For scientists: 'Nature' editorial on racism

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 EddieA 15 Jun 2020

"Systemic racism: science must listen, learn and change" says the headline of an editorial in last week’s “Nature”, the world’s leading  cross-disciplinary science journal

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01678-x

In the last few days, some here on UKC have rejected the evidence that systemic racism continues in society, dismissing it as unsubstantiated leftist media hype, despite a huge literature that documents individual, institutional and structural racism in many societies around the world.  Among those doubters are some working research scientists. Yet the editors of Nature seem happy to accept the evidence, and they are urging scientists to “listen, learn and change”. 

I applaud Nature’s stand and I share their commitments to end racism in science. But I wonder what the other scientists of UKC have to say about this?

9
 birdie num num 15 Jun 2020
In reply to EddieA:

UCKers abuse each other regardless of race, colour or creed. It’s a very equal community here.

4
 Dave Garnett 16 Jun 2020
In reply to EddieA:

> I applaud Nature’s stand and I share their commitments to end racism in science.

What, specifically, do you suggest?  What are you going to do differently?

2
OP EddieA 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

1) Acknowledge that structural racism exists

2) Listen to my BAME students and their concerns

And then doing these four things.  The article is written by astrophysicist Ethan Seigel and has data in it to support the need for the suggested actions:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/06/02/4-ways-that-scienti...

This is for the US, so not everything applies to the UK. Seems most science subjects are becoming more diverse, which helps - so people don't feel the pressure of being the only black student in their class.  There is one exception in the sciences in the US: physics.

The main thing I'm doing differently is acting on the request of my black colleagues and students to be more public in my condemnation of racism. They know things won't change until we join them as allies, just as women can't overcome sexism without men buying into the need to.   I am uncomfortable with public action but am forcing myself to do it.  I have just quietly got on with things up to now, but they have convinced me that to be an ally you have to speak out. They feel we white people can choose to opt in/out of the discussion when it gets uncomfortable.  They don't get to do that.

How about you?  I'd welcome any good ideas.

3
OP EddieA 16 Jun 2020
In reply to birdie num num:

I agree on the abusing each other.

> UCKers abuse each other regardless of race, colour or creed. It’s a very equal community here.

true: equally white, equally male   

I'd love to see the thread where some white dude gets piled on by a bunch of angry women or black people?  Has that ever happened? 

18
 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to EddieA:

> I'd love to see the thread where some white dude gets piled on by a bunch of angry women or black people?  Has that ever happened? 

What a bizarre thing to write, why on Earth would you love to see that? Have have you ever seen the reverse happen on UKC?

7
cb294 16 Jun 2020
In reply to EddieA:

Seems highly US specific.

In the EU, or Germany at least, reverse discrimination is the bigger problem on the academic career ladder.

CB

12
Blanche DuBois 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> What a bizarre thing to write, why on Earth would you love to see that? Have have you ever seen the reverse happen on UKC?

Given the small number of women who contribute to UKC, it seems to happen not infrequently.  Just take a gander at any past threads commenting on pieces written by women that dare to adopt an approach not consistent with the (mostly) middle-aged and elderly white males that frequent UKC.  They don't exactly shout out inclusion and tolerance. 

6
 Magic56 16 Jun 2020
In reply to cb294:

> Seems highly US specific.

It is true that racism in the U.K. is not as much centred on skin colour at it is in the US.

> In the EU, or Germany at least, reverse discrimination is the bigger problem on the academic career ladder.

> CB

If you were given the choice of being black in the U.K. or white in the UK, which would you pick ?

Post edited at 07:17
4
 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Blanche DuBois:

> Given the small number of women who contribute to UKC, it seems to happen not infrequently.  Just take a gander at any past threads commenting on pieces written by women that dare to adopt an approach not consistent with the (mostly) middle-aged and elderly white males that frequent UKC.  They don't exactly shout out inclusion and tolerance. 

The salient factor would seem to be an unpopular opinion, not an unpopular gender.

17
 Luke90 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> The salient factor would seem to be an unpopular opinion, not an unpopular gender.

Sometimes the unpopular opinion is "here are some reasons why climbing can be off-putting to women, based on my personal experience" and the response is "shut up, I don't hate women and neither do my friends so you're obviously talking nonsense, sexism isn't a problem any more". See, for example, threads about the now-covid-cancelled Women's Trad Festival where some people were horrified that it even exists.

2
cb294 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Magic56:

> If you were given the choice of being black in the U.K. or white in the UK, which would you pick ?

That does not work, even as a thought experiment. The whole point is that race is something you cannot pick.

CB

edit: Just to emphasize, I am well aware of the everyday institutional or casual racism especially towards black people. My response was very specific to the OP asking about experiences of discrimination in academic science, where in my experience recruiting boards get out of their way to "level" the playing fields for women and minority candidates, resulting in a massive bias against white men.

Post edited at 07:58
11
baron 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Magic56:

> It is true that racism in the U.K. is not as much centred on skin colour at it is in the US.

> If you were given the choice of being black in the U.K. or white in the UK, which would you pick ?

Can I be Raheem Sterling?

3
Old Skooled 16 Jun 2020
In reply to cb294:

> Seems highly US specific.

> In the EU, or Germany at least, reverse discrimination is the bigger problem on the academic career ladder.

> CB

Genuine question: do you have non-anecdotal evidence of this so-called reverse bias?

1
 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Luke90:

> > The salient factor would seem to be an unpopular opinion, not an unpopular gender.

> Sometimes the unpopular opinion is "here are some reasons why climbing can be off-putting to women, based on my personal experience" and the response is "shut up, I don't hate women and neither do my friends so you're obviously talking nonsense, sexism isn't a problem any more". See, for example, threads about the now-covid-cancelled Women's Trad Festival where some people were horrified that it even exists.

Not my argument, not my opinion.

Anyone who would "love to see the thread" where someone gets "piled on" by other posters, not because of a difference of opinion but because of a difference of gender or race, needs to get their head out of their arse.

4
 Magic56 16 Jun 2020
In reply to cb294:

> That does not work, even as a thought experiment. The whole point is that race is something you cannot pick.

It works absolutely fine as a thought experiment. Your reluctance and that of others to answer in a straightforward manner says as much.

> CB

> edit: Just to emphasize, I am well aware of the everyday institutional or casual racism especially towards black people. My response was very specific to the OP asking about experiences of discrimination in academic science, where in my experience recruiting boards get out of their way to "level" the playing fields for women and minority candidates, resulting in a massive bias against white men.

Can you show us evidence of this  "massive bias against white men" in academic science?

Post edited at 08:42
1
 MG 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Magic56:

> It works absolutely fine as a thought experiment. Your reluctance to answer suggests you probably don't even believe your own bullshit.

I think most people would select white, everything else being equal.  However, it never is equal and I certainly would put the black/white option fairly low down the list of priorities.  For example, good schools, parents with social capital, living in decent accommodation etc would all be higher priorities if I were able to choose a starting point in life.

(What's happened to KriszLukash - day off today?  And how's Rom doing?)

1
 Andy Hardy 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> The salient factor would seem to be an unpopular opinion, not an unpopular gender.

Unpopular to an audience of white, straight, middle class, middle aged men. This forum used to have a lot more female input, and is poorer for the lack thereof. 

2
 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Unpopular to an audience of white, straight, middle class, middle aged men. This forum used to have a lot more female input, and is poorer for the lack thereof. 

I agree. Again: not my argument.

 Luke90 16 Jun 2020
In reply to MG:

> I think most people would select white, everything else being equal.  However, it never is equal and I certainly would put the black/white option fairly low down the list of priorities.  For example, good schools, parents with social capital, living in decent accommodation etc would all be higher priorities if I were able to choose a starting point in life.

Well yeah, and you've got a higher chance of hitting the jackpot in all those other areas if you're white.

1
 MG 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Luke90:

> Well yeah, and you've got a higher chance of hitting the jackpot in all those other areas if you're white.

You can't change the past so that's not really relevant to a thought experiment about being born in different situations.

4
 Magic56 16 Jun 2020
In reply to MG:

> You can't change the past so that's not really relevant to a thought experiment about being born in different situations.

The thought experiment is that your situation stays the same, everything stays the same, except for the color of your skin. Would you take it ? If, as claimed by cb, there is a massive bias against whites then his answer should be "black".

My guess is that given the choice, everything else being equal, most people would pick white, I know I certainly would.

Post edited at 09:04
1
 Andy Hardy 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

Just thinking about your use of the word "unpopular". When we get threads on some idea to make one group's life more equal (like the women's climbing ones) we get most negative comments from men. "That's sexist. What about a men's only climbing festival?" etc

Those comments are only "unpopular" because the majority of voices on here are male. And a large number of those are white, straight, middle aged etc. 

4
baron 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Magic56:

> The thought experiment is that your situation stays the same, everything stays the same, except for the color of your skin. 

> Would you take it ?

Why would I?

Why would anyone?

 Magic56 16 Jun 2020
In reply to baron:

> Why would I?

> Why would anyone?

To profit from massive discrimination against whites, as it is claimed.

1
 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Just thinking about your use of the word "unpopular". When we get threads on some idea to make one group's life more equal (like the women's climbing ones) we get most negative comments from men. "That's sexist. What about a men's only climbing festival?" etc

> Those comments are only "unpopular" because the majority of voices on here are male. And a large number of those are white, straight, middle aged etc. 

Still nothing to do with any argument I've made.

I wonder if UKC's dearth of women and BAME posters might have something to do with all the middle aged white men arguing with other middle aged white men about what women and BAME posters opinions might be?

I'd certainly find such an all pervasive patronising air highly off putting.

3
cb294 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Magic56:

Easy, from my own experience. If you are female you get on any shortlist for professorial appointments, essentially regardless of the quality of your science. In order to increase women participation at faculty level, committees often are instructed beforehand to come up with a female top pick. Usually this is even stated openly. As this cuts too close to my current circumstances, I am not willing to discuss this further.

CB

3
cb294 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Old Skooled:

The riders on any job professorial level job advert ("given equal qualifications, women or minority candidates will be preferred", or similar phrases), plus indirect ones ("the candidates must be able to obtain a stipend from XZY fund".

This is not just word decoration, but is happening in practise.

CB

 Magic56 16 Jun 2020
In reply to cb294:

> Easy, from my own experience. If you are female you get on any shortlist for professorial appointments, essentially regardless of the quality of your science. In order to increase women participation at faculty level, committees often are instructed beforehand to come up with a female top pick. Usually this is even stated openly. As this cuts too close to my current circumstances, I am not willing to discuss this further.

Is it really discrimination though? It is perfectly reasonable for a company or organisation to not want to have only 20-year-olds, or not only 60-year-olds, not only males or not only females, not people of all the same cultural background etc etc.

When you hire or promote people you look not only purely at their competence but also at how it improves the overall organization. The private sector already identified pretty quickly that more diverse organisations produced higher financial returns, were better able to attract talents, had better staff retention etc etc..

https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/Organization....

But I'd agree that it can be a delicate balance to strike between a legitimate need for a diverse workforce and positive discrimination (which has nothing positive about it)

Hiring people of varied cultural backgrounds in order to foster innovation and culturally tolerant work culture is fine, hiring people based on their skin colour isn't.

Post edited at 09:40
8
 MG 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Magic56:

> The thought experiment is that your situation stays the same, everything stays the same, except for the color of your skin. Would you take it ? If, as claimed by cb, there is a massive bias against whites then his answer should be "black".

I think for life in general white would be preferable, yes.  However, I think in narrow but possibly important circumstances for individuals it may not be best.  Certainly cb is correct in saying that black (or female etc.) candidates now get more attention in some interview processes than white (or male) candidates.  Whether this translates in to greater chances of being appointed is difficult to say but I would opt for black and female (with a "Western" sounding name) for such a recruitment process if I could choose.

2
 MG 16 Jun 2020
In reply to cb294:

> The riders on any job professorial level job advert ("given equal qualifications, women or minority candidates will be preferred", or similar phrases),

That would be illegal.  Something like "...are particular welcome" is typical.

> plus indirect ones ("the candidates must be able to obtain a stipend from XZY fund".

This is probably also illegal if XZY discriminates by age or race.

3
 MonkeyPuzzle 16 Jun 2020
In reply to cb294:

> The riders on any job professorial level job advert ("given equal qualifications, women or minority candidates will be preferred", or similar phrases), plus indirect ones ("the candidates must be able to obtain a stipend from XZY fund".

> This is not just word decoration, but is happening in practise.

> CB

My manager (and their manager) has an objective to increase sex and race diversity as part of their performance plan, so that would mean pushing female and non-white candidates for interview for promotion. I'm as pale and male as they come, but in engineering project management representation is still a massive problem and I understand why there's a push to improve it. I'm fine with it, but some of my colleagues are spitting feathers whenever the topic comes up. Didn't think you could actually positively discriminate under EU law, so what you've said is a step above what I thought was allowed.

cb294 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Magic56:

> The thought experiment is that your situation stays the same, everything stays the same, except for the color of your skin. Would you take it ? If, as claimed by cb, there is a massive bias against whites then his answer should be "black".

Absolutely, within the narrow focus on academic job prospects raised by the OP! More realistically (as in theoretically actually possible, unlike switching race or sex) I could risk enough climbing to have an accident that lands me in a wheel chair or lose a leg: Top of the pile job wise immediately, but quite obvioulsy not a life choice I would make.

Again, I do not deny for a moment that there is structural and continuous background racism in society. However, the answer the OP must be that within European science since quite some time the efforts to overcome that bias and increase representation of women and minorities (distinct but similar issues) are highly noticeable, to the extent that they start causing discrimination in reverse.

CB

2
 Magic56 16 Jun 2020
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> My manager (and their manager) has an objective to increase sex and race diversity as part of their performance plan, so that would mean pushing female and non-white candidates for interview for promotion. I'm as pale and male as they come, but in engineering project management representation is still a massive problem and I understand why there's a push to improve it. I'm fine with it, but some of my colleagues are spitting feathers whenever the topic comes up. Didn't think you could actually positively discriminate under EU law, so what you've said is a step above what I thought was allowed.

You can’t positively discriminate, not under EU law and not under UK law.

baron 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Magic56:

> You can’t positively discriminate, not under EU law and not under UK law.

You can’t discriminate at all, can you?

1
Old Skooled 16 Jun 2020
In reply to cb294:

Your replies to both me and Magic65 are still anecdotal - as this is entirely quantifiable (number of senior positions going to women, BAME candidates etc. etc.) then surely there should be some statistics showing a clear bias against white men?  

In reality, in my experience (which includes academia in the UK, US, and EU, and as both a candidate and running search processes), we are at best only beginning to redress an ages old bias that ran massively in favour of white men. I still see many (too many, in my opinion) shortlists with no meaningful diversity. 

I happen to know that I was not shortlisted for a job in the US last year, for which I was qualified, because they wanted, if they could, to appoint a woman. Looking at the composition of the department, this was entirely understandable. But, at the same time, I also know I still benefit; I was on an all male (but not quite all white) shortlist for a professorship in an EU country last year. I was the one who ended up getting the job. 

Post edited at 10:58
1
 Magic56 16 Jun 2020
In reply to MG:

> I think for life in general white would be preferable, yes.  However, I think in narrow but possibly important circumstances for individuals it may not be best.  Certainly cb is correct in saying that black (or female etc.) candidates now get more attention in some interview processes than white (or male) candidates.  Whether this translates in to greater chances of being appointed is difficult to say but I would opt for black and female (with a "Western" sounding name) for such a recruitment process if I could choose.

Fair.

The fact that you insisted on the “western sounding name” hints at something that I have observed for a while, racism has shifted from biological factors to cultural or origin  factors.

This new form of racism or “xeno-racism” has it had been coined, leads to a big misunderstanding: anti-racist organisations are still stuck on skin colour and therefore keep banging about a prejudice against blacks which is probably very small at least in Britain.

What happens though is that there is increasing discrimination against people who are foreign or seen as non-indigenous. Not only that but this has been encouraged by the government, with their various hostile environment policies.

Indirectly, this impacts predominantly BAME as they will often be seen as, or are, non-native, especially if they have, as you said, foreign sounding names.

IMO, the social justice warriors are blaming the world for a form of racism that really is quite small nowadays, as a result alienating the population who doesn’t recognise itself in the picture the paint, and also fail to point out the new “xeno-racism” which is the real problem for BAME.

5
 DaveHK 16 Jun 2020
In reply to birdie num num:

> It’s a very equal community here.

Perhaps, but probably not a very diverse one.

Post edited at 10:47
1
 Coel Hellier 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Luke90:

> Sometimes the unpopular opinion is "here are some reasons why climbing can be off-putting to women, based on my personal experience" and the response is "shut up, I don't hate women and neither do my friends so you're obviously talking nonsense, sexism isn't a problem any more". See, for example, threads about the now-covid-cancelled Women's Trad Festival where some people were horrified that it even exists.

Just so we can go and check it out, can you give a link or two to a thread about the covid-cancelled Women's Trad Festival in which some people were horrified that it even exists?

5
 marsbar 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I'm sure someone as clever as you could work out how to use the search function.  

1
baron 16 Jun 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

> Perhaps, but probably not a very diverse one.

A bit like my wife’s Crafting and Creating forum

1
 marsbar 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

I know some women and BAME people have stopped posting after being shouted down rudely too many times by a small but vocal and persistent minority of the white men on here.  

Anecdotal of course.  

2
 marsbar 16 Jun 2020
In reply to baron:

Do they discuss racist cross stitch names?  

1
baron 16 Jun 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> I know some women and BAME people have stopped posting after being shouted down rudely too many times by a small but vocal and persistent minority of the white men on here.  

> Anecdotal of course.  

There’s possibly a few white males who’ve suffered the same fate.

3
 Coel Hellier 16 Jun 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> I'm sure someone as clever as you could work out how to use the search function.  

Well, you are right, I indeed can!   Indeed I had already tried that.  I tried searching for combinations of "Women's Trad Festival", "Trad Festival" and "Women's Trad".

I got two threads about the now-covid-cancelled Women's Trad Festival ... and neither of them had any comment: "horrified that it even exists".

Of course there may have been threads that I overlooked in my searching ....

3
baron 16 Jun 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> Do they discuss racist cross stitch names?  

I have no idea.

I’ve never been *inclined to see what they post.

*That’s code for ‘I’m too scared ‘ to visit the site.

 Doug 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Old Skooled:

> In reality, in my experience (which includes academia in the UK, US, and EU, and as both a candidate and running search processes), we are at best only beginning to redress an ages old bias that ran massively in favour of white men.

Not sure that's true, at least not in biology. When I finished my PhD in the late 80s it was clear that the women in the department found it much easier to get jobs than the men. The women typically had a job related to their PhDs within a couple of months of starting to apply, the men mostly took many months & several never got jobs related to their studies giving up looking after a year or more. Anecdoctal I know but to me it was clear that as early as the late 80s there was a wish to have more diverse university departments (although it didn't seem to apply to more senior posts)

2
 nufkin 16 Jun 2020
In reply to baron:

>  There’s possibly a few white males who’ve suffered the same fate

A good thing about arguing on UKC is that it's not necessarily possible to tell what gender people are or what colour their skin is - possibly a rare point in favour of silly usernames. Thus people get abused and shouted down more on the basis of the quality of their content, and whether they can spell and punctuate properly

1
baron 16 Jun 2020
In reply to nufkin:

> A good thing about arguing on UKC is that it's not necessarily possible to tell what gender people are or what colour their skin is - possibly a rare point in favour of silly usernames. Thus people get abused and shouted down more on the basis of the quality of their content, and whether they can spell and punctuate properly

This is true, with more of an emphasis on spelling and punctuation rather than quality.

3
 marsbar 16 Jun 2020
In reply to baron:

It's not ways all about you.  

Getting a bit fed up of the "what about the white men". 

10
 Siward 16 Jun 2020

> (What's happened to KriszLukash - day off today?  And how's Rom doing?)

Indeed - yet another of the recent proliferation of users with no history weighing in with their no doubt valuable opinions only to disappear again. No better than posting anonymously really which I thought UKC didn't encourage. 

2
baron 16 Jun 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> It's not ways all about you.  

> Getting a bit fed up of the "what about the white men". 

It’s not about me at all.

You implied that only minorities and women had been abused and left this site and I was simply adding that it’s something that affects white men as well.

5
 Luke90 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> I got two threads about the now-covid-cancelled Women's Trad Festival ... and neither of them had any comment: "horrified that it even exists".

You'll note that I didn't put that phrase in quotation marks and wasn't suggesting that it represented the literal words that were written by anybody. What I recall were suggestions that aiming the festival specifically at women was discriminatory and unnecessary because sexism was a problem of the past and certainly not a problem of the climbing community.

3
 Luke90 16 Jun 2020
In reply to baron:

> You implied that only minorities and women had been abused and left this site and I was simply adding that it’s something that affects white men as well.

Did she? Can you quote her? I can't see where she implied that at all.

"I know some women and BAME people have stopped posting after being shouted down rudely too many times by a small but vocal and persistent minority of the white men on here."

2
baron 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Luke90:

> Did she? Can you quote her? I can't see where she implied that at all.

> "I know some women and BAME people have stopped posting after being shouted down rudely too many times by a small but vocal and persistent minority of the white men on here."

How can I quote something that’s implied?

1
 Offwidth 16 Jun 2020
In reply to baron: FTFY

How can I quote something that’s implied in my head?

1
 Coel Hellier 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Luke90:

> What I recall were suggestions that aiming the festival specifically at women was discriminatory and unnecessary because sexism was a problem of the past and certainly not a problem of the climbing community.

Well ok, but again, how about a link? 

The two threads I found on my (admittedly quick) search didn't have any of those comments either. 

2
baron 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> FTFY

> How can I quote something that’s implied in my head?

Where else would it be implied?

Doesn’t that then make it inferred?

Which is what I might have done.

1
 Luke90 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Well ok, but again, how about a link? 

> The two threads I found on my (admittedly quick) search didn't have any of those comments either. 

I can't find it either. There was the thread on the news item that announced this year's WTF, which was broadly positive. And then around the same time there was a separate thread with much more mixed views and at least one person arguing that it shouldn't exist. I wonder whether it was in the pub.

2
 Andy Hardy 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Still nothing to do with any argument I've made.

Sorry I thought you wrote this:

"The salient factor would seem to be an unpopular opinion, not an unpopular gender"

To which I responded that the popularity of the argument depends to a large extent on the make up of the audience. The lack of female voices on here is (in my view) directly related to the bias exhibited by the majority (pale, stale, male) on here

2
 MG 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> the bias exhibited by the majority (pale, stale, male) on here

Claiming to be worried about bias and prejudice and then calling people pejorative names...

4
 deepsoup 16 Jun 2020
In reply to MG:

> Claiming to be worried about bias and prejudice and then calling people pejorative names...

Another fine example of what Marsbar (above) aptly describes as "what about the white men?" 

3
 deepsoup 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Luke90:

> I wonder whether it was in the pub.

If it wasn't in the pub originally it may well have been moved there following some distasteful comment or other.  That's a fairly standard practice on here.

Or perhaps you might have been misremembering and attributing some comments about the Women's Climbing Symposium to the Trad Festival?  I'm sure I remember comments like those you describe, but couldn't be sure which event they were about.

Here's an old thread that shows UKC in a pretty poor light.  (Coel, I feel sure, will see nothing wrong in it.)
Entirely coincidental, I'm sure, that the OP in this thread no longer posts here.
https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/rock_talk/womens_massive_uk_event_not_imp...

2
 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Sorry I thought you wrote this:

> "The salient factor would seem to be an unpopular opinion, not an unpopular gender"

> To which I responded that the popularity of the argument depends to a large extent on the make up of the audience. The lack of female voices on here is (in my view) directly related to the bias exhibited by the majority (pale, stale, male) on here

You're misunderstanding my meaning. If a poster puts forward an unpopular opinion on a forum that is 90% male it is entirely unsurprising if the negative responses are overwhelmingly originating from males.

I understand the point made about female voices being shouted down by males on subjects that they have direct lived experience of (women's trad climbing weekend) but this is not a gender specific experience. I've been shouted down by an overwhelmingly male response when making a point relating experience specific to my own life or job. 

I can only remember very few openly bigoted posters on here. Invariably they are mercilessly teased and tormented by the majority and either disappear or are banned. Do you disagree?

...and the 'stale, pale, male' thing, really? Can you think of any other demographic currently being encouraged towards casual self-hatred? You think that helps anybody?

2
Old Skooled 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Doug:

But I presume that now, since the process has had 30 years to run, the senior professoriate of said department is dominated by women? 

1
 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> Another fine example of what Marsbar (above) aptly describes as "what about the white men?" 

Surely a fair point in a country where addiction and homelessness overwhelmingly effect men. Where 95% of those incarcerated are men and where three quarters of all suicides are men. These stats have been largely unchanged for decades.

2
 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> I know some women and BAME people have stopped posting after being shouted down rudely too many times by a small but vocal and persistent minority of the white men on here.  

> Anecdotal of course.  

I don't doubt it. Any comment on the content of the post you're replying to though?

 MG 16 Jun 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> Another fine example of what Marsbar (above) aptly describes as "what about the white men?" 

What are saying? Older white men are fair game? 

1
 Andy Hardy 16 Jun 2020
In reply to MG:

Posting on a phone, have to use shorthand. Plus it's *my* demographic.

Does seem to have triggered a few dislikes though.🤔

1
 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Posting on a phone, have to use shorthand. Plus it's *my* demographic.

> Does seem to have triggered a few dislikes though.🤔

Your post currently has one like and no dislikes. Perhaps this fact should prompt a little self reflection on how your own internal biases are effecting your perception.

3
 seankenny 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I understand the point made about female voices being shouted down by males on subjects that they have direct lived experience of (women's trad climbing weekend) but this is not a gender specific experience. I've been shouted down by an overwhelmingly male response when making a point relating experience specific to my own life or job. 

Have you actually read or listened to what women say about the way men (in general) treat them? If you're wondering why women don't post on internet forums, then posts like this are probably the answer.

3
Old Skooled 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Old Skooled:

A few facts. Olivette Otele became the first black female professor of history in the UK when she was promoted by Bath Spa - that promotion took place in 2018 (Professor Otele now holds a chair at Bristol). Also in 2018, a report by the Royal Historical Society discovered that less than 1% of UK history faculty are black. 

Post edited at 16:05
1
 deepsoup 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Surely a fair point

No. 

Obviously those things are all causes for concern.  Suicide, for example, does disproportionately affect men, and there are charities and organisations set up specifically to address that. (C.A.L.M - The Campaign Against Living Miserably for example).

But to bring up "what about the white men" in the context of a discussion about racism, or sexism, is just plain whataboutery.  It's essentially the same as responding to "Black Lives Matter" with "All Lives Matter".  (I think even UKC has mostly got the hang of why that's really not acceptable now.)

Do you suppose C.A.L.M have to put up with a lot of people saying "but what about women"?  I don't.  Rather than attempting to explain why myself, here's a link to a blog post that does it much better than I could:
https://victimfocus.wordpress.com/2018/01/03/stop-asking-me-what-about-men

Post edited at 16:03
3
 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

> Have you actually read or listened to what women say about the way men (in general) treat them? If you're wondering why women don't post on internet forums, then posts like this are probably the answer.

What is it with this thread? I'm repeatedly being questioned on points and arguments I haven't made. I live in a household with two daughters and a wife. My wife has two decades of working at a high level within an industry where she's often the only woman sat at the table. She also heads up the Women's growth network within her company and acts as mentor to several women helping them with the issues that commonly arise in workplaces that have a huge gender imbalance. So yeah, I have listened to what women say about the way some men treat them. And as your post amply highlights, men can also be patronising towards other men.

What specific content in my post do you find dismissive of women?

Post edited at 15:48
2
 MG 16 Jun 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> But to bring up "what about the white men"

No one has done that.  I pointed out the hypocrisy of claiming to be against prejudice to one group while casually displaying it towards another. 

4
 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> No. 

> Obviously those things are all causes for concern.  Suicide, for example, does disproportionately affect men, and there are charities and organisations set up specifically to address that. (C.A.L.M - The Campaign Against Living Miserably for example).

> But to bring up "what about the white men" in the context of a discussion about racism, or sexism, is just plain whataboutery.  It's essentially the same as responding to "Black Lives Matter" with "All Lives Matter".  (I think even UKC has mostly got the hang of why that's really not acceptable now.)

> Do you suppose C.A.L.M have to put up with a lot of people saying "but what about women"?  I don't.  Rather than attempting to explain why myself, here's a link to a blog post that does it much better than I could:https://victimfocus.wordpress.com/2018/01/03/stop-asking-me-what-abou...

All true. None of which is even vaguely relevant to what MG or myself posted. Neither of us said "what about the white men", what we actually took issue with is the use of "stale, pale and male". The casual usage of gender and and race specific pejoratives helps no one.

2
 seankenny 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> What is it with this thread? I'm repeatedly being questioned on points and arguments I haven't made. I live in a household with two daughters and a wife. My wife has two decades of working at a high level within an industry where she's often the only woman sat at the table. She also heads up the Women's growth network within her company and acts as mentor to several women helping them with the issues that commonly arise in workplaces that have a huge gender imbalance.

> What specific content in my post do you find dismissive of women?


You come across as one of those whining men who, whenever it's pointed out that someone else has a structurally difficult time, says "but what about ME?". Perhaps you're just tone deaf and poor at communicating what you really mean, or perhaps you really believe that.

Here: "I understand the point made about female voices being shouted down by males on subjects that they have direct lived experience of (women's trad climbing weekend) but this is not a gender specific experience."

Except the experience of many, many women would suggest that it really is a strongly gendered experience. Hence the need for women in power to be way better than the men even to get a look in (Mrs Thatcher comes to mind as a prime example of this).

To take a more extreme example, the fact that men get raped doesn't alter the fact that rape is overwhelmingly something men do to women. That you've been shouted down by other men doesn't mean it is less prevalent and more damaging for women. (For clarity, that was an analogy and not a comparison.)

5
 Coel Hellier 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Luke90:

> I wonder whether it was in the pub.

Maybe it was.  Thanks for looking anyhow.

 seankenny 16 Jun 2020
In reply to MG:

> No one has done that.  I pointed out the hypocrisy of claiming to be against prejudice to one group while casually displaying it towards another. 


To be fair, no one has ever combined "pale, male and stale" with a punch or a load of dog shit posted through a letter box.

3
 MG 16 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

I think you need to follow the thread, and perhaps other threads, rather than jumping in halfway.  I have good idea what Stichtplate is referring to (I may even have been a guilty party involved), and he's right in the context of UKC discussion.

1
 MG 16 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

Oh I see, a little bit of prejudice is fine.  Just lay off the dog shit.  Got it. 

2
 marsbar 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

I've lost track of this rambling thread, but I'm pretty sure I was agreeing with you.  

 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

> You come across as one of those whining men who, whenever it's pointed out that someone else has a structurally difficult time, says "but what about ME?". Perhaps you're just tone deaf and poor at communicating what you really mean, or perhaps you really believe that.

LOL. Just look at what you've written here: "You come across as one of those whining men". Now can you imagine writing "You come across as one of those whining women"?  In your very first sentence you've amply demonstrated your own internalised prejudices. Treating genders equally means just that, Equally.

> Here: "I understand the point made about female voices being shouted down by males on subjects that they have direct lived experience of (women's trad climbing weekend) but this is not a gender specific experience."

Are you arguing that it is a gender specific experience?

> Except the experience of many, many women would suggest that it really is a strongly gendered experience. Hence the need for women in power to be way better than the men even to get a look in (Mrs Thatcher comes to mind as a prime example of this).

There's some truth in that of course, but the whole tone of yours and others posts on here is that it is a clear cut, black and white issue. I disagree. I think it's a little more complicated.

> To take a more extreme example, the fact that men get raped doesn't alter the fact that rape is overwhelmingly something men do to women. That you've been shouted down by other men doesn't mean it is less prevalent and more damaging for women. (For clarity, that was an analogy and not a comparison.)

The argument of many on here is that if a woman is shouted down on UKC, then it is because she is a woman. All I've said is that it may often be the case that it's the posters opinion that has been shouted down, not their gender. Or do you believe that the poster's gender is more important than their opinion?

4
 seankenny 16 Jun 2020
In reply to MG:

> I think you need to follow the thread, and perhaps other threads, rather than jumping in halfway.  I have good idea what Stichtplate is referring to (I may even have been a guilty party involved), and he's right in the context of UKC discussion.


I've read the thread. It looks mostly like a lot of touchy blokes going "what about ME, how dare you call ME pale, male, stale", in response to what was clearly a slightly throwaway comment. If I have to engage in thread archaelogy before being qualified to post, then you have your answer as to why these forums are populated by the same type of man...

7
 seankenny 16 Jun 2020
In reply to MG:

> Oh I see, a little bit of prejudice is fine.  Just lay off the dog shit.  Got it. 


You're equating "mps" (which covers me too, clearly) with other words which have a history of violence and abuse behind them. Can we see a link between this piece of prejudicial language and broader negative social or economic outcomes?

4
 marsbar 16 Jun 2020
In reply to baron:

I didn't imply any such thing.  

I was talking very specifically about the experience of people who are in a minority on the forum. I did not imply anything either positive or negative about the white men on here because I wasn't actually talking about them.  

Once again it's not about you.  I didn't imply, you assumed. It appears you have nothing to say except what about the white men.  Even in answer to being told it's not always about the white men when we are discussing minority experiences. 

I hope that is clear.  I'm running out of ways to explain the same thing.  

3
 Brev 16 Jun 2020
In reply to EddieA:

I work in academia. I am not BAME (and don't want to distract from the specific challenges BAME people face in academia), but I am a woman, a non-native English speaker, and the first in my immediate family to go to university. In that sense, and without wanting to take away from BAME peoples' experiences, I think I have some (albeit different) insight into the challenges people can face by being different from 'the norm' in British academia. 

However, 80+ posts in, this thread appears to have descended into a (not particularly high quality) debate between a handful of people that's often only loosely related to the opening post. Same as on so many threads. It's not a very welcoming space, and usually means I close a thread without contributing anything, because what's the point once it's become little more than a slanging match?

I know the purpose of a forum is to debate, and I have no desire to silence anyone, but perhaps through talking a bit less and (as the Nature op-ed says) listening a bit more, you might find that a greater variety of voices will find the space to make themselves heard.

1
 marsbar 16 Jun 2020
In reply to MG:

Baron brought up what about the white men when I said that I knew women and BAME people who have left UKC 

3
 seankenny 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> LOL. Just look at what you've written here: "You come across as one of those whining men". Now can you imagine writing "You come across as one of those whining women"?  In your very first sentence you've amply demonstrated your own internalised prejudices. Treating genders equally means just that, Equally.

Except that "whining women" is a phrase often used to put down and ignore women with very reasonable complaints. I suspect that's why you don't like it - it's a particularly feminised insult. Would you have been happier if I'd have written "you are a whiny man" which is entirely about you and not about men in general?

The thing is, words and phrases are not used equally, are they? Some have a loaded conotation. Given that I read a poster on this forum recently write that he had no clue why the route "WOGS" might be offensive, I could suggest that sensitivity to that kind of linguistic insult may be kind of low on here?

 

> The argument of many on here is that if a woman is shouted down on UKC, then it is because she is a woman. All I've said is that it may often be the case that it's the posters opinion that has been shouted down, not their gender.

Women may, of course, not enjoy being "shouted down" by a bunch of middle aged blokes in the first place. I mean, I'm not a woman so I'm just guessing here.

So question for you, Mr Ancient and Outmoded Belay Device: what would you do or change to make UKC more welcomming to female climbers?

6
 Luke90 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> The argument of many on here is that if a woman is shouted down on UKC, then it is because she is a woman. All I've said is that it may often be the case that it's the posters opinion that has been shouted down, not their gender.

I don't think there are any regular posters on here that would consciously disagree with or dismiss a woman's opinion just because she's a woman. You don't see much of that kind of blatant "stay in the kitchen" misogyny on here, which is something to be glad of. What I think we do see a lot of is people assuming that this lack of overt misogyny means that sexism is now largely a solved problem, and consequently refusing to listen to anyone suggesting that more subtle biases can still be big problems.

I think the same is true when it comes to discussions around racism. I don't get the impression that any regular poster on UKC would be actively hostile towards black people. But plenty seem to think that a lack of this overt caricature of racism means there's no need to seriously consider the view that race still has a vast impact.

In both cases, that lack of willingness to listen is not coming from any one individual being hateful. But it certainly is going to make it difficult for someone with a minority viewpoint to feel welcome here.

I tend to find myself arguing towards the more "snowflake-y" end of the spectrum on here. Sometimes I get agreement, sometimes I'm too far from the centre ground and get a lot of disagreement/dislikes. It doesn't bother me very much. Partly because I'm naturally fairly thick-skinned but also, to a large extent, because it's less personal for me. I tick all the "privilege" boxes going so I've got no "skin in the game". But if I was coming on here expressing a minority viewpoint that directly effected my own life, I think I'd find it pretty frustrating, at the very least, to have a load of people telling me how wrong I am about something that they don't experience because they're not in my position.

 MG 16 Jun 2020
In reply to marsbar:

OK, fair point.

 MG 16 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

> So question for you, Mr Ancient and Outmoded Belay Device:

Age and fashion prejudice now, I see.  Typical.

2
 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Brev:

> I work in academia. I am not BAME (and don't want to distract from the specific challenges BAME people face in academia), but I am a woman, a non-native English speaker, and the first in my immediate family to go to university. In that sense, and without wanting to take away from BAME peoples' experiences, I think I have some (albeit different) insight into the challenges people can face by being different from 'the norm' in British academia. 

I also have very recent experience within UK academia at a university with 30% more women enrolled than men (a ratio entirely in line with UK norms). As a middle aged white male on campus my particular demographic represented a vanishingly small minority and the frequent usage of phrases like 'stale, pale and male' in the uni rag made it abundantly clear how unwelcome any input from my particular minority would be. 

 Can't say this bothered me much, beyond the irritatingly one sided narrative. In that respect at least, it bears some resemblance to how it might feel for a woman posting on here, minus the casual denigration of phrases and attitudes like 'stale, pale and male' being viewed as entirely acceptable.

1
 deepsoup 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Neither of us said "what about the white men", what we actually took issue with is the casual usage of gender and and race specific pejoratives about white men.

Only very slightly paraphrasing you there.  It seems so obvious to me that you're contradicting yourself that I really have no idea how to tackle the fact that you can't see it.

Instead, perhaps we should look at who is using the term - a person to whom the term may well apply.  A "race specific pejorative" is generally something used to describe someone of another race than one's own.

As another to whom it may apply (a member of the somewhat depressingly large majority of us gibbering away on here) I don't find it remotely offensive, certainly not an urging towards "self-hatred" as you put it. 

If anything it's an invitation to a kind of self-awareness - awareness of one's privilege perhaps, as a male white person of a certain age.  Do you believe that 'white privilege' is a thing?  I do.  I might use the term "pale, male and stale" about myself to acknowledge that I'm speaking from a position of relative privilege in a discussion such as this one, and don't see anything wrong with that.

Edit: deleted a bit here that just seemed like laying on with a trowel.

Post edited at 17:04
3
 MG 16 Jun 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> Sigh.  I know you won't see it, but this is just exactly like saying "all lives matter".

It's not because ALM read straight is simply correct.  The problem is typically it is used disingenuously to minimise issues around black deaths at the hands of police and similar. 

Pointing out people are using a slur against older white men while taking a high and mighty view about other prejudices isn't  doing this, it's just pointing out pompous hypocrisy.

1
 Michael Hood 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Luke90:

I just thought of a good example (for people to take whatever they want from it)...

Pefa posts on here quite a lot and gets shouted down a lot, but I don't think that's because she's a woman (is that wrong, should I say female, previous threads have left me slightly confused in this area 🥴), I think it's because her political views are well on the left of the UKC spectrum so the majority of posters disagree with her views.

2
 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

> Except that "whining women" is a phrase often used to put down and ignore women with very reasonable complaints. I suspect that's why you don't like it - it's a particularly feminised insult. Would you have been happier if I'd have written "you are a whiny man" which is entirely about you and not about men in general?

I'd have been happier if you'd confined yourself to addressing the entirely factual points I'd made rather than immediately descending to insults and calling me a "whiny man".

> The thing is, words and phrases are not used equally, are they? Some have a loaded conotation. Given that I read a poster on this forum recently write that he had no clue why the route "WOGS" might be offensive, I could suggest that sensitivity to that kind of linguistic insult may be kind of low on here?

Ahh, so one white man is a bit of a dick so you tar all white men with the same brush? Your position is one of the most blatantly prejudiced I've come across on here. Well done.

> > The argument of many on here is that if a woman is shouted down on UKC, then it is because she is a woman. All I've said is that it may often be the case that it's the posters opinion that has been shouted down, not their gender.

> Women may, of course, not enjoy being "shouted down" by a bunch of middle aged blokes in the first place. I mean, I'm not a woman so I'm just guessing here.

and as I've repeatedly said, the gender of the poster shouldn't come into it unless the topic is gender specific (like the women's trad weekend). You give the impression that you aren't a big fan of equality.

> So question for you, Mr Ancient and Outmoded Belay Device: what would you do or change to make UKC more welcomming to female climbers?

Well for a start I'd engage posters solely on the content of their opinions, not the content of their underpants. Next I'd encourage people to make the forum more welcoming by not chucking out casual insults at anyone who disagrees with them (sorry, am I being a "whiny man" again?).

What about you? you got any changes in mind or are you happy to carry on with insults and judging people on their appearance ?

Post edited at 17:10
2
 seankenny 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Except that "whining women" is a phrase often used to put down and ignore women with very reasonable complaints. I suspect that's why you don't like it - it's a particularly feminised insult. Would you have been happier if I'd have written "you are a whiny man" which is entirely about you and not about men in general?

> I'd have been happier if you'd confined yourself to addressing the entirely factual points I'd made rather than immediately descending to insults and calling me a "whiny man".

So we can take that as a no, you don't like to be called whiny. But the problem is, you and other posters really are having a whine, and I think that's interesting to explore why that's your particular reaction. What is it that you find "not fair" in the current debate or in society generally?

> The thing is, words and phrases are not used equally, are they? Some have a loaded conotation. Given that I read a poster on this forum recently write that he had no clue why the route "WOGS" might be offensive, I could suggest that sensitivity to that kind of linguistic insult may be kind of low on here?

> Ahh, so one white man is a bit of a dick so you tar all white men with the same brush? Your position is one of the most blatantly prejudiced I've come across on here. Well done.

As I typed that, I made a little bet with myself that your response would be to say I was prejudiced and biased. Great! I've paid myself £5 and am feeling perspicacious, even if slightly poorer.

Seriously tho, what we need to think about is perhaps: how far from the UKC norm is such a view? If it's close to the norm, or considered unremarkable on here, does that tell us something about what kind of an environment it is? Are you surprised someone wrote this? (I was!)

> and as I've repeatedly said, the gender of the poster shouldn't come into it unless the topic is gender specific (like the women's trad weekend). You give the impression that you aren't a big fan of equality.

This is the "I don't see colour" argument in a skirt, isn't it?

> Well for a start I'd engage posters solely on the content of their opinions, not the content of their underpants. Next I'd encourage people to make the forum more welcoming by not chucking out casual insults at anyone who disagrees with them (sorry, am I being a "whiny man again?).

So what you're saying is, it's me, people like me, who are the problem? I mean, that could very well be the case, but it does leave you entirely powerless to change things on here. Which may be a comfortable place in which to be.

> What about you? you got any changes in mind or are you happy to carry on with insults and judging people on their appearance ?

I genuinely don't know. Maybe split the forums entirely in two and keep the more head-butting bits entirely separate and rather harder to find and access, whilst making the climbing-focussed parts of the fourm the ones at the front and easily found.

4
 MG 16 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

> I genuinely don't know. Maybe split the forums entirely in two and keep the more head-butting bits entirely separate and rather harder to find and access, whilst making the climbing-focussed parts of the fourm the ones at the front and easily found.

Great idea.  There could even be name for those parts.  I dunno Off-belay, or Down the Pub, or something.

1
 seankenny 16 Jun 2020
In reply to MG:

> Great idea.  There could even be name for those parts.  I dunno Off-belay, or Down the Pub, or something.


It's not working as it is though, is it?

4
 MG 16 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

> It's not working as it is though, is it?

Seems fine.  One of the politer, more effective discussion areas on the internet in fact.

1
 seankenny 16 Jun 2020
In reply to MG:

> Seems fine.  One of the politer, more effective discussion areas on the internet in fact.

Erm, perhaps we could do with listening more?

https://rb.gy/ox3px1

3
 marsbar 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Luke90:

> You don't see much of that kind of blatant "stay in the kitchen" misogyny on here, which is something to be glad of. What I think we do see a lot of is people assuming that this lack of overt misogyny means that sexism is now largely a solved problem, and consequently refusing to listen to anyone suggesting that more subtle biases can still be big problems.

> I think the same is true when it comes to discussions around racism. I don't get the impression that any regular poster on UKC would be actively hostile towards black people. But plenty seem to think that a lack of this overt caricature of racism means there's no need to seriously consider the view that race still has a vast impact.

> In both cases, that lack of willingness to listen is not coming from any one individual being hateful. But it certainly is going to make it difficult for someone with a minority viewpoint to feel welcome here.

This, all of this.  

2
 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

> So we can take that as a no, you don't like to be called whiny. But the problem is, you and other posters really are having a whine, and I think that's interesting to explore why that's your particular reaction. What is it that you find "not fair" in the current debate or in society generally?

No, the problem is that your own prejudices mean you see people who disagree with you as "whining" and so feel entitled to insult them. 

> As I typed that, I made a little bet with myself that your response would be to say I was prejudiced and biased. Great! I've paid myself £5 and am feeling perspicacious, even if slightly poorer.

Wow, you post something prejudiced and then made a bet with yourself that I'd call you out on it. How very insightful of you.

> Seriously tho, what we need to think about is perhaps: how far from the UKC norm is such a view? If it's close to the norm, or considered unremarkable on here, does that tell us something about what kind of an environment it is? Are you surprised someone wrote this? (I was!)

You've lost me. You're surprised that someone can recognise your prejudiced attitude?

> This is the "I don't see colour" argument in a skirt, isn't it?

No, it's not. It's exactly what I've written.

> So what you're saying is, it's me, people like me, who are the problem? I mean, that could very well be the case, but it does leave you entirely powerless to change things on here. Which may be a comfortable place in which to be.

I'm saying that being the first to go in with the insults is a dick move. I'm saying that in general discussion it's the opinion of the poster I'm interested in and not their gender. It's very straight forward.

> I genuinely don't know. Maybe split the forums entirely in two and keep the more head-butting bits entirely separate and rather harder to find and access, whilst making the climbing-focussed parts of the fourm the ones at the front and easily found.

Right, so you personally think insults and judging others on appearance is acceptable then. Despite what you say about confining the insults to harder to find forums, you've chosen to pursue this approach on the most popular part of the site. Again, well done.

1
 marsbar 16 Jun 2020
In reply to the thread:

Perhaps anyone wondering about sexism might pop over to look at the later part of this thread, where I explain (a womans opinion having been specifically asked for ) that I find the use of the word rape in a route name makes me feel uncomfortable and several men proceed to tell me that it isn't like that, and route names referring to womens bodies and menstruation are more offensive.  

 https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/rock_talk/offensive_route_names-720752?v=...

2
 seankenny 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> No, the problem is that your own prejudices mean you see people who disagree with you as "whining" and so feel entitled to insult them. 

Absolutely not. I think Coel writes the most idiotic rubbish, but he's not, in my view, a whiny guy. There was just a strong tone of that in many of the posts on this thread, with a "what about us white guys, it's not fair!" kind of vibe.

> Seriously tho, what we need to think about is perhaps: how far from the UKC norm is such a view? If it's close to the norm, or considered unremarkable on here, does that tell us something about what kind of an environment it is? Are you surprised someone wrote this? (I was!)

> You've lost me. You're surprised that someone can recognise your prejudiced attitude?

No silly, I was talking about not recognising that a route called Wogs might be offensive. I mean, do you think that view might be unusual on here, or close to the norm?

> No, it's not. It's exactly what I've written.

the gender of the poster shouldn't come into it unless the topic is gender specific

If climbing is, say 25/75 female/male, and yet the forums are 95% male, either we can conclude that women dislike talking about climbing, women dislike internet forums, or women dislike UKC. Isn't that the context we are talking about here?

3
 marsbar 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

It seems to me that you are getting very defensive over an insult that wasn't aimed at you.  

2
 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> It seems to me that you are getting very defensive over an insult that wasn't aimed at you.  

I'm not getting defensive, quite the opposite, I'm challenging his position that casual insults are an acceptable go to. Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember several women posters stating that they found the often combative nature of this forum a major barrier to their participation. Ad hom attacks typify this approach. Am I wrong to call him out on it?

 Coel Hellier 16 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

> I think Coel writes the most idiotic rubbish, but he's not, in my view, a whiny guy.

Aww shucks, that's the nicest thing anyone has said about me all day!

 seankenny 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Aww shucks, that's the nicest thing anyone has said about me all day!


Always a pleasure Coel.

2
 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

> Absolutely not. I think Coel writes the most idiotic rubbish, but he's not, in my view, a whiny guy. There was just a strong tone of that in many of the posts on this thread, with a "what about us white guys, it's not fair!" kind of vibe.

You don't like the tone you say? Where have I heard that before recently?

> No silly, I was talking about not recognising that a route called Wogs might be offensive. I mean, do you think that view might be unusual on here, or close to the norm?

I think that the majority these days would find Wogs offensive and you'd never get a new route named so insensitively. But most on here are also able to recognise that modern sensibilities are rather different to those commonly held in 1923.

> If climbing is, say 25/75 female/male, and yet the forums are 95% male, either we can conclude that women dislike talking about climbing, women dislike internet forums, or women dislike UKC. Isn't that the context we are talking about here?

Dunno. You may as well ask why 90% of the people who post in my kids school's parent FB group are women. At least on UKC the lack of female participation is (quite rightly) a topic of interest. 

1
 seankenny 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> I'm not getting defensive, quite the opposite, I'm challenging his position that casual insults are an acceptable go to.

Let's look at the original offending post, shall we?

S/p:

> What is it with this thread? I'm repeatedly being questioned on points and arguments I haven't made. I live in a household with two daughters and a wife. My wife has two decades of working at a high level within an industry where she's often the only woman sat at the table. She also heads up the Women's growth network within her company and acts as mentor to several women helping them with the issues that commonly arise in workplaces that have a huge gender imbalance.

> What specific content in my post do you find dismissive of women?


Reply:

You come across as one of those whining men who, whenever it's pointed out that someone else has a structurally difficult time, says "but what about ME?". Perhaps you're just tone deaf and poor at communicating what you really mean, or perhaps you really believe that.

(Director's commentary: is S/p whiny or not? There is ambiguity in the allegation. But the reason for whining is the key thing here - certain men seem to become deeply uncomfortable at the suggestion that they are in any way favoured by society.)

Here: "I understand the point made about female voices being shouted down by males on subjects that they have direct lived experience of (women's trad climbing weekend) but this is not a gender specific experience."

Except the experience of many, many women would suggest that it really is a strongly gendered experience. Hence the need for women in power to be way better than the men even to get a look in (Mrs Thatcher comes to mind as a prime example of this).

(Director's commentary: an early and failed attempt to deal with the "it's the content of their posts, not their pants" argument. Is being shouted down by men something that women regularly experience and a barrier to their participation in all sorts of things? S/p seems to think not, and would prefer to dwell on his experiences, either of being shouted down himself or of a stranger on the internet calling him whiny.)

6
 seankenny 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Dunno. You may as well ask why 90% of the people who post in my kids school's parent FB group are women. At least on UKC the lack of female participation is (quite rightly) a topic of interest. 

It's a topic of interest because UKC is full of fearless, intellectually probing MEN who can bravely go where a bunch of clucking mums dare not. We are men engaged in philosophical reflection here, not chat about lunch boxes. I don't even CARE about the content of your lunch box - just the content of your posts.

4
 Coel Hellier 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Old Skooled:

> Olivette Otele became the first black female professor of history in the UK when she was promoted by Bath Spa - that promotion took place in 2018 (Professor Otele now holds a chair at Bristol).

So I've just had a think about UK academia and specifically astrophysics.  I cannot think, off hand, of anyone in an academic post (UK astrophysics) who is black. I can think, again off hand, of people from China, Hong Kong, South Korea, India, Iraq, Iran, Argentina, but not black.  (I know about Maggie Aderin-Pocock, but she is Space Science, which is different from astrophysics.)

So why is this?  Well, I'm pretty sure that it is not because there is a pool of postdocs with good track records, who are black, and nobody appoints them to an academic post.  I'm pretty sure that such would be snapped up nowadays.

So, the question is then, why is there not a pool of postdocs with good track records who are black? Well, I'm pretty sure that it is not because there are a lot of good PhD students who do well in their PhDs, who are black, and nobody gives them postdoc positions. 

So, the question is then, why is there not a pool of good PhD students who do well in their PhDs who are black?  Well, I'm pretty sure that it is not because there are a lot of good applicants for PhD positions, who are black, and nobody takes them on as PhD students.     (In fact, the number of black people applying for PhD places in astrophysics in the UK is minimal.)

I'm also pretty sure that UK physics departments are not turning away qualified applicants who are black.  That's because plenty of universities will take any applicant for a physics degree who is remotely qualified (after all, universities get £9k a year for each one), and just hand out offers to any applicant.  

3
 IM 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> So I've just had a think about UK academia and specifically astrophysics.  I cannot think, off hand, of anyone in an academic post (UK astrophysics) who is black. I can think, again off hand, of people from China, Hong Kong, South Korea, India, Iraq, Iran, Argentina, but not black.  (I know about Maggie Aderin-Pocock, but she is Space Science, which is different from astrophysics.)

> So why is this?  Well, I'm pretty sure that it is not because there is a pool of postdocs with good track records, who are black, and nobody appoints them to an academic post.  I'm pretty sure that such would be snapped up nowadays.

> So, the question is then, why is there not a pool of postdocs with good track records who are black? Well, I'm pretty sure that it is not because there are a lot of good PhD students who do well in their PhDs, who are black, and nobody gives them postdoc positions. 

> So, the question is then, why is there not a pool of good PhD students who do well in their PhDs who are black?  Well, I'm pretty sure that it is not because there are a lot of good applicants for PhD positions, who are black, and nobody takes them on as PhD students.     (In fact, the number of black people applying for PhD places in astrophysics in the UK is minimal.)

Answer: It's to do with systemic racism. 

No trouble, 

Cheers

Mac

2
 marsbar 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

You need to look younger than PHD.

3
baron 16 Jun 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> Baron brought up what about the white men when I said that I knew women and BAME people who have left UKC 

No I didn’t.

 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

In answer to your question: "Have you actually read or listened to what women say about the way men (in general) treat them?" 

 >What is it with this thread? I'm repeatedly being questioned on points and arguments I haven't made. I live in a household with two daughters and a wife. My wife has two decades of working at a high level within an industry where she's often the only woman sat at the table. She also heads up the Women's growth network within her company and acts as mentor to several women helping them with the issues that commonly arise in workplaces that have a huge gender imbalance.  So yeah, I have listened to what women say about the way some men treat them.

> What specific content in my post do you find dismissive of women?

You characterise my response as "whining". The only bit that could vaguely be characterised as "whining" is my exasperation at repeatedly being asked to explain arguments I haven't made.

I note you adopt the posting style typical to people of your ilk. You ignore direct questions and rather than engage in honest argument you offer only mischaracterisation and insults well padded out with smug self conceit. 

Post edited at 19:29
1
 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

> It's a topic of interest because UKC is full of fearless, intellectually probing MEN who can bravely go where a bunch of clucking mums dare not. We are men engaged in philosophical reflection here, not chat about lunch boxes. I don't even CARE about the content of your lunch box - just the content of your posts.

Jesus. You are so totally lacking in self awareness that you cannot see yourself as a part of the problem that you're cack handedly seeking to lampoon.

1
 Luke90 16 Jun 2020
In reply to baron:

> > Baron brought up what about the white men when I said that I knew women and BAME people who have left UKC

> No I didn’t.

Erm... https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/for_scientists_nature_editorial...

 marsbar 16 Jun 2020
In reply to baron:

> There’s possibly a few white males who’ve suffered the same fate.

1
 marsbar 16 Jun 2020
In reply to baron:

> No I didn’t.

1
baron 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Luke90:

> > > Baron brought up what about the white men when I said that I knew women and BAME people who have left UKC

I said

‘There’s possibly a few white males who’ve suffered the same fate‘.
That’s a statement. It might be true it might not.

How does that equate to ‘what about the white men’?
That’s a question.

5
 MG 16 Jun 2020
In reply to baron:

Just raising the possibility randomly were you ?

Post edited at 19:33
1
 Luke90 16 Jun 2020
In reply to baron:

You're quite right. Can't imagine how both Marsbar and I so egregiously misunderstood you. You clearly weren't trying to make any kind of point. Merely uttering randomly generated statements into the void that might or might not happen to be true. With the benefit of hindsight, it's hard to understand how we read your reply to Marsbar's post as being a reply to Marsbar's post.

1
 Coel Hellier 16 Jun 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> You need to look younger than PHD.

Perhaps so, though it's then about stuff that scientists have vastly less control over.  Out of interest, how would you suggest we increase diversity in physics areas?

1
 Luke90 16 Jun 2020
In reply to MG:

> Just raising the possibility randomly were you ?

You saw the same thing as me and put it rather more elegantly and succinctly!

1
baron 16 Jun 2020
In reply to MG:

> Just raising the possibility randomly were you ?

I was replying to a post.

Is a statement of possible fact not allowed?

4
baron 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Luke90:

> You're quite right. Can't imagine how both Marsbar and I so egregiously misunderstood you. You clearly weren't trying to make any kind of point. Merely uttering randomly generated statements into the void that might or might not happen to be true. With the benefit of hindsight, it's hard to understand how we read your reply to Marsbar's post as being a reply to Marsbar's post.

Of course I was making a point.

It appears that you didn’t get it.

2
 elsewhere 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Perhaps so, though it's then about stuff that scientists have vastly less control over.  Out of interest, how would you suggest we increase diversity in physics areas?

Target schools in inner city, with high levels of free meals and BAME students. What's your outreach programme?

 Coel Hellier 16 Jun 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> Target schools in inner city, with high levels of free meals and BAME students. What's your outreach programme?

Our dept has a mobile planetarium that we take to schools, and talk to them about exoplanets, a bit about our research, and tying that to some of the "key stage" stuff they are doing.  It's been seen by about 30,000 kids so far, and yes we do target schools in disadvantaged areas.    There's a few other things we do, including hosting visits from school and scout groups, etc, on our campus observatory.

1
 elsewhere 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Sounds excellent. 

 seankenny 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Jesus. You are so totally lacking in self awareness that you cannot see yourself as a part of the problem that you're cack handedly seeking to lampoon.

Please explain it then. Are you saying I’m really prejudiced? And the target of my prejudice is men, specifically white men? 

5
 MG 16 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

>  And the target of my prejudice is men, specifically white men? 

You certainly seem pretty scornful of them.

1
 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

> Please explain it then. Are you saying I’m really prejudiced? And the target of my prejudice is men, specifically white men? 

Here's what you wrote: >You come across as one of those whining men who, whenever it's pointed out that someone else has a structurally difficult time, says "but what about ME?".

Now try a little thought experiment:

You come across as one of those whining women who, whenever it's pointed out that someone else has a structurally difficult time, says "but what about ME?".

You come across as one of those whining Pakistanis who, whenever it's pointed out that someone else has a structurally difficult time, says "but what about ME?".

You come across as one of those whining blacks who, whenever it's pointed out that someone else has a structurally difficult time, says "but what about ME?".

You come across as one of those whining Jews who, whenever it's pointed out that someone else has a structurally difficult time, says "but what about ME?".

You come across as one of those whining Muslims who, whenever it's pointed out that someone else has a structurally difficult time, says "but what about ME?"

You come across as one of those whining Gays who, whenever it's pointed out that someone else has a structurally difficult time, says "but what about ME?"..

If you think that one of those sentences is totally acceptable and the others are totally unacceptable, then yes, you're obviously prejudiced.

4
 Michael Hood 16 Jun 2020
In reply to all:

yea gods what a ridiculous argument you all seem to be having of the type that puts people off UKC.

Have some women left UKC because of the overall atmosphere on UKC? - no doubt, and most people accept that there's some kind of problem here which causes that

Have some white middle aged guys left UKC under similar circumstances? - again no doubt but that's not the point which is...

Does the overall atmosphere on UKC act as a "barrier to entry" which stops UKC's diversity & demographic being a proper reflection of the people who have an interest in climbing, etc?

And then there are some subsidiary questions...

Why doesn't the diversity & demographic of the UK climbing community reflect the diversity & demographic of the general population?

Should the diversity & demographic of UKC aim to reflect the diversity & demographic of the UK climbing community or that of the general population?

Should we do any thing to make UKC's diversity & demographic better reflect whichever "parent" population is most relevant? - I think most people would accept that as a laudable aim

What can we do to make UKC's diversity & demographic better reflect whichever "parent" population is most relevant? - I'm struggling here and I suspect I'm not alone

 seankenny 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

This is basically the Lawrence Fox argument isn’t it? That anything critical of white men (of which I’m one, as are many of my friends) is plain old racist and bigoted. 

But for your examples to hold parity is to say that my words are matched by broader structural discrimination against white men in the same way that your examples - women, gays, Jews, etc - experience. 

The context of our words matters, and I’m not sure you are particularly interested in looking at that context. 

“I’m gonna show you n*****s what’s what,” has a radically different meaning depending on whether it’s spoken by a rapper or a redneck.

4
 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

It's a very simple thought experiment. I think you've answered the question of your own prejudice by your inability to engage with it.

Edit: LOL, you've even come out with "actually, many of my friends are white men". I give in, you've obviously strayed far beyond the realms of parody, sense or self-knowledge.

Post edited at 20:58
3
 marsbar 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I’m no expert but I think a lot of bright black boys only see role models in sports and music.  Have you heard of Akala?  His book is worth a read.  

A couple of things that stand out, he describes the embarrassment of being late, having been stopped and searched, on his way to the Royal Institution for his Maths masterclass.  He also mentions people living in his community with PHDs working as cleaners and security guards.  No wonder he couldn’t be bothered with the academic route.  

For black girls the film “Hidden Figures” follows 3 black women at NASA in the days of segregation.  Not Physics as such, 1 engineer, 1 computer scientist and 1 mathematician.  

 seankenny 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

You confuse “engaging with” and “agreeing with”, I’m afraid. 
 

I suppose you feel equal ire towards black conservatives who say racism isn’t a problem but point to failings of “black men with bad attitudes” (or words to that effect). 

Anyhow, let’s assume I’m some deeply prejudiced individual, the epitome of a self-hating liberal. Moving on, do you think that men talking over women is a particular problem for women in public or online spaces? 

Post edited at 21:09
 Stichtplate 16 Jun 2020
In reply to seankenny:

> You confuse “engaging with” and “agreeing with”, I’m afraid. 

No confusion. you've not engaged. Very easy question; are all those sentences prejudiced or not?

> Anyhow, let’s assume I’m some deeply prejudiced individual, the epitome of a self-hating liberal.

Yep, that's my assumption.

>Moving on, do you think that men talking over women is a particular problem for women in public or online spaces? 

Yes I do. Never said otherwise.

Do you see how discussion works? one person asks a question, the other answers and vice versa. This leads to clarity and an exchange of ideas which is much better way of exploring someone else's position than your preferred method of avoiding, obfuscating, insulting and posturing.

2
 seankenny 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

The thing is, I did actually give you an answer: prejudice is in the context of the words as well as the content. It’s disappointing that you didn’t pick up on that the first time, but such is life. 
 

The thing is, you did seem to equate your experience of being talked over with women’s (widely discussed) experience of the same. The same action, but a different context, even if that context is as basic as a weekly vs a daily experience. As with the whole prejudice argument (“you’re the real racist!”) it seems that the broader context goes somewhat unexamined.

4
 elsewhere 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Our dept has a mobile planetarium that we take to schools, and talk to them about exoplanets, a bit about our research, and tying that to some of the "key stage" stuff they are doing.  It's been seen by about 30,000 kids so far, and yes we do target schools in disadvantaged areas.    There's a few other things we do, including hosting visits from school and scout groups, etc, on our campus observatory.

The only thing I can suggest is if you have current students from school X or neighborhood X take them along as an example of "s/he's just like me and from here, I can do that". Remove the psychological barrier.

Far easier said than done but I had good feedback on something along those lines.

 Ridge 16 Jun 2020
In reply to elsewhere:

> The only thing I can suggest is if you have current students from school X or neighborhood X take them along as an example of "s/he's just like me and from here, I can do that". Remove the psychological barrier.

I think that's a good idea in principle. I went to a sink comprehensive in the 80's, and my peer group (predominantly white working class / underclass) were certainly written off in terms of being unsuitable for further education by our (predominantly white middle class) teachers.

It would need to be done sensitively though, "Look, we even have our own oik!" wouldn't have made me any more interested in University.

 MG 16 Jun 2020
In reply to Ridge:

Would a resident oik simply visible without being remarked upon have helped?
 

Having done some oil outreach myself, I’ve generally found the barriers to be in teachers heads, not 15 year olds. Simply showing possibilities is enough in many cases.

1
 Ridge 16 Jun 2020
In reply to MG:

> Would a resident oik simply visible without being remarked upon have helped?

Quite possibly.

> Having done some oil outreach myself, I’ve generally found the barriers to be in teachers heads, not 15 year olds. Simply showing possibilities is enough in many cases.

That's good to hear. There was certainly a culture of low expectations at the time, and that sort of thing does dampen ambitions, even among the brighter ones.

We had maybe 2% of students, predominantly female,  who went on to Uni. My own attitude at the time was "I need English, Maths and 3 sciences at a minimum of grade C  and I can get out of here and into employment". Most of us just wanted to get out of education, regardless of prospects (which were pretty poor back then).

OP EddieA 18 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> What a bizarre thing to write, why on Earth would you love to see that? Have have you ever seen the reverse happen on UKC?

I think Blanche du Bois answered this for you.  It was a little provocatively phrased, but she understood my intent, and it seemed you didn't.  My apologies if I was unclear, and if the way I phrased this offended you.

1
OP EddieA 18 Jun 2020
In reply to cb294:

> That does not work, even as a thought experiment. The whole point is that race is something you cannot pick.

> CB

> edit: Just to emphasize, I am well aware of the everyday institutional or casual racism especially towards black people. My response was very specific to the OP asking about experiences of discrimination in academic science, where in my experience recruiting boards get out of their way to "level" the playing fields for women and minority candidates, resulting in a massive bias against white men.

Is it a bias against white men, or a reduction in the size of our initial advantage?    How do you perceive it?   I tend to see it as the latter.

1
OP EddieA 18 Jun 2020
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Not my argument, not my opinion.

> Anyone who would "love to see the thread" where someone gets "piled on" by other posters, not because of a difference of opinion but because of a difference of gender or race, needs to get their head out of their arse.

what I mean't was I'd like to have someone point me to a past thread where the reverse to the usual (people piling in on what they like to call the 'woke') happened. 

I phrased it poorly.  My apologies.

 Stichtplate 18 Jun 2020
In reply to EddieA:

> what I mean't was I'd like to have someone point me to a past thread where the reverse to the usual (people piling in on what they like to call the 'woke') happened. 

I don't think it's usual for people on here to pile on the 'woke', I don't think it's usual for people to pile onto those from the opposite side of the spectrum either (though there's a few threads I've followed where Coel and Pefa have both had a bit of a hammering). I think it's more usual for a badly thought out position or opinion getting taken apart. I've never noticed anyone on UKC getting a rough time because of race or gender as you're earlier post implied and I'm still bemused that 17 people gave the post a like.

> I phrased it poorly.  My apologies.

No apology needed, I phrase stuff poorly or simply get the wrong end of the stick on a weekly basis. Thanks for taking the time to clarify.

OP EddieA 18 Jun 2020
In reply to Brev:

> I work in academia.  I am a woman, a non-native English speaker, and the first in my immediate family to go to university. 

> However, 80+ posts in, this thread appears to have descended into a (not particularly high quality) debate between a handful of people that's often only loosely related to the opening post. Same as on so many threads. It's not a very welcoming space, and usually means I close a thread without contributing anything, because what's the point once it's become little more than a slanging match?

> I know the purpose of a forum is to debate, and I have no desire to silence anyone, but perhaps through talking a bit less and (as the Nature op-ed says) listening a bit more, you might find that a greater variety of voices will find the space to make themselves heard.

Thank you.  I've quoted you in full because your post speaks to intended purpose of this (Nature editorial) and other forum posts over the last few days.  Rightly or wrongly, I thought it needed a confrontational approach to get us to this point where we could, as you say, start listening and make space for a wider range of voices.  

I was prompted by a sense of shame at the response to Nathalie Berry's News piece on anti-racism from some forum members.  This is the UK climbing community's showcase to the world.

Someone said above that this is just white people arguing about race and therefore has no legitimacy.  But in this forum, that's necessary, because there are too few black people here to expect them to have that discussion with all of us.  If you don't believe me about that, then read this book: Why I Am No Longer Talking to White People About Race" by black British journalist Reni Eddo-Lodge. 

More optimistically, in the last couple of days, I've noticed there have been some good threads - e.g the rocktalk one on renaming climbs with offensive names; another one on Off Belay about racism -  where people are exploring the ideas, listening to each other and learning from each other.  And there seem to be more women posting on those threads. So maybe the tide has turned a little.

I apologize if I have offended people by coming in hard against an individual here on UKC,  whose arguments and style I felt were symptomatic of the issues Moondancer describes in her post.  We've heard multiple testimonies above and on other threads of people feeling silenced or intimidated. 

To be clear, I have no intent to silence 'freedom of speech' - only to challenge that individual - and perhaps others looking on - to consider what it feels like to be involved in that kind of discussion. That insult-trading strategy is over. I don't know if was the right thing to do or whether it achieved anything, but I take responsibility for it.  I've been accused of hypocrisy - of exhibiting the kind of bullying argumentative behavior I've been condemning.  Yes, but I directed it at the most self-confident white male on this forum. It made no impact on him, he's fine.

I would like for a 20 year old new climber (of any ethnicity or gender) studying social work at university to be able to contribute here to topics like gender and race without being dismissed as 'woke', or laughed at for not being a physicist or an engineer.  I think such a person would add perspectives we are missing and certainly have more critical insight into social policy than someone who has never studied it or taught it. Is that really too much to ask for us to show a little restraint so that we get to hear that voice too?  

Perhaps we can talk elsewhere about the 'backfire effect'.  It might help us understand why these can be difficult conversations.

In the meantime, yes, Moondancer, this editorial was about racism in science, chosen because there are a lot of scientists here and I wondered what the UKC science community thought of 'Nature's' declaration, but as is the way of such things, we've all got diverted on the way   

Post edited at 11:41
1
OP EddieA 18 Jun 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Our dept has a mobile planetarium that we take to schools, and talk to them about exoplanets, a bit about our research, and tying that to some of the "key stage" stuff they are doing.  It's been seen by about 30,000 kids so far, and yes we do target schools in disadvantaged areas.    There's a few other things we do, including hosting visits from school and scout groups, etc, on our campus observatory.

That's great to hear - if enough is done to remove barriers to access along the way, some of those kids you inspire will end up in your or your successor's classes.

 Timmd 19 Jun 2020
In reply to Luke90:

> > The salient factor would seem to be an unpopular opinion, not an unpopular gender.

> Sometimes the unpopular opinion is "here are some reasons why climbing can be off-putting to women, based on my personal experience" and the response is "shut up, I don't hate women and neither do my friends so you're obviously talking nonsense, sexism isn't a problem any more". See, for example, threads about the now-covid-cancelled Women's Trad Festival where some people were horrified that it even exists.

This is an excellent framing of what can be 'the UKC response' to a number of things.

Post edited at 00:13

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...