Oops. There’s a thing called the “Global Secular Council.”
First? It’s not so global. They’re nearly all American or Ukanian, and the whole thing is clearly Anglophone.
Last? Its team of experts – 23 of them. Five women. Five.
Look at the glam picture at the top of the front page – what do you see? Four men and three women – not parity, not more women than men, but close to parity. Funny how the conspicuous glam photo on the front page looks as if there are almost as many women as men when in fact, there are not.
That’s not all you see, but I won’t go into that.
You didn’t look far enough down the page! When you get to “Staff,” you’ll see six women and four men. It’s not only equal–it’s biased toward women!
Who gets to vote that these are “great minds” rather than ” rich white people with name recognition that can get money from other rich white people (mostly with name recognition)”?
They also have two people of colour at the very bottom of the page listed as staff, so they are incredibly diverse.
That’s quite a lot of people I really don’t want to be associated with.
And that picture, ugh. Somebody who’s been accused of rape cuddeling up to a woman, making her a prop for him to grab. *puke*
@Giliell:
That’s the other thing I noticed. Someone with a rumored rapey disposition draped all over a female colleague in a semi-professional setting is TERRIBLE optics.
Shermer can’t even keep his hands to himself for a propaganda picture.
I notice that the woman Shermer is draping himself over is listed as a staffer rather than a fellow expert. That’s a status discrepancy he should definitely by now have learnt to be more careful navigating, but apparently the lesson has been ignored. Fancy that.
P.S. this seems like a good place to drop a link about certain folks who do very carefully navigate status discrepancies in unethical and manipulative ways: Fed Up With Sexual Harassment: The Serial Harasser’s Playbook
via the latest Geek Feminism Linkspam, and clearly extrapolable beyond the field of astronomy.
Yes, obviously a very sinister organisation of English-speaking public intellectuals, and they have the hubris to use the term ‘Global’, and Prof. Dawkins is a member, it’s outrageous!
Yes that was the bit I didn’t go into. I’m glad I’m not the only one who noticed.
Actually, RJW, it’s pretty obviously a group of self-appointed Celebrity Public Intellectuals, and what is the point of calling yourselves “global” when you’re so conspicuously no such thing? It’s sick-making in quite a few ways, and we peasants are allowed to say so.
Secularism is just more of a guy thing.
Where’s his other hand?
You don’t get it.
The “Global” isn’t about who they are or who they represent.
It’s who they’ve decided they clearly need to once again attempt to explain things to.
That’s their burden.
Tigtog
Perhaps the bicycle shorts have cut of the blood supply to his brain. Understanding the implications of a status discrepancy requires empathy. Shermer is a Libertarian.
@ 11 Ophelia Benson
From the website:
… so I think the intention was to say “not just American”. Perhaps “International Secular Council” would have been a better name.
Apparently it’s about travel. They want to take some exotic vacations.
@ 15 militantagnostic
I think the “status discrepancy” thing is being overstated. Yes, Shermer is more famous than Rogers, but she’s the Executive Director of the organisation. Unless I’m mistaken, that means: the Boss.
@ 17 Ophelia Benson
But only, I hope, where decent honey is locally available.
(And where the serving of alcohol is not forbidden, even if you haven’t finished your drink. Oops.. I think I just crossed a line.)
No, totally the same.
But by now the rest of us have learned that nothing apart from the USA and friends matters. Except when the lives of those people and their struggles are being appropriated for the sake of scoring goals against uppity minorities.
“Last? Its team of experts – 23 of them. Five women. Five.”
To be fair though, half the staff are women including all but one of the Director level appointments.