This is just something else to consider.
Let's say all the males
refuse unless the panel is more balanced with 50% females. 2 males, 2
females.
But the field has 1% female ratio. Only 1% of those is actually
working the technology under discussion. And only 1% of those are reasonably
versed with the technology, the others are fairly new. This is - what I hope -
an extreme situation, but I hope it gets the point across as to the odds of
finding a very specific that matches the knowledge base the panel
requires.
You want to put together a panel that's going to get heavy into
the tech.
Do you really want to stop the discussion completely because
you can't find 2 expert women willing to play part in the panel?
Or you
can't find 2 expert women with the sufficient knowledge base?
Would you
rather pair a women who was less knowledge with two men with indepth knowledge
and another woman with indepth knowledge?
For example:
You're putting
together a panel on Quantum Physics.
You have two Einstein level guys,
an Einstein level woman and a woman who barely studied in the field.
I
don't know about any woman, I can't claim to know being a man. But I can tell
you, if you put me - a man - in that setting with the three Einsteins and the
discussion would be dominated by the three Einsteins and I would be feeling so
totally out of my depths.
In such a setting, do you believe the schism
that exists between men and women is more likely to be alleviated or grow
fruther because of what that one woman was put through?
And if anyone
(whether male or female organizer of the panel) were forced to do that... is it
really their fault that the women involved felt as they did or is the fault of
the group who pushed the situation in the first place?
I'll stop now.
I've already said far too much that's far too controversial even though I view
such questions as reasonable.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|