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…4344464849…65

Comments

  • #1352
    tdawg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27 ✭tdawg


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    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).

    Or that if there are twice as many males involved in an organisation that there is also likely to be twice as many males who are good speakers.

    Weren't you promoting rationalism on another thread?

    As a youth I did technical drawing in school there were 25 boys and 3 girls in that class. Good work was put up on the wall. Should there have been a 50:50 split in the drawings put up to attract girls to get involved or should good work be rewarded?


  • #1353
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    tdawg wrote: »
    Or that as there are twice as many males involved in the organisation that there is also likely to be twice as many males who are good speakers.
    That's another factor, yes, but it is complicated.

    Conferences generally seek speakers from outside their membership.

    And the disproportion in activism and membership of advocacy relates to society as a whole, rather than just atheist groups.

    As an aside, the most recent Gallup International survey on global religion and atheism showed 13% of people to be convinced atheists. This 13% comprised 12% of men and 14% of women. It's the first time I have seen a statistic like that, so I don't know why it was the case, but it is interesting nevertheless.
    tdawg wrote: »
    Weren't you promoting rationalism on another thread?
    There's no need for that. We can just discuss the issues without insulting each other.
    tdawg wrote: »
    As a youth I did technical drawing in school there were 25 boys and 3 girls in that class. Good work was put up on the wall. Should there have been a 50:50 split in the drawings put up to attract girls to get involved or should good work be rewarded?
    That's a more complicated question than it seems. A good educator will take account of the fact that 3 girls in a class of 25 boys will face different experiences than the boys, and will try to factor that into their education methods. I'm not sure how putting drawings on the wall would factor into that.


  • #1354
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,909 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    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).

    As it stands it's likely that most of the speakers who should be sought after on many topics will be men. In college I had slightly more male than female lecturers because there were more men in most of the fields I was studying. There was a difference in age profile, the men were much older on average. In about 10 years over half will be retired and it'll likely be a majority of women lecturing in that course. Will that constitute discrimination? I would say no, it's picking the best from who are available.
    The same applies to a wide range of academic fields, there are courses that were male-dominated until recently which now have a majority of women entering them, it takes a while for the changes to filter to the top.

    Suggesting that anything other than a 50/50 split in gender terms shows any discrimination, intentional or otherwise, is disingenuous.


  • #1355
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    decimatio wrote: »
    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 ?
    That’s a good point. I agree with you.

    There are some exceptions to the trend that you identify.

    Christopher Hitchens’ political views were certainly not left (in American terms).

    Penn Jillette is an outspoken libertarian.

    Closer to home, we have had Ian O’Doherty speak at one of our events.

    But generally speaking, your point is valid.


  • #1356
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Suggesting that anything other than a 50/50 split in gender terms shows any discrimination, intentional or otherwise, is disingenuous.
    I've already said that I am not suggesting this.


  • Advertisement
  • #1357
    tdawg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27 ✭tdawg


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    That's another factor, yes, but it is complicated.

    Conferences generally seek speakers from outside their membership.

    And the disproportion in activism and membership of advocacy relates to society as a whole, rather than just atheist groups.

    As an aside, the most recent Gallup International survey on global religion and atheism showed 13% of people to be convinced atheists. This 13% comprised 12% of men and 14% of women. It's the first time I have seen a statistic like that, so I don't know why it was the case, but it is interesting nevertheless.


    There's no need for that. We can just discuss the issues without insulting each other.


    That's a more complicated question than it seems. A good educator will take account of the fact that 3 girls in a class of 25 boys will face different experiences than the boys, and will try to factor that into their education methods. I'm not sure how putting drawings on the wall would factor into that.

    Re: the stats, the first place I checked indicated that 2.2:1 is the ratio of atheist males to females in GB (small sample of ~2,500 people). Seems a bit extreme to me, maybe someone has CSO figures? Actually as head of Atheist Ireland you might have numbers for that organisation?

    Re: the last point. Haven't all the males had different experiences too? Shouldn't everyone be treated as individuals before considering their gender? Being a male does not necessarily give you a pre-defined advantage. It just seems to me that this issue of speaker representation is being created, more so than actually existing.


  • #1358
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    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?
    Or maybe shows that maybe there are more male speakers available to choose from than female speakers possibly reflective of the demographic of the "community"?
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    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?
    Yes, I am suggesting that maybe the ratio of male to female speakers might be indicative of the ratio of males to females in the "community". Then again the percentages of males seem to vary from event to event from 51% to 80% so I am sure many factors are involved e.g. availability of speakers etc. Also the average above of 66/34 is not very far off your the 60/40 ratio you mentioned previously in the thread that you would be satisfied with.
    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    That's certainly possible.
    I see the lack of non-caucasian speakers to be possibly an issue - at least much more-so than the issue of gender imbalance but again it could be just reflective of the demographics of the "community" or more so reflective of the demographics of the active "community".

    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    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.
    It looks to me that already-known female speakers are being asked to be speakers since from look at a few conference speaker lists the same names keep popping up.

    Have you any evidence to back the claim that those organising such events are not checking if there are equally good or better female not well-known speakers? Also where do they find not well known speakers? How does one go about finding good not well known speakers?


  • #1359
    UDP
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭UDP


    tdawg wrote: »
    Seems a bit extreme to me, maybe someone has CSO figures?
    Taking the 2006 CSO figures the ratio is 60/40 when only taking into account those aged between 20 and 55.

    Percentage female non-religious or not stated (the figures are pretty much the same for just no religion):
    20 - 24 years = 44%
    25 - 29 years = 40%
    30 - 34 years = 38%
    35 - 39 years = 37%
    40 - 44 years = 38%
    45 - 49 years = 39%
    50 - 54 years = 39%


  • #1360
    Channel Zero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 333 ✭✭Channel Zero


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    That’s a good point. I agree with you.

    There are some exceptions to the trend that you identify.
    Christopher Hitchens’ political views were certainly not left (in American terms).

    Quite right.
    Penn Jillette is an outspoken libertarian.

    It's worse than that Michael; he's a self described anarcho-capitalist.
    Closer to home, we have had Ian O’Doherty speak at one of our events.

    Another self-confessed right wing libertarian. And Islamophobic to boot apparently.


  • #1361
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    Channel Zero wrote: »
    Quite right.

    It's worse than that Michael; he's a self described anarcho-capitalist.

    Another self-confessed right wing libertarian. And Islamophobic to boot apparently.

    What's your point here?


  • Advertisement
  • #1362
    Channel Zero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 333 ✭✭Channel Zero


    fitz0 wrote: »
    What's your point here?

    Oh excuse me all over the place. Why are asking me?

    Is my post offensive to you in some way? Am just adding my opinion like everyone else.


  • #1363
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Channel Zero wrote: »
    Oh excuse me all over the place. Why are asking me?

    Is my post offensive to you in some way? Am just adding my opinion like everyone else.

    He doesn't get what you're trying to say. Neither do I.


  • #1364
    Channel Zero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 333 ✭✭Channel Zero


    Nodin wrote: »
    He doesn't get what you're trying to say. Neither do I.

    Thought it was pretty clear tbh. I was agreeing with Michael basically, but opining that they are.. even further to the right than some might think.


  • #1365
    decimatio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭decimatio


    Michael Nugent wrote:
    That’s a good point. I agree with you.

    There are some exceptions to the trend that you identify.

    Christopher Hitchens’ political views were certainly not left (in American terms).

    Depends what you are talking about. On some issues he was extremely left, on others extremely righy, by other peoples definitions of course.
    But generally speaking, your point is valid.

    So you will be calling for a quota system which gives at least one right winger a place at conferences in the future?


  • #1366
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    decimatio wrote: »
    So you will be calling for a quota system which gives at least one right winger a place at conferences in the future?
    No.

    There may be times when it is useful to have someone with particular political views speaking, but that would be a judgement call based on the purposes of the event and how it fits in with the political aims of the organization.

    Political beliefs, like religious beliefs, are different than being male or female, or a member of any given race, or heterosexual or gay etc.


  • #1367
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Channel Zero wrote: »
    Thought it was pretty clear tbh. I was agreeing with Michael basically, but opining that they are.. even further to the right than some might think.

    Or - seeing as Doherty proceded to slag off the conference subsequently in his column - not nessecarily the "best and brightest" (though in his case I would have thought it obvious from the get-go).


  • #1368
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    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?
    Not really, since I'd suspect that the organizers of whatever event would not have invited me because I'm a guy. Partly, I suspect (and hope) because I've nailed my colors to the mast here.

    However, if, to take a random example, I'd been asked to speak in Saudi Arabia, then I'd suspect that my gender would matter, and I'd probably decline. I'd feel the same way if somebody like Watson had invited me to some shindig -- she's made it quite clear that gender is a primary issue for her, so I'd turn her down too, quite apart from any other issues that I might have with her.

    On a separate topic, it would be interesting to attempt to figure out who are the "top" 1, 20, 50, 100 atheists/skeptics out there on the internet. Not sure how you'd measure it, perhaps by followers times words times <likes> or somesuch, but whatever, let's assume that it's measurable in principle.

    If the majority were guys -- as I suspect they probably are -- would that influence your beliefs concerning gender bias? ie, if, in a fully free environment like the internet where people do the choosing rather than some speaker-selection committee, what does "gender bias" mean in that case if the relative mass popularity of male bloggers versus women bloggers roughly matches the rates at which women (or men) are chosen for speaker slots at atheist/skeptics events?


  • #1369
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Tokenism is the policy or practice of making a perfunctory gesture toward the inclusion of members of minority groups. This token effort is usually intended to create a false appearance of inclusiveness and deflect accusations of discrimination.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokenism
    lol


  • #1370
    decimatio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭decimatio


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Political beliefs, like religious beliefs, are different than being male or female, or a member of any given race, or heterosexual or gay etc.

    Ah. So all are welcome, except those who have different politics to 'us' ? In that case we don't want diversity, we want to maintain the status quo and populate panels with left wingers ?

    I'm just using this as an example by the way, I don't have a dog in that fight.

    My point is that I've noticed over the past few years that a number of people in the community (or whatever you'd like to call it) are increasingly trying to push their views onto the organisation as a whole. They are trying to implant political and socialogical ideologies into the community.

    Unless you are left wing politically, especially in terms of the US political system, you are ostracised.
    Unless you are a radical feminist* you are ostracised.

    * Note, I don't say feminist because I don't believe Watson etc are for equality.

    Moreso, everything in the community is extremely American-orientated with just a dash of Western Europe thrown in for good measure. When these people, including you Michael, talk about racism, sexism, minorities, and privilege, you are speaking about it from a very Americanistic (real word?) point of view.

    For example, I continually hear about this privilege I and others apparently have because of my skin colour. How history and tradition has worked to keep people like me near the top of society and others of various skin tones under me. Where does this come from ? I'm Irish, we were at the bottom for hundreds of years. When exactly did I have privilege because of my skin colour ?

    You know well where this comes from. It comes from American culture which is very multi-cultural and has such enormous issues over race. Well I am not a part of that. It's not a part of my history.

    I often experience this with American people. They seem to think that this 'White-guilt' which is bred into them over their great grandfathers owning slaves, segregation etc somehow applies to me because I'm white. Well they can f&%$ right off with that.


  • #1371
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭fitz0


    Channel Zero wrote: »
    Oh excuse me all over the place. Why are asking me?

    Is my post offensive to you in some way? Am just adding my opinion like everyone else.

    That wasn't meant as a challenge, I just didn't get what you were saying.


  • Advertisement
  • #1372
    decimatio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭decimatio


    Michael.

    Another thing which really annoys me is how people come up with this diversity. It's not diversity, it's tokenism.

    For example. I've seen it written that people want more Asians as speakers, more Blacks as speakers.

    Which is mostly untrue. What they actually do is to get more people of Asian descent and more people of African descent like that means diversity.

    Take 4 Americans as speakers. One is Irish (Irish-American), one is Black (African-American), one is Asian (Asian-American), and one is Jewish (Jewish/Israeli-American).

    Now is that diversity Michael ? Sure, a different ethnic background will affect people differently but at the end of the day they are all Americans with far more in common with each other than they do with people from Ireland, Africa, Asia, or Israel.

    If you are truly trying to get unique perspectives because of ethnical background than do that. Don't stick an American of Asian descent on stage, especially if they haven't retained their ancestors culture, and tell me he's providing a unique perspective which is substantially different from a White American or a Black American. Stick someone from Japan, China, or Korea on there. Because they truly do have a unique background and perspective.


  • #1373
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    decimatio wrote: »
    Ah. So all are welcome, except those who have different politics to 'us' ? In that case we don't want diversity, we want to maintain the status quo and populate panels with left wingers ?
    Everyone is welcome, regardless of whether they are right or left wing politically. But I hope you understand the difference between between discriminating against people because of their gender, and discriminating between the political views that people hold.
    decimatio wrote: »
    Moreso, everything in the community is extremely American-orientated with just a dash of Western Europe thrown in for good measure. When these people, including you Michael, talk about racism, sexism, minorities, and privilege, you are speaking about it from a very Americanistic (real word?) point of view.
    I am speaking from an Irish and European and Anglo-American and international perspective, because those are the cultures that I grew up with. In terms of other speakers on these issues at recent atheist events, Maryam Namazie is from Iran. Taslima Nasrin is from Bangladesh. Leo Igwe is from Nigeria. Tanya Smith is from Australia. In Ireland, our last two speakers at Dublin Atheists in the Pub have been Vahid Bokharaie from Iran and Victor Diac from Romania.
    decimatio wrote: »
    For example, I continually hear about this privilege I and others apparently have because of my skin colour. How history and tradition has worked to keep people like me near the top of society and others of various skin tones under me. Where does this come from ? I'm Irish, we were at the bottom for hundreds of years. When exactly did I have privilege because of my skin colour ?
    If you mean that as a genuine question, as opposed to a rhetorical rejection of the idea, I suggest that you start by checking the Irish Network Against Racism (http://enarireland.org/) or its umbrella group the European Network Against Racism (http://www.enar-eu.org/). I'll respond in more detail later, but I don't have much time today to do so.
    decimatio wrote: »
    You know well where this comes from. It comes from American culture which is very multi-cultural and has such enormous issues over race. Well I am not a part of that. It's not a part of my history.

    I often experience this with American people. They seem to think that this 'White-guilt' which is bred into them over their great grandfathers owning slaves, segregation etc somehow applies to me because I'm white. Well they can f&%$ right off with that.
    Racism is part of all of our histories. Whatever you have experienced with American people, you are now discussing the issue with an Irish person. Please don't project onto me your opinions of what you think American people think.


  • #1374
    decimatio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭decimatio


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Everyone is welcome, regardless of whether they are right or left wing politically. But I hope you understand the difference between between discriminating against people because of their gender, and discriminating between the political views that people hold.

    Oh of course, I didn't mean to suggest they were equivalent. But I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make. People are been discriminated against because of their politics, some people are trying to and in some ways have already succeeded in making conferences like TAM etc synonymous with left wing. Yet the voices of opposition to this discrimination are largely non-existent.
    I am speaking from an Irish and European and Anglo-American and international perspective, because those are the cultures that I grew up with. In terms of other speakers on these issues at recent atheist events, Maryam Namazie is from Iran. Taslima Nasrin is from Bangladesh. Leo Igwe is from Nigeria. Tanya Smith is from Australia. In Ireland, our last two speakers at Dublin Atheists in the Pub have been Vahid Bokharaie from Iran and Victor Diac from Romania.

    Indeed and that's great but that doesn't address my point that everything, at least from what I've seen, in the community is spoken from and to an American-centric point of view.
    If you mean that as a genuine question, as opposed to a rhetorical rejection of the idea, I suggest that you start by checking the Irish Network Against Racism (http://enarireland.org/) or its umbrella group the European Network Against Racism (http://www.enar-eu.org/). I'll respond in more detail later, but I don't have much time today to do so.

    The existence of racism does not necessarily prove privilege. I asked specifically how you think I had or have privilege because of my skin colour ? What advantages in life did I have or have ?
    Racism is part of all of our histories.

    I didn't say it wasn't. I was talking specifically about the American issues with race and how many people try to assert they are universal.
    Whatever you have experienced with American people, you are now discussing the issue with an Irish person. Please don't project onto me your opinions of what you think American people think.

    But Michael that's what it seems you (and others) are doing. You're talking about things like privilege, racism, and sexism from an American perspective and applying them across the board. I really dislike that.


  • #1375
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    decimatio wrote: »
    But Michael that's what it seems you (and others) are doing. You're talking about things like privilege, racism, and sexism from an American perspective and applying them across the board. I really dislike that.
    Before I reply to this, can you give me some examples, so that I know what you are referring to, of me (not others) talking about things like privilege, racism, and sexism from an American perspective and applying them across the board?


  • #1376
    decimatio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 179 ✭✭decimatio


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Before I reply to this, can you give me some examples, so that I know what you are referring to, of me (not others) talking about things like privilege, racism, and sexism from an American perspective and applying them across the board?

    Sure. You've asserted that white males are a privileged group. That might well be true in the US and I've read articles supporting it but I don't see how its true in the same way to anywhere near the same level in Ireland. I'm not saying privilege doesn't exist in Ireland but it's such a different beast that makes it seem quite silly, to me, to proclaim 'whites' as privileged.

    For example, would you consider white male's in Ireland who are protestant to be a part of this privileged group in the past or today ? Or who are Catholic in Northern Ireland, past or present ?

    What about people of English or Scottish ancestry who settled in Ireland ?

    My point is that it's a little silly to proclaim a group as diverse as 'whites' to be privileged in a society where ones skin colour is so far down the list of how people define groups.

    My family are Protestant, and not just Protestant but largely of Scottish and Swedish stock. Yet your sweeping statement about privilege would put my family in the same category as a Catholic one of Gaelic stock. I hope I don't need to tell you the abuse my family went through over the years because they were invaders or because they went to the wrong church ?

    In recent US history I presume it wouldn't matter. Both families would be considered 'white' first and foremost. But you know that's not the same as Ireland.

    p.s If you have time Michael would you be able to take a look at my post here ?

    I think it's quite an important point because I feel there may be some misunderstanding between us. From what I've taken from many people calling for diversity in speakers for conferences, they seem to be pushing for diversity in relation to an individuals racial background. So they seem to to calling for diversity in terms of having someone of, for example, Asian descent on a panel. You argued earlier that your reasoning for such is that they can provide a unique perspective on an issue.

    If you meant that someone of a particular race, such as Japanese, could provide a unique perspective on an issue I have no problem agreeing if you meant someone actually from Japan who would indeed provide a unique perspective because of their cultural background.


  • #1377
    Duggys Housemate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,298 ✭✭✭Duggys Housemate


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    Before I reply to this, can you give me some examples, so that I know what you are referring to, of me (not others) talking about things like privilege, racism, and sexism from an American perspective and applying them across the board?

    The claim that Irish "whites" - itself a meaningless term - have privilege because of skin colour is directly taken from the cultural imperialism of the American left. It may be that black people are discriminated against in the US, this is as relevant to us as if Russians discriminated against blue people.

    Black American culture is more culturally dominant than Irish culture - particularly the fading Gaelic Irish culture - and more dominant than Hungarian, French, Swedish culture etc. These are all white.

    You've just replaced one Theology with another, and repeat it's stock phrases. Identity politics ignores class - is an Oxbridge middle class English person, like Dawkins - born in Empire as he was -more powerful than a Mayo born Irish man from the working classes? Yes, he is, despite the "whiteness" of both. Yet, I would prefer to listen to him than someone closer to me in "privilege" because he has more to say, and a better way to say it.

    The stock response to this is to whine about "European" imperialism in Africa. The answer is that - in so much as that is related to us, at all - it was the British who also discriminated against Irish Catholics, who led this Empire.

    Watson herself is betraying - and I wanted to point this out before - a certain American cultural assumption when she is in a lift in Ireland and asked for coffee; Ireland where possibly coffee means coffee. She didnt know, she assumed the American pick up culture. Pickups are is in fact, outside of alcohol dominated events, rare in Ireland.

    It reminds me of the American feminist who gave a speech in UCC and castigated the locals for calling adult women "girl" - she had been called that. Adult men are called boy in Cork, but most importantly it is none of her business.


  • #1378
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    but most importantly it is none of her business.
    Now now now, that's not true. They're making quite a viable business out of it :p


  • #1379
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Michael Nugent wrote: »
    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.

    That would be true if you ignore all cultural factors that are behind the sceptical movement. But there has always been a gender imbalance in the sciences and in nerdy culture in general. Scepticism and atheism draws significantly from this larger group. It stands to reason then that you are not going to find as many women speakers of the same quality as male speakers in the community simply because the pool of potential is smaller.

    You might as well ask why fishermen are disproportionately under represented compared to science professors in the sceptical community. Is that because fishermen cannot give good speeches? Or is it because there tends to be a lot less fishermen in these communities than scientists. Is pointing that out insulting fishermen?

    When ever there is a gender imbalance that favours men over women the assumption seems to be that men must some how be doing something to stop women being included. Some times that is the case. Often it isn't. The assumption that it must be is an example of bad/perverted feminism.


  • #1380
    bipedalhumanoid
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 246 ✭✭bipedalhumanoid


    Duggys Housemate wrote: »
    It reminds me of the American feminist who gave a speech in UCC and castigated the locals for calling adult women "girl" - she had been called that. Adult men are called boy in Cork, but most importantly it is none of her business.

    You've made some good points about ignorance of cultural relativism in the US left.

    I can give you a very good recent Australian example of that.

    KFC Australia did a series of ads aimed around an international cricket season (I think it was 2009 or 2010). In each of the ads white Australian guy finds himself in an "ackward situation" that he uses KFC chicken to get himself out of.

    For instance, he was roped into going to his girlfriend's parents house on the day of a match. The "ackward situation" was that they were not cricket fans and had planned to watch something else on TV. He gave them all chicken and turned the tv onto the cricket while they were busy eating. Stupid things like that.

    So, leading up to the Australia V West Indies game this ad appeared on Australian TV...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxcvlskexzc

    Some time later, the ad showed up on You Tube and americans started complaining that it was racist. American media commentators (everyone from Bill O'Reilly on the right to the Young Turks on the left) commented on it. Apparently their problem was that it played on a stereotype suggesting that Afrian American's like to eat fried chicken!

    There is so much wrong with that interpretation. First of all, that stereotype doesn't exist outside of the USA. Nobody involved in making or watching the ad in Australia would have been aware of it. Secondly, the black people in the ad were not american, they were West Indian and the stereotype doesn't exist there either!

    The interesting thing was that, pointing this out to them only served to make them even more forceful in their condemnation. Eventually KFC Australia caved into pressure and pulled the ad. Meanwhile in the West Indies, nobody had a problem with the ad and a number of people spoke out in defence of it.

    There certainly was bigotry at play here. The bigotry of the smug american commentators forcing their "superior" cultural values on the backward "racist" Aussies.


  • Advertisement
  • #1381
    Michael Nugent
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Michael Nugent


    decimatio wrote: »
    Sure. You've asserted that white males are a privileged group. That might well be true in the US and I've read articles supporting it but I don't see how its true in the same way to anywhere near the same level in Ireland. I'm not saying privilege doesn't exist in Ireland but it's such a different beast that makes it seem quite silly, to me, to proclaim 'whites' as privileged.
    I’ll answer the various questions in your post soon, but first here is an overview of my reasons for believing that we should tackle prejudice and discrimination. It is from a blog post that I wrote last month about why atheist and skeptic groups should be inclusive, caring and supportive, and twenty five ways to discuss this reasonably.

    As ethical people we should tackle racism, sexism, homophobia, and other prejudices and discriminations, both within the atheist and skeptical communities and in wider society. We each have our own unique mix of random birth advantages, based on our race and gender and sexuality and physical and mental ability and family; and personally earned advantages, based on our education and career and income and relationships. All of these factors influence how we interact with each other socially, and can cause us to face prejudice and discrimination, or to perpetuate it, often unknowingly, every day.

    As atheists we should empathize with other groups facing social discrimination, because we know what it is like to face it ourselves. It is different to discrimination based on birth disadvantages, but it is analogous because of the impacts. Most religious people do not even realize that they have unearned social advantages. They see being religious as a natural default position, they genuinely wonder what we are worrying about, they believe we are attacking their rights, and they call us militant and strident. But we notice the prejudice and discrimination, because we experience it every day. And so we should take care not to act in the same way towards other groups.

    As skeptics we should objectively examine the impacts of social discrimination, and identify the best ways to promote diversity and inclusiveness. By definition, prejudice depends on not having all relevant information, and as skeptics we are ideally suited to develop and promote arguments for inclusiveness and human rights, based on the evidence of the benefits to individuals and society. We could use this research to tackle the emotional and irrational thinking behind racism, sexism, homophobia, and other prejudices and discriminations. It’s at least as interesting a topic as many we discuss, and a more useful topic than most.


Advertisement