Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

decimatio

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Firstly, the fact that you refer to a person's gender as 'their sexual equipment' doesn't help.

So let's take a breath right here. I think this is an important point.

I have said something which was intended as a humorous reference to peoples gender specific organs. I mean it in the sense that we are all people first and foremost, just that we have different 'tools'.

I'm sure you've noticed I said something similar regarding race, i.e 'funny coloured people'. Again, I mean this in a humorous fashion. What is 'funny coloured' to whom ? I'm funny coloured to Japanese for example.

It's my (probably politically incorrect way) of putting the point across that gender and race are insignificant.

Judging by your tone I guess you're not impressed with this language usage. Would you consider me sexist/racist for this usage ? Should I not use these terms ? And if not, why not ?

On your substantive point, there is a difference between the two examples that you used.

A conference on abiogenesis (assuming that it is aimed at a scientific audience) should have speakers that are knowledgeable about the topic and that reflect any significant differences of opinion in the field about the topic.

Agreed.

A conference on FGM (or any other topic that involves discussing ethics or human interaction) should have a variety of speakers from different backgrounds that give different perspectives that are relevant to learning more about the topic.

I think we are in agreement here but I am a little wary of the way you phrased it. You can have a 'variety' of speakers from 'different backgrounds' who are great (or terrible) speakers. The quality is important.

It should have the highest quality speakers regarding different aspects of the topic. If, for example, there are various specialised areas of knowledge regarding FGM (difference between cultures for example) then it would be desirable to have the best speaker who knows about FGM subtopic A and the best speaker who knows about FGM subtopic B.

It's much better logical to have 10 speakers of the same gender/race on stage when they are the best quality speakers on that topic then it is to have a mixture of people from difference races and genders where half of them replaced better speakers on the topic just because the people of colour A's quota was full.

Generally, there are no lists of the top X number of speakers on a topic.

No there generally isn't but it's not that hard to figure out a short list of the 'best' speakers on a topic either.

And a panel of speakers at a conference should be balanced in various ways for various reasons.

Balanced in what ways and reasons ? Balanced by what criteria ?

I'm sorry if this sounds crude but here is how I imagine this.

Inviter: Congratulations X. You've been selected as one of our speakers on Topic K.
X: Really ? Wow. I'm very surprised. I'm happy and all but I thought there were much more qualified people than I.
Inviter: There are but you are Colour Y / Gender Z so congratulations for been a minority. Well done.
X: Oh. Thanks ....

Kooli

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But that would not automatically make it valid to state that said conferences where racist and non-whites could not feel safe there.

I reckon if the response was the one I outlined (a denial of the problem, an insistence on objective proof, silencing and dismissal), I think a lot of non-white people would be perfectly entitled to feel that this is not a safe community for them. Others wouldn't be bothered.

Rev Hellfire

Kooli wrote: »

I reckon if the response was the one I outlined (a denial of the problem, an insistence on objective proof, silencing and dismissal), I think a lot of non-white people would be perfectly entitled to feel that this is not a safe community for them. Others wouldn't be bothered.

But no one is seriously stating that it didn't/couldn't happen, but rather the idea that such behaviour is pervasive within the 'community'.

Again there is nothing wrong with setting up inclusive policies, but once those policies seek to be punitive. Then people should ask why their freedoms are being revoked.

King Mob

Kooli wrote: »

Firstly, I didn't realise there was a survey like that. I presume it showed that a lot of people did experience unwelcomign and threatening behaviour?

I believe that the figure was around 14%.

Kooli wrote: »

Is that not enough to act upon? It seems like nit-picking to dismiss it. I'm sure if they asked about specific behaviours, it would still be possible to find a way to dismiss it if that's what you want to do.

But the survey AFAIR was inclusive of men and women and did not specify whether the unwelcoming behaviour was of a sexist nature or of other varieties.
Nor did it specify whether such behaviour would have dissuaded the answerer from attending further conferences.

So the survey is inadequate to draw any conclusions on the issue at hand. It might be an indicator, but it does not examine the specific problem.
A similar survey that is more detailed and specific would be much better and reasonable than anecdotes.

Kooli wrote: »

Secondly, I think the accusation that the movement has an endemic problem came later, and I can understand why. It wasn't about what happened in the elevator, or what happened at any other specific incident. It was the overwhelming feeling of a group 'closing ranks' that came when these were raised. Even I could see that as someone completely uninvolved and uninvested looking in from the outside. That's when it changed from 'harrassment against women happens in atheist communities just like it does in any area of normal life' to 'wow why are they trying to pretend it doesn't happen and refuse to even engage with the idea that it might, when it happens in every other area of life??'

But RW et al seem to consider anything save immediate agreement with their view as being against them. Asking questions or for clarification seems to wind up with you being labelled a troll. (Doing so politely and reasonably gets you labelled a tone troll.)
So the feeling of "closing of ranks" is highly suspect. (And a little hypocritical.)
Further they are conflating incidents with people in real life with incidents of people being trolls on the internet and using them interchangeably as the same issue.

And then their solutions they offer are unreasonable and do not address the issue they think is there.

One of the things skepchick did that actually did help the issue of gender imbalance in attendance was to offer grants for women to attend TAM.
That's a brilliant idea that most everyone would throw their wieght behind.

However, they are no longer offering that thanks to the infighting and bitchiness.

Nodin

Kooli wrote: »

Like if there was one racist incident at a (white-dominated) conference, I'm sure an organisation wouldn't hesitate in explicitly condemning the incident, expressing a zero-tolerance policy towards racism, and having a think about how to make the organisation more welcoming to minorities.
I just think it would be weird if the default response was 'Nope, that didn't happen'. .

.....but we don't have one documented incident. We have hysterical overstatement by one individual over nothing, and subsequently claims of "not being safe" start appearing.

Kooli wrote: »

I reckon if the response was the one I outlined (a denial of the problem, an insistence on objective proof, silencing and dismissal), I think a lot of non-white people would be perfectly entitled to feel that this is not a safe community for them. Others wouldn't be bothered.

The sheer fucking horror of it all...insisting on objective proof.

Why don't forget all about the whole evidence thing, or facts, and just go with our feelings? We can have regressive hypnotherapy to reawaken buried memories of people previously subjected to ritual abuse at these conferences...maybe people can undergo a sweatlodge and a rebirthing ceremony after, to purge themselves.

Michael Nugent

I'm going to address these points at random.

decimatio wrote: »

Balanced in what ways and reasons ? Balanced by what criteria ?

I'm sorry if this sounds crude but here is how I imagine this.

Inviter: Congratulations X. You've been selected as one of our speakers on Topic K.
X: Really ? Wow. I'm very surprised. I'm happy and all but I thought there were much more qualified people than I.
Inviter: There are but you are Colour Y / Gender Z so congratulations for been a minority. Well done.
X: Oh. Thanks ....

Try to think of a panel of speakers as a team, not a competition.

Inviter: We're holding a conference on Topic A. You have done/said B and C about this topic. Would you like to speak at the conference?
X: Really ? Wow. I'm very surprised. I'm happy and all but I thought there were much more qualified people than I.
Inviter: Not on the perspective that you can bring to the conference. The panel we have in mind will be discussing subtopic D. Person E will be talking about aspect F, person G will be talking about aspect H, and we hope that you will talk about aspect I.
X: Oh. Thanks ....

Also, try to think of conferences in the long term. The way that people become good at public speaking is by getting experience at public speaking. An effective long-term strategy for hosting effective conferences is to have a mix of experienced and up-and-coming speakers.

To return to the team analogy, it is like a sports team fielding a mix of youth and experience in any one game, in order to ensure that the team remains successful in the long run.

Aslo using the sports team analogy, a club might have a squad of good defenders, average midfielders and excellent attackers, but they are not going to play a team composed of no defenders or midfielders and all attackers.

They will try to find the best balance for the game in question and the future of the club.

decimatio

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Try to think of a panel of speakers as a team, not a competition.

Inviter: We're holding a conference on Topic A. You have done/said B and C about this topic. Would you like to speak at the conference?
X: Really ? Wow. I'm very surprised. I'm happy and all but I thought there were much more qualified people than I.
Inviter: Not on the perspective that you can bring to the conference. The panel we have in mind will be discussing subtopic D. Person E will be talking about aspect F, person G will be talking about aspect H, and we hope that you will talk about aspect I.
X: Oh. Thanks ....

No issues whatsoever with that. I'm sorry I may have misunderstood you earlier.

So you're not actually worried about a multiracial/gender-balanced group of speakers but rather the speakers who can bring the best quality and widest perspective of an issue to the table ? I completely agree.

Also, try to think of conferences in the long term. The way that people become good at public speaking is by getting experience at public speaking. An effective long-term strategy for hosting effective conferences is to have a mix of experienced and up-and-coming speakers.

As long as those up-and-coming speakers are not selected for non-speaking related reasons such as race or gender then I also agree.

To return to the team analogy, it is like a sports team fielding a mix of youth and experience in any one game, in order to ensure that the team remains successful in the long run.

Aslo using the sports team analogy, a club might have a squad of good defenders, average midfielders and excellent attackers, but they are not going to play a team composed of no defenders or midfielders and all attackers.

I don't see how that relates to gender or race.

Michael Nugent

decimatio wrote: »

No issues whatsoever with that. I'm sorry I may have misunderstood you earlier.

So you're not actually worried about a multiracial/gender-balanced group of speakers but rather the speakers who can bring the best quality and widest perspective of an issue to the table ? I completely agree.

The two are related.

I'm not worried about multiracial/gender-balance simply for the sake of appearances.

From a macro perspective, multiracial/gender-balance is one aspect of bringing the best quality and widest perspective of an issue to the table, when dealing with issues that relate to human interaction.

Naz_st

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I do - and I've said numerous times that not knowing prevalence in no way prevents an organisation en masse saying it's not an issue they want the minority of their female attendees to feel - rather than demands it be allowed to continue, aggressive dismissal, etc, etc, etc.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

This is an absolutely key point.

We can disagree on the scale of the problem.

But whatever the scale, we can agree to work together to eradicate it.

Isn't this one of those things though that is akin to the political spin of forcing an opponent to deny something he never said or believed in the first place. e.g. if two politicians are running for office and one one comes out and says, out of the blue, "I have never personally sexually harrassed any of my employees and in fact we have a strict policy on that within the campaign" or something - this might be an entirely true and laudable statement in and of itself but would widely be seen as hugely damaging to the credibility of the candidate since it implies, rightly or wrongly, some nefarious history behind it. It's so damaging in fact that political campaigners spend time trying to make the other side deny things (perfectly good things to deny).

Michael Nugent

decimatio wrote: »

So let's take a breath right here. I think this is an important point.

I have said something which was intended as a humorous reference to peoples gender specific organs. I mean it in the sense that we are all people first and foremost, just that we have different 'tools'.

I'm sure you've noticed I said something similar regarding race, i.e 'funny coloured people'. Again, I mean this in a humorous fashion. What is 'funny coloured' to whom ? I'm funny coloured to Japanese for example.

I did notice that, but as you placed it inside quote marks I took it as a reference by you to the type of phrase that somebody else might use.

decimatio wrote: »

It's my (probably politically incorrect way) of putting the point across that gender and race are insignificant.

Judging by your tone I guess you're not impressed with this language usage. Would you consider me sexist/racist for this usage ? Should I not use these terms ? And if not, why not ?

I understand that you were trying to be funny.

But we are not talking here about gender in the context of physical characteristics, but in terms of social roles, prejudice etc.

In that context, describing a person's gender as their sexual equipment, even humorously, is unhelpful to the discussion.

decimatio

Michael Nugent wrote: »

But we are not talking here about gender in the context of physical characteristics, but in terms of social roles, prejudice etc.

That's precisely why I use it. I want to emphasise the fact we are all people first and foremost. The most obvious difference between the sexes is our sexual organs so I try to highlight them as 'extras' if you will.

Michael Nugent

decimatio wrote: »

That's precisely why I use it. I want to emphasise the fact we are all people first and foremost. The most obvious difference between the sexes is our sexual organs so I try to highlight them as 'extras' if you will.

Well, your question, directed to me, was "Would you really want to select any speaker based on their sexual equipment?"

I assume that you knew, while you were writing that, that I would not want to select any speaker based on their sexual equipment.

So you were avoiding answering the actual point that I was making, which was a serious point, by caricaturing it into something else and dismissing that caricature as a joke.

decimatio

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Well, your question, directed to me, was "Would you really want to select any speaker based on their sexual equipment?"

I assume that you knew, while you were writing that, that I would not want to select any speaker based on their sexual equipment.

Actually Michael I didn't know because thats the way you were coming across earlier and it seems I'm not the only one that was confused by it. Hence my apology for misunderstanding you above.

I maintain that a panel should be selected on merit, that no places should be reserved for anyone based on race or gender. I believe that's also your position?

Kooli

decimatio wrote: »

Actually Michael I didn't know because thats the way you were coming across earlier and it seems I'm not the only one that was confused by it. Hence my apology for misunderstanding you above.

I maintain that a panel should be selected on merit, that no places should be reserved for anyone based on race or gender. I believe that's also your position?

THat would be fine in a world where gender prejudices don't exist. But we know that they do. Both anecdotally and with research evidence behind it.

If a group starts off predominantly male (and white, hetero etc.), then the leaders of the group will predominantly be male, as will the speakers at conferences etc.

As the group starts to include other minority groups, you have a choice. Do you pick the most experienced and widely published speakers to speak at every conference? And if so, doesn't it make sense that these would tend to still be male and white?
Or do you deliberately try to address the balance by actively encouraging balance on expert panels and at conferences?

Unless you try to actively oppose the dominance of one group, then you risk perpetuating the dominance of one group.

Actively addressing the balance then brings forward other groups which will have a knock-on effect as the years go by.

So you may see it as unfair that women and black people get on panels when they don't deserve it. But another way of looking at it is to redress the unearned privilege that white men get just by virtue of tradition and history.

Michael Nugent

decimatio wrote: »

Actually Michael I didn't know because thats the way you were coming across earlier and it seems I'm not the only one that was confused by it. Hence my apology for misunderstanding you above.

I maintain that a panel should be selected on merit, that no places should be reserved for anyone based on race or gender. I believe that's also your position?

No, you are still misunderstanding my position.

The gender balance of our committees and our conference panels should be one factor in its make-up, so that we gain from the variety of life perspectives that this brings to our decision making and our events.

That is not because of people's 'sexual equipment'.

It is not because of appearances.

It is (as Kooli has explained above) part of working towards a fair society where people are empowered to actually interact as equals in real life, as opposed to being technically theoretically treated as equals in your mind.

UDP

Kooli wrote: »

THat would be fine in a world where gender prejudices don't exist. But we know that they do. Both anecdotally and with research evidence behind it.

If a group starts off predominantly male (and white, hetero etc.), then the leaders of the group will predominantly be male, as will the speakers at conferences etc.

As the group starts to include other minority groups, you have a choice. Do you pick the most experienced and widely published speakers to speak at every conference? And if so, doesn't it make sense that these would tend to still be male and white?
Or do you deliberately try to address the balance by actively encouraging balance on expert panels and at conferences?

Unless you try to actively oppose the dominance of one group, then you risk perpetuating the dominance of one group.

Actively addressing the balance then brings forward other groups which will have a knock-on effect as the years go by.

So you may see it as unfair that women and black people get on panels when they don't deserve it. But another way of looking at it is to redress the unearned privilege that white men get just by virtue of tradition and history.

AKA positive discrimination

Kooli

UDP wrote: »

AKA positive discrimination

um...ok. Do you have an objection to anything I actually said?

Michael Nugent

UDP wrote: »

AKA positive discrimination

Positive discrimination is a misleading term, in my opinion.

It is balancing the unearned positive discrimination that some people already have.

Mark Hamill

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What do you think the public perception is to a group of women who have stated - with support from both male & female attendees and members of the community - that THEY feel that way, when they're constantly met with such vociferous resistance to accept such an issue should even be considered a problem, never mind the aggressive, petty and sarcastic manner in which many have chosen to voice their resistance? If someone says they feel threatened and you say "that's not being threatened and I demand my right to do it", can you not see why that would be interpreted as "I have a right to make you feel threatened"?

You didn't answer my question, has anyone actually responded in this way to the women claiming they are threatened? Anyone named now, not just anonymous bloggers/attendees mention by the women who made the claims in the first place, because thats who I usually see the vitriolic stuff attributed to?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Is that a serious question?

Take gender out of it and look at it another way. What about a public furore over a group of people experiencing sectarianism in Scotland? Unbelievably enough, despite being a Scot, I've never experienced sectarianism....to the point my Dad's best friend was a catholic rangers fan. If I stood here denying their was an issue with sectarianism in Scotland should/would that be enough for you to accept no issue exists and that the majority want no issue to exist? That no general damning of sectarianism need happen or policy relating to sectarianism need exist so that it's clear that an atmosphere of sectarianism isn't accepted or promoted?

Or there is no issue and women like the one with the t-shirt show that? Your analogy presupposes the existence of an issue, so of course its going to come to the conclusion that there is an issue there regardless. What general ideas would you propose for these conferences in order to make women feel more comfortable and less threatened?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I get that RW has hurt "the community" deeply. I get that many disagree there is a problem to begin with but I think peeps need to move on from that and see the bigger picture now...or at least make up their minds that either RW et al are a bunch of lunatics who are telling a heap of lies and shun/ignore them - or they have a point and should be listened to to some degree - because this thinking they're lunatic liars and and yet still giving them such a powerful position over what is happening in and with the entire movement is just madness.

I imagine part of the difficulty is that there is no (to my knowledge) single online presence for the other side of the debate. there is freethoughtblogs, with Watson and Myers et al running one united front their, but no single opposing front that can just stand up and say either of the possibilities you proposed. You generally have the people closer to the conferences in question disputing the claims, or people further away trying to propose middle grounds where the issue can be discussed in general (but being lost in the shambles that is FTB, just see Zombrex's experiences earlier in the thread).

Mark Hamill

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's not ironic to point out the public relations nightmare that is demanding proof that a minority of those who have experienced your community first hand feels threatened or awkward rather than just expressing regret anyone feel such a way and that it's not something they endorse.

Not that I am part of these communities, but I would not want to be part of a skeptical community that gets into public relations nightmares for being skeptical about things.

Rev Hellfire

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It is balancing the unearned positive discrimination that some people already have.

Would you apply that to the speakers, that somehow their achievements are lessened because fewer women take the podium ?

People should be encouraged and enabled to participate, but the idea that one group should be disadvantaged to further another is wrong no matter how you dress it up with prefixes.

Michael Nugent

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Would you apply that to the speakers, that somehow their achievements are lessened because fewer women take the podium ?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you rephrase it?

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

People should be encouraged and enabled to participate, but the idea that one group should be disadvantaged to further another is wrong no matter how you dress it up with prefixes.

At the moment, one group is disadvantaged to further another.

And it's not just an idea, it is reality.

robindch

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Positive discrimination is a misleading term, in my opinion. It is balancing the unearned positive discrimination that some people already have.

If I were a member of some positively-discriminated group, and if I'd been asked to speak at some event or other, I think my main worry would be that I'd been invited, not because I was the best speaker or not because I'd anything interesting to say, but because my presence would make up the numbers.

Positive discrimination might be useful where it's done quietly and subtly, but where it's an open policy, well, I think it's open to suspicions, and open to abuse too.

Duggys Housemate

Michael Nugent wrote: »

To return to the team analogy, it is like a sports team fielding a mix of youth and experience in any one game, in order to ensure that the team remains successful in the long run.

Aslo using the sports team analogy, a club might have a squad of good defenders, average midfielders and excellent attackers, but they are not going to play a team composed of no defenders or midfielders and all attackers.

They will try to find the best balance for the game in question and the future of the club.

That relatively sane argument is totally unrelated to the gender issue at hand. Do sports teams , like Man United, have female players, and if they dont - and of course they don't - is it discrimination, or practicality?

The fact is they don't because none are good enough.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The two are related.

I'm not worried about multiracial/gender-balance simply for the sake of appearances.

From a macro perspective, multiracial/gender-balance is one aspect of bringing the best quality and widest perspective of an issue to the table, when dealing with issues that relate to human interaction.

Not at all. These debates are sceptic debates, in any case, in general scientific debates, not the identity politics malarky so beloved of people with the less rigorous degrees. You have your own communities - go there.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you rephrase it?


At the moment, one group is disadvantaged to further another.

And it's not just an idea, it is reality.

One group has better, more famous, and speakers. Men tend to gravitate towards science.

Look - split the movement, online and offline. If the feminists, male or female, take over, some brilliant scientist or other will be boycotted. Take the great Atheists of the past, and now - Feynman visited strip clubs, and got laid at conferences - met his wife at one if I recall; Carl Sagan had 3 wifes, Hitchens had heretical views on abortion, Dawkins - as we see in this thread - has sounded off, correctly, on this insipid nonsense. And annoyed certain identity politicals.

A non-belief in God does not a community make. Scientifically minded sceptics are not the same as identity politics which Watson et al. bring to the debate. There are - and I am counting - no female scientists I would turn up for at a sceptics convention. Well, maybe Alice Roberts. The rest are male.

There are plenty of conferences which are gender balanced, and general whine fests where victims get to whine. Go there, leave sceptics alone.

Michael Nugent

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

These debates are sceptic debates, in any case, in general scientific debates, not the identity politics malarky so beloved of people with the less rigorous degrees. You have your own communities - go there.

What?

What debates are you talking about?

What communities do I have?

Where are you suggesting that I go?

Michael Nugent

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

There are - and I am counting - no female scientists I would turn up for at a sceptics convention. Well, maybe Alice Roberts. The rest are male.

So you would have no interest in hearing any of the approximately 150 female scientists on these three lists, if they were invited to speak at a skeptics convention?

UNESCO women in science awards 1998-2012

University of Minnesota Distinguished Women Scientists and Engineers Speakers Program 2002-2012

Women scientists who give awesome seminars

Michael Nugent

robindch wrote: »

If I were a member of some positively-discriminated group, and if I'd been asked to speak at some event or other, I think my main worry would be that I'd been invited, not because I was the best speaker or not because I'd anything interesting to say, but because my presence would make up the numbers.

Robin, you are a member of a positively-discriminated group.

If you were asked today to speak at an event, would you worry that you were asked because men are more frequently asked to speak than women?

Duggys Housemate

Michael Nugent wrote: »

What?

What debates are you talking about?

What communities do I have?

Where are you suggesting that I go?

Apparently you are head of atheist Ireland, or something, a self selecting group which is unrelated to the sceptics I have been reading, or listening to.

This is your mission.

1. Promoting reason, critical thinking and science
2. Promoting atheism over supernaturalism
3. Promoting natural compassion and ethics
4. Promoting inclusive, caring atheist groups
5. Promoting fair and just societies

6. Promoting secular government
7. Promoting local, national and global solidarity

None of the boldified stuff is universal amongst atheists. There are Randian atheists. There are centrist atheists. No 5. is socialist - I don't think the vast majority of atheists are, or have to be, socialist. By he way that kind of rhetoric would not be out of place in a religious seminar on poverty, its word for word the kind of guff that CORI comes out with. Its not hard marxism, or socialism, not attacking the rich: just gushy wushy, nice "inclusive" silliness. Its the antithesis of Hitchen's type prose: full of ugly and language killing cliches. why would atheists promote global solidarity? How would we "promote" it, what does that hippy phrase mean?

The terms are suspect anyway, how can a group be "inclusive" if it is not going to have theists. All groups of self selecting individuals is by definition discriminatory.

Anyway, good look with he gender and age and racial and class balanced seminars, Ill be listening to Pinker and Dawkins et al. - rich Oxbridge and Harvard elites though they be - when they pop to town. You be "inclusive", theyll be interesting.

Michael Nugent

Duggys Housemate wrote: »

Apparently you are head of atheist Ireland, or something, a self selecting group which is unrelated to the sceptics I have been reading, or listening to.

Thanks for that.

Again....

What debates are you talking about?

What communities do I have?

Where are you suggesting that I go?

Also, thanks for your feedback on my draft manifesto to promote ethical atheism. I'm particularly happy to hear critical feedback, as it will help to improve the final draft.

I have separate thread on it here, as it is a broader topic than this thread.

A draft Manifesto to promote Ethical Atheism

condra

Giving people special treatment doesn't empower them.

decimatio

Kooli wrote: »

THat would be fine in a world where gender prejudices don't exist. But we know that they do. Both anecdotally and with research evidence behind it.

It's not just fine. It's the right thing to do. In any world.

As the group starts to include other minority groups, you have a choice. Do you pick the most experienced and widely published speakers to speak at every conference? And if so, doesn't it make sense that these would tend to still be male and white?

If they are the best group of speakers on various aspects of the issue, Yes.

Or do you deliberately try to address the balance by actively encouraging balance on expert panels and at conferences?

What do you mean by 'balance' ? Because the way you are coming across to me is that by balance you specifically mean people of different ethnic backgrounds and gender and I don't see why that's something that matters.

Unless you try to actively oppose the dominance of one group, then you risk perpetuating the dominance of one group.

And this is the problem. People shouldn't see groups. They shouldn't see race or gender. They should see individuals.

So you may see it as unfair that women and black people get on panels when they don't deserve it.

I see it as unfair when anyone gets on a panel that doesn't deserve it.

But another way of looking at it is to redress the unearned privilege that white men get just by virtue of tradition and history.

What privilege do white men have by virtue of tradition and history ? I'm a white male, what privilege do I have ?

decimatio

Michael Nugent wrote: »

No, you are still misunderstanding my position.

The gender balance of our committees and our conference panels should be one factor in its make-up, so that we gain from the variety of life perspectives that this brings to our decision making and our events.

Again, assertions and more assertions. How do we gain from this ?

I do understand how different perspectives can be of great benefit. I don't see what that has to do with gender or race.

You continue to talk about a balance. Well here's an enormous imbalance for you.

I'm sure you are aware that these conferences and most Sceptics/Atheists in general tend to be quite left wing politically. I have read people complaining about this before and I've met people who are Atheists who won't go near such conferences or join Atheist organisations because they are overwhelmingly pushing out a left wing political agenda especially regarding such organisations in the US.

Now I am left wing myself so it's not an issue for me but it is a huge issue for others.

Yet I notice how no one to my knowledge who has been crying about balance, racism, and sexism has had anything to say about this group of people.

Will you be calling for the addition of a right wing atheist to conference panels in the future ?

It is (as Kooli has explained above) part of working towards a fair society where people are empowered to actually interact as equals in real life, as opposed to being technically theoretically treated as equals in your mind.

Which has nothing to do with race or gender.

decimatio

robindch wrote: »

Positive discrimination might be useful where it's done quietly and subtly, but where it's an open policy, well, I think it's open to suspicions, and open to abuse too.

I firmly believe it has no place anywhere when it's done purely in terms of physical attributes such as race or gender.

decimatio

Michael Nugent wrote: »

So you would have no interest in hearing any of the approximately 150 female scientists on these three lists, if they were invited to speak at a skeptics convention?

UNESCO women in science awards 1998-2012
University of Minnesota Distinguished Women Scientists and Engineers Speakers Program 2002-2012
Women scientists who give awesome seminars

I know this wasn't directed at me but I'll answer anyways.

I would love to listen to them, preferably I want to listen to the best scientists on the issue whatever their gender or race may be, if they are available.

I don't want to listen to someone who was stuck on the panel over someone better able to speak because they happened to be born with a different colour or gender to the majority.

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

If I were a member of some positively-discriminated group, and if I'd been asked to speak at some event or other, I think my main worry would be that I'd been invited, not because I was the best speaker or not because I'd anything interesting to say, but because my presence would make up the numbers.

Positive discrimination might be useful where it's done quietly and subtly, but where it's an open policy, well, I think it's open to suspicions, and open to abuse too.

Certainly "postive discrimination" run by RW et al would be deeply suspect.

Rev Hellfire

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you rephrase it?

Sorry it was a misunderstanding of something said/imagined on my side.

robindch

Michael Nugent wrote: »

If you were asked today to speak at an event, would you worry that you were asked because men are more frequently asked to speak than women?

As above, if I were a woman and I'd been asked to speak by somebody whom I know discriminates in favour of women, then as above, I'd be quite concerned that I'd been invited at least in part, because I was a woman.

You can't have it both ways -- if you positively discriminate, or at least make it known that you do, then you can't help if people draw the conclusion that they were only invited to make up the numbers. Which, no doubt, at least some probably were.

I can't speak for anybody else, but if I were invited, I'd like to think that the invitation was solely on account of the quality of what I had to say.

Rev Hellfire

robindch wrote: »

I can't speak for anybody else, but if I were invited, I'd like to think that the invitation was solely on account of the quality of what I had to say.

tbh I'm not sure I'd place much store in a conference/lecture where the speakers are chosen based on meeting predefined quota's as opposed to chosen on their respective merits.

Improbable

If there are 10 panelists to be selected for a discussion on a particular topic, and the 10 people who have the most insight and knowledge about that topic are all men, then so be it. If the 10 people who have the most insight and knowledge about that topic are all women, then so be it. Preferential treatment is bad, regardless of whether the group receiving the preferential treatment is a majority or a minority. Is it not wrong for someone to be chosen on the basis of what gender they are over someone who may be better qualified, just because there's a gender imbalance?

UDP

Kooli wrote: »

um...ok. Do you have an objection to anything I actually said?

I don't agree with discrimination at all - whether it be positive or negative. I believe that people should be selected based on merit which does include relevant experiences but I don't think there should ever be a rule that says we must have at least 4 women on this panel just like I don't think there should be a rule that says we must have at least 4 men on this panel. I don't place any weight on what gender a person is - all I care about is the arguments/points they are making.

Michael Nugent

robindch wrote: »

As above, if I were a woman and I'd been asked to speak by somebody whom I know discriminates in favour of women, then as above, I'd be quite concerned that I'd been invited at least in part, because I was a woman.

Robin, I understand your position on this, and I understand why this would be a concern for you.

You haven't addressed the question that I asked:

Given that you know (whatever the reasons for it happening) that men are more frequently asked to speak than women, if you were asked today to speak at an event, would you be concerned that you had been invited, at least in part, because you are a man?

Michael Nugent

UDP wrote: »

I don't agree with discrimination at all - whether it be positive or negative.

And there currently is discrimination, in favour of men.

This is the case, regardless of why it is the case or whether it is deliberate or subconscious.

UDP wrote: »

I believe that people should be selected based on merit which does include relevant experiences but I don't think there should ever be a rule that says we must have at least 4 women on this panel just like I don't think there should be a rule that says we must have at least 4 men on this panel. I don't place any weight on what gender a person is - all I care about is the arguments/points they are making.

I'm not suggesting rules for number of women or men.

I'm suggesting that it is possible to have more balance by becoming more aware of the range of women who could be asked to speak, and who would be as good or bad as many of the men who are currently disproportionately asked to speak, but who just don't appear on many people's radars at the moment.

MagicMarker

Can I ask a hypothetical question Michael?

Let's say there's an AI convention for instance, there's time allocated for 5 speakers, of which 4 have already been selected and all 4 are men. You've been asked to select the final speaker, you have 2 people in mind for the spot, a male and female, both experts in the same field and you discover both are available. However, it just so happens the male is the more accomplished in their field and the more sought after speaker.

Who are you going to ask to speak at the convention?

Michael Nugent

MagicMarker wrote: »

Can I ask a hypothetical question Michael?

Let's say there's an AI convention for instance, there's time allocated for 5 speakers, of which 4 have already been selected and all 4 are men. You've been asked to select the final speaker, you have 2 people in mind for the spot, a male and female, both experts in the same field and you discover both are available. However, it just so happens the male is the more accomplished in their field and the more sought after speaker.

Who are you going to ask to speak at the convention?

In that particular hypothetical case, if selecting that one speaker is the only input that I have into the event, I would select the speaker who happened to be male, and then talk to the organizers of the convention about their selection methods for future conventions.

Now let me ask you a hypothetical question.

Let's say there's a convention in whatever field you are active in, and there’s time allocated for 5 speakers, and none of them have been selected so far.

You’ve been asked to select all five speakers, and you have been asked to make sure that you don’t subconsciously follow the bias of just selecting from people that immediately come to mind, and in particular to seek out and examine the merits of female speakers who are often overlooked. You’ve also been asked to balance the immediate benefits of this particular convention with the longterm benefits of ongoing conventions by having a mix of established and up-and-coming speakers at any given convention.

If you (and everybody else organising conventions) did this, do you think it is more likely that we would have a better balance of men and women speakers?

UDP

Michael Nugent wrote: »

And there currently is discrimination, in favour of men.

This is the case, regardless of why it is the case or whether it is deliberate or subconscious.

I don't know if there is.

A quick look at the Global Atheist Convention 2012 in Australia has:
13 Women
25 Men
1 Looks to be of asian desent
1 Black Person
30+ Caucasians
13 Glass Wearers
(out of 38)

Do we know the demographics of the atheist community?

Looking at the speaker list for TAM 2012 there was:
19 Females
28 Males
(1) Black person (Neil deGrasse Tyson? Although not listed in the speakers list)
1 Asian person
46 Caucasians
(Out of 47)

The only discrimination I can see there might be more to do with race rather than gender.

Looking at the speaker list for TAM 2011 there was:
24 Males
23 Females
(Out of 47)

Am I missing something here? Do we even know the demographics of the Skeptic "community"?
This is just a very quick look but has someone looked into this further to see if the claims of discrimination are actually true?
Is there a much much bigger claim of discrimination in favor of Caucasians over non-Caucasians?

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I'm not suggesting rules for number of women or men.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I’m not suggesting 50/50 requirements. Personally, for any given conference, I think 60/40 is probably okay in either direction.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I'm suggesting that it is possible to have more balance by becoming more aware of the range of women who could be asked to speak, and who would be as good or bad as many of the men who are currently disproportionately asked to speak, but who just don't appear on many people's radars at the moment.

If a female has something to bring to a discussion then of course she should be included.

Do you know of any instances where female speakers are not being asked to speak because they are female?

Michael Nugent

UDP wrote: »

A quick look at the Global Atheist Convention 2012 in Australia has:
13 Women
25 Men
1 Looks to be of asian desent
1 Black Person
30+ Caucasians
13 Glass Wearers
(out of 38)

Do we know the demographics of the atheist community?

Looking at the speaker list for TAM 2012 there was:
19 Females
28 Males
(1) Black person (Neil deGrasse Tyson? Although not listed in the speakers list)
1 Asian person
46 Caucasians
(Out of 47)

The only discrimination I can see there might be more to do with race rather than gender.

Looking at the speaker list for TAM 2011 there was:
24 Males
23 Females
(Out of 47)

Global Atheist Convention, Melbourne, 2012
25:13 (66% male)

Ascent of Atheism, Denver, 2012
19:10 (65% male)

AAI European Convention, Cologne, 2012
16:4 (80% male)

TAM 2012
28:15 (60% male)

TAM 2011
24:23 (51% male)

TAM 2010 - 3 meetings
Featured speakers on TAM website
24:8 (75% male)

TAM, historical, 14 meetings, 2003-2012
Approximately 70% male

Whatever the gender balance at any one event, surely a pattern that goes consistently in one direction shows at least an unconscious bias in favour of male speakers?

UDP wrote: »

Am I missing something here? Do we even know the demographics of the Skeptic "community"?

I’m not sure what point you are making here.

If you are suggesting that the speaker ratio should reflect the demographics of the relevant community, then are you not supporting the idea of gender balance based on demographics?

UDP wrote: »

Is there a much much bigger claim of discrimination in favor of Caucasians over non-Caucasians?

That's certainly possible.

UDP wrote: »

Do you know of any instances where female speakers are not being asked to speak because they are female?

I'm not suggesting that that happens. What I am suggesting is that many female speakers don't even get to be considered as potential speakers because there is a bias towards selecting already-known male speakers without checking to see if there are equally good or better female speakers.

tdawg

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Global Atheist Convention, Melbourne, 2012
25:13 (66% male)

Ascent of Atheism, Denver, 2012
19:10 (65% male)

AAI European Convention, Cologne, 2012
16:4 (80% male)

TAM 2012
28:15 (60% male)

TAM 2011
24:23 (51% male)

TAM 2010 - 3 meetings
Featured speakers on TAM website
24:8 (75% male)

TAM, historical, 14 meetings, 2003-2012
Approximately 70% male

Whatever the gender balance at any one event, surely a pattern that goes consistently in one direction shows at least an unconscious bias in favour of male speakers?


I’m not sure what point you are making here.

If you are suggesting that the speaker ratio should reflect the demographics of the relevant community, then are you not supporting the idea of gender balance based on demographics?


That's certainly possible.


I'm not suggesting that that happens. What I am suggesting is that many female speakers don't even get to be considered as potential speakers because there is a bias towards selecting already-known male speakers without checking to see if there are equally good or better female speakers.

'If you are suggesting that the speaker ratio should reflect the demographics of the relevant community, then are you not supporting the idea of gender balance based on demographics?'

Do you not see that you are actually creating this gender issue?

It seems in line with the proportion of male/female atheists (65:35 from the numbers you give), then that comes across that people are chosen on their merits. There are still a significant portion of female speakers. Where is the issue?

strobe

Michael Nugent wrote: »

UDP wrote: »

A quick look at the Global Atheist Convention 2012 in Australia has:
13 Women
25 Men
1 Looks to be of asian desent
1 Black Person
30+ Caucasians
13 Glass Wearers
(out of 38)

Do we know the demographics of the atheist community?

Looking at the speaker list for TAM 2012 there was:
19 Females
28 Males
(1) Black person (Neil deGrasse Tyson? Although not listed in the speakers list)
1 Asian person
46 Caucasians
(Out of 47)

The only discrimination I can see there might be more to do with race rather than gender.

Looking at the speaker list for TAM 2011 there was:
24 Males
23 Females
(Out of 47)

Global Atheist Convention, Melbourne, 2012
25:13 (66% male)

Ascent of Atheism, Denver, 2012
19:10 (65% male)

AAI European Convention, Cologne, 2012
16:4 (80% male)

TAM 2012
28:15 (60% male)

TAM 2011
24:23 (51% male)

TAM 2010 - 3 meetings
Featured speakers on TAM website
24:8 (75% male)

TAM, historical, 14 meetings, 2003-2012
Approximately 70% male

Whatever the gender balance at any one event, surely a pattern that goes consistently in one direction shows at least an unconscious bias in favour of male speakers?

UDP wrote: »

Am I missing something here? Do we even know the demographics of the Skeptic "community"?

I’m not sure what point you are making here.

If you are suggesting that the speaker ratio should reflect the demographics of the relevant community, then are you not supporting the idea of gender balance based on demographics?

UDP wrote: »

Is there a much much bigger claim of discrimination in favor of Caucasians over non-Caucasians?

That's certainly possible.

UDP wrote: »

Do you know of any instances where female speakers are not being asked to speak because they are female?

I'm not suggesting that that happens. What I am suggesting is that many female speakers don't even get to be considered as potential speakers because there is a bias towards selecting already-known male speakers without checking to see if there are equally good or better female speakers.

So the 'bias' is towards selecting well known speakers vs more obscure ones rather than male vs female perhaps?

Michael Nugent

tdawg wrote: »

It seems in line with the proportion of male/female atheists (65:35 from the numbers you give), then that comes across that people are chosen on their merits. There are still a significant portion of female speakers. Where is the issue?

I am suggesting that, if speakers were chosen on merit, then - in the long run, on average - there would be approximately the same number of men and women speakers, and any given convention might have more men or more women.

However, in practice, there is a consistent pattern of more male speakers than female speakers. This suggests either that men are consistently and inherently better speakers than women (which I don’t believe is the case) or that there is a bias, likely to be unconscious, in favour of male speakers (which I do believe is the case).

Michael Nugent

strobe wrote: »

So the 'bias' is towards selecting well known speakers vs more obscure ones rather than male vs female perhaps?

Yes, I think that is likely to be how it manifests itself.

But I think that one of the reasons that there are more well-known male speakers than well-known female speakers is because of the general biases in favor of men that have evolved in most societies.