Comments on: Diversity in the atheist/skeptic communities: An evidence-based approach

By: tom

Wed, 17 Dec 2014 10:36:04 +0000

But that is not the whole story. Anyone paying attention over the last few years has seen the impact of “diversity”. The SJWs whose main interest is not atheism have been trying to grab the rudder of the movement and remake it in their image going so far as character assassination of anyone who isn’t on board. Maybe the reason so few women have be invovled is because activist women tend to put their efforts into feminist causes, instead of purely atheist ones. Every one has limited time. And those with a clearer focus on atheism are bound to have a bigger influence in that community. The SJW distraction shows pretty clearly that they have different priorities. No real surprise.

]]>

By: Ian

Tue, 16 Dec 2014 06:53:27 +0000

Tom, did you even read our paper or even look at the graph I posted? We very clearly don’t assume a 50:50 gender split and went to effort to find a reasonable number based on international census data. Globally, about 42% of those who identify as non-religious are women to about 58% men. Even taking this into account, we still find significantly fewer women have either spoken or taken up speaking slots at the conferences analysed.

]]>

By: Julia

Tue, 16 Dec 2014 02:45:23 +0000

While I definitely agree when you say “Who, exactly, is holding back non-white males from writing […] or speaking […]?” They did address that there is a large difference between the people attending and the people speaking.

However, I am interested in seeing how people respond to this, because lately whenever information such as this arises as of late, there is a tendency toward pointing fingers at society as whole and it is sometimes used as kindling for social justice rage. I do not think there is any force restricting women or minorities, but I think they feel a lack of encouragement. Which should change–women and minorities should be encouraged more. I hope this information goes to that side of the debate, rather than the male-privilege, white-guilt side.

This is very interesting, especially because a common complaint directed at religious organizations is that they always seem disinterested in including women/minorities, and not one I have ever heard as a critique against atheists.

]]>

By: Albany Church

Mon, 15 Dec 2014 19:33:35 +0000

I find that even among Christian presenter, there has been a lack of diversity in the creation vrs. evolution debate. So many of the presenters are all saying the same thing. It is nice to see that the trend in diversity in leadership of atheist and skeptic community. It keeps us on our toes. May the best view win in the end.

]]>

By: Tom

Mon, 15 Dec 2014 18:12:13 +0000

I stand corrected Muad’Dib :-). What I think I should have said was “global gender-balance is assumed to be 50.0 male to 50.0 female of the non-religious community.” A similar assumption also occurs for the populations of the subgroup “atheist/skeptic community” and in the population of the “pool of available speakers for atheist skeptic subject area”. Is that better?

]]>

By: dunerat

Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:33:26 +0000

This supposition makes no sense whatsoever: “There is a assumption here –that there is a “global gender-balance of the non-religious community”. No evidence for this, although the population is so broadly based that it could be accurate.” This is not an assumption. Gender-balance is a ratio of the genders of the members of a group. You cannot have a population that does not have a gender balance (though one can certainly decline to list it). Some examples (which may not be completely accurate, but serve to illustrate my point): Gender-balance of traditional students in United Statian public universities: roughly 43.6 male to 56.4 female (sample size: 13 956 614). Gender-balance of my work-site: 85.7 male to 14.3 female (sample size: 42). Gender-balance of my office: 100 male to 0 female (sample size: 1).

So i have no idea why you suggest that the assumption that there is a gender-balance in the studied population is somehow bad, since there is no way to not have one.

If you were going to make “assumptions are bad” supposition, lead with the assumption that there are only two genders, instead of that there are genders.

]]>

By: Tom

Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:51:23 +0000

This “evidence” based approach is missing a huge piece of evidence that negates the entire approach. There is a assumption here –that there is a “global gender-balance of the non-religious community”. No evidence for this, although the population is so broadly based that it could be accurate. Second, the subject group is actually the atheist/skeptic community, which is a small subset of that population. Again no data. My own personal experience in attendees has been that it is male dominated, but I certainly could be wrong. Without accurate data on the ratios of male/female in the overall population, this comparison breaks down. There certainly are many demographic problem with the atheist movement, like bringing in more women and minorities. There are also other factors that would reduce the number of women speakers in a science based forum, where women again are in the minority in many fields of science, biology being an exception.

]]>

By: jupitaur

Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:17:57 +0000

And if you talk to Tyson, he’ll tell you that the sciences are underpopulated and underrepresented among women and people of color.

Don’t take my word for it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7ihNLEDiuM

“Before we start talking about genetic differences, you got to come up with a system that is equal opportunity. Then we can have that conversation.”

]]>

By: Ryan

Mon, 15 Dec 2014 08:41:52 +0000

Your first paragraph is gold.. Besides, for me Tyson is #1. Not because he’s black, or a man.. but because he is intelligent and articulate, and makes the discussion fun.

]]>

By: Jennifer

Mon, 15 Dec 2014 02:02:21 +0000

There’s a lot more to this issue than diversity. First, it would be helpful to know how many non-white, non-male speakers have been available or asked to be a speaker. To assume prejudice, which is the assumption in a discussion about diversity, one has to provide some evidence that people are being left out. If the diversity is not yet available, why should a push be needed to artificially produce it? That seems counter-productive.

Next, why are we spending so much time worrying about physical characteristics of the speakers? Genitals and skin colour do not affect ability and should stop being a focus. Anything to keep us infighting, I suppose.

Lastly, every group is made up of many individuals. If the only thing we’re being accused of is having a few rude men and not enough non-white, non-men, then I think we’re doing alright. No group is devoid is bad people, and we should not be defined by ours.

]]>