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…4142444647…65

Comments

  • #1292
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    UDP wrote: »
    how many incidents have been recorded at events?
    Other than the elevatorgate incident (and let's not go there), and over my interactions with skeptics and atheists here in Dublin over the last ten years, I'm not aware of any incidents at any skeptic/atheist talk, skeptic/atheist social gathering or skeptic/atheist conference that I could honestly classify as "harassment", or anything even close to it. If anybody reading this has experienced it, I'd certainly like to hear about them.

    On the contrary, with the exception of Rebecca Watson, I've generally found skeptics and atheists I've met -- of all the groups I interact with from time to time -- the people who pay the very least attention to gender. It simply wasn't a concern, either for women or for men, with both comfortably viewing the other simply as "people", and that was great.

    However, since Watson started what I suppose you could politely, if inaccurately, call her "gender-awareness" campaign, I get the feeling that this assumption of gender-neutrality no longer exists amongst skeptics or atheists.

    .


  • #1293
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    robindch wrote: »
    However, since Watson started what I suppose you could politely, if inaccurately, call her "gender-awareness" campaign, I get the feeling that this assumption of gender-neutrality no longer exists amongst skeptics or atheists.
    I agree. This could turn out to be a bigger problem where males are more aware that the party they are talking to is a female thus does not threat them the same way as they would threat a male.

    This could lead to females grouping with females and males grouping with males at events for fear of the other. That would not be good for inclusiveness.

    That is why I don't think people should be allowed to get away with saying something is a problem with no evidence to back the claim up due to the aforementioned potential damage which sadly might be already occurring.


  • #1294
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    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?

    I'm concerned about skeptics, atheists and others being perceived as an organisation. But whatever the wider perception of this 'organisation' I think it would be more damaging for so called skeptics to be so non-skeptical about something because it's so close to home.

    I genuinely do not think that any group of skeptics promotes it's minority members feeling awkward or threatened and to say that they do because they ask for evidence is just hysteria.


  • #1295
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    fitz0 wrote: »
    But whatever the wider perception of this 'organisation' I think it would be more damaging for so called skeptics to be so non-skeptical about something because it's so close to home.
    Exactly it makes it not much different to sick people clinging to homeopathy i.e. emotion overriding rationality.


  • #1296
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    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.
    ......

    The nature of the claims and the source of same mean that proof is going to be asked for. Had this been a rational mention of a ratio of women to men, and the need for some policy 'just in case', I doubt we'd have the same level of venom.


  • Advertisement
  • #1297
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    fitz0 wrote: »
    I think it would be more damaging for so called skeptics to be so non-skeptical about something because it's so close to home.
    Seems to me that the only issue people have is of one group of sceptics demanding that their insistence that there is a significant problem be accepted at face value.

    People aren't saying its impossible, they just are looking for *gasp* non-anecdotal proof.


  • #1298
    Kooli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    Seems to me that the only issue people have is of one group of sceptics demanding that their insistence that there is a significant problem be accepted at face value.

    People aren't saying its impossible, they just are looking for *gasp* non-anecdotal proof.

    What form would non-anecdotal proof take? Like, a peer-reviewed study or something?

    What would be the problem (hypothetically) of taking a stance publicly even in response to one incident?

    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'. Or 'I'm sorry we can't take any action unless we have proof that this wasn't just an isolated incident'. Or 'Well I know there are other black people who have never been harassed or intimidated, so it's not really a problem'.


  • #1299
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Kooli wrote: »
    What form would non-anecdotal proof take? Like, a peer-reviewed study or something?
    Earlier a survey was posted which asked about whether people experienced unwelcoming or threatening behaviour at secular conferences.
    one issue with this however what that it did not specific which behaviours in particular were being experienced.

    So something like that would at least be better than anecdotal reports.
    Kooli wrote: »
    What would be the problem (hypothetically) of taking a stance publicly even in response to one incident?

    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'. Or 'I'm sorry we can't take any action unless we have proof that this wasn't just an isolated incident'. Or 'Well I know there are other black people who have never been harassed or intimidated, so it's not really a problem'.
    But the "movement" is being accused of having an endemic problem.

    And which incident should they take a stance on? An awkward moment in an elevator?


  • #1300
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Kooli wrote: »
    What form would non-anecdotal proof take? Like, a peer-reviewed study or something?
    That's for those seeking to prove a claim to provide.
    Kooli wrote: »
    What would be the problem (hypothetically) of taking a stance publicly even in response to one incident?
    Absolutely none, but if you are going to tar a group wholesale it is not unreasonable for them to ask you to back up your assertions.
    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.
    But that would not automatically make it valid to state that said conferences where racist and non-whites could not feel safe there.


  • #1301
    Kooli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    King Mob wrote: »
    Earlier a survey was posted which asked about whether people experienced unwelcoming or threatening behaviour at secular conferences.
    one issue with this however what that it did not specific which behaviours in particular were being experienced.

    So something like that would at least be better than anecdotal reports.

    But the "movement" is being accused of having an endemic problem.

    And which incident should they take a stance on? An awkward moment in an elevator?

    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?
    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.

    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??'


  • Advertisement
  • #1302
    decimatio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭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 ....


  • #1303
    Kooli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1304
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1305
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #1306
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #1307
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1308
    decimatio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭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.


  • #1309
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1310
    Naz_st
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 391 ✭✭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).


  • #1311
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #1312
    decimatio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭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.


  • #1313
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1314
    decimatio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭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?


  • #1315
    Kooli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1316
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1317
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭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


  • #1318
    Kooli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,312 ✭✭✭Kooli


    UDP wrote: »
    AKA positive discrimination

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


  • #1319
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1320
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭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).


  • Advertisement
  • #1321
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement