Thanks for writing this post! I think promoting diversity in EA is incredibly important and I appreciate your contribution to it.
However, I get a feeling here that youâve started with an underlying assumption that âEA should cater to womenâ, which I donât see the argument for. Certainly, if thereâs a stark lack of women throughout EA, Iâd feel that thereâs a problem that needs to be specifically addressedâbut I donât think this is the case.
You present information about the academic fields that correlate with participation in EA, and note that thereâs a gender disparity that matches the one we seem to observe in EA. To me, this seems like evidence that there isnât a problem within EA, but a result of broader, more complicated dynamics elsewhere. On the other hand, the other demographic data you present on other minorities seems like a more significant issue.
For instance, the rest of the 80k article you cite is clear about the fact that the framework isnât applicable to everyone, and I think the choice of whether to have children is just one of many possible reasons the framework might not strictly apply to a person. And while demographic data shows that the work of having children affects women disproportionately, non-women who intend to parent would also need to consider the same unanswered questions.
Because of these dynamics, I donât think that the claim youâve made here, that more resources should be directed in a way that addresses the gender disparity, is substantiated.
Iâm curious to hear from where youâve gotten the sense that the EA community uses a âmale-default positionâ - Iâve never felt this.
(As a side note, if you havenât heard of them, thereâs magnifymentoringâpreviously WANBAM)
The main point that Iâm 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/â considerations, then perhaps that is where our values & assumptions differ.
I agree that the 80k framework isnât 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 elsewhereâbut I donât 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 hadnât come across them in my searches but Iâll take a look and edit if required.
When I poke my brain for prominent âcentrally EAâ effective altruists I know or know of, the first four that come to mind (Kelsey Piper, Miranda Dixon-Luinenberg, Julia Galef, Ajeya Cotra) are women who write things.
This is doubtless more a function of what I read and which specific circles I walk in than something that holds universally, but it wouldnât surprise me if most of the EA people in my particular corner of the scene gave overlapping names. That combined with the negative association I have with the word âcaterâ that you seem to lack (maybe itâs an American English thing? to me, âto cater toâ means âto put before others, to treat obsequiouslyâ), made my initial reaction very much in line with smallsiloâs.
Ah interesting, I hadnât considered that âcaterâ might be construed differently elsewhere! In British English, it just means âto provide what is wanted or needed by someone or somethingâ (or alternatively, to provide food -which isnât the meaning I was using here). So, the title would literally mean âdoes EA provide what is wanted or needed by women?â
Good point re: Kelsey Piper, Miranda Dixon-Luinenberg, Julia Galef, Ajeya Cotra. I hadnât considered e.g., The Scout Mindset becausein my mind it isnât EA-specific as a book (even thought its used by the EA community), but that might be an oversight on my partâperhaps I was thinking too narrowly about EA literature with that particular example.
Thanks for writing this post! I think promoting diversity in EA is incredibly important and I appreciate your contribution to it.
However, I get a feeling here that youâve started with an underlying assumption that âEA should cater to womenâ, which I donât see the argument for. Certainly, if thereâs a stark lack of women throughout EA, Iâd feel that thereâs a problem that needs to be specifically addressedâbut I donât think this is the case.
You present information about the academic fields that correlate with participation in EA, and note that thereâs a gender disparity that matches the one we seem to observe in EA. To me, this seems like evidence that there isnât a problem within EA, but a result of broader, more complicated dynamics elsewhere. On the other hand, the other demographic data you present on other minorities seems like a more significant issue.
For instance, the rest of the 80k article you cite is clear about the fact that the framework isnât applicable to everyone, and I think the choice of whether to have children is just one of many possible reasons the framework might not strictly apply to a person. And while demographic data shows that the work of having children affects women disproportionately, non-women who intend to parent would also need to consider the same unanswered questions.
Because of these dynamics, I donât think that the claim youâve made here, that more resources should be directed in a way that addresses the gender disparity, is substantiated.
Iâm curious to hear from where youâve gotten the sense that the EA community uses a âmale-default positionâ - Iâve never felt this.
(As a side note, if you havenât heard of them, thereâs magnifymentoringâpreviously WANBAM)
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 Iâm 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/â considerations, then perhaps that is where our values & assumptions differ.
I agree that the 80k framework isnât 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 elsewhereâbut I donât 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 hadnât come across them in my searches but Iâll take a look and edit if required.
When I poke my brain for prominent âcentrally EAâ effective altruists I know or know of, the first four that come to mind (Kelsey Piper, Miranda Dixon-Luinenberg, Julia Galef, Ajeya Cotra) are women who write things.
This is doubtless more a function of what I read and which specific circles I walk in than something that holds universally, but it wouldnât surprise me if most of the EA people in my particular corner of the scene gave overlapping names. That combined with the negative association I have with the word âcaterâ that you seem to lack (maybe itâs an American English thing? to me, âto cater toâ means âto put before others, to treat obsequiouslyâ), made my initial reaction very much in line with smallsiloâs.
Ah interesting, I hadnât considered that âcaterâ might be construed differently elsewhere! In British English, it just means âto provide what is wanted or needed by someone or somethingâ (or alternatively, to provide food -which isnât the meaning I was using here). So, the title would literally mean âdoes EA provide what is wanted or needed by women?â
Good point re: Kelsey Piper, Miranda Dixon-Luinenberg, Julia Galef, Ajeya Cotra. I hadnât considered e.g., The Scout Mindset because in my mind it isnât EA-specific as a book (even thought its used by the EA community), but that might be an oversight on my partâperhaps I was thinking too narrowly about EA literature with that particular example.
I think âdoes EA provide what is wanted or needed by women?â is a pretty serviceable title; two nations divided by a common language and such.