[worksaf]

I'm not convinced there is a problem. It sounds like some women seized upon this conference as an opportunity to point out a perceived bias.

The article is clearly written to suggest that you are either with us or against us and I take issue with that. The academic content of that kind of conference should not be limited by a speaker's gender, even if that means there are no women speakers. Just to be clear, I would feel the same if there were no male speakers

[BrandonRead]

"Perceived bias"

You are ignoring a larger history and the institutionalized sexism that currently exists in all sects of government, industry, and society as a whole.

Of course you would feel the same if there were no male speakers, because men haven't had to suffer through centuries of exclusion, therefore it would not threaten the position of men. When you take a deeper look at the issue and realize that we have the utility to create a gender-balanced (and gender-fluid if you want to trim some more ignorance) society, it is upsetting that yet another conference has no female speakers. The comment by the dunce about race/body-type/ablism etc completely undermines the position of those speaking out. The people pointing out that women are underrepresented are the same people that will also point out those other imbalances. They are working on their own fight--and yes, there is still largely internalized ignorance of race/gender-identity/ablism and beyond within the movement, but that does not mean they should completely abandon progress just to appease someone that thinks it is only 'perceived bias'. Thoughts?

[worksaf]

I am not ignoring anything. This particular conference was not called to address historical issues with gender favoritism. This is a scientific / academic conference dealing with actual ongoing research not related to gender studies. If there is a woman in this group that has something relevant to speak about she should definitely be considered but I don't think that the controlling board should be required to select a woman just to make the speaker list look statistically better to activists.

They are free to boycott the conference though I do not think they are doing themselves any favors. They will only cause those not involved in this gender conspiracy to lose patience and empathy with them.

Are there biased men AND women out there? Yes. Are they in complete control of all current events? No.

[BrandonRead]

So sorry to interrupt 'actual ongoing research'! Oh no! How dare progress be stopped!? There is an actual ongoing struggle for women to feel just as appreciated as men and not feel like they have to fly to the moon in order to be taken just as seriously as their male counterparts. Sure, they don't NEED to be required to select women--exactly the point! This article is useful in that it points out the disadvantaged position women still face. If a board does not intervene to try and create a gender balance, then there will be no gender balance, precisely because the issue is unregulated and ignored. Hmmm... sounds a lot like ignoring regulation on economics--clearly there are actual ongoing issues that can be solved by the private sector and so we should just ignore the potential solutions of the people so that the private sector can really get things done. Your argument is underdeveloped. It seems to make logical sense, yes, I credit you that, but the logic is baseless if you ignore the larger picture.

[worksaf]

Just curious, do you have any evidence at all to back up your assumptions that without forceful intervention this particular organization will have a gender imbalance from now until the end of time?

[vezzy-fnord]

To say that having a conference which does not represent a certain group threatens the position of this group is hyperbolic.

When you take a deeper look at the issue and realize that we have the utility to create a gender-balanced (and gender-fluid if you want to trim some more ignorance) society, it is upsetting that yet another conference has no female speakers.

Your comment on "trimming some more ignorance" in relation to postmodern gender theory does not speak well. I'm not sure what you even mean by a "genderfluid" society. Your statement implies that gender is learned rather than innate, which if John Money's (the person who pioneered this hypothesis) research is anything to show, is dubious.

[BrandonRead]

'Gender non-conforming' would have been a better term; it slipped my vocabulary and gender-fluidity can be used in its place in most cases.

[smrtinsert]

If there were no male speakers you would think there was no bias? It just happened that every female scheduled had something truly "scientific" to talk about, but the available men had none?

[worksaf]

There is no guarantee that just because there are scientists of X gender in a field that they will have something important to say at Y point in time. It may seem suspicious, but I still don't see any proof of sexism.

[Shivetya]

It is very slanted and dares you to disagree, which has become the modus operandi for some groups. Now there is the distinct possibility that someone was purposefully excluded it also is quite possible that with so few in the group that none stood out. Did the query the female members (what, are there like four?) if they wanted to present?

Still, make a competing organization. Don't follow the route of protect the children/etc/etc. Just as bad as highly educated groups are in thinking they are too intelligent to be sexist/racist/etc we don't need strawman arguments or worse.