|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2013 : 15:57:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
I've always thought that the reason we had fewer women than men here is that most women do not care to engage in the often hostile game of forum debate. Kil, you said Michelle dislikes the "daily debate". I have always said that telling another person they are wrong is an openly hostile (not mean spirited) act.
|
Who says that forum debate has to be hostile? I, myself, like getting into debates. However, I don't have much time to get into a lot of debates. I think most people try to avoid confrontations. I don't know if women are more likely than men to avoid confrontations.
In terms of women speakers, I remember someone in the "skeptical movement" who has collected hundreds of names of women in different fields who are good speakers. I think it is Michael Nugent. It would be interesting to see if more women would come to TAM if 50% of speakers are women. |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2013 : 17:41:31 [Permalink]
|
Harriet Hall delved into aggressiveness today (is that a good proxy for hostility?):Are men really more aggressive? In most species, males are more aggressive than females. Castration of males usually has a pacifying effect on their aggressive behavior (just think of stallions versus geldings). Science told us men are more aggressive than women, and I assumed that was true. But recent studies have made us question that assumption.
Studying aggression is tricky. How do you measure aggression? Is it different from assertiveness? Do increased testosterone levels cause aggressive behavior or just facilitate something that is already occurring? Assertiveness and competition are influenced by societal expectations. Adults are more likely to engage in rough-housing with boys. Girls are encouraged to avoid physical combat and to use other tactics like communication and negotiation. That’s a wise strategy for girls since they aren’t physically as strong. There are new studies showing that girls are as aggressive as boys or are aggressive in different ways. Differences are less in some cultures than others. The evidence is conflicting: I don’t think we have a clear answer yet. More importantly, though, Hall also said this:The point that often gets overlooked in these discussions is that gender differences are averages for the group. They are irrelevant to a discussion of what jobs any individual woman is qualified for or interested in. They are also irrelevant to who'd be a better speaker at a skeptic's convention, but we won't know who is good at speaking unless we ask them to speak, which is why I disagree with Hall's conclusion, "And our journey will only be delayed by... imposing arbitrary 50/50 goals..." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2013 : 19:01:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Harriet Hall delved into aggressiveness today (is that a good proxy for hostility?):
| Heh... Good essay. I don't know if I agree with her conclusion either. But then, I was for affirmative action, liberal that I am. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2013 : 19:07:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by alienist
Originally posted by Dude
I've always thought that the reason we had fewer women than men here is that most women do not care to engage in the often hostile game of forum debate. Kil, you said Michelle dislikes the "daily debate". I have always said that telling another person they are wrong is an openly hostile (not mean spirited) act.
|
Who says that forum debate has to be hostile? I, myself, like getting into debates. However, I don't have much time to get into a lot of debates. I think most people try to avoid confrontations. I don't know if women are more likely than men to avoid confrontations.
In terms of women speakers, I remember someone in the "skeptical movement" who has collected hundreds of names of women in different fields who are good speakers. I think it is Michael Nugent. It would be interesting to see if more women would come to TAM if 50% of speakers are women.
| It's been done. And last year, finally, the keynote was delivered by Carol Travis, a woman. And yes. More women are coming to TAM. The numbers were off a bit in 2012 from the previous years all time high, but still way up from the earliest TAM's that I attended. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2013 : 20:54:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W. Why would overrepresentation of women be a problem? What does it matter whether the gender mix of actual speakers at an event matches the gender mix of the entire potential speaker population? Perhaps the gender mix of the speakers should more match the gender mix of the audience? |
I didn't mean to suggest it is a problem, and mentioned several ways in which demographics wouldn't necessarily affect quality. But, by the sort of logic that would favor taking additional pains to go for proportional representation on fairness grounds, the lack of proportionality among eligible candidates would probably be considered unfair.
I personally reject that logic, and don't really see proportionality as a major goal, or as a measure of fairness (though some very large unusual split would indicate sexism in the process, which of course I would want to eliminate).
But if men and women gravitating towards different sciences is the result of sexist attitudes, one wouldn't want to promulgate those stereotypes by rigidly matching them. |
That seems very hard to quantify.
I could see being sure to have scientists of each gender represented in each major discipline regardless of whether they're overrepresented especially to give those in the audience interested in pursuing those fields the opportunity to see someone "like them" being very productive there.
I feel uncomfortable suggesting women might want this because I really don't know if they do (surely some subset does), but the analog I can personally draw is that I like to see people somehow like me speaking about my topics of interest giving me some reference points that people like me have these positions, particularly if it's some characteristic not commonly enough associated with such a position: for example, I'm very inspired by Stephen Hawking as I'm in a wheelchair too.
Not to suggest this sort of thing is nearly as important to me as the intelligence and hard work required to succeed in the sciences (or anywhere), but it's nice to see some reference points on occasion, and so I suppose maybe some women may think similarly. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." -Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable" -Albert Camus |
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2013 : 22:38:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Only IF men actually have better credentials, and not just better name recognition. "Male dominated" doesn't often mean "men are better at this subject." That's the sexist assumption again. |
No it isn't. It's assuming both sides are EQUAL... OBVIOUSLY, wow. You have to be really determined to see me as sexist if you can't grasp that. If there are more men than women in a field, assuming men and women are equal we would expect to see more men at the top of that field. That's just basic stuff Dave, it's not sexist. |
|
Edited by - On fire for Christ on 02/05/2013 22:39:07 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2013 : 10:30:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Originally posted by Dave W.
Only IF men actually have better credentials, and not just better name recognition. "Male dominated" doesn't often mean "men are better at this subject." That's the sexist assumption again. | No it isn't. It's assuming both sides are EQUAL... OBVIOUSLY, | Equal in ability or equal in opportunity?
wow. You have to be really determined to see me as sexist if you can't grasp that. If there are more men than women in a field, assuming men and women are equal we would expect to see more men at the top of that field. That's just basic stuff Dave, it's not sexist.
| On the contrary, these kinds of assumptions lie at the heart of sexism.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2013 : 11:04:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
No it isn't. It's assuming both sides are EQUAL... OBVIOUSLY, wow. You have to be really determined to see me as sexist if you can't grasp that. If there are more men than women in a field, assuming men and women are equal we would expect to see more men at the top of that field. That's just basic stuff Dave, it's not sexist. | It's so basic it's nearly tautological. But how you make the jump from there being more men at the top of their field to men being higher quality skeptical-convention speakers is where the sexism comes in. After all, the fact that there are more of them doesn't make them better. No, you assume they're of equal quality, but then somehow conclude that asking more of the women to speak will result in lower quality.
And somehow that's not sexist. I'm trying to dream up a set of circumstances in which it isn't sexist, and failing.
Wait: do you think that there aren't enough equally high-quality women speakers to fill a weekend? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2013 : 12:46:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude Who is using their hate mail and threats as grist for their website mill?
| PZ Myers...
Edited to add: I've given Pharyngula a few tries, but one of the constant turn-offs has been the level hostility from some of PZ's followers against people with a difference of opinion.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..." Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq: Send them unarmed civilians for target practice.. Collateralmurder. |
Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 02/06/2013 12:53:49 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2013 : 14:06:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I've given Pharyngula a few tries, but one of the constant turn-offs has been the level hostility from some of PZ's followers against people with a difference of opinion. | You're not required to read the comments, you know. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2013 : 16:54:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I've given Pharyngula a few tries, but one of the constant turn-offs has been the level hostility from some of PZ's followers against people with a difference of opinion. | You're not required to read the comments, you know.
|
Pharyngula is one of my favorite blogs. I rarely read the comments.
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2013 : 23:17:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dude
Does Watson really think that Shermer goes through his life without threats made against him? | Another strawman. In no place does Watson claim that Shermer gets no threats (or even fewer threats). She's talking about the specific kind of abuse she gets and Shermer undoubtedly does not.If we could collect all the hate mail and threats of assault/death made against both of them and stack them side by side.... who's stack would be taller? | Wild and irrelevant speculation.Who is using their hate mail and threats as grist for their website mill? | Women can't win with attitudes like this around. If they remain silent about the abuse, then nothing will change, but if they mention it every couple/few months or when a noteworthy example comes along, then they're just trying to increase blog traffic.
|
Dave_W, you know I respect you. You are one of the few people on the internets that makes me pause before starting an argument.
But what you are doing right now is moronic. I do not, in any way, discount the fact that Watson gets threats and abuse. But I think you are being foolish to think that people with the public profile of Shermer don't get it worse. I am simply pointing out that only one of them uses the abuse they get to write blog posts or articles about. If you don't think that guys like Shermer (and probably Dawkins, and Phil Plait on the other side of the issue, get more abuse (I count death threats as abuse) that Watson.... well... you know what I have to say). Grist for the website mill for a few, ignored and/or sent to the proper authorities by the rest.
The behavior from thunderfoot's crowd is ridiculous, but so is the behavior from Watson's side. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. -- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n. The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2013 : 23:28:11 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said: The choice you offered was between Springer and skepticism. [Shrug]
But tell me this: in your opinion, how should Watson, Myers and/or Plait have responded differently to the hate? Show us how to apply a little skepticism to being told that you're too ugly to rape, for example. |
No, I was offering the entire range between those things.
Watson's initial response to elevator guy was appropriate. Asking guys to moderate their behavior to not be creeps is not asking much, imo.
The stupidity that followed is the problem, and Watson's follow ups. Including your own failure to understand that population statistics are not predictive of the behavior of an individual. Phil plait said on his own blog that Watson "could have been raped!".
Nothing that has occurred since then (related to this topic) has been particularly beneficial to skepticism.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. -- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n. The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/06/2013 : 23:38:32 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W daid: Women can't win with attitudes like this around. If they remain silent about the abuse, then nothing will change, but if they mention it every couple/few months or when a noteworthy example comes along, then they're just trying to increase blog traffic. |
Now who is creating a strawman and a false dichotomy?
I never suggested women remain silent. My personal opinion is that women should report threats made against them to law enforcement. The same thing men should do. The same thing PZ did when fucktard Markuze threatened him. Does anyone think Shermer was left out of those threats? I'd bet that Shermer just reported him and moved on though, unlike PZ who had to share it with the world. I'd also bet that the volume of death threats made against a guy like Shermer (or Dawkins) exceeds those made against Watson and PZ.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. -- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n. The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2013 : 04:29:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Dave_W, you know I respect you. You are one of the few people on the internets that makes me pause before starting an argument.
But what you are doing right now is moronic. I do not, in any way, discount the fact that Watson gets threats and abuse. But I think you are being foolish to think that people with the public profile of Shermer don't get it worse. I am simply pointing out that only one of them uses the abuse they get to write blog posts or articles about. If you don't think that guys like Shermer (and probably Dawkins, and Phil Plait on the other side of the issue, get more abuse (I count death threats as abuse) that Watson.... well... you know what I have to say). Grist for the website mill for a few, ignored and/or sent to the proper authorities by the rest.
The behavior from thunderfoot's crowd is ridiculous, but so is the behavior from Watson's side. | And:Now who is creating a strawman and a false dichotomy?
I never suggested women remain silent. My personal opinion is that women should report threats made against them to law enforcement. The same thing men should do. The same thing PZ did when fucktard Markuze threatened him. Does anyone think Shermer was left out of those threats? I'd bet that Shermer just reported him and moved on though, unlike PZ who had to share it with the world. I'd also bet that the volume of death threats made against a guy like Shermer (or Dawkins) exceeds those made against Watson and PZ. | Again, the volume of abuse (or threats) was never the issue. It's irrelevant to Watson's point, and thus dismissive of her point. It's another "Dear Muslima" moment, in that you're implying that other people have it worse, so why complain so much publicly?
The thing Watson made "grist" of most recently wasn't a threat, so why report it to authorities? She's a feminist blogger writing (and speaking) about feminism and sexism (why is "Grist for the website mill" a bad thing, anyway?), and received a massively sexist drawing that couldn't seriously be taken as a threat by anyone. "You're too ugly to rape" isn't a threat, either. Why is publicizing the abuse she receives ridiculous?
More importantly, why is publicizing the abuse Watson receives an equivalently "ridiculous" as being abusive? Are you seriously claiming that Watson writing about how Shermer doesn't get sexually objectifying emails is equally as poor behavior as sending sexually objectifying emails to Watson?
Do you have any evidence that the actual threats Watson receives go unreported? Do you have any evidence that the threats that Dawkins or Shermer receive get reported?
By the way, Dawkins has made the threats he receives public. And PZ does his "I get email" thing in order to mock those making threats against him (Markuze was a special case, since he promised to take things beyond email). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|