Oh look! 9 male speakers

Which probably isn’t the cultural crisis under discussion.


The speakers:

Ian Angus (Vancouver, Canada)

Thomas Arnold (Heidelberg, Germany)

Diego D’Angelo (Würzburg, Germany)

Eddo Evink (Groningen, the Netherlands)

Cees Leijenhorst (Nijmegen, the Netherlands)

Corijn van Mazijk (Groningen, the Netherlands)

Ovidiu Stanciu (Paris, France)

Christian Sternad (Leuven, Belgium)

Claudio Tarditi (Torino, Italy)


Why am I telling you about this?  Find out about Gendered Conference Campaign here.

6 thoughts on “Oh look! 9 male speakers

  1. “We welcome scholars from different disciplines to submit papers on any aspect related to the principle of solidarity” AMONG MEN. LOL funny!

  2. Is it apparently all white, too — like most philosophy conferences and mid- to large-sized departments? Just because there’s no campaign doesn’t mean it’s not worth asking, especially when “male” is almost always mentioned without qualification.

  3. I have to say that I am (unpleasantly) surprised that I have to read my name here as if I have committed a crime, also given the fact that I cancelled my participation in this conference. Participants of a conference are not to be held responsible for the final program – it’s the organizers who have a complete overview on the program, the schedule and the balanced range of participants. I always payed attention to gender equality (among other criteria) when organizing conferences and I think it is not fair to assume that the listed participants are active representatives of a system ignoring gender equality as an important agenda.

    You have to be more mindful about this when listing such things! You can’t just list individual names on a public blog, unbeknowst of how they relate to the issue at stake. You can however list the respective conferences and their organizers to state your case – and some of them (as I am) will be happy to support it.

  4. It’s in no way our intention to blame even the organisers, let alone the speakers, are our GCC discussion (linked above) makes clear. I am sorry that you read it this way.

Comments are closed.