Google’s much hyped “versus” series is supposed to bring diverse thinkers together to debate important issues. But with one exception the Googleites forgot that you can’t engage a truly wide range of views when you exclude half of humanity from participation.
Of the 22 debaters announced on the Google “versus” web page, Louise Arbour is the only one who brings two X chromosomes to the table.
I am not in a position to demand 50-50 gender parity as none of the outlets for which I write are at that level (though none of them clock in at Google’s pathetic 4.5% female representation either). But in Google’s debate, which focuses on drug policy, the organizers’ disappointing attitude toward women goes beyond numerical under representation.
While shutting out all but one of the women on this planet with expertise in drug policy, Google nonetheless found space for a man who not only has no background in the topic, but also has credible sexual assault charges hanging over his head: Julian Assange.
The Wizards of Google should go beyond the old boys club the next time they plan one of these events.
Who are the women of RBC?
Fair hit.
IIRC, a Kelly Kleiman sometimes posts, but yes, a fair hit.
Ironically, the four of us who’ve commented on this post so far are all men.
And I blog somewhere else with two other male co-authors….
How am I to take these comments men? That you are fine with 1 in 22 representation at Google debates? It sounds like your are defending them, how dare I criticize Google? I doubt that is what you think, or at least, I hope it isn’t. If that is not what you think try saying “I also would like to see more women in debates, both at Google at an RBC”, instead of manfully brushing aside sexual equality concerns as if they are not a subject for polite conversation (or as if your first and only concern must be putting down people who raise them, rather than adding your support to the principle expressed). You remind me of the guys at college who used to make fun of me for going to anti-sexual violence rallies. I would be the only guy there, and men would make fun of me going..but later they would say “Well, I know it’s a real issue”, quietly and privately. Then why didn’t they show up instead of siding publically against those of us who were fighting for equality? If you give a damn, advocate for a change, don’t defend sexism by attacking people who try to make a difference when you haven’t put yourself on the line.
As for the comparison of Google debates with this site, as I said very clearly in the post, no outlet for which I write is at 50/50 parity. But through the history of RBC, fewer people in total and more women have blogged here than are included in the Google debate, so high Broderism is misplaced. And in any event, RBC hasn’t taken away slots from women who know something to make space for ignorant males with a sexual assault history.
Not sure I can (fully) agree with the “fair hit” assessment.
I’m pretty sure that Keith would love to have more female co-bloggers and commenters. But presumably there’s only so much he (and Mark) can do to make more women comment or blog (forcing us at gunpoint is not really an option).
Google, on the other hand, should not have any real problems finding female drug experts interested in presenting their cases, and, as far as I know, there’s not such a strong gender imbalance in that field. Pointing out that they invited big names (Richard Branson, Julian Assange) over genuine experts is fair criticism. If it were just that they couldn’t find any women to contribute, I wouldn’t blame them; but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
More practically, I suspect that there’s some truth to the hypothesis that gender imbalance in a community is often self-perpetuating, even if a primarily male or female community would love to see more people of the opposite sex. The argument is, basically, that if a group is dominated by men (or women), then women (or respectively, men) are likely to feel out of place and will eventually leave. And, in all honesty, it still sometimes feels odd to be the only girl (or one of only two) in a room full of guys, even though after years in computer science I should have gotten used to it.
I don’t disagree with any of that. It was Keith’s claim that he doesn’t live in a glass house re female authorship that set off myself and a few others as having a “same facts” problem. And I personally do live in a glass house on that one.
It’s to Keith’s credit and his fellow bloggers’ credit that they’ve created a very attractive platform at Same Facts. I’d hope some female academics would find it a good place to discuss their ideas.
BTW, my mom programmed computers for the Mercury and Gemini space missions, so she knows what you’re talking about. She found it easier I think when she was older than most of the men. She’s also no one to mess with.
Katja,
There are a lot of women in academia (although IIRC Wimberley isn’t an academic.) There are plenty of women who blog, despite the well-known nasties who bedevil women on the internet. Samefacts is pretty decent real estate in political Blogistania. Crookedtimber has no problem attracting women bloggers. Samefacts shouldn’t have any problems, either. After all, it attracts first-rate woman commenters.
(Mark–just get it over with and give Katja the keys.)
Ebenezer: Mark–just get it over with and give Katja the keys.
I appreciate the compliment, but even if Mark did, I’d decline. (I simply don’t want to add blogging, even irregularly, to my commitments.)
Katja says:
“Not sure I can (fully) agree with the “fair hit” assessment.
I’m pretty sure that Keith would love to have more female co-bloggers and commenters. But presumably there’s only so much he (and Mark) can do to make more women comment or blog (forcing us at gunpoint is not really an option).”
Dark chocolate? I’d blog for that.
I don’t think the sex charges against Assange are credible; they have always sounded very flimsy to me – though he is not clearly competent to talk about drug policy either, unless his organization has some inside information that we need to hear about.
I have to second this one. It always seemed like a flimsy pretext that would not survive scrutiny in most courts. Expertise specifically in drug policy also appears to be hardly an issue–the people who have the most influence over both local and global drug policy also have absolutely no expertise to offer on the subject–general law enforcement not only fails to offer expertise, it is is often counterproductive, so continue to rely on law-enforcement “experts” is worse than bringing in someone who has experience in influencing policy decisions in an unorthodox way. Having said that, I don’t think Assange has much to offer. Still, your potshot appears to have been wasted.
Well then, no doubt he will travel to the country on his own to face his accusers’ “flimsy” charges, which is what an innocent man would do. It is a statistical reality that false charges of rape are extremely rare. Yet many men instinctively rally to any man so accused (which is part of what makes it so hard for victims to come forward).
Myself, I am going to go ahead and believe the women who are making the accusations and not men who dismiss them, until Assange appears in court.
The comments of the men on this thread are sadly enough an excellent illustration of the limitations of mono-gender dialogue. I double down about what I said about Google debates.
Please note that the US government would really, really like to get its hands on Julian, for some torture. If I were him, and if you were him, I and you would be very careful of traveling.
the US government is clearly putting enormous pressure on everyone they can – countries and payment agencies alike – in its passion for vengeance against Assange for the embarrassment he caused it. I don’t trust even the Swedes to have got it right. The US has a long but also recent history of ignoring international law when it wants to seize people it doesn’t like and do nasty things to them, inside or outside the ‘rule of law’.
The charges even as officially described sound flimsy, and oddly timed. I don’t think he is such a typical defendant that the usual concerns about prosecution of sex charges apply, or certainly not easily.
I agree with the criticism of Google, though, and also agree that RBC is not entirely subject to the same criticism (though it was a fair comment). It’s appalling that in lining up a panel of over 20 people they could not have got a better gender balance. It’s not a topic that interests only men or only women.
I didn’t see anything particularly flimsy about the charges as reported. Of course, we also have presumption of innocence for a reason, so it would be premature to pass judgement (especially only based on news reports).
There are two complications in this case that make it difficult to assess the charges objectively.
(1) The obvious interest of the US government in seeing Julian Assange convicted.
(2) The unlikeability of Assange as a person.
Both issues are likely to cloud discussion (and one more reason to leave the actual determination of his guilt to the courts).
The charges themselves may appear odd to an American, but it is worth remembering that continental European countries tend to classify sexual crimes differently. The allegations, if true, seem to be pretty clear cases of sexual coercion under Swedish law (and would likely be also crimes under the laws of other European countries).
Note also that Swedish prosecutors have very little prosecutorial discretion; if they learn of a crime, they have an absolute duty to prosecute, with only a few exceptions (the so-called “principle of legality” in continental European criminal procedure law, ch. 20 sec 6. CJP in Swedish law). If the prosecution fails to prosecute a crime, the victim can also bring charges her- or himself (ch. 20 sec. 8 CJP). This is so that the case can be considered by (independent) judges and so that whether or not someone is prosecuted is largely outside the influence of the executive (which is also why I doubt that the US government had a lot of say in the decision, if at all).
“Well then, no doubt he will travel to the country on his own to face his accusers’ “flimsy” charges, which is what an innocent man would do. It is a statistical reality that false charges of rape are extremely rare.”
I don’t have any special knowledge here or any axe to grind, but I would point out the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn does not weigh in favor of your claim. I don’t follow sports, but I believe there have been various cases involving sports celebrities of much the same flavor as the DSK case.
It may well be that “It is a statistical reality that false charges of rape are extremely rare” while ALSO being true that “false charges of rape AGAINST THE WELL-KNOWN are NOT extremely rare”.
Similar cases, of a slightly different nature, have occurred in Russia with videos, more or less faked, showing individuals in compromising positions. One was used against American diplomat James Hatcher (and was dismissed by the US as a fake), one was used against someone in the Russian Finance Ministry (I forget the name) and was widely considered a fake by the Russian population who believed the stand-in for the vice-minister or whatever he was pretty obviously someone who looked like, but was not, the individual in question.
There was also, of course, the infamous case of Jacob Zuma in South Africa. God knows what the truth behind that was, but Zuma was found innocent in a trial that was considered reasonably fair and well-run.
I didn’t think the charges sounded particularly flimsy, in the 2 minutes I paid attention to this story.
But, it’s good form to wait until there’s a conviction before ostracizing people. Or at least more than one accusation (and I forget how many there are here).
Having said that, rape is always going to be under-reported, under-prosecuted and probably under-convicted as well, as long as we humans remain sexist. I’m not holding my breath. Don’t forget, men get raped too, and some people even find this laughable.
And having said that, there is a whole range of preventive measures we could be taking, if we decided to do it.
“Well then, no doubt he will travel to the country on his own to face his accusers’ “flimsy” charges, which is what an innocent man would do. ”
I’m not sure I follow this line of argument.
I take no position on Assange’s guilt or innocence, but I don’t know much about the Swedish justice system, but In the US, at least, it’s not exactly fun to be a criminal defendant, innocent or not, especially as the smooth operation of the system depends on most people plea bargaining, thus giving prosecutors quite an incentive to make it very expensive for people to take the risk of conviction. This isn’t a point that people on this blog generally have trouble understanding when it applies to the poor, but it’s not clear to me that it doesn’t obtain in fair measure to the non-poor as well. Why is it so obvious that an innocent main would be interested in subjecting himself to that when he had other options?
It is no fun to be a criminal defendant in any country, but if you want to skip jurisdiction, then doing so within the EU generally only prolongs the pain. The European Arrest Warrant makes intra-EU extradition fairly easy and straightforward if the charges are real.
As to plea bargaining, Sweden does not generally do that (minor offenses may be dismissed in exchange for a fine, but I don’t think that’s even an option here). Prosecutors have an absolute duty to prosecute where there is a crime and dismissing (or reducing) charges is generally the prerogative of the courts. Conversely, the Swedish Prosecution Agency is (like the courts) independent from the government and prosecutors are required to be objective.
Obviously, going to trial is still a hardship (even if you’re acquitted, and even under Sweden’s “loser pays” system where the state will cover your necessary legal costs if you’re acquitted), and it’s always possible to be convicted even if you’re innocent, so I don’t blame Julian Assange for wanting to avoid a trial. In the end, however, it is very unlikely that he’ll be able to avoid it.
Keith, thank you for taking this issue seriously. So many men don’t. In fact, I think most of them don’t even notice. It’s not on the radar. And I absolutely agree with you — if a critical mass of men don’t want it solved, it won’t be.
At the same time, people shouldn’t feel personally guilty. Just do what you can to make it better. I was in my second year of law school at Cal before I had a female professor. This was mid-90s. Then they didn’t give her tenure, despite her excellence. So. It’s everywhere, and this is one of the *less* bleeped countries.
Thanks NCG.
I’m confused by the progressive stance on gender ratios of employment. What if women in the aggregate do not prefer to do journalism as much as men? Should we FORCE 50/50 parity in this case?
There can be an empirical determination of whether are discriminated against in the “journalism market,” but if we only look at ratios we might as well conclude things like Jews (of which I am one) are discriminated against in the NBA.
Yes, and your comment is intellectually hefty and lucid because 1) the “progressive stance” actually exists apart from the chimera in your mind, and 2) many, many progressives hold exactly the view that you ascribe to them, that discrimination is indicated every time sex representation departs from 50/50. This said, can anyone elaborate further in answer to Simon’s insightful question?
Alright well let’s not get too heated,although the fallacy is basic, widepsread and indeed furiating. Katja’s point (that group closure can be self perpetuating and sometimes can only be broken by preferential treatment) is well taken, and applies to affirmative action as well.
I don’t think you ever want to force social change on such a scale (regardless of whether your goals are progressive, conservative, libertarian, or whatever). It just doesn’t work.
What you can do is gradually remove obstacles to choices that go against gender norms (and that goes both ways, such as the problem of some people still looking down on stay-at-home dads or male nurses).
But you can’t really force people down a certain path. If a woman genuinely enjoys being a stay-at-home mom (rather than being forced into it circumstances outsider her control or because her environment has conditioned her that way from early childhood), there’s nothing wrong with that. Heck, I like being both a computer scientist and a mom, and wouldn’t want to miss out on either [1].
[1] On the other hand, my husband would also love more time with our daughters, but working full time doesn’t really give him the opportunity. In an ideal world for both of us, we’d both work 30 hours a week and split childcare “duties” more evenly.
Keith,
Over and beyond the very legitimate gender issue, what did you make of the debate? I found the format very interesting, but the content pretty bland and predictable. Doesn’t anyone on either side have any new arguments? I mean, there are many big questions left unresolved that could open up avenues for interesting discussions about regulatory alternatives to the current regime (e.g., price elasticity of demand for different drugs, optimal sin taxes, institutional prerequisites for succesful harm-reduction initiatives, drug control as global public good/bad, etc.). Why keep harping about the same issues (“count the costs”, Portugal, the Netherlands, etc.) over and over again?
Best regards.
Alejandro — I went to the site for the debate, noticed the lack of women and decided there were better things I could do with my time than watch. But what you say makes me think that I didn’t miss anything. Legalization debates are often boring, but then again they often have the same people in them saying the same old things, which would be another reason to let some fresh voices in.
Keith,
You really didn’t miss anything. Same old, same old on both sides. Anyway, have a good weekend.
Best regards,
i was a participant in the debate and agree the gender balance was unfortunate. im not sure how far we can go blaming intelligence squared though. drug policy, especially its more public face, is quite male and conference event speaker line ups tend to reflect that. I was approached to suggest speakers and did suggest a number of women – none of whom were available or willing in the end. Ruth Dreifus was originally down to do it but pulled out. A number of others were approached. I can tell you that the gender issue was raised by both the organisers and other speakers but they left it a bit late to sort out. The whole event was a little odd in its format and formulation – as it was essentially a marketing device for google+.
no one counted the female host of the program? ehe
but yeah, need more women at this. or women who have used drugs. the anti-drug guys are grasping at straws. grasp harder damnit!
oh, btw, sweden wants julian in for _questioning_. julian assange has said time and time again he would love to call or do skype or something to answer any questions.
yet the swedish authorities do not want to call him.
strange that. very very strange.