Ask Erica Lukes — Women in Ufology

[SRL+]

First and only time this has ever happened to me. We aborted our take-off, 2X... I got off.

Yeah, that pretty much sucked, but you live to tell the tale.

 

[marduk]

I kind of agree with you about terrestrial radio, even though we are on terrestrial radio.

As to cable TV, well it's still there, but the delivery systems are changing. There are online streaming services offering a small portion of traditional cable or satellite content. But the networks are the same. Yes, we have Amazon Instant Video and Netflix, but most of their content consists of repeats. There is only a small amount of new content. I say that just having binged on "Luke Cage" and "Longmire," when the TV networks had their winter finales and went to repeat mode or junk holiday shows.

There are multiple things converging over the past few number of years.

Number one, convenience is king. Things like fidelity and quality used to matter. That started to degrade seriously with cassette tapes and CNN. Why do I lump these together? Because they're kinda the same thing. Think about it. Cassettes are inferior to vinyl in every regard save one: it's difficult to play albums walking around or in your car. So cassettes won. CNN was (and is) inferior in every regard to the old Walter Cronkite style long form news media save one: it's convenient to watch for a few minutes and get kinda up to speed.

Flash forward to today. Bitrate doesn't matter as long as it's above a certain threshold. Streaming music is good enough because I want what I want and I want it right now. Streaming Netflix is good enough quality when it's HD-ish because I want what I want and I want it right now. And I want all that without any fussing about and I want it without commercials. Terrestrial radio has only survived because it's kinda ubiquitous and kinda convenient... but, like smoking, most people I know have given up on it because of commercials and difficulty time-shifting. Podcasts can solve parts of that, but there's a giant chasm in format between, say, a 10 min TED talk and trying to listen to some boring-ass CBC show about science.

Which is my second point - extend convenience to the max and you get second order effects like that - gimme the content when I want it, when I want it, where I want it, and get out of my way with commercials and anything else that is difficult. Think like a ferret on speed. Which is basically what Twitter is like.

So. Now that there's a massive amount of free or cheap content like that out there, what's the value in going to a conference where I'd have to sit and wait for someone to go on about stuff that I don't care about 99% and have to mine for the 1% that I'm interested in?

None.

You can wander down the hall of mirrors on that all you want and be right -- people don't want to think, groups self-select and amplify nonsense, etc.

But that is what it is. This field is losing younger generations because it can't stop navel gazing.

It needs to think more TED and Netflix and less Long John mixed with 1970's Star Trek style conventions.

Which is what the last "paranormal convention" I attended felt like. It was a really awkward 15 minutes.

 

[Erica Lukes]

Yes, in an ideal world that would be true. But it's not an ideal world. For example, I recently took a look at the companies that received government funding in the film industry here in Nova Scotia over the past year and a half. Of the $17 million, over 75% went to companies controlled solely by men; 0.13% went to companies controlled solely by women. If a person ignore numbers like that, which are prevalent still throughout society (although not in that stark a relief), then they're part of the problem, not the solution. In ufology, I've been to more than a few conferences, and I've seen how women are often treated, including watching name ufologists spend more time propositioning them than discussing the difference between the ETH and the EDH. It's still an old boys club, and I for one think that's a problem, because that kind of atmosphere (often bordering on outright sexism) discourages women from getting involved. That doesn't mean I think much of Erica Lukes (her involvement in the Koi mess was appalling), but on this one issue she raises a valid point, even if she's an imperfect messenger.

Yes, in an ideal world that would be true. But it's not an ideal world. For example, I recently took a look at the companies that received government funding in the film industry here in Nova Scotia over the past year and a half. Of the $17 million, over 75% went to companies controlled solely by men; 0.13% went to companies controlled solely by women. If a person ignore numbers like that, which are prevalent still throughout society (although not in that stark a relief), then they're part of the problem, not the solution. In ufology, I've been to more than a few conferences, and I've seen how women are often treated, including watching name ufologists spend more time propositioning them than discussing the difference between the ETH and the EDH. It's still an old boys club, and I for one think that's a problem, because that kind of atmosphere (often bordering on outright sexism) discourages women from getting involved. That doesn't mean I think much of Erica Lukes (her involvement in the Koi mess was appalling), but on this one issue she raises a valid point, even if she's an imperfect messenger.

Paul, it appears that you don't have all the information with regard Issac Koi. I would be happy to speak with you about anything, in fact I have wanted to talk to you about your work for sometime now. I appreciate your comments about the the good ole' boys.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

And Erica will be a guest co-host on The Paracast next week when Kevin Randle joins us about his recent Roswell book, where he sort of recants at least some of the long-term assumptions about the case.

More to come.

 

[matthew1977]

big Erica Lukes fan here, I'm looking forward to hearing the interview!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

Yes, in an ideal world that would be true. But it's not an ideal world. For example, I recently took a look at the companies that received government funding in the film industry here in Nova Scotia over the past year and a half. Of the $17 million, over 75% went to companies controlled solely by men; 0.13% went to companies controlled solely by women. If a person ignore numbers like that, which are prevalent still throughout society (although not in that stark a relief), then they're part of the problem, not the solution. In ufology, I've been to more than a few conferences, and I've seen how women are often treated, including watching name ufologists spend more time propositioning them than discussing the difference between the ETH and the EDH. It's still an old boys club, and I for one think that's a problem, because that kind of atmosphere (often bordering on outright sexism) discourages women from getting involved. That doesn't mean I think much of Erica Lukes (her involvement in the Koi mess was appalling), but on this one issue she raises a valid point, even if she's an imperfect messenger.

This assumes that a perfect world has equal numbers of men and women participating in everything.

I don't prescribe to that assumption. Women are capable of anything men can do (of course) but why does the 'ideal world' have to have an equal count of each in everything we do.

How dull and formulaic. Why can't we allow men to specialise and concentrate in some areas that come naturally to them and vice versa for women.

Political correctness being the assumed ideal may not be for everyone

 

[Red]

Does Erica have any ideas for strategies to help increase the number of women in this field? Has she implemented any strategies? What does she see as the largest obstacles that keep women from becoming researchers?

 

[Mr. Fibuli]

This assumes that a perfect world has equal numbers of men and women participating in everything.

I don't prescribe to that assumption. Women are capable of anything men can do (of course) but why does the 'ideal world' have to have an equal count of each in everything we do.

How dull and formulaic. Why can't we allow men to specialise and concentrate in some areas that come naturally to them and vice versa for women.

Political correctness being the assumed ideal may not be for everyone

That's pretty logical, but it supposes that males and females have some chemical/mystical affinity for some areas vs others.
Political correctness is a very cliche term now. Maybe not the most accurate term to describe the 'females should be included' discussion this thread has kicked off.

I still love ya GMP

 

[Randall]

Yes, in an ideal world that would be true. But it's not an ideal world. For example, I recently took a look at the companies that received government funding in the film industry here in Nova Scotia over the past year and a half. Of the $17 million, over 75% went to companies controlled solely by men; 0.13% went to companies controlled solely by women. If a person ignore numbers like that, which are prevalent still throughout society (although not in that stark a relief), then they're part of the problem, not the solution. In ufology, I've been to more than a few conferences, and I've seen how women are often treated, including watching name ufologists spend more time propositioning them than discussing the difference between the ETH and the EDH. It's still an old boys club, and I for one think that's a problem, because that kind of atmosphere (often bordering on outright sexism) discourages women from getting involved. That doesn't mean I think much of Erica Lukes (her involvement in the Koi mess was appalling), but on this one issue she raises a valid point, even if she's an imperfect messenger.

The numbers you quote mean nothing without further details, like the number of companies that exist that were solely controlled by men vs. women and of those how many women run companies applied for the funding, and of those how many were turned down for reasons where gender was the only remaining variable that could have made a difference to the decision ( e.g. they met all established criteria but were turned down without being given a reasonable reason ). As someone here in Alberta who has experienced "reverse discrimination" based on gender, I also know that gender discrimination can go both ways and that the problem isn't as simple as a few superficial statistics.

 

[Greers Meeting Planner]

That's pretty logical, but it supposes that males and females have some chemical/mystical affinity for some areas vs others.
Political correctness is a very cliche term now. Maybe not the most accurate term to describe the 'females should be included' discussion this thread has kicked off.

I still love ya GMP

I don't know Mr Fibuli it seems like a clear case of the political correctness to me.

I would hope that Ufology has a clear 'women welcome' message and that no barriers exist to their participation if they so chose.

My point being that assuming something is wrong because their participation % is low is (in my humble) flawed.

Men and women have been specialising in roles and responsibilities within their social groups for hundreds of thousands of years, yet in the past 50 yrs we are now crying foul unless every activity has equal men and women participation. The implied subtext is that something is wrong with a field if female participation is low.

Symptematic of the gender neutral, identity less horror show that we seem to be marching forth into as a society ...

 

[Red]

I don't know Mr Fibuli it seems like a clear case of the political correctness to me.

I would hope that Ufology has a clear 'women welcome' message and that no barriers exist to their participation if they so chose.

My point being that assuming something is wrong because their participation % is low is (in my humble) flawed.

Men and women have been specialising in roles and responsibilities within their social groups for hundreds of thousands of years, yet in the past 50 yrs we are now crying foul unless every activity has equal men and women participation. The implied subtext is that something is wrong with a field if female participation is low.

Symptematic of the gender neutral, identity less horror show that we seem to be marching forth into as a society ...

I do agree, that often people's interests are shaped by their peer groups to GMP's point.

I think that's changing. I see women show more interest in things that males have traditionally gravitated to, like video games and comic books, than they ever did when I was younger; these were things that mostly boys did and the girl who did was an outlier. Women are still underepresented in the sciences, but this is changing too. I think society and the media did a fair bit of reinforcing these so-called gender roles as well.

 

[CuCullen]

I think we can all agree that there is nothing wrong with more women and younger folk, in general, becoming involved with the subject. Whether that involvement takes a well-known form, such as UFO/New Age crossover conventions, is yet to be seen. Obviously, we that are of the older mindset (~age 40+) are not dead yet and the UFO convention, in its current form, doesn't seem to be going away any time soon. But it is surely, and inevitably, on its way out as a primary forum for knowledge-sharing about these phenomena.

I come from an anthropological perspective, and know that human culture is moved and shaped by many factors, tradition being chief among them. Behaviors and rituals carried out by older generations are typically passed down to the younger generations. Indeed, we can see this happening with the idea of 'holding-a-convention' to celebrate and share some strong area of interest or knowledge. In the case of today's Youth Culture we know that Comic/Cosplay, Sci-Fi, and Gaming Cons are more interesting to them than almost any other technology, academic or pseudo-academic (in the case of UFO/New Age) convention. With the exception of fully academic or work related conventions, which are somewhat mandatory at any age, the pay-to-play convention space is filled by these fantasy pursuits. And make no mistake, most UFO conventions are looked at as 'adult play' primarily, or at least lumped in with specific area interest cons as might organize around brewing or collecting. Is there science involved? Occasionally, but it's all self-funded, mostly disorganized, and likely too fringe for general inclusion into the halls of academia. It's certainly not self-critical enough to be considered scientific in a traditional sense.

I've said elsewhere that the interest gap between younger/older, with regard to UFOs, is being filled not by traditional organizations and conventions, but by the internet. It's not that the youth aren't interested, or are not having sightings, but that they are just "hanging out" and belonging/joining in different places. UFO related forums to be found at YouTube, Reddit, ATS and elsewhere are well known to the younger set, and are more easily accessible.

It is my thinking that if UFO research (in its current form or something resembling the current form) is to survive, we would either need to expand into their chosen spaces.

I have more thoughts on this, but am crunched for time, and will follow up later.

 

[marduk]

I do agree, that often people's interests are shaped by their peer groups to GMP's point.

I think that's changing. I see women show more interest in things that males have traditionally gravitated to, like video games and comic books, than they ever did when I was younger; these were things that mostly boys did and the girl who did was an outlier. Women are still underepresented in the sciences, but this is changing too. I think society and the media did a fair bit of reinforcing these so-called gender roles as well.

Paraphrasing my wife's comments about "UFO stuff:"

"That stuff is scary and weird and the people are really obsessed with sex. That can be your thing."

 

[Erica Lukes]

big Erica Lukes fan here, I'm looking forward to hearing the interview!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Thanks for saying that, it is good to hear something positive

 

[Erica Lukes]

Does Erica have any ideas for strategies to help increase the number of women in this field? Has she implemented any strategies? What does she see as the largest obstacles that keep women from becoming researchers?

These are great questions. One of the largest obstacles in this field is the fact that organizations and prominent researchers do not address this issue. In organizations there should be strict guidelines for ethical behavior AND when sexual harassment, bullying or abuse is reported this should be taken seriously and addressed.
Researchers , especially those who are in the public eye role need to speak out about abusive behavior.
Members of organizations also need to hold administrators accountable when action is not taken.
My strategy for this is exposing it, talking about it and giving others support.

 

[Red]

These are great questions. One of the largest obstacles in this field is the fact that organizations and prominent researchers do not address this issue. In organizations there should be strict guidelines for ethical behavior AND when sexual harassment, bullying or abuse is reported this should be taken seriously and addressed.
Researchers , especially those who are in the public eye role need to speak out about abusive behavior.
Members of organizations also need to hold administrators accountable when action is not taken.
My strategy for this is exposing it, talking about it and giving others support.

This stuff can truly happen anywhere. I seem to recall even a Buddhist organization in San Francisco that got tagged pretty hard for not having some guidelines in place for similar situation some years back. Just so I understand, you seem to think that a lack of adequately addressing sexual harassment within the field is the biggest obstacle preventing women from becoming researchers. Is this correct?

Knowing this is very important to you, has the IAUAPR drafted an ethics policy addressing harassment and sexual misconduct complaints? And is there an independent review process?

 

[marduk]

Wow Chris I hope you feel better soon!

 

[Randall]

This stuff can truly happen anywhere. I seem to recall even a Buddhist organization in San Francisco that got tagged pretty hard for not having some guidelines in place for similar situation some years back. Just so I understand, you seem to think that a lack of adequately addressing sexual harassment within the field is the biggest obstacle preventing women from becoming researchers. Is this correct? Knowing this is very important to you, has the IAUAPR drafted an ethics policy addressing harassment and sexual misconduct complaints? And is there an independent review process?

Those are really good questions. At USI we don't have anything specifically addressing the gender issues. It's a real quagmire because as soon as one goes that route, the next thing you know, you've got everyone in the gender rainbow wanting some sort of representation to the point where in some places, specific language is being drafted into legislation requiring that it be used lest an offender be charged for not using it. Which IMO is ridiculous, but some people are taking it seriously and one university professor has been accused of being abusive to his students for being critical of the legislation. So how far is too far?

In the spirit of your suggestion, I invite @Erica Lukes to assist in drafting a policy and guidelines for USI. We are an informal interest group so the only thing we could do to deal with complaints would be to assess the evidence and give an opinion, leaving the general membership to handle what else should be done ( if anything ). But at least we would have a definitive position that might inspire confidence in potential members, and perhaps bigger and better funded organizations might follow suit.

 

[CuCullen]

Erica,

Do you really feel UFO research needs another pay-to-play organization like the IAUAPR (International Association of U.A.P. Researchers)? What new service does an IAUAPR provide that is not already provided by MUFON, CUFOS, NARCAP, or the Society for Scientific Exploration (which already has a peer reviewed journal, the JSE)?

Also, a recent radio interview has you alleging sexism and possible abuse by a higher-up in the UFO community, and at the often lambasted UFO conferences (https://inceptionradionetwork.com/erica-lukes-ufo-classified/).
Taken as a whole, what is the actual value of such conferences, given the nature of most of these cons as nothing more than an annual trot-out of the same-old UFO Circus (and probable meat-market)?

Hi Erica,

I would still like an answer to these questions, if you are up to it. Thanks much!

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Possibly, but we've got other stuff on the table for the Randle interview.