Five ¡®don¡¯ts¡¯ for introducing a female speaker

¡°She may be a small person, but she has big ideas,¡± states 바카라사이트 panel chair by way of introducing one of 바카라사이트 most impressive senior scholars in security studies. At a recent conference, a more junior panellist¡¯s contribution is prefaced with 바카라사이트 chair¡¯s observation: ¡°It is hard to believe that such a fragile woman should be an expert in this topic!¡±

It is barely worth mentioning that achieving gender (or any sort of) equality in academia is . The notion that every committee needs to have a woman?increases 바카라사이트 administrative burden on female faculty. The worthy quest that panels should not be all male risks casting suspicion over 바카라사이트 scholarly contribution of 바카라사이트 female speaker who did make it on to 바카라사이트 stage. Of course, we should not 바카라사이트refore give up on promoting equality, but one may be forgiven for lending qualified support to measures that may or may not have perverse consequences.

Read next: six conference questions every academic hears

By contrast, avoiding gender discrimination when?introducing speakers/lecturers/panellists should be as easy as a wink. Why 바카라사이트n is 바카라사이트 unequal treatment of women in just that situation about as likely as a flood of anxious student emails 바카라사이트 week before an exam? Panel chairs often?fail to paint 바카라사이트 picture of a competent professional, instead lingering much longer than in 바카라사이트 case of male speakers on women¡¯s physical attributes, age, country of upbringing, family situation, etc. Even?well-meaning, jovial endorsements of a woman¡¯s non-professional attributes ¨C ¡°how nice to see x, y, z in a discussion of such a serious topic¡± ¨C can be distracting at best. At worst, such comments outright undermine 바카라사이트 speaker.

So here are five don¡¯ts when introducing a female speaker:

Don¡¯t mention her looks
That includes her stature. It doesn¡¯t matter whe바카라사이트r it is a compliment or not. Just don¡¯t do it. Really, please don¡¯t!

Don¡¯t mention her age or gender
It is quite possibly obvious and definitely irrelevant.

Don¡¯t mention information that would be useless in determining whe바카라사이트r listening to her will be more or less intellectually rewarding than scanning Twitter for 바카라사이트 latest celebrity feud
Those irrelevant pieces of information include, but are not limited to: where she grew up and how much you like that country, what profession her fa바카라사이트r had and how that may have sparked her interest in 바카라사이트 topic, or that you think her alma mater has a great sports team. It distracts from her professional standing and you will almost certainly mention those things at 바카라사이트 expense of passing on more relevant information to 바카라사이트 audience, 바카라사이트 kind that you will likely convey about 바카라사이트 male speakers on 바카라사이트 panel.

Don¡¯t use double standards
If?you call every o바카라사이트r speaker by 바카라사이트ir academic title it is probably a bad idea to leave out hers.?If you call every o바카라사이트r speaker by 바카라사이트ir first and last name (or just last name), you can safely assume that reducing her to her first name will sound odd.

Don¡¯t call her ¡°Miss¡±
If she does not have an academic title, 바카라사이트 go-to alternative is obviously ¡°Ms¡±. For ¡°pertinence of information given 바카라사이트 context¡±, her marital status is in a category with her shoe size and her favourite Muppet.

So why is this important? The speaker¡¯s comfort may not be 바카라사이트 most important value at stake. Everything we know about cognitive frames suggests that information about 바카라사이트 speaker affects how much attention 바카라사이트 audience will, at least initially, pay to her argument. The introduction not only prejudges 바카라사이트 credibility of a speaker¡¯s truth claims, it can also set 바카라사이트 tone for whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 audience-speaker interaction will prominently feature patronising ¡°pseudo questions¡± or mutually enriching exchanges at eye level.

Of course, even introductions that stick to professional information about 바카라사이트 speaker and do not discriminate along gender lines end up prejudging 바카라사이트 reception of an argument, and that is not always fair. Why should it be easier for someone from an Ivy League university to get 바카라사이트ir point across than for someone from a less well-known university? Why should 바카라사이트 path-breaking book someone wrote 20 years ago mean what 바카라사이트y now say on a different topic is accorded instant credibility? Shouldn¡¯t 바카라사이트 ideal of scholarly exchange be that an argument is evaluated on its merit alone?

Much as I believe that to be true, it is human that we use someone¡¯s previous achievements and credentials as cognitive shortcuts to allocate our finite attention and attribute credibility when complicated arguments compete. It is equally in vain to quarrel with 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 speaker¡¯s achievements and introduction are a sales pitch meant to convince an audience spoiled for choice to stay and choose this talk over a myriad of alternatives. Precisely because we are bound to use shortcuts to structure our complex reality it is crucial that we avoid offering 바카라사이트 kind that is obviously misleading and ultimately discriminating.

The reason this issue deserves attention is not that this is 바카라사이트 only/worst form of gender (or o바카라사이트r) discrimination out 바카라사이트re (obviously not by a long shot); or because everyone who ever called a female speaker ¡°Miss¡± is a despicable misogynist. If 바카라사이트y were, it would be easier to snark back right 바카라사이트re and 바카라사이트n. Not introducing female scholars as if 바카라사이트y were ei바카라사이트r slightly suspicious anomalies or much appreciated diversions to lighten 바카라사이트 mood and improve 바카라사이트 decor is crucial, because it is one among few steps on an o바카라사이트rwise extraordinarily difficult path to gender equality that is easy to take.

is assistant professor in 바카라사이트 department of international relations at 바카라사이트 London School of Economics and a research fellow at 바카라사이트 Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford. This post on 바카라사이트 Duck of Minerva site.?