there are many theories why this happens. From less desire to speak, less confidence, fear of toxic environment or likely other theories. 3) There might be cons who cannot understand that because they have many submissions.
-
Show this thread
-
4) I believe we have to encourage them to submit. The optimum would be they just submit to CFPs without additional encouraging. 5) I do not believe that any gender is more or less qualified to talk. It is a personal thing that depends on each individual.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
6) I have absolutely no problem with women being selected more often than what their submission rate would suggest if selected by a random number generator.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
7) The problem arises when a con "pledges even before the CFP" that they will have more women. You cannot pledge this without openly admitting that you will select based on gender.
3 replies 1 retweet 14 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @i0n1c
So your argument boils down to saying pledging in advance is a sort of “affirmative action”? And do you then have any opinions about that — my guess is that you’re against affirmative action systems? Just asking to clarify...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Tavis Ormandy Retweeted Tavis Ormandy
I think he has just made the logical error of assuming that if a speaker lineup is not population representative, then the review bar must have been lowered. I think this is a very common fallacy.https://twitter.com/taviso/status/1097524484200849409 …
Tavis Ormandy added,
Tavis OrmandyVerified account @tavisoReplying to @i0n1cI think it's a fallacy that "the bar must have been lowered", you can encourage more submissions from less represented groups and then the percentage of good submissions from that group increases. Doesn't that explain a non-population representative lineup w/o requiring quotas?1 reply 1 retweet 11 likes -
Well but if like
@aionescu says you have to meet a quota no matter what this means you lowered the bar - unless you have an endless source of high quality submissions from a minority.3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
No it doesn't mean lowering the bar. How do you even calculate address offsets when you're this bad at simple math? Go read a probability and statistics textbook already.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
you can keep repeating it but it doesn’t make it true
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I'll give you an example, It makes no difference to me if a conference has a worship area, pumping room, childcare, etc. For some people, that is a deal breaker, so by providing those things you can increase submissions from underrepresented groups without lowering the bar.
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes
I've heard that surveys suggest CoC are more important to women than men, so there's an easy way to encourage more submissions from women. I think it's quite harmful suggesting that if more women get accepted, the bar must have been lowered.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.