A Conversation in Tampere

MIKE: What are you at this conference for?

WOMAN: I’m here for an intelligent wearables project. Work wear. We’re using ‘smart’ textiles in clothing for work.

ANDY: Wow. What’s that mean?

WOMAN: I can’t tell you. It’s very specific workers we’re dealing with.

ANDY: Specific?

WOMAN: Well, workers in very hard conditions. Not normal conditions.

MIKE: I guess that would be us. Giving talks like this is very unusual for us.

ANDY: Yes, we really have no idea what people think about it. And we want to give many such talks in the future. So we really do want to know....

MIKE: ... what you think. What did you think of our lecture? Could we improve it?

ANDY: Yeah, how?

WOMAN: Look guys, I’ll tell you what was wrong with your presentation, but I don’t think you’re going to want to hear it.

MIKE AND ANDY: Yes we do!

WOMAN: Well, I think your performance was clear. It was brilliant, in fact. I think you showed very nicely how the factory owner needs to be close to the workers. But the way you presented it was not fair.

ANDY: Fair?

WOMAN: It was not fair. You present it as, the males are the owners and the females are the workers. But females can be factory owners too.

MIKE: Of course.

ANDY: It’s just the... metaphor?

WOMAN: Yes.

ANDY: If we changed the... metaphor.... [Big circular motions around his chest, as if to show where big golden breasts might be placed.]

WOMAN: Yes. But don’t get me wrong, your performance was brilliant. And you got your point across, that’s the main thing.

MIKE: Can I ask you what that point was, for you?

WOMAN: Just the point. How to remote-control factories in the Far East, from Europe, the U.S., wherever—from a different culture.

ANDY: So the point was clear. Just the shape was unfortunate.

WOMAN: A penis is a nice shape. I’m only speaking of what it meant.

MIKE: What did it mean?

WOMAN: Male perspective. Too much.