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…4243454748…65

Comments

  • #1322
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1323
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1324
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #1325
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1326
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #1327
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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


  • #1328
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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?


  • #1329
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1330
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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


  • #1331
    condra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,852 ✭✭✭condra


    Giving people special treatment doesn't empower them.


  • Advertisement
  • #1332
    decimatio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭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 ?


  • #1333
    decimatio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭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.


  • #1334
    decimatio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭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.


  • #1335
    decimatio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭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.


  • #1336
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #1337
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1338
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #1339
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1340
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭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?


  • #1341
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #1342
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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?


  • #1343
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1344
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #1345
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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?


  • #1346
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭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?


  • #1347
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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.


  • #1348
    tdawg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27 ✭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?


  • #1349
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭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?


  • #1350
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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).


  • Advertisement
  • #1351
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement