, Craig. Feel free to call me Anon. I appreciate your detailed response, and that you received my comments with the respect I intended and reciprocated it.

I wanted to note that I struggle with communicating effectively and avoiding judging, stereotyping or offending other people (including women) as much as everyone else, which I should have acknowledged previously. Women can be just as bad if not worse than men in judging others, and are just as accountable.

Re: the term ‘slut,’ yes, the word and concept are viscerally repellent. I am going to generalize my experience for my gender in explaining why I feel strongly about this and why I do not think it’s funny to use that word in this context or to characterize women (or anyone?) or their sexual behavior as “cheap” or “easy.” However I do not speak for anyone but myself here, and I have no expertise in women’s studies. I did work with kids for several years, and some of this stems from my experience with what they go through.

1) The term “slut” is used to control women’s behavior and self-worth. I learned what “slut” meant before I knew what sex was, early in elementary school. I learned to navigate a fine line in order to avoid being called “slutty,” including what and how much clothing and makeup to wear, what to say and how to act, who and under what circumstances to date, etc. Being called a slut is understood to be pejorative, to mean a woman is indiscriminate or not selective enough, unrestrained and therefore worthless. “Cheap and easy” – which begs the question whether non-sluts are therefore necessarily “expensive and difficult.” Should women be encouraged to require their dates to spend money on them, and/or to become sexual gatekeepers?

2) The concept of a “slut” is a double-edged sword for women’s identities and an easy way to dismiss women on subjective terms. Labeling someone as a slut is understood to mean that a woman has been involved with an undefined and subjective number of “too many” men, or even just “looks” like she has or would. When you're a kid if someone calls you a slut, even though it's completely subjective and groundless, there’s really no defense against it or the potential threat of being ostracized – girls will avoid being associated with your social stigma, and boys will not like or respect you. Not to mention the risk of being labeled a prude otherwise. So girls (and women) live with the anxiety of being perceived as slutty, even as they simultaneously try to present themselves favorably in a society that aggressively sexualizes women and their bodies, and places inordinate importance on their looks and attractiveness from an early age. Sometimes you feel like you can’t win.

3) Accusations of being a ‘slut’ are sometimes used to justify violence against women. The scary part (and please do not think that I am implicating you in this or attempting to be inflammatory by bringing it up) is that “sluts” are characterized as indiscriminate, meaning that if a woman has slept with “too many” people, then logically she will or should sleep with anyone. She is “easy,” and her prerogative to consent to or refuse sex is implicitly revoked, i.e. a woman’s “promiscuity” or even just the “message” she is sending by how she dresses or acts has sometimes been used as justification for sexual assault, because “sluts” supposedly should/will sleep with anyone. Obviously this is the screwed-up mentality of a sexual predator and not representative of what most people believe, but it is a very real and scary threat if you’re a woman. We are taught that we could be “asking for it” or even “deserve” it depending on how we look and behave. If we are attacked it could be our own fault for sending the wrong message and not being “careful” enough to prevent it.

There are probably more points to be made and more articulately than I have made them here, but long story short: I know you did not intend to imply or reinforce any of these things, however this is what the word ‘slut’ evokes for at least one woman.

I think your censored cartoon sounds funny and has the ring of truth – if I’m “reading” your description of it right, among other things it shows that men are not free from gender roles, stereotypes and the confines of socially-conditioned behavior either. Men are socially expected and encouraged to be perceived as sexually ambitious and "promiscuous" (whether that’s what they want or not) - to behave in the same way that would be called "slutty" in women. The flip side from my understanding is that they are not allowed to get seriously involved with “slutty” women, they are expected to spend some unspecified quantity of money to “earn” the women they’re allowed to date, and it’s implied that they might have to cajole these women into ever having sex at all. Probably there are more drawbacks that I’m not even aware of. It seems pretty unjust and destructive to me all around. Having only had the female experience, some of us (like the woman in the cartoon) still doubtlessly envy men their freedom from all of the "don't be slutty" BS we are indoctrinated with. The same BS we unfortunately often feel compelled to pass on to kids because we’re afraid that otherwise they will suffer socially. Points #4-6: calling women ‘sluts’ makes dating confusing and full of mind-games, it harbors resentment and is divisive to understanding between men and women generally, and it turns us all into its fear-mongering accomplices (or our parents).

I don’t think sex should be taboo or humorless either. I do think that analogies about sexual behavior (especially ones that shame people or stereotypically characterize them as “cheap” or “easy”) risk being inaccurate and too loaded with potential judgment and cultural baggage to be effective in communicating what you’re trying to say here, even if you mean that Edna is actually affordable, convenient and accessible in a positive and egalitarian way. Maybe someone who is better at branding than I am has an alternate suggestion for you.

Again, thanks for hearing me out and engaging in a respectful discourse. Please forgive the punctuation, grammar and stream of consciousness. I hope I have conveyed my opinion in an equally effective and respectful way, and remain a big fan of your work.

Regards,

Anonymous

[Craig Ball]

Dear Anon:

Thanks for taking the time to so ably explain why what I intended as a completely innocuous bit of offhand humor has more ominous overtones from a woman's perspective.  I hail from the gender that never foresaw women would respond negatively to calling Apple's new tablet the "iPad."  I'm inclined to cry "aunt" and just kill the post altogether, but it would be a shame to lose the benefit of the discourse. 

I hereby appoint you as Prime Miniskirt for the sovereign nation of Estrogenia.  We in XYland seek a just and lasting peace.  So, I leave the decision to you: 1. Kill the post, or 2. Let it stand and allow the readers to benefit (as I have) from your and the other comments?  I'm content either way, though I don't go both ways (see, I just can't help myself--I'm such a slut for a laugh).

[Anonymous]

Ha, I'm not sure other women want me appointed to speak for them, and I don't claim entitlement to dictate what you should post on your own blog.

However I think that you should keep the post. Maybe someone else wants to add their $.02, or will come up with a better suggestion for you about Edna, or even take this opportunity to explain how feminists can actually have a sense of humor and "slut" has been used progressively in comedy (in my subjective opinion and of course in a non-business setting), for example to lampoon sexism on SNL by Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtin ("Jane, you ignorant slut."): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7S_XWuKpHc

[Anonymous]

Hi again, Craig. I need to swallow my pride and request that you censor my earlier comments and my name from the site. I am receiving some negative feedback that makes me not want strangers contacting me about this in the future.

I apologize for going overboard. I felt insulted and wanted you to understand why, I thought at the time respectfully and with the best of intentions. But I should have known my arguments would seem less like a debate than an attack or a guilt trip in a public forum, and that I was being manipulative. It was stupid and thoughtless.

Thank you for being as gracious with me as you have.

[Craig Ball]

Dear Anon:

I certainly didn't think you went overboard or were manipulative, stupid or thoughtless. I was frankly impressed by the tenor, thoughtfulness and sensitivity of your arguments.

You are being too hard on yourself, and no one should be giving you negative feedback for your comments. You made great points, and helped me see that there are more facets to this than perhaps I realized. You presented your position with courtesy, intelligence and more deference than I deserved. I "anonymized" you as you asked, but you should be proud of how well and fairly you made your points.

[RedFile]

You could always go with a guy named "ED Na" and use the acronym for "Binary Asset Search Tag And Review Device", if that would be less offensive.

The key here is to come up with what Judge Grimm called "an ediscovery solution for the common man". Though it is a work in progress, that is what we are working to make a reality. Workflow is key, in-browser file viewing OR file downloading (users choice) but also an "end-to-end" solution for small, simple cases (like divorces). It has to take into account the 4 "P"s - Preserve, Prepare, Produce and Present for digital evidence. That is the only way to really control these costs (IMO).

Once in place, wouldn't it be great for a solo practitioner to be able to say to his/her client "Our fee for handling your electronic discovery is $250 - regardless of size." Less than the cost of one hour of the attorney's (and some paralegal's) time - this is the goal.

[Craig Ball]

Dear Red File:

Though I wanted the title to be provocative enough for readers to click through, my point wasn't just to use coarse language. As I've said again-and-again, the reason for the term selected was that it's probably the most common (though unwelcome) street slang synonymous with "cheap" and "easy." "Bastard" just doesn't get me there.

EDna's gender was set in stone by the article and challenge. I naturally considered ED first, but wanted to avoid the stereotype of a lawyer being a man. So much for my feint at progress! Having EDna go transgender implicates more issues than I want to respond to in posts at the moment.

By the way, the reason that we abbreviate e-discovery as EDD (for electronic data discovery) is because ED was already synonymous with erectile dysfunction. True story.