bessieodell

DPhil Student @ University of Oxford
Pursuing a doctoral degree (e.g. PhD)

Posts
1

Sorted by New

Comments
5

Thanks for sharing, Julia_Wise.  I can definitely imagine how hard it is to for provide a broad overview of differences that doesn’t sound insulting or over-generalizing, and its good to know that EA organizations have thought about this. It's really helpful to think about the non-EA resources too - I'll take a look!

Thank you for spending the time writing such detailed feedback Lumpyproletariat! This is the first ever blog-style post I'd written (and first contribution to the EA Forum), so it's incredibly helpful that you've pointed out specific examples and provided alternatives - it's helped me to see exactly what I can adjust in future. I can see for example how much more digestible the 'Table of Contents' is the way that you've drafted it (and how much more cognitive load it requires to read the 'In seeking to answer these questions [...] part as it is currently). Appreciate it a lot!

Ah interesting, I hadn't considered that 'cater' might be construed differently elsewhere! In British English, it just means 'to provide what is wanted or needed by someone or something'  (or alternatively, to provide food -which isn't the meaning I was using here).  So, the title would literally mean 'does EA provide what is wanted or needed by women?'

Good point re: Kelsey Piper, Miranda Dixon-Luinenberg, Julia Galef, Ajeya Cotra. I hadn't considered e.g., The Scout Mindset  because in my mind it isn't EA-specific as a book (even thought its used by the EA community),  but that might be an oversight on my part - perhaps I was thinking too narrowly about EA literature with that particular example. 

Thanks for the feedback One-time pad. I was aiming to be as comprehensive as possible, as I hadn't found comparable articles before. My hope was that the links/ signposting to different sections and the exec summary would help - but its helpful to know that wasn't the case for you (and presumably others). Unless it was the writing itself that was not concise (rather than the length of the piece), in which case I'd welcome suggestions on what might work better!

Hi smallsilo

Thank you for your feedback, it is appreciated. 

It is fair to say that a key assumption of the article is EA should cater to everyone, and therefore it should also cater to women. 

My central argument is not that there is stark lack of women throughout EA (conversely, I recognise for example that CEA notes that from 2017-2020, their staff gender balance has been roughly equal between women and men). However, there do appear to be a stark lack of women at the front and centre of EA who e.g., write key books. It is also clear that EAs are still disproportionately male. 

The main point that I'm hoping to convey is that there are women in EA, but that they are not necessarily being catered for. That is to say, that in theory you could have an EA community comprised 100% of women, but if the content is not cognisant of their needs (i.e., advice is not tailored to them, or research does not consider them, when it ought to), then that in itself is not a good thing. If you do not agree with the assumption that women (and other groups) have specific needs/ considerations, then perhaps that is where our values & assumptions differ. 

I agree that the 80k framework isn't suitable for everyone, but in which case I argue that this should be made explicit.  I also agree that some of the issues presented are partially the result of broader, more complicated dynamics elsewhere - but I don't think that is an excuse not to consider or address them. Finally, I fully concur that the demographic data I present on other minorities seems like significant issue (although I would not argue that is it more so). It would be great to see some further writing on those issues. 

Thank you for letting me know about magnifymentoring, I hadn't come across them in my searches but I'll take a look and edit if required.