Monopoly, conference style

Reading Paul's last post whilst working my way through the MLJ volume for review, I too was struck by the Macleod comments.  Monopolising of influence remains a problem today.   It was pointed out to me recently that an increasing proportion of women at women's conferences seem to have the same surnames as the usual pool of male suspects. A strange coincidence, for sure.  This surely raises the question: is it really the case that only the same dozen or so surnames/ministries have significant things to say to the rest of us?