Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Dawkins sounds off. Lots of atheists upset.

1…4041434546…65

Comments

  • #1262
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I hear you - but then again, if someone was recanting this story about a religion having a minority who had experienced issues and that religion refused to accept they could in any way be at fault and a schism was forming as a result - wouldn't we be sitting here thinking "how typical"?

    Honestly Ickle, it'd depend on the circumstances. If the minority in a religion claimed the majority did X, but X wasn't apparent and X wasn't being shown to be apparent, and the minority seemed to have ulterior motive for claiming X, then I'd imagine I'd view it in much the same way I view this.


    See - this is just more of the same "they said this", "he did this first", "I'm only doing X cos they did Y" trench warfare I was posting about earlier. I haven't seen one side be rational and mature and the other ridiculous - they've both been as bad as each other and just as determined to paint the other as the bad guy.

    I've said it already many times in this thread - if anyone thinks a movement is going to garner support by demanding it's members be afforded the right to make it's minority female attendees feel awkward or threatened then they need their heads read - and unfortunately that's the way it's coming across at the moment ( <- those reactions Mark :) ).

    You can argue the logic or rationale or biology or anti-sexism behind it if you want - or field any number of female attendees who can't see an issue but that's the bottom line in terms of public perception. I think it's time to stop trying to fight to the last man (woman!) to determine who is RIGHT and move onto ensuring the word is out that having female attendees be made to feel awkward or threatened is not the kind of atmosphere or ethos the movement wants to promote - then ignore the lunatic fringe and move on.

    See I just don't see that happening Ickle, I've seen you claim it, and maybe it's coming across like that, but I haven't seen it happen. I've not really seen anyone demanding the right to make it's minority female attendees feel awkward or threatened. I've seen certain attendees say something makes them personally feel awkward and threatened and then superimposed those feelings on all other minority female attendees all right, but that's not the same thing.

    As far as I can see there were X number of female's attending these conferences and stuff, then all the claims of sexism and sexual harrasment and threatening behaviour were leveled from one quarter (sixteenth... one millionth?) and female attendance dropped.
    Just to me it seems that all the awkward sexual harassing would have caused a numbers drop all on it's own, but scream fire in a packed cinema and people will leave, fire or no.

    Absolutely have the word out that having female attendees feeling threatened or awkward is not acceptable. But near as I can tell, the word was out, there really wasn't much question of that being the case, females were attending away, and attendances rising, and not a mention of being made feel awkward and threatened. Then some people screamed ideologically motivated bloody murder and people figured no smoke without fire and began to worry about being made to feel awkward and threatened should they attend.

    But like I say, this is just my reading of the whole thing. Maybe these conferences and forums and blogs and websites etc were always hotbeds of rampant sexism where women were viewed as nothing but fodder for the bumbling sexual advances of the men there... I just, see nothing to suggest that was, or is, the case. And if it happens that my reading was/is right, and that wasn't/isn't the case, then what has transpired, the disingenuous push for a certain ideological stance to be adopted as the only acceptable one by any means necessary is not, in my opinion, something that should have a red carpet rolled out for it.


  • #1263
    decimatio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭decimatio


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    That doesn't follow at all.

    At the moment, people have a better chance of being chosen if they are a man.

    Does that lower the standard?

    Not for a second saying you're wrong but where do get that info from? If true it's a terrible state of affairs and needs to be addressed.

    I'm not accusing you of lying Michael but I've never heard anything to support such an assertion. Atheists I've met tend to be colour and gender blind regarding such issues. Now in fairness I've never been to the US where most of this issue seems.to be happening and I've not really been involved with any groups so maybe my experience is quite different from others.

    Here on A&A for example I don't think a single member could care less about ones plumbing or pigmentation.


  • #1264
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I've said it already many times in this thread - if anyone thinks a movement is going to garner support by demanding it's members be afforded the right to make it's minority female attendees feel awkward or threatened then they need their heads read - and unfortunately that's the way it's coming across at the moment ( <- those reactions Mark :) ).

    Has anyone said that though, or has one side presented the others argument as that? Has anyone outside of FTB said that women should expect to feel threatened at these conferences?
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    or field any number of female attendees who can't see an issue but that's the bottom line in terms of public perception.

    Maybe they can't see the issue because it isn't there? :confused:
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I think it's time to stop trying to fight to the last man (woman!) to determine who is RIGHT and move onto ensuring the word is out that having female attendees be made to feel awkward or threatened is not the kind of atmosphere or ethos the movement wants to promote - then ignore the lunatic fringe and move on.

    And having female attendees saying that they don't feel awkward or threatened fails to do that how?


  • #1265
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    "community members" is not limited to men - tho I can see with the male prefix for attendees it looks that way...it wasn't intended that way, I have a habit of just typing as I think and hitting post.

    Ok.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    To be honest I couldn't care less what "it" is. I don't lose any sleep over what a few random bloggers do or don't do.

    Can you not see how the people being accused might care about what the bloggers do? To them, its not just some random bloggers, its people they invited to speak at their conferences, some multiple times, who have suddenly turned around and come out with some incredible accusations (did you read RW's later claims? I couldn't get any sense out of them ). I can understand the accused party strongly disputing these allegations, even if they are true. What makes no sense is the accusers being unwilling to enter into proper skeptical enquiry about these claims, even on their own forums.


  • #1266
    decimatio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭decimatio


    swampgas wrote: »

    I simply can't quite comprehend how so many people cannot get into their heads how being propositioned in a lift might be intimidating, perhaps even scary. I think Ciderman described it quite well a while back.

    I don't think that someone should (necessarily) make a fuss about it if nothing actually happened, but to suggest that a woman in a lift with a man she doesn't know should just be all chilled out is just ... bizarre.

    I don't think that's what people are saying.

    People can of course understand why she may feel that way. I can also underatand how a woman might feel intimidated etc in a lift by herself and a strange man without any proposition. Or how a woman can feel intimidated walking home alone or a thousand different scenarios.

    People feel such emotions for a variety of reasons. My partner feels uncomfortable and sometimes quite scared around foreigners. I know a Japanese girl who feels intimidated by foreign women but not men because she was attacked before by a foreign woman and the size difference between her and women of european descent is quite substantial. She panics when she is alone with foreign women especially in bathrooms, the scene of her previous assault.

    People can and do feel like this. That's not the issue.

    Watson might well have felt intimidated or feared rape and she has that right. But that doesn't mean the guy did anything wrong either.

    And I'm really starting to get annoyed at some peoples suggestions that those of us who are against watson are so because we want the right to proposition women anywhere and anytime. It's a pathetic accusation.

    I am against it because she is talking about curtailing the rights of people based on possible feelings of some people in some situations. Her feelings are regretable but ultimately completely irrelevant to society at large.

    Take my japanese friend. I realise it's quite an extreme and its far from the same situation but its not as rare as you might think. I've met a not insubstantial number of asian women who are imtimidated by foreign women. A lot of the same arguments regarding physicality and agressiveness between men and women also apply between western women and asian.


  • Advertisement
  • #1267
    decimatio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭decimatio


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    I thought they were having trouble recruiting female attendees - reporting a 50% drop...if there's no issue then why not just ignore Skepchick et al and get on with it? At least employ some damage limitation.

    I'm really not trying to be smart here but wasn't the 50% drop after skepchick went into lunatic mode and started warning women of the dangers of such conferences?


  • #1268
    decimatio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭decimatio


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    At the moment, in practice, there are bonus points for being a man.

    Does that lower the standard?

    Michael you keep making that assertion without explaining why you think its true. How do men have an advantage here?

    You know my favourite scientist to listen to on any issue? Tyson. Is it because he's a man? No. Is it because he's black? No. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything besides his intellect and charisma.

    My (for lack of a better word) hero these days is Hirsi Ali. Is it because she's a woman? No. Is it because she's a 'funny coloured person'? No.

    Before her it was Hitchens. Again, nothing to do with his race or colour.

    I personally don't like Dawkins (on religion), I really dislike Myers because of his political and feminist fanaticism, I dislike thunderf00t because of his attitude, I dislike watson because she's not a good speaker. I don't like or dislike anyone based on their race or gender. I have no racial, ethnic, or gender bias of any kind except when it comes to sexuality of course. And I don't accept your assertion that there are large numbers of people in the atheist community that do.


  • #1269
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    decimatio wrote: »
    Michael you keep making that assertion without explaining why you think its true. How do men have an advantage here?
    Because men are disproportionately invited to speak at conferences. Consistently.

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

    But a constant bias in the same direction all of the time points to a problem.

    Some important provisos:
    I am not saying this a problem unique to atheist conferences. It isn’t.
    I am not saying that there is a conscious decision to invite more men. There isn’t.

    I believe it mostly reflects passive sexist attitudes in both men and women, that we are not even consciously aware of, but that results in us thinking more easily of male speakers.
    decimatio wrote: »
    You know my favourite scientist to listen to on any issue? Tyson. Is it because he's a man? No. Is it because he's black? No. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything besides his intellect and charisma.

    My (for lack of a better word) hero these days is Hirsi Ali. Is it because she's a woman? No. Is it because she's a 'funny coloured person'? No.

    Before her it was Hitchens. Again, nothing to do with his race or colour.

    I personally don't like Dawkins (on religion), I really dislike Myers because of his political and feminist fanaticism, I dislike thunderf00t because of his attitude, I dislike watson because she's not a good speaker. I don't like or dislike anyone based on their race or gender. I have no racial, ethnic, or gender bias of any kind except when it comes to sexuality of course. And I don't accept your assertion that there are large numbers of people in the atheist community that do.
    For example, in your random list of people that you don’t think of in terms of their gender, five of the seven people that immediately came to your mind were men.

    The fact that we don’t do it deliberately, and that most of the time we don’t even notice it, makes it a harder problem to tackle.


  • #1270
    decimatio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭decimatio


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Because men are disproportionately invited to speak at conferences. Consistently.

    First of all how do you know it's disproportionate ? Unless I'm very much mistaken statistics show that men are much more likely to label themselves Atheists than women are. How do you know that the number of quality female speakers is (presumably) higher than is currently represented ?

    Take for example a sample size of 100 available speakers and places for 10 at a conference. The top 10 quality speakers consist of 8 members of gender A and 2 members of gender B. These speakers are chosen for their quality. Is that not the way it should be ?

    The way you are coming across to me is something like the following, and I apologise if this isn't accurate.

    There are 100 available speakers and places for 10 at a conference. The top 3 speakers from gender A are selected. The top 3 speakers from gender B are selected and the remaining 4 speakers are the top speakers from selected minorities.

    To me Skepchick and co are coming across as the sexists and the racists. Race and gender should have no role in selection. The best people should be selected on their abilities, not on their race, ethnicity or gender.

    And lastly who is doing the inviting ? If these people are choosing people by race or gender then clearly they are the problem.
    I’m not suggesting 50/50 requirements. Personally, for any given conference, I think 60/40 is probably okay in either direction.

    I don't understand why people think this is somehow addressing racism or sexism. This IS racist, this IS sexist. This is looking at the world through race and sex. That IS the problem.

    If the best speakers are all women then the speakers at a conference should be all women.
    If the best speakers are all Asian men then the speakers at a conference should be all Asian men.
    But a constant bias in the same direction all of the time points to a problem.

    The proportion of men to women, whites to non-whites could point to a bias but you have not shown that.

    You are asserting something without backing it up. If whoever is in charge of inviting speakers is selecting people based on race or gender then they are the problem and should be replaced.

    This is what needs to be addressed. If there is bias in the selection process then the selection process needs to be looked at. Who are these people who select speakers ? Are Atheist conferences outsourcing to the Klu Klux Klan to select their speakers ?
    Some important provisos:
    I am not saying this a problem unique to atheist conferences. It isn’t.
    I am not saying that there is a conscious decision to invite more men. There isn’t.

    I believe it mostly reflects passive sexist attitudes in both men and women, that we are not even consciously aware of, but that results in us thinking more easily of male speakers.

    Again, who is 'us' ? Is there some group of rich old white men sitting around somewhere sending invites off ?

    If you were to organise a conference tomorrow in Dublin and the topic was (for example) abiogenesis how would you select the speakers ?

    I would propose that you would look at the leading researchers in the field and select the top X number to invite where X is the number of speakers you have places for.

    Would you really want to select any speaker based on their sexual equipment or ethnic background ?

    If you were to organise a conference tomorrow in Dublin for 10 speakers and the topic was (for example) FGM and the top 10 speakers on the subject were women would you throw a man in there for good measure even if he was 20 places down the list of knowledgeable people on the subject ?

    People who care about race and gender are the problem. They might have the very best of intentions but it's still wrong.
    For example, in your random list of people that you don’t think of in terms of their gender, five of the seven people that immediately came to your mind were men.

    Indeed they were. Now am I sexist because most atheist celebrities I know of are men ?

    If you asked me for a random list of science fiction authors it would also contain mostly men.
    If you asked me for a random list of singers it would be mostly women.
    If you asked me for a random list of comedians it would be about 60/40 to men.
    If you asked me for random list of historical figures it would also be pretty equal.
    If you asked me for a random list of educators I know it would be mostly women.
    If you asked me for a random list of youtubers (not just atheist ones) then it would be 60/40 to women.
    The fact that we don’t do it deliberately, and that most of the time we don’t even notice it, makes it a harder problem to tackle.

    It's a fact that I know far more Atheist male 'celebrities' than I know women.

    Why do I know more male ones ? For a variety of reasons, not one of which has anything to do with gender bias on my part.

    Just look at one reason, media coverage. Why are Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris so well known ? Because they are men ?


  • #1271
    bipedalhumanoid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 246 ✭✭bipedalhumanoid


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Bip,

    That’s a bit of a false dichotomy, because both can be true.

    One of the results of sexism (whether active or passive) is that women can be less willing to assert themselves and put themselves forward as speakers.

    It's not a false dichotomy because it isn't a dichotomy. I didn't suggest either was true or that they were they only two options. I simply outlined the assumptions made by the two prevalent positions.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Why would more female speakers lower the standard?

    I didn't say nor imply that just having more female speakers would lower the standard. I suggested that choosing speakers on the basis of their gender, as opposed to choosing them on the basis of their merits, could lower the standard.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    And why do you imply that the purpose of having female speakers is to entice female listeners?

    Because that's what Rebecca Watson keeps going on about and it certainly was the purpose of increasing the female to male ratio of speakers at TAM.

    I'm with you on wanting to create an environment that is more welcoming and I agree that a homogeneous group can be passively unwelcoming to those not part of that group. However, I'm very skeptical of sociological approaches such as gender quotas. I think they're patronising to women, unfair to men and fail to understand the nature of the problem they're attempting to address.


  • Advertisement
  • #1272
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    strobe wrote: »
    Honestly Ickle, it'd depend on the circumstances. If the minority in a religion claimed the majority did X, but X wasn't apparent and X wasn't being shown to be apparent, and the minority seemed to have ulterior motive for claiming X, then I'd imagine I'd view it in much the same way I view this.

    See I just don't see that happening Ickle, I've seen you claim it, and maybe it's coming across like that, but I haven't seen it happen. I've not really seen anyone demanding the right to make it's minority female attendees feel awkward or threatened. I've seen certain attendees say something makes them personally feel awkward and threatened and then superimposed those feelings on all other minority female attendees all right, but that's not the same thing.

    Can't you see that when standing in the majority and speaking in reference to a minority of female attendees who have stated they feel awkward &/or threatened - those demanding the right to carry on regardless is a public relations nightmare? Ignore those in the thick of it bickering over their perceptions of their darling movement - for those who have no experience in or with the movement?
    strobe wrote: »
    As far as I can see there were X number of female's attending these conferences and stuff, then all the claims of sexism and sexual harrasment and threatening behaviour were leveled from one quarter (sixteenth... one millionth?) and female attendance dropped.
    Just to me it seems that all the awkward sexual harassing would have caused a numbers drop all on it's own, but scream fire in a packed cinema and people will leave, fire or no.

    Absolutely have the word out that having female attendees feeling threatened or awkward is not acceptable. But near as I can tell, the word was out, there really wasn't much question of that being the case, females were attending away, and attendances rising, and not a mention of being made feel awkward and threatened. Then some people screamed ideologically motivated bloody murder and people figured no smoke without fire and began to worry about being made to feel awkward and threatened should they attend.

    But like I say, this is just my reading of the whole thing. Maybe these conferences and forums and blogs and websites etc were always hotbeds of rampant sexism where women were viewed as nothing but fodder for the bumbling sexual advances of the men there... I just, see nothing to suggest that was, or is, the case. And if it happens that my reading was/is right, and that wasn't/isn't the case, then what has transpired, the disingenuous push for a certain ideological stance to be adopted as the only acceptable one by any means necessary is not, in my opinion, something that should have a red carpet rolled out for it.

    If it's a lunatic few then why is so much time and effort being given over to arguing with these people? I've said this before too but if it's clearly not an issue then why damage the reputation of "the community" by blanket dismissing the very idea that some female attendees feel awkward/threatened with that cringe-worthy "well I don't see it - fnuck you" attitude and instead react rationally, acknowledge nobody should feel that way and just get on with it? :confused::confused::confused:


  • #1273
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Has anyone said that though, or has one side presented the others argument as that? Has anyone outside of FTB said that women should expect to feel threatened at these conferences?

    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"?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Maybe they can't see the issue because it isn't there? :confused:

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    And having female attendees saying that they don't feel awkward or threatened fails to do that how?

    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?

    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.


  • #1274
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    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.
    The problem is that we don't know if there is an issue and if there is an issue for one or two we don't know how wide spread it is beyond them. We just don't have the data thus some people are skeptical about the claims from the likes of RW suggesting it is a big problem. The we also do not know if this is really happening offline.

    Do you not see the irony that some skeptics do not accept the skepticism of these claims due to a lack of evidence and due to the credibility of RW as a source of unbiased anecdotal data? So where is the data (RW et al excluded due to aforementioned reason)?


  • #1275
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    UDP wrote: »
    The problem is that we don't know if there is an issue and if there is an issue we don't know how wide spread it is. We just don't have the data thus some people are skeptical about the claims from the likes of RW suggesting it is a massive problem.

    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.
    UDP wrote: »
    Do you not see the irony that some skeptics do not accept the skepticism of these claims due to a lack of evidence and due to the credibility of RW as a source of unbiased anecdotal data?

    I do - I also don't miss the irony or irrationality of, as Mark Hamill put it
    the accused party strongly disputing these allegations, even if they are true.


  • #1276
    decimatio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭decimatio


    Lads I don't know if I'm right but perhaps we are getting confused over exactly what everyone thinks the issue is? It seems to me that we are all referring to the 'issue' and yet we also seem to be talking about different things at the same time.

    So when someone says there's no evidence for X and another person says there is we should make sure that we define what x is.

    For example its not proven exactly but I doubt anyone here rejects watsons allegations of online hate mail. Its a rather mundane assertion anyways.

    The RL threats etc however is not proven and hasn't had evidence presented and its far from mundane.

    So when we say we reject her claims or accept them we should specify exactly what we mean.

    I think people here are actually much closer to agreement than it appears and the confusion over what exactly we are discussing seems to me anyways to be the culprit.


  • #1277
    Kooli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    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.

    Yes times a million. This.


  • #1278
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    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.
    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.


  • #1279
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    decimatio wrote: »
    Lads I don't know if I'm right but perhaps we are getting confused over exactly what everyone thinks the issue is? It seems to me that we are all referring to the 'issue' and yet we also seem to be talking about different things at the same time.

    So when someone says there's no evidence for X and another person says there is we should make sure that we define what x is.

    For example its not proven exactly but I doubt anyone here rejects watsons allegations of online hate mail. Its a rather mundane assertion anyways.

    The RL threats etc however is not proven and hasn't had evidence presented and its far from mundane.

    So when we say we reject her claims or accept them we should specify exactly what we mean.

    I think people here are actually much closer to agreement than it appears and the confusion over what exactly we are discussing seems to me anyways to be the culprit.

    As I said earlier, I think continuing any kind of blog/online/public warfare/bickering to try to be the loudest voice who is definitely and irrefutably RIGHT is completely missing the point, not to mention the damage this is wreaking on the reputation and credibility of "the movement".

    The way you react to a minority making negative claims about your organisation gives joe public a much better idea as to whether there actually is an issue, much more so than the assumed veracity of unevidenced claims. In this respect, it's been a public relations nightmare and that's what needs to be addressed.


  • #1280
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    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.
    Excluding RW et al since they are unreliable, how many incidents have been recorded at events?


  • #1281
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    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.
    We don't even know if it is on a scale since from what I can see there is no data.


  • Advertisement
  • #1282
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    UDP wrote: »
    Excluding RW et al since they are unreliable, how many incidents have been recorded at events?

    Do the fingers in the ears routine then - I don't care either way, it's not "my" community - but in terms of being naively impolitic, you're doing every bit as much damage as RW...


  • #1283
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Do the fingers in the ears routine then - I don't care either way, it's not "my" community - but in terms of being naively impolitic, you're doing every bit as much damage as RW...
    Not sure I am following. I am being told this happens thus am asking for evidence that it even happens. A request that you are just dismissing while accusing me of having my fingers in my ears? A little ironic to me.

    Surely logic dictates that we must find reliable evidence that something is happening first after which as much data as possible should be gathered so that it can be tackled in an intelligent way (that is if it is even a problem in the first place).


  • #1284
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    decimatio wrote: »
    If you were to organise a conference tomorrow in Dublin and the topic was (for example) abiogenesis how would you select the speakers ?

    I would propose that you would look at the leading researchers in the field and select the top X number to invite where X is the number of speakers you have places for.

    Would you really want to select any speaker based on their sexual equipment or ethnic background ?

    If you were to organise a conference tomorrow in Dublin for 10 speakers and the topic was (for example) FGM and the top 10 speakers on the subject were women would you throw a man in there for good measure even if he was 20 places down the list of knowledgeable people on the subject ?
    Firstly, the fact that you refer to a person's gender as 'their sexual equipment' doesn't help.

    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.

    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.

    Generally, there are no lists of the top X number of speakers on a topic. And a panel of speakers at a conference should be balanced in various ways for various reasons.


  • #1285
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    UDP wrote: »
    Not sure I am following. I am being told this happens thus am asking for evidence that it even happens. A request that you are just dismissing while accusing me of having my fingers in my ears? A little ironic to me.

    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.
    UDP wrote: »
    Surely logic dictates that we must find reliable evidence that something is happening first after which as much data as possible should be gathered so that it can be tackled in an intelligent way (that is if it is even a problem in the first place).

    Do you think only organisation who have a data on and evidence of systemic bullying have a policy on bullies? Surely the intelligent way to tackle any minority making negative statements about the behaviour and inclusivity of your organisation is not to constantly infer that minority are lying, hysterical harpies who can't handle a good ole' proposition - because that makes your organisation look anything but intelligent and inclusive.


  • #1286
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Do the fingers in the ears routine then

    I think you're making a leap here. Asking for data is not ignoring anything. It is asking for something to backup the claims of the 'movement'. A not unreasonable request in a skeptical context.


  • #1287
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    In this respect, it's been a public relations nightmare and that's what needs to be addressed.
    To a certain extent this is true but it’s not the primary reason for addressing the problem.

    We can overestimate our place in the general scheme of public opinion. The vast majority of ordinary people have never heard of any of any of the main atheist groups or conferences, never mind the internal differences of opinion that we have.

    The primary reason for addressing the problem is an ethical one based on compassion and empathy. We should want to create an environment in our organisations where people feel included, safe and supported.


  • #1288
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    fitz0 wrote: »
    I think you're making a leap here. Asking for data is not ignoring anything. It is asking for something to backup the claims of the 'movement'. A not unreasonable request in a skeptical context.

    It's really not making a leap - what do you think the wider perception is of an organisation that demands empirical data an issue exists, despite nearly and very publicly being torn in two over it - before being willing to state that it doesn't promote it's minority members being made to feel awkward or threatened?


  • #1289
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    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.
    Surely someone has information from events about complaints received from attendees?
    (online harassment is different to offline harassment unless the person harassing can be identified otherwise we do not know whether the harasser is even part of the so called community or whether they are just random trolls)
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Do you think only organisation who have a data on and evidence of systemic bullying have a policy on bullies? Surely the intelligent way to tackle any minority making negative statements about the behaviour and inclusivity of your organisation is not to constantly infer that minority are lying, hysterical harpies who can't handle a good ole' (har har har) proposition - because that makes your organisation look anything but intelligent and inclusive.
    See what you did there? You put words in my mouth that did not come from me.

    I'm not against policies of bullying or harassment since they should be there to cover both genders anyway. Every organisation should have such policies so there should be policies for skeptic events as a result.

    The problem is that claims are being made from RW et al that are not backed up by evidence other than her own anecdotal evidence. We do not know if there is a problem unless there is evidence to back it up. That is not to say that standard policies should not be in place anyway but unless people can provide reliable evidence that there is a problem I will continue to be skeptical of that claim.


  • #1290
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    To a certain extent this is true but it’s not the primary reason for addressing the problem.

    We can overestimate our place in the general scheme of public opinion. The vast majority of ordinary people have never heard of any of any of the main atheist groups or conferences, never mind the internal differences of opinion that we have.

    While that was certainly true when everything was ticking along nicely, I disagree that's the case now. Like any organisation that looks to be internally imploding, it's drawing a lot of attention from those that haven't ever looked at the blogs, etc, of "the community" before and they are seeing it at it's very worst.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    The primary reason for addressing the problem is an ethical one based on compassion and empathy. We should want to create an environment in our organisations where people feel included, safe and supported.

    I think one naturally follows the other. If you don't have - infact become synonymous with not having - an inclusive, safe and supportive organisation then you are very soon going to become an insular, clique - rather than a serious organisation.


  • Advertisement
  • #1291
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    To a certain extent this is true but it’s not the primary reason for addressing the problem.

    We can overestimate our place in the general scheme of public opinion. The vast majority of ordinary people have never heard of any of any of the main atheist groups or conferences, never mind the internal differences of opinion that we have.

    The primary reason for addressing the problem is an ethical one based on compassion and empathy. We should want to create an environment in our organisations where people feel included, safe and supported.
    I agree there should be an environment where people feel included safe and supported but unless you can provide reliable data to back up your claim that there is a problem I am going to continue to be skeptical of your claim that there is one. Being skeptical that there is a problem does not preclude organisations from putting the standard bullying, harassment etc policies in place that all organisations should have in place but that does not mean there is an actual problem in the first place.


Advertisement