The first was Inspire, a relatively sedate lunch for 300 in aLondonhotel to celebrate outstanding performers in the construction industry. The awards were unusual by virtue of being a construction industry gathering composed mainly of women but also because there were no male winners.
Notwithstanding everything that we might believe about the subjective nature of industry awards, the Atkins Inspire awards were also significant because this was the first time that the construction industry has ventured into women-only territory.
Frankly, it is difficult and potentially perilous territory – walking the fine line between being inspiring and being patronising.
For many – women and men – there will still be lingering question marks over whether or not this kind of single sex focus – positive discrimination if you like – should be encouraged. There will be strongly held views to the effect that if women wish to be treated as equals in construction then they must compete for awards and accolades (and promotions in their careers) as equals to men.
And while there is probably some truth in this view, we must also bear in mind that the construction industry – our industry – is still both under-represented by women and unattractive to women.
That fact is a huge shame and a huge loss.
Thus we have a situation in which eggs must be broken to allow omelettes to be made. If we are to focus attention on the female successes in construction so as to encourage the brightest and most creative women into our fold - and I suggest that we do - then we have (respectfully and ecologically) to venture into this difficult territory on a regular basis.
It is significant that when the Women into Science and Engineering (WISE) campaign began 20 years ago it aimed to make itself redundant within 25 years. Sadly this will not be achieved – and the industry will be worse off as a result.
It remains an uphill struggle and one which reminds me in many ways of the second unusual yet significant "media event" last week – the Al Gore-inspired Live Earth music festival.
This was unusual by virtue of its size and scope and was a truly global event which, in scale, eclipsed anything that Bob Geldof's Live Aid achieve in the past.
And it was significant as being the first time that pop music has been mobilised globally to market the climate change message.
Just like Inspire, Live Earth operated on dangerous ground. On the one hand was he need and desire to spread an important message. On the other was the fact that physically staging such an event will have generated a significant carbon footprint.
Yes there were clear ambiguities and certainly for many they will have undermined the message. No matter how much carbon was offset or how many hybrid/biofuel powered cars were enlisted to transport the performers to the venues the event will – to many– still have symbolised excess and underlined the problem rather than help find solutions.
But again, just like Inspire, we do have to break eggs if action is to be instigated. If we are to tackle the critical issue of climate change we have to act now, with force and in number.
So well done to both - mass media events are the difference that will make a difference to the big issues. We must build on the momentum that both have created.