YES! It was likely a bunch of assholes with tenure, a precious commodity in academia these days.
3 Likes
Meanwhile in Australia…
5 Likes
Wait, women couldn’t serve in the Cold War.
(deftly dodges the crossbow bolt @Mindysan33 launches, but is still hit by the Magic Missle she cast but a moment later)
1 Like
I found the presence of religious leaders on that panel more loathsome than the lack of women. It is possible to have some experts on birth control who happen to be all male, but what makes a religious leader an expert on anything except their own beliefs?
4 Likes
Why is David Hasselhoff on every one of these panels? I wasn’t aware he had any academic credentials whatsoever.
3 Likes
He has a PhD in sex appeal.
1 Like
Oh my poor brain… One more thing that I can add to the list of never having to see again after dying list.
4 Likes
Yo dawg, I heard you like dicks…
1 Like
A lot of men would flip out if there was simply more than one woman on such a panel.
1 Like
FTFY!!
(extra exclamation point because apparently quotes aren’t included in the 6 characters minimum)
2 Likes
Also true.
Is there something inherently bad about all-male panels that we put them up for public ridicule?
That it happens so often is problematic.
That there’s an all-male panel on the issue of how to encourage the participation of women in an endeavor is ridiculous.
5 Likes
Why is it problematic? I can see a problem if women are actively being denied participation as a form of gender discrimination. I’m sure that’s the case sometimes, but absent other information, just throwing up a screenshot of two men talking to a host and ridiculing them for it seems… odd.
I agree that one does seem silly. Being a woman or man doesn’t necessarily mean you know more or less about any given subject, but if your goal is to increase participation of women and you don’t even invite any women to participate, then you have quiet a problem.
There is absolutely nothing with an all-female panel on prostate cancer or baldness. I can’t even imagine why it would be considered absurd.
A female urologic oncologist knows just as much about prostates as a male urologic oncologist despite not having one - and a hell of a lot more than the vast majority of men. The idea that women experts of male problems couldn’t be as good as a male expert on male problems is ridiculous.
Good god, next you’ll be telling me that it is absurd to let men become gynecologists.
Why does it have to be active?
If you flip a coin, and get “tails” 95% of the time, wouldn’t you begin to suspect there’s something wrong with the coin – a structural bias?
Also, even in the BB selection from the article, all show panels involving way more than two people. The smallest is four.
5 Likes
Actually one of those screenshots is for a list of talks (over a month and a half) each with a single speaker. The Presidential one, the guy on the very left is the moderator not a panelist (E.J. Dionne). One screenshot wasn’t even about a panel at all (Concepts of Sameness).
No. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there is structural bias in the system since childhood for a good number of girls seems to be about destroying their self-esteem, but simply posting the fact that a given panel is male-dominated with no context for ridicule simply because all the panelists are male is, well, the definition of misandry.
The poverty summit for instance is a Catholic-Evangelical organized event. I’m having a hard time looking at who is on that panel, given the goal of discussing wide reaching liberal and conservative policy initiatives and seeing some huge problem that there isn’t a woman on it.
How do you not see that women should be part of a discussion about policy issues in religion?
2 Likes
