Pharyngula

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 20, 2009 6:15 PM

Just once I'd like to see someone get listed as: Joe Blow HsD (High school Dropout).

Posted by: Hampus | July 20, 2009 6:21 PM

Any one else completely turned off giving money to these people after that thing in the end? "Shut up and gief munehs plx!"
Also, I wish mr. Deity would stop glancing at the camera. Nub.

Posted by: Sili | July 20, 2009 6:30 PM

"Bill Maher [2009 Richard Dawkins Award recipient]"

The. Hell?

Posted by: GMacs | July 20, 2009 6:42 PM

The. Hell?

Have to agree with you there. And I'm actually kind of a fan of his.

Posted by: Sastra | July 20, 2009 6:54 PM

The Richard Dawkins Award goes to public figures from science, education, or entertainment who are out and open about being atheists, and do something to support public recognition of the atheist position. Dawkins is all about "coming out."

Yes, Bill Maher is a bit of a loon about vaccinations, alternative medicine, and a few other things (he wouldn't make Humanist of the Year) -- but his movie Religulous was a mainstream presentation and defense of atheism. Whether you liked the movie or not (or like him or not), he broke the taboo against criticizing or mocking religion, and made a lot of points which may be obvious to us, but probably reached to new audiences.

I think he deserves the award.

Posted by: Russell Blackford | July 20, 2009 7:14 PM

Hey, PZ, I'm looking forward to meeting you - glad you're now on the team. And you, too, Sastra - I always enjoy your comments in the blogosphere.

Posted by: jaffacakes | July 20, 2009 7:37 PM

OT Now the bible makes more sense
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Posted by: minus | July 20, 2009 7:47 PM

I'd love to go the conference, but there is no way I can afford it. Senior citizen, low fixed income. It's kind of offensive that they don't have some alternative for folks like me. People in the military make more money than I do and they're getting in cheap. Can i bring my discharge papers?

I live in L. A., I'm not interested in the fancy meals. Gimme a break. I guess I'll just have to pray for intervention.

Posted by: KimJong | July 20, 2009 7:57 PM

I love Bill Maher, but considering his fucked-up, hypocritical anti-medicine rants, he shouldn't be getting anything from Dawkins.

I don't think he's ever made this particular point, but I really wouldn't be surprised if he were an anti-vaxxer.

Posted by: Canuck | July 20, 2009 7:59 PM

Crap, I was going to try to go to the next Mac developers conference, but this would be so much more interesting.

Posted by: JLT | July 20, 2009 8:09 PM

@ Kim Jong:

I don't think he's ever made this particular point, but I really wouldn't be surprised if he were an anti-vaxxer.

He is. You can find more if you google for "Bill Maher vaccination".

Posted by: Sili | July 20, 2009 8:18 PM

Whether you liked the movie or not (or like him or not), he broke the taboo against criticizing or mocking religion, and made a lot of points which may be obvious to us, but probably reached to new audiences.

And, yes, I just don't like him, despite laughing at some of his monologues.

It's good if the taboo gets broken, but not if it's done in a manner that makes us look like bigger arseholes than we are.

And I really really don't like the anti-vaxness.

But I assume that the RDF (or whoever) isn't so blind as to not know that Maher's an anti-science crackpot. I just hope that whoever does that presentation mocks him for it.

Apropos of nothing. I read a bit at Ebon Musings the other day (someone here must have linked me to it). I really liked the argument for the Christ never being anything but a Platonic ideal. I wish I could remember Bibleverses. The 'silence' of epistles about the resurrection for instance seemed pretty damning to me.

But of course, I'm a bad skeptic and easily swayed.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 20, 2009 8:31 PM

Anyone with a passing familiarity with the issues re the Gospels will recognize that they packed a pretty good helping of Biblical criticism into that little episode. Well done, Mr. Deity & Co.

Posted by: HombreMoleculos | July 20, 2009 9:09 PM

Damn! Couldn't afford to go to TAM. Can't afford to go to LA for this. Why can't there be something on the right coast (say Boston)?

Posted by: Bacopa | July 20, 2009 9:14 PM

I've heard Anthony Pinn on the radio. He's pretty sharp. If you're going to the conference be sure to check him out.

Posted by: Cartomancer | July 20, 2009 9:28 PM

A quick note on Doctoral degrees. DPhil is not the standard English shortening for a doctoral degree. The vast majority of English universities use PhD., the University of Oxford is pretty much the only one to still use DPhil. They are entirely equivalent degrees, merely using different conventions of writing the Latin Doctor Philosophiae. Originally Oxford used DPhil and Cambridge PhD, and it seems almost everywhere else copied the Cambridge model rather than the Oxford one.

Incidentally, the list above gets it wrong. Dan Dennett did his doctoral degree at Christ Church College, Oxford, and hence it is technically a DPhil rather than a PhD.

Posted by: Kevin Schreck | July 20, 2009 10:02 PM

FUCK! First I miss Dawkins shortly after I leave Minneapolis, now the same is happening in L.A. with the AAIC!

Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl | July 20, 2009 10:55 PM

The PSA at the end was just killer. I laughed my ass off, but - sadly - no money under the couch cushions. I used that for the burrito tonight.

On another topic, I thought there was such a thing as a high-tier doctorate, awarded based on a research portfolio? Oh, and it is not against the law in "Europe" (there is no "European law" in that sense) to use the title of Doctor without graduating from a European school. The title is an honorific, and just like about anywhere else, the title may be used by anyone who is entitled to it within his own country.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 20, 2009 10:59 PM

Maher is funny,and publicly anti-religion.
Works for me.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 20, 2009 11:09 PM

What a cock-forest! Surely there are more outspoken female atheists than just a paltry TWO???

WTF??
First Ed Brayton is accused of being sexist by not naming a female jazz musician amongst his favourite ones here, and now this.What's wrong with people ?

Posted by: Kausik Datta | July 20, 2009 11:47 PM

This particularly to Sastra. Bill Maher may be funny (if occasionally) and may be an atheist/agnostic (though - as someone pointed out earlier in this thread - he would rather identify himself as an agnostic). But is the Atheist Alliance just that - an alliance of atheists, even supposed ones? Does science have no place there?

The convention website proudly proclaims that it is being organized in partnership with the RD Foundation - "For Reason and Science". I wish someone would ask Dr. Dawkins (I would, if I could go) what he is doing sharing a platform with a prominent anti-science, anti-vaccination, woo (read "CAM") believing hypocrite like Bill Maher.

Or does paying lip-service to atheism - as with Bill Maher - trump science and reason every time?

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 21, 2009 1:28 AM

Rorschach (#39):

The jazz musicians one likes are a matter of personal taste. The list of invitees to a conference is something else. One is individual, the other institutional.

The fact that they're giving Maher anything other than a whack to the head with an immunology textbook has rather soured me on the AAI.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 21, 2009 1:38 AM

During anything involving Bill Maher, though, I'll be in the bar.

Funnily enough, that's exactly how people reacted to Michael Shermer speaking at TAM.

Posted by: Tom | July 21, 2009 2:39 AM

So this is the guys who stole Dawkins away from TAM London (he was listed as a speaker there, but couldn't attend due to scheduling conflicts). At least we'll get Phil Plait. :-)

Posted by: Anonymous | July 21, 2009 3:12 AM

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081110152456AAIh6Y1

Pointless polls, everyone!

Can somebody write an eloquent "there is no god, universe is inanimate, etc etc" Answer so we can upmod it?

Posted by: SC, OM | July 21, 2009 4:17 AM

What's wrong with people ?

What's wrong with you? Why do you have a viscerally dismissive reaction to almost any mention of sexism or gender bias? That the speakers list is heavily male (17+ men, 4 women by my rough count) is the first thing I noticed. I rather suspect you would have had the ratio been the reverse, probably assuming it was a women's atheist event (and no doubt making some lame joke about how that's a conference you could get behind or the like).

Beyond (and related to) that, and no offense to any of the speakers, the list doesn't seem particularly, well, international. And the way the organizers are presenting the line-up compounds the problem:

We have partnered with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science to bring you some of the most influencial scientists in their fields. We, also, will bring top-notch speakers in activism and organizational development. The speakers will be there for you, so you could learn from them, ask questions, and get your books signed by your favorite author.

Rub shoulders with famous atheists! Learn from distinguished academics and authors!

For months I've read here about the campaigns and actions of various organizations, including student organizations, in countries around the world and the challenges they're facing (and have noticed that a number of the people on the front lines are women). Just a quick search turns up these organizations:

http://www.infidels.org/org/national.html

Building an international movement should focus on practical efforts and challenges and proceed from a standpoint of equality and solidarity. International meetings should be an opportunity for activists from around the world to share their knowledge and experiences. Again, no offense intended to the speakers, most of whom will I'm sure have interesting things to say. But I think a different sort of event is needed.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 21, 2009 4:59 AM

Another aside here: as I understand it, you are prohibited by law from using the honorific "doctor" in Europe, unless you earned a docorate from a European university.

I cannot speak about other European countries, but in the UK it is an offence to claim to have doctorate, or any other degree, from a UK university unless you were actually awarded one. The law does not apply to degrees from institutions from outside the UK.

The law goes further for medical doctors, and it is an offence to claim to be a medical doctor unless you gained the qualification from an institution the UK Government recognises as being competent to award them. For overseas institutes they normally have reciprocal arrangements with other countries for recognising each other's medical schools.

It is also an offence to claim an organisation is a university unless it has been granted university status by the Government.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 21, 2009 5:50 AM

Oh, and one more thing: your sycophancy when it comes to truth machine - who has basically called you an idiot on more than one occasion - is unseemly.

You just have to speak for other people,dont you?

Sycophant,stupid,what else? LOL
I'm not playing this 150 post flame war game with you that others do,sorry.

And I think this is rather boring for everyone else here.

You want to disagree,fine,disagree,but why always the personal attacks?You dont like me, well ok, I think we will both survive that, just try and keep it a bit civil,for god's sake.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 21, 2009 6:09 AM

You just have to speak for other people,dont you?

I'm pointing out what he said, jackass.

I'm not playing this 150 post flame war game with you that others do,sorry.

And I think this is rather boring for everyone else here.

Look, I was responding to your post in which you responded to someone's pointing out the clear gender discrepancy in the speakers list with "WTF??...What's wrong with people ?" Hardly a substantive argument, and you failed to respond to Blake Stacey's substantive answer to you. I have no interest in trying to have a reasoned discussion with you about it, since a) you're incapable of it on this subject and b) the paltry number of female speakers at this event is totally obvious to anyone, leaving little to discuss.

You want to disagree,fine,disagree,but why always the personal attacks?

What planet are you on?

You dont like me, well ok, I think we will both survive that,

If only you could bear it in silence.

just try and keep it a bit civil,for god's sake.

Please. Your response to anything that hints of feminism (from women at least - not from truth machine, of course) is rude and dismissive. You mock me (your warped image) when I'm not around. This is not civil.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 21, 2009 6:29 AM

Ok,last post on this.

You are angry at me for liking truth machine's comments, is that it?
And you cant seem to get your head around the fact that I like him despite him calling me an idiot(which he would have done with pretty much every regular here at some point i guess) ?
Well, I guess I can appreciate the fact that he teaches me how to think better.
See, other than yourself,he is able to leave the emotional involvement and dogmatism aside when discussing issues.

Posted by: Walton | July 21, 2009 6:32 AM

Sorry, wrong blockquote at #60; I meant to quote Matt Penfold,

It is also an offence to claim an organisation is a university unless it has been granted university status by the Government.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 21, 2009 6:42 AM

You are angry at me for liking truth machine's comments, is that it?

No.

And you cant seem to get your head around the fact that I like him despite him calling me an idiot(which he would have done with pretty much every regular here at some point i guess) ?

I get your obsequiousness. I just find it pathetic and painful to watch.

Well, I guess I can appreciate the fact that he teaches me how to think better.

I've seen no evidence of that - certainly none on this thread.

See, other than yourself,he is able to leave the emotional involvement and dogmatism aside when discussing issues.

OK, now I know you're delusional. Wow.

Posted by: John Morales | July 21, 2009 6:56 AM

Walton, you're doing it again. :)

Fishing for sympathy in piranha-infested waters...

--

SC, you've drawn attention to [17+ : 4] here, you may wish to express your concern to them as well.

I don't know what the selection process was, what constraints it was under or what the candidate pool was; maybe whoever chose them just did the best they could without engaging in affirmative action?

I'm not sure if you're suggesting they should have.

Posted by: unwords | July 21, 2009 7:02 AM

Hello. This is gonna be off-topic, but who could say no to a little poll-crashing?

Namely, the recent legal shenaningans in Lithuania has made the issue of same-sex marriage topical in other Baltic states as well. In the tiny country of Estonia where I live, the bigotry raises its never-really-dormant ugly head once more, and thus we have on one of our leading news sites, delfi.ee, a poll asking people their opinion on whether same-sex marriage should be legalized or not. Sadly, the ones who are against it are leading by a depressing amount of over a thousand to a measly 300. Could we all together change at least the results of this one poll, to alleviate somewhat the depressing feel of it all?

The poll is at the left-hand side of the www.delfi.ee homepage, and is up for this day only. The question is "Kas Eesti peaks seadustama samasooliste abielud?" ("Should Estonia legalize same-sex marriage?") and the answer we all should be clicking is "Jah", meaning "Yes". Please help out?

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 21, 2009 7:25 AM

I'm with SC on this one. Surely they could have gotten the likes of Ophelia Benson or Rebecca Watson even if they wanted to stick to "celeb" atheists.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | July 21, 2009 7:28 AM

In Italian, you can be "dottore" when you've got any degree, doesn't have to be postgrad.

Posted by: John Morales | July 21, 2009 7:41 AM

SC @68, condescending?

It's condescending to suggest you provide them with your feedback.

Got it.

Posted by: John Morales | July 21, 2009 7:54 AM

What do you mean by "affirmative action" in this context?

Preference for females as a high criterion for selection, for the purpose of achieving (near) numerical par of representation between the sexes, in this particular instance. How else to achieve such a large shift of ratio as parity would require?

Posted by: Dania | July 21, 2009 8:05 AM

Well, to be fair, they do have a feminist activist, Sikivu Hutchinson, on the list. I don't think they're being deliberately sexist.

But, yeah, they could (and should) have made an effort. Not only at gender balance, but also at finding some younger and less known people to speak. I think it would be better to mix the habitual "celebrities" with new faces if we don't want the whole movement to stagnate.

Posted by: Marc Abian | July 21, 2009 8:22 AM

I suspect that at the root of the problem (the reason I said the two issues were related) is that they tried to find speakers who are "notable," recognizable faces of atheism - the celebrities, if you will. If you do this you're going to come up with largely the same group of white, male, older, British/US/Australian people (again - no offense to anyone involved)

If you take that view, then sexism on behalf of the organisers is unlikely to be the reason that few women were invited. There are just less women which fit that profile.

What do you think their criteria for selection were, that put males at such an advantage that females would have to be given special consideration?

Not directed at me I know, but I'd say they were looking for notable, recognisable faces of atheism.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 21, 2009 8:27 AM

Marc Abian,

Please do try to read the fucking thread before commenting. It would help you to respond if you read what people were and were not arguing here.

(I'll also note that, while I pointed to the "celebrity" aspect above, I have no idea who several of these guys are.)

Posted by: Rorschach | July 21, 2009 8:38 AM

Think about every time sexist and misogynistic language is used on this blog, and the battle that people face just calling attention to it.

Yes,there are times when sexist language is used on this blog by some dickheads,but there are also times when sexism is perceived to occur by some,you included,when it is in fact not.
Like in the putting together of this meeting's speakers list.

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | July 21, 2009 8:45 AM

This is the whole uphill battle feminists are fighting, basically. It really shouldn't seem normal or expected for 51% of the population to be represented by, in this case, 18.18% of the speakers.

This isn't consciously sexist, no, but it's indicative of the larger cultural picture, which is.

Posted by: Walton | July 21, 2009 8:46 AM

SC:

We live in sexist, racist cultures

Sexist, yes. Racist I would dispute. Racism was certainly very ingrained in Anglo-American culture, but today we are more aware than ever - to the point of paranoia - of racism as a social problem. Public figures in both our countries are well aware of the backlash from saying or doing anything which could be perceived as racist, whereas no equivalent backlash exists in relation to sexist or misogynistic remarks.

Think of how often one hears the word "bitch" on a day-to-day basis, without any kind of negative reaction at all. By contrast, any public figure who uses a racial epithet like "n****r" (I'm not even comfortable posting the term here) will inevitably (and rightly) be faced with widespread condemnation.

Don't get me wrong - I think that there are good reasons why we treat racism much more seriously than sexism, especially in the United States, where segregation and lynchings are an uncomfortably recent part of history. But I don't think British or American culture today could really be described as "racist", whereas it could certainly be described as institutionally sexist and misogynistic.

Posted by: Dania | July 21, 2009 8:50 AM

Since this comment always comes up at least once in any conversation related to gender, I'll just point out, yet again, that nobody, not one person in this discussion, has accused anyone of that.

I know. I was not accusing anyone on this thread of saying that and I apologize if my comment gave anyone that notion. I'm with you on this, SC.

Posted by: MilitantNewScientist | July 21, 2009 8:53 AM

The AAIC convention is what I dislike about modern atheism.
Soon we will have two competing Atheist bookstores similar to Lifeway and Mardel for Christians. One will have exclusive rights to sell Harlequin romances about the forbidden love of a New Athiest and her Accommodationist sugar daddy and the other will probably sell Tom Clancy style novels involving atheist super spies stopping fundie terrorist just in time.

Bill Maher reminds me that I prefer spending time with an Episcopalian Scientist to an Atheist Homeopath, even on Sundays. I tire of scientist accommodating the woo out of misplaced respect for atheism.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 21, 2009 9:04 AM

I know. I was not accusing anyone on this thread of saying that and I apologize if my comment gave anyone that notion. I'm with you on this, SC.

I know. Sorry. It just seems like in these discussions this sentiment is almost always imputed to those raising the issue, like I'm making it about the personal attitudes of those involved.

Beyond the broader question I raised above, I really don't care particularly about their motives. It's 2009. However it came about, this ratio is ridiculous and problematic. That should be pointed to so that change can occur. Gah.

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | July 21, 2009 9:07 AM

Bugger. That needed a preview. Stupid alligator brackets.

"I think that there are good reasons why we treat racism much more seriously than sexism" --- with this line, you ticked off any feminists, who would argue that the history and normalcy of man-on-woman violence and gender segregation were and are also pretty darn bad.

"I don't think British or American culture today could really be described as "racist"" ---- with this line, you ticked off anyone who actually pays attention to modern race relations. No, racism isn't dead. Plus, how many of the speakers here are people of color, either?*

*Actually, I'm not sure of this in this case, and I'd be thrilled to see this case be an invalid example. Anybody know?

Posted by: Marc Abian | July 21, 2009 9:16 AM

Please do try to read the fucking thread before commenting. It would help you to respond if you read what people were and were not arguing here.

Your comment at #80 was the first time it was clear to me that you weren't accusing anyone of sexism. Reading back over what you said with that in mind, there's no contradictions, but from the same comments I don't think my misunderstanding was too outlandish.

For example, you responded to "you will say the fact that the list has only 4 women on it is sexist" not with an explicit denial but with a more ambiguous "it's a tremendous imbalance, regardless of conscious motives."

Given that this comment always comes up, I think you should have been a bit more direct in places.
That said, obviously the mistake was mine, so I apologise. I wasn't trying to undermine your argument(s).

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | July 21, 2009 9:31 AM

"I'd love to go the conference, but there is no way I can afford it. Senior citizen, low fixed income. It's kind of offensive that they don't have some alternative for folks like me. People in the military make more money than I do and they're getting in cheap. Can i bring my discharge papers?"

OK you wanna hear my gripe?
Even you senior citizens get discounts... what do we disabled get?

We're both on social security, but the seniors get that taken into consideration at diners and whatever, we disabled people don't. Plus since I wasn't in the work force long enough to build up to the income most seniors retire with, I (and most disabled) get less. $12k a year.

Where are the DISABLED discounts, dammit?!?!

Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | July 21, 2009 9:34 AM

Falyne

Don't forget Walton is a student, and universities normally have a mixed body of people, and where racism and sexism is not tolerated.

He also appears to have a sheltered life. But I have been in places in England where racism is the norm, and the likes of Walton do not go.

As I said before, he still has a lot to learn.

Plus, how many of the speakers here are people of color, either?*

We're all of some colour. As a white man I have been involved in a racist attack when I lived in England.

Well said at comment 85, by the way.

Posted by: catta | July 21, 2009 9:49 AM

Still not convinced that Maher is the right person. First of all, he doesn't seem to be able to reason/argue for atheism, which I think is important. Second, he doesn't strike me as an atheist at all, nevermind "Religulous". Rather, he seems to be the "I'm not religious, oh no, organised religion is so stupid - no, I'm spiritual" kind of person.

Also, can someone enlighten me as to why people would leave the room at TAM to avoid Michael Shermer? The bits and pieces of his talks I've seen were entertaining at the very least...

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 21, 2009 10:14 AM

Also, can someone enlighten me as to why people would leave the room at TAM to avoid Michael Shermer? The bits and pieces of his talks I've seen were entertaining at the very least...

His PowerPoint slides are legend. And he stands there and reads the full screen of text from each one.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 21, 2009 10:21 AM

Isn't it more likely that they just went with the usual list, adding to it some other guys without even considering the lack of women? That they didn't pay attention because in our culture it's not unusual for women to be little represented (and I'm not saying the person or people who chose the speakers are men or sexists - they could well be women, and also just not have thought about it)?

Sounds plausible to me.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | July 21, 2009 10:32 AM

Ah, Robocop the troll being a stoopid idjit again. Still no physical evidence for your imaginary deity Robocop. Which makes you delusional, and as a result everything you say has to be looked at skeptically. And it usually fails the test of reason.

Posted by: Stu | July 21, 2009 10:36 AM

Bill Maher isn't an atheist. He's on the record repeatedly and aggressively as being anti-science and he predicates it upon irrational nonsense.

I'll take Moronic Non-Sequitur Because I Really Want It To Be True for $1,200, Alex.

For fuck's sake, dude. You're not even trying anymore.

Posted by: Robocop | July 21, 2009 10:47 AM

Stu-y (111): Maher is in full-blown nutter territory. He proudly states that he doesn’t accept Western medicine. Among other claims, Maher says that polio was wiped out due to better sanitation and that getting a flu shot increases your chances of developing Alzheimer’s. On Real Time, he said: “I don’t believe in vaccination. . . . Another theory that I think is flawed, that we go by the Louis Pasteur [germ] theory.“ He has told CNN’s Larry King that he won’t take aspirin because he believes it’s lethal.

http://aetiology.blogspot.com/2005/12/bill-maher-and-his-anti-vaccination.html
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/03/idiot_week.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html

Bill Maher is totally off the rails. But because he’s good PR and because he loudly and prominently attacks religion, Dawkins totally sucks up to him and gives him a big award.

Nice.

Posted by: Carlie | July 21, 2009 10:57 AM

Isn't it more likely that they just went with the usual list, adding to it some other guys without even considering the lack of women? That they didn't pay attention because in our culture it's not unusual for women to be little represented (and I'm not saying the person or people who chose the speakers are men or sexists - they could well be women, and also just not have thought about it)?

That's exactly the point. SC is just pointing out that it would have been good for someone to notice it at some point and then added more women to the list, as well as more young people, and more minorities. SC never said they were being deliberately sexist; in fact, made the point that it was an unconscious supporting of the status quo that was happening. If keeping representation lopsided is something that happens unconsciously, then of course someone is going to have to point it out in order for it ever to change, and screaming "we're not sexist" as a retort doesn't really help the situation any.

Walton, really. This happened about a week ago. Racism is alive and well, thanks. As for ableism, well, that hasn't even risen to the level of a topic people discuss yet.

Posted by: Obeah | July 21, 2009 11:04 AM

I see your point SC. Of that list I have only read Porco.
I would really appreciate a list of other women atheists.
Thanks

Posted by: Stu | July 21, 2009 11:12 AM

Maher is in full-blown nutter territory. He proudly states that he doesn’t accept Western medicine.

Yep. I think it's positively embarrassing to have him speak at this convention, let alone give him an award.

But that's not the point. You categorically stated "Bill Maher is not an atheist". Now which term are you having trouble with, "atheist" or "non-sequitur"?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 21, 2009 11:16 AM

Bill Maher is on record as repeatedly stating he's not an atheist. He is also a huge proponent of alt med. Robocop's links back that story up.

That a man like Dawkins, who has committed his whole life to furthering atheism and science, would give an award to Maher is confusing, to put it mildly.

Robocop's cop post did not convey that message. The clear implication of his comments were that one cannot be an atheist if one rejects western medicine.

Robocop was saying Maher is not an atheist because he goes in for all this woo. If what he meant was Maher is not an atheist and he goes in for all this woo he needs to write in a much clearer manner.

Posted by: Stu | July 21, 2009 11:20 AM

Before Robocop points it out: from his own words, Bill Maher seems somewhat like a deist.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 21, 2009 11:24 AM

Let me show were Robocop slipped up.

Bill Maher isn't an atheist. He's on the record repeatedly and aggressively as being anti-science and he predicates it upon irrational nonsense.

The sentence about Maher being anti-science follows on from the one about his not being an atheist. Both setences are in the same paragraph so are to be taken as being connected to each for the purposes of meaning.

Had this been written instead the ambiguity would have been removed.

Bill Maher isn't an atheist. He's also on the record repeatedly and aggressively as being anti-science and he predicates it upon irrational nonsense.

The change is in bold.

The change is in bold.

Posted by: Lynna | July 21, 2009 11:27 AM

Oh, noes! Bill Maher is not a *perfect* atheist, but only an agnostic at level 6 like Dawkins. And he's an imperfect human being as well, with a load of anti-medical woo lodged in his brain. Well, color me amazed.

Really, I could care less. He provides both diversity (entertainment field represented as well as loads of scientists), and he'll bring more media attention to the conference.

He also provides a convenient, on-site target for scientists well-versed in opposing the anti-vaccine hordes.

Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | July 21, 2009 11:29 AM

The choice of Bill Maher is appalling. It deserves a mention in failblog.com.
He is profoundly and vocally irrational on the subject of medical science. He is a menace to public health with his anti-immunization advocacy.
I understand that Atheism is a philosophy based on rational thinking. This choice of speaker completely contradicts that notion.
What makes it especially awful is that he appears to be the headliner, and his face (along with Dr. Dawkins) is front and centre on the website for the conference.
I agree, dump Maher, and get a few up-and-coming women to speak instead.

Posted by: Stu | July 21, 2009 11:32 AM

Lynna, Sastra:

From a June 07, 2006 article [1] titled Bill Maher takes on Religion in New Documentary in SlashFilm:

"I'm not an atheist. There's a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn't believe in religion. Religion to me is a bureaucracy between man and God that I don't need. But I'm not an atheist, no." I believe there's some force. If you want to call it God... I don't believe God is a single parent who writes books. I think that the people who think God wrote a book called The Bible are just childish. Religion is so childish. What they're fighting about in the Middle East, it's so childish. These myths, these silly little stories that they believe in fundamentally, that they take over this little space in Jerusalem where one guy flew up to heaven... no, no, this guy performed a sacrifice here a thousand million years ago. It's like, "Who cares? What does that have to do with spirituality, where you're really trying to get, as a human being and as a soul moving in the universe?" But I do believe in a God, yes."

Posted by: Lynna | July 21, 2009 11:37 AM

Stu @131: I stand corrected on Bill Maher. Sounds like a deist, not an agnostic. Thanks.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 21, 2009 11:38 AM

What if it's just a case of women, in general, not being interested in speaking publicly about atheism?

Well we know from this blog that there are women are interested in being vocal about atheism. A good number of the regulars are women, and are no less vocal or strident than male commentators when it comes to criticising what they regard as silly arguments from believers or fatheists.

Posted by: Stu | July 21, 2009 11:41 AM

Well we know from this blog that there are women are interested in being vocal about atheism.

Well, in general...

(Okay, okay, I'll stop now.)

Posted by: robotaholic | July 21, 2009 11:47 AM

I guess I'm a limp wristed special guy - nice :|

Posted by: tsg | July 21, 2009 12:03 PM

Well we know from this blog that there are women are interested in being vocal about atheism. A good number of the regulars are women, and are no less vocal or strident than male commentators when it comes to criticising what they regard as silly arguments from believers or fatheists.

In what proportion, and is this blog representative of society, or atheists, as a whole?

Posted by: Robocop | July 21, 2009 12:07 PM

125: I think that it is both hilarious and disgusting that the major award at the major atheist conference going to someone who denies that he's an atheist and is, quite obviously, an irrational, anti-science loon. Even Dawkins can't seem to help pandering to celebrity. I thought the connection I was making in that regard was sufficiently obvious. My apologies for your confusion.

Posted by: Dania | July 21, 2009 12:15 PM

What if it's just a case of women, in general, not being interested in speaking publicly about atheism? Is that still a problem?

IF women had a natural predisposition to not speak publicly about atheism, then no, I don't think it would be a problem to have less women speaking. But, honestly, do you really think that's the case? And if you do, what makes you think that?

Posted by: Lynna | July 21, 2009 12:27 PM

SC @146: Thanks for the link to the story on the Sam Harris website about Jennifer Lange. I agree that she would make a great addition to the conference.

Posted by: Carlie | July 21, 2009 12:35 PM

I'm just questioning the assertion that the skewed ratio of women to men speakers is ipso facto a sexism problem.

Now that you've seen a short summary of the possible women who could have been included (assuming you clicked on all the links and read them), what do you think?

Posted by: marty | July 21, 2009 12:38 PM

Mr. Deity will be at CFI July 29, for those of you in Western New York. He's following this Friday's address by Barry Lynn and Sunday's address by Dan Barker. Should be good.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/amherst/events/an_evening_with_mr._deity

Posted by: tsg | July 21, 2009 12:47 PM

Now that you've seen a short summary of the possible women who could have been included (assuming you clicked on all the links and read them), what do you think?

I think it was stupid to think I'd get a rational discussion out of that question.

Whatever, I no longer care.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 21, 2009 1:01 PM

I didn't say anything of the kind.

Your question - "What if it's just a case of women, in general, not being interested in speaking publicly about atheism?" - certainly implied it. Moreover, you have no evidence for such a foolish notion, which you keep raising despite the evidence against it.

Even if that were true "in general," how would it explain how an international conference only has four female speakers?

Very simply, it would mean that there are more men interested in speaking than there are women.

Very simply, indeed. Do you think the speakers asked to be featured at the meeting? If so, was there a system in place for everyone interested to volunteer their speaking services if they're interested? Do you really think the organizers asked as many women, and they declined due to a lack of interest? In other words, do you genuinely believe this outcome was due to an absence of interest among women?

Would women need at the population level to be as interested in atheist activism as men for 10 or 11 female speakers to appear at the meeting?

Maybe.

That's profoundly dumb.

I didn't say there weren't. I am challenging the assertion that 20% women, all by itself, means that there is inherently a problem.

Not even 20%, and yes, it does. Even in your absurd hypothetical scenario it would still be a problem - if the movement lacked prominent female voices, that would be something we'd need to deal with. But the fact is that it doesn't, and your hypothetical is wildly implausible.

***

By the way, I'm writing something about this for my soon-to-be-launched blog, but here's an example of women's voices being completely ignored by those claiming to act on their behalf and to speak for them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7jAT0FAGBc

Posted by: tsg | July 21, 2009 1:07 PM

Your question - "What if it's just a case of women, in general, not being interested in speaking publicly about atheism?" - certainly implied it.

Actually, I went out of my way to say that I wasn't implying it. Not that I expect you to actually read what I wrote. You apparently already know what I'm thinking so there's no point in trying to tell you.

Even if you have a point, I no longer have any interest in listening to it.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 21, 2009 1:13 PM

Rorschach:

I'm coming late to this, and I'll no doubt regret sticking my nipples into this particular vice, but...

And here we go again. Telling me what I am thinking.

NO! SC's formulation was conditional: When someone says something to you of the general form, "If you mean that..., well, then I think....," that person is NOT telling you what you're thinking; instead, they're saying, "Here's how I'm understanding what you're saying in this conversation, and if I've got that right, then here's what I think about it."

This is a perfect valid, even intellectually generous, mode of response, which clearly explains the basis of the responder's comment and implicitly invites the respondee to correct any misunderstandings.

I don't care how violently y'all disagree, but presumably the point of having a conversation like this in public is to enlighten and persuade all the third-pary observers... and you can only accomplish this if you're responding to the other's arguments with clarity and honesty. It seems to me that SC's comments, cranky as they have been, have been in the spirit of clarity and intellectual honesty; yours, not always so much.

Now, to those who may be rolling their eyes thinking "here goes SC beating her feminist drum again," let me just note for the record that she didn't bring the subject up, nor did she even comment on it until after The Artist Formerly Known as Clinteas® chimed in with the eyerolling "WTF" comment... a comment that might well have been (I say, placing myself at risk of being impaled on the "Don't tell me what I'm thinking!" pikestaff myself) deliberately intended to draw SC into the fray.

People, there's a fascinating and important conversation to be had about conscious gender discrimination versus the unconscious sexism embedded in social assumptions, and about how far we have (or haven't) come in addressing the latter... but none of us will learn anything from hissy fits... er... pissing contests... ahhh... Jebus, aren't there any nonsexist metaphors for a nasty little spat? In any case, y'all get my point, I'm sure.

Now I'm off to don my magic — and Nomex! — underwear!

Posted by: SC, OM | July 21, 2009 1:15 PM

Actually, I went out of my way to say that I wasn't implying it.

It was implied in the words you've written. I don't care what you're thinking, particularly as your thinking appears to be of very low quality.

Even if you have a point,

I do and I've made it.

I no longer have any interest in listening to it.

Boohoo. Bye.

Posted by: Dania | July 21, 2009 1:18 PM

I'm just questioning the assertion that the skewed ratio of women to men speakers is ipso facto a sexism problem.

OK, I get your point. You're saying that the skewed ratio of women to men could, hypothetically, have another explanation that doesn't involve sexism in any way. I'm not arguing with that, I'm saying your hypothetical scenario in which women don't like to speak publicly about atheism is implausible and contradicted by the evidence. That's it.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 21, 2009 1:27 PM

Bill and Carlie, you both rock.

Posted by: tsg | July 21, 2009 1:44 PM

What was irrational? You asked if, in general, women aren't atheists who like to speak in public.

No, I didn't. In response to Dania @112:

But apparently, some people can look at that list, count the women and men listed, and fail to see a problem with the ratio.

I said @124:

[This is an honest question. I'm not implying an answer to it.]

What if it's just a case of women, in general, not being interested in speaking publicly about atheism? Is that still a problem?

In other words, I was trying to find out, if the proportion of women to men speaking at this engagement was an accurate (or close to) representation of outspoken atheist women in general, does Dania et al think the fact that fewer women are speaking is no longer evidence of sexism, or should the ratio of men to women be equal even if the ratio in the general population is skewed. I never once claimed the "if" was in fact the case.

You were provided, as a response, with several links to sites that list just such women.

In response to "what if it was?" I was told "it's not." Non-sequitor. It wasn't what I asked.

Question, followed by answer with evidence to support that answer.

No. I asked a hypothetical question and was given a non-answer saying it shouldn't even be asked.

Where is the irrationality?

Despite my explicitly and pre-emptively denying any implied answer to the question, SC and Suisan claim infallible knowledge about what my intentions were when I asked it, and others answered an entirely different question assuming what my response would be.

That's where the irrationality is: a knee-jerk reaction to a simple question, and that I expected anything less.

Posted by: MikeyM | July 21, 2009 1:52 PM

Very funny, "Mr. Deity." And you just wisecracked your way into a Irish courtroom!

Posted by: Dania | July 21, 2009 1:59 PM

tsg,

Just to clarify: I know you never implied that your hypothetical scenario was true. I think you made that very clear @#124. You made an honest question and I tried to give you an honest answer @#145. Was that answer irrational?

Posted by: SC, OM | July 21, 2009 2:03 PM

In other words, I was trying to find out, if the proportion of women to men speaking at this engagement was an accurate (or close to) representation of outspoken atheist women in general, does Dania et al think the fact that fewer women are speaking is no longer evidence of sexism, or should the ratio of men to women be equal even if the ratio in the general population is skewed.

OK, I'm going to type slowly so perhaps you'll understand. The general population is not the relevant population here. The relevant population is that of activist atheist writers, campaigners, speakers of greater or lesser prominence. That is the population from which conference organizers make their selections, and you've been presented with evidence about it and women's participation in it. You've offered no reason to suggest why on earth women who can and want to speak at such events shouldn't be picked to do so unless and until women in the general population are - what? - active in as great a proportion as men? interested in being as vocal, however defined, about their atheism? (Nor, of course, that they are so at significantly lower rates in the first place, but granting this...) In fact, as more than one of us has tried to explain to you, if this were the case in the general public it would be a problem that needs to be addressed, in part by making sure women have vocal, public role models. Your what-if is ludicrous.

And again, for the thousandth time, saying the imbalance is a problem, that people should be conscious of the need for a diversity of voices when trying to build a movement, and that change can happen is not the same thing as talking about "evidence of sexism."

Posted by: tsg | July 21, 2009 2:05 PM

Just to clarify: I know you never implied that your hypothetical scenario was true. I think you made that very clear @#124. You made an honest question and I tried to give you an honest answer @#145. Was that answer irrational?

No it wasn't. But given the ensuing shitstorm I was rather disinclined to pursue the argument any further.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 21, 2009 2:14 PM

And I'm not reading any further than this.

Doesn't matter. You're not interested in understanding, and have no better response to substantive arguments than "I really don't care anymore." Run along, little git.

Posted by: Richard Dawkins | July 21, 2009 2:18 PM

The Richard Dawkins Award (RDA) has no connection with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS). The RDA was instituted by the Atheist Alliance International (AAI) several years before RDFRS was founded, or even thought of. This year, the committee of AAI took the decision to give the RDA to Bill Maher. They asked me, as an individual, if I approved, and I was delighted to do so because I find him, and especially Religulous, very funny. I know nothing of any stance he may have taken on medical questions.

This year, RDFRS agreed to jointly sponsor the annual conference of AAI. The decision to do so had nothing to do with the AAI's decision to give the RDA to Bill Maher.

Posted by: tsg | July 21, 2009 2:31 PM

That should be Bill @172...

Posted by: SC, OM | July 21, 2009 2:45 PM

You might have a point if I didn't try to explain the reason for my question several times and had it ignored each time.

In fact, no he didn't. He simply repeated that he was asking if that is the situation with regard to the general public (whatever general public he has in mind), would we consider the imbalance in this speakers list to be a problem (which he dishonestly kept switching with "a sexism problem" and "evidence of sexism"). Which we've answered. In any event, given the fatal flaws in his question/challenge, his reasons for asking it are completely inconsequential.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 21, 2009 2:57 PM

You pretentious little twit. You might have noticed (I really doubt it, though) that Dania, the person I asked originally, and you, when you finally got around to answering the question I fucking asked instead of assuming you knew what I meant by asking it, disagree about what this hypothetical case means to your claim.

How so? What claim? My post @ #158 and Dania's @ #163 are nearly identical - I just expanded on the matter a bit in other posts.

Had you just answered the fucking question

The question, as I explained @ #155 and #173, is ridiculous. It doesn't make sense.

we might have been able to have a reasonable discussion about what the fact that it isn't true means and how to go about changing it.

That what isn't true? The question, I repeat, did not make sense. In case you hadn't noticed, we were having a reasonable discussion before you arrived. If you wish to contribute some substantive suggestions for change based on evidence, by all means be my guest.

But no, you chose to assume my position was the most unreasonable possible and insult me for it. Nice work, Einstein.

Loon.

You might want to consider that why people continually, as another poster put it, roll their eyes and say, "SC's beating her feminism drum again" may be the way you engage the conversation.

Yes, I'm very concerned that people think I'm one of those uppity militant outspoken feminists. Whatever shall I do?

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 21, 2009 3:06 PM

tsg:

You might have a point if I didn't try to explain the reason for my question several times...

Should be "...if I didn'thadn't trytried to explain...." Sorry for what might look like a grammar Nazi comment, but this is one aspect of grammar that really can affect how people understand your comments.

...and had it ignored each time.

My sense was not that folks were ignoring your attempts to explain; it seem to me they simply weren't buying the explanation.

Sorry to be meta here, but my observation, based on a couple decades worth of online "shitstorms," is that people are often too quick to attribute to being ignored that which can better be explained by honest disagreement. I'm quite sure I've been guilty of this myself on too many occasions; I attribute it to this medium's inherent lack of nonverbal cues (e.g., head nods, raised eyebrows, etc.) that communicate, "yes, I'm listening." We all want to believe that our arguments are so transcendently correct that it would be impossible to disagree... so, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, "you're not listening to me" is a perfectly understandable refuge to seek.

Personally, I try to avoid this trap by mirroring back what I understand the other person's argument to be as a predicate for my response... but, of course, this strategy risks prompting the "stop telling me what I think!" response, a la Rorschach's, up-thread.

Sorry to geek out about this, but the meta-issue intrigues me. I'm sure there's a fascinating Master's thesis (if not Doctoral dissertation) to be written (or more likely, one already has been written) about the rhetorical peculiarities of online debates.

Posted by: stogoe | July 21, 2009 3:15 PM

And I'm not reading any further than this.

Fuck off.

What, so it's our fault that you're a moron? I mean honestly, your weasel-words hypothetical used exactly the same framing as a thousand other bigots spewing weasel-words and we're supposed to somehow read your mind and see that you're not like those thousand others? Like somehow the thousandth and first time we've seen "what if women really don't want to worry their pretty little heads about man-thoughts" it's going to mean something completely different than it did last time?

Posted by: Dania | July 21, 2009 3:22 PM

How so? What claim? My post @ #158 and Dania's @ #163 are nearly identical - I just expanded on the matter a bit in other posts.

I think I know what tsg is talking about here.

Me:

IF women had a natural predisposition to not speak publicly about atheism, then no, I don't think it would be a problem to have less women speaking.

You:

Not even 20%, and yes, it does. Even in your absurd hypothetical scenario it would still be a problem - if the movement lacked prominent female voices, that would be something we'd need to deal with.

But I'm not sure we truly disagree. I said there would not be a problem with the ratio on that list because, well, if women really don't want to speak, what can we do? We're certainly not going to force them.

What I understood you were saying was that it would be a problem because we would have lack of diversity in the movement. And I agree, that's not a good thing. We can expand on this apparent* disagreement if you wish...

*I think it is apparent, but I could be misinterpreting your words.

Posted by: Robocop | July 21, 2009 3:30 PM

179: I appreciate the clarification of your role, Dr. Dawkins, but I'm still surprised by your approval. The announcement of the award says that it is given to Maher "for his efforts to further the values science and reason in the world."

http://www.atheistalliance.org/Latest/AAI-Announces-Site-of-2009-Convention.html

Previous descriptions of the honor were more detailed:

"The Richard Dawkins Award will be given every year to honor an outstanding atheist whose contributions raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance; who through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage advocates increased scientific knowledge; who through work or by example teaches acceptance of the nontheist philosophy; and whose public posture mirrors the uncompromising nontheist life stance of Dr. Richard Dawkins."

Frankly, I'm astonished that an award designed to honor an atheist for efforts furthering science and reason would be given to someone who isn't an atheist, is demonstrably anti-science and, at least in that regard, utterly irrational. Somehow, in that context, being "very funny" doesn't sound like a very good reason.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 21, 2009 3:46 PM

Stop assuming what I mean by it and it might.

...That the ratio of women to men speakers isn't, in fact, representative of the population.

...Only if you assume I'm being unreasonable by asking it.

One more time:

1) The ratio of speakers at such an event should be as balanced and diverse as possible* given the qualified population of speakers. This is the only relevant population here. Evidence has been presented that numerous qualified, experienced female speakers exist.

2) There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the population of speakers at any such event must be numerically representative of the vocalness or interest in public speaking in that group among the general population (could that be determined). This is loony.

3) It is silly to suggest that a low number of people from one group being selected to speak at an event could have been due to a lack of interest on their part when people are selected by others to speak. The only way you could make this make sense would be if you argued that it was possible that they tried but couldn't find more than four women interested in speaking. This is beyond implausible.

4) If women were disinclined to be vocal about their atheism in whatever general population you're talking about (the world?), this would be a problem, but a different problem at a different level. Carlie and I both tried to explain this. One way of addressing this, incidentally, would be to make sure that people in this group - especially young people - were able to see others from their group being vocal and active. Speaking at meetings, for example.

Oh, yes. It was quite civilized until I came along and asked a completely unreasonable question.

It was a stupid question, you still have not explained why you asked it, and yes, it was a reasonable, civilized discussion (as they go here). If you wanted to contribute to a discussion about solutions, you could have simply done so.

Why? So you can assume I'm taking another unreasonable position. Fuck that. Fool me once, shame on you....

I've explained to you the problems with your hypothetical. Why you're fizated on this "unreasonable" nonsense, other than as a dodge, I have no idea.

*For the reasons I've enumerated above.

Posted by: Lynna | July 21, 2009 3:46 PM

Not every award-winner has to perfectly fit the bill (or Bill, as the case may be). Why not just go with what we've got this time, namely Bill Maher, and make the most of the opportunity?

Go to the conference and give him hell if you like. Note your objections on the websites announcing the award. If nothing else, both Maher and his fans will be served a heaping plate of Think Again!

Posted by: tsg | July 21, 2009 3:55 PM

1) The ratio of speakers at such an event should be as balanced and diverse as possible* given the qualified population of speakers. This is the only relevant population here. Evidence has been presented that numerous qualified, experienced female speakers exist.

I'm not arguing against this.

2) There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the population of speakers at any such event must be numerically representative of the vocalness or interest in public speaking in that group among the general population (could that be determined). This is loony.

I never said it should.

3) It is silly to suggest that a low number of people from one group being selected to speak at an event could have been due to a lack of interest on their part when people are selected by others to speak. The only way you could make this make sense would be if you argued that it was possible that they tried but couldn't find more than four women interested in speaking. This is beyond implausible.

I never said otherwise.

4) If women were disinclined to be vocal about their atheism in whatever general population you're talking about (the world?), this would be a problem, but a different problem at a different level. Carlie and I both tried to explain this. One way of addressing this, incidentally, would be to make sure that people in this group - especially young people - were able to see others from their group being vocal and active. Speaking at meetings, for example.

I am not arguing against this.

It was a stupid question, you still have not explained why you asked it,

I never had the opportunity: you and others assumed I had some ulterior motive to asking it and showed no willingness to believe otherwise, at which point I lost interest.

I've explained to you the problems with your hypothetical. Why you're fizated on this "unreasonable" nonsense, other than as a dodge, I have no idea.

And no interest in finding out either.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 21, 2009 4:10 PM

Danio

Dania.

Sorry; getting my brilliant commenters mixed up!

Posted by: tsg | July 21, 2009 4:13 PM

Briefly, the reason I asked the question was that, if the answer is "yes, it's still a problem even if the ratio of men to women speakers is representative of the atheist community", it then becomes a discussion about whether or not it is the responsibility of the AAI to encourage women to be outspoken about atheism, if they are intentionally or unintentionally shirking this duty, if there is one, whether or not this constitutes sexism and how to correct the situation, if it needs correcting.

If the answer is "no", then it becomes an argument about whether or not the percentage of women atheists is accurately represented in the number of speakers or not.

I thought it might be helpful to clarify the positions before embarking on a pointless argument. Apparently, I was wrong.

At this point I have no position on either argument and no longer any interest in discussing it.

Posted by: tsg | July 21, 2009 4:26 PM

SC,

Your very first response to my question was a diatribe about how many outspoken atheist women there were, which wasn't my question, a response of "who the fuck cares" when I asked if the number of atheist women in this blog was representative of the society, and an accusation of "stupid mental gymnastics".

Your second response was an accusation of implying that there is "something about women" in asking the question despite my explicitly saying there was no implication and that it was an honest question.

It was clear within minutes which direction this conversation was going and I didn't want to go there. So go cry about your reasonable and civil discourse until I showed up to somebody else. I am not interested in anything else you have to say.

Posted by: XD | July 21, 2009 4:36 PM

Sorry to derail, but you've got to see this "WTF" moment from Conservapaedia:

http://imgur.com/VQ3m3.jpg

I think Encyclopedia Dramatica has more credibility.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 21, 2009 4:40 PM

Briefly, the reason I asked the question was that, if the answer is "yes, it's still a problem even if the ratio of men to women speakers is representative of the atheist community",

Again, totally irrelevant. Of course it [the male-heavy list of speakers at the event] would still be a problem, because there would be absolutely no reason to select speakers on that basis. The relevant population is the pool of potential speakers, which contains plenty of women.

it then becomes a discussion about whether or not it is the responsibility of the AAI to encourage women to be outspoken about atheism, if they are intentionally or unintentionally shirking this duty,

This should be one of its major goals with regard to all atheists (though having more participation from diverse groups of course helps people to understand the difficulties for different people). It's a completely separate question from the speaker selection issue, except insofar as having women and minority group members as speakers can always contribute to encouraging people from these groups to get involved themselves, obviously.

And it doesn't become a question of this, because you haven't shown this to be the case. Asking about a hypothetical is one thing, but why would we discuss dealing with a problem that no one's demonstrated to be real?

if there is one, whether or not this constitutes sexism and how to correct the situation, if it needs correcting.

No one was saying it constitutes sexism, other than in the broadest sense of reflecting the larger culture as discussed above. People were saying that the imbalance is a problem and people should be made aware of it. And yes, it needs correcting.

If the answer is "no", then it becomes an argument about whether or not the percentage of women atheists is accurately represented in the number of speakers or not.

No one would be arguing about this other than you. It's a stupid non-issue.

I thought it might be helpful to clarify the positions before embarking on a pointless argument. Apparently, I was wrong.

What kind of jackass asks a dumb, convoluted question instead of just making a point?

At this point I have no position on either argument and no longer any interest in discussing it.

You never had anything to add to the discussion.

Posted by: tsg | July 21, 2009 4:44 PM

Again, totally irrelevant....

I no longer care.

No one would be arguing about this other than you. It's a stupid non-issue.

I, in fact, as I have been saying from the outset, wasn't arguing it. I just wanted to find out if anyone else was.

What kind of jackass asks a dumb, convoluted question instead of just making a point?

To find out what the other person's position is before arguing against it. You might try it some time.

You never had anything to add to the discussion.

SC's omniscience at work again ...

Posted by: SC, OM | July 21, 2009 4:57 PM

Your very first response to my question was a diatribe about how many outspoken atheist women there were, which wasn't my question,

It was fully a response to your question. Has it occurred to you that you're the only one who doesn't get this?

a response of "who the fuck cares" when I asked if the number of atheist women in this blog was representative of the society,

Because the question was utterly meaningless in this context. There are outspoken atheist women. What our percentage of atheists or women is in "the society" makes no difference in terms of speaker selection at this meeting. What was being pointed out to you is that "What if it's just a case of women, in general, not being interested in speaking publicly about atheism?" is rather a silly question to be asking 'round these parts.

and an accusation of "stupid mental gymnastics".

Confirmed.

Your second response was an accusation of implying that there is "something about women" in asking the question despite my explicitly saying there was no implication and that it was an honest question.

Your denials notwithstanding, that's exactly what you were implying. With the words. That you typed.

It was clear within minutes which direction this conversation was going and I didn't want to go there. So go cry about your reasonable and civil discourse until I showed up to somebody else. I am not interested in anything else you have to say.

Who's crying now? You obviously have nothing to contribute, so you're flailing and whining about how misunderstood you are. You've said you have no argument for or against anything, so I'm unclear at what you're still doing here.

Posted by: tsg | July 21, 2009 5:03 PM

Your denials notwithstanding, that's exactly what you were implying. With the words. That you typed.

I wouldn't call myself an expert in very many areas. But there is one where I am the hands down, far and away, foremost authority on the planet: what I meant when I said something. But please, by all means, engage me in an argument about a subject that you can have no information whatsoever save what I tell you.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | July 21, 2009 5:09 PM

By my inexact count, tsg has announced eight times that he's no longer interested in the conversation that he continues to engage in.

Posted by: tsg | July 21, 2009 5:14 PM

By my inexact count, tsg has announced eight times that he's no longer interested in the conversation that he continues to engage in.

Ooh, he can count. Too bad he can't read.

Posted by: Carlie | July 21, 2009 5:20 PM

Now we're down to justifying misinterpreting what I meant.

Well, no, that's the opposite of my point. If you say "house" and I think you mean "house", that's not a misinterpretation at all. If you meant to say "tent" then it's a miscommunication, but not a misinterpretation.

I think the other part of it is that you're saying that SC didn't respond to your questions even after you clarified them to mean what you meant to mean.(!) However, SC's answer is that those questions aren't useful to the subject at hand and don't further the discussion of entrenched sexism. That might well be an answer you want to argue with, but it's not a non-answer or a non-sequitur or a personal attack.

Posted by: Dania | July 21, 2009 5:20 PM

It seems I misunderstood what tgs wrongly wrote and by doing so, I understood what he actually meant*.

Of course it doesn't matter now. No one cares about this whole pointless exchange anymore. I certainly don't.

*Well, kind of. I'm still not sure if in his hypothetical scenario there was something inherent to women that made them not want to speak publicly, or if they did not want to speak because they were not being encouraged.

Posted by: Sastra | July 21, 2009 5:30 PM

Carlie #164 wrote:

Here's a list I just modified from the link I had earlier, cut down to people who were specifically known as skeptics.

Haven't looked it up, but just relying on my memory, the following women from your list have already been speakers at the last few AAI conventions:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali (last year's Dawkins Award winner; security wouldn't let her in the hotel, had to do acceptance speech over live video from 'undisclosed location')
Julia Sweeney (also Dawkins Award winner)
Nica Lalli
Ann Druyan (Dawkins Award winner)
Ellen Johnson
Lori Lipman Brown
Susan Jacoby

I'm not sure, but maybe Natalie Angier and Annie Laurie Gaylor also. Some of the others have spoken at TAM, but not AAI. And, of course, there have been other women who spoke at AAI who aren't on your list (Taslima Nasrim comes to mind, as well as past presidents Bobbie Kirkhart and Margaret Downey.)

Not intending to get involved here -- just some interesting info.

Posted by: Carlie | July 21, 2009 5:55 PM

Sastra - good to know that some of them are being asked. It was just a quick and dirty listing cobbled from a couple of the links to show a sample of the number of women who could be speakers, in response to the question as to whether there were a number of such women who existed. That kind of makes it even more of a question as to why there's so much skew, if it's not that organizers simply don't know who's out there.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 21, 2009 6:06 PM

YAM Scale: 7.5

Yawn.

Posted by: tsg | July 21, 2009 6:07 PM

Well, no, that's the opposite of my point. If you say "house" and I think you mean "house", that's not a misinterpretation at all. If you meant to say "tent" then it's a miscommunication, but not a misinterpretation.

Yeah, except I've said, "I meant tent" seven times and people keep saying "but you said house so that's what you meant."

And apparently, your answer to my offer is "no deal".

I am now officially stomping off in a huff, which will satisfy stogoe to no end, I'm sure. SC is now free to claim I never had an argument to begin with and continue to tell people she knows what I mean better than I do. Bill can read whatever the hell he likes into this depending on where I placed a comma, and everyone else can argue against a position I don't hold.

Have a blast.

Posted by: Andyo | July 21, 2009 6:17 PM

ohmygodohmygodohmygod...

FINALLY! Something going on in L.A. Closest thing to happen that I remember was the Origins conference, but those were a few talks in one afternoon. Mr Deity was there too, and they put on an act. Got to see Leonard Susskind, Ken Miller, Sean Carroll (physicist) and others anyway, but still... it wasn't atheist-fest and it was rather local and smallish.

Posted by: Carlie | July 21, 2009 6:34 PM

And apparently, your answer to my offer is "no deal".

Did I say that? No. For someone so upset about words being put into your mouth, you're doing an awful lot of the same. In fact, I then went on in the same post to try and clarify that SC then did respond to what you meant, but you somehow looked past that to keep complaining that you still weren't understood.

No, SC then said she didn't think your tent was important, and instead of arguing that point, you kept saying she didn't understand what your tent was. Bill already said in #187 that this was probably what was happening.

Posted by: Lynna | July 21, 2009 7:29 PM

Kausik @230: Glad you wrote to AAI and got their official word on the choice of Maher. Looks to me like they should amend their description of the award. It's not just "science and reason" as was pointed out above. The problem can be avoided in future if they broaden the definition.

Of course, there are better choices for the award, PZ being one. All in due time, I imagine.

Posted by: juno | July 21, 2009 7:35 PM

just for the record...never thought i'd admit to this...
but JESUS really turns me on. hot is an understatement...
sean douglas(jesus-mr deity), where are you? that armband tattoo really rocks....if jesus were really that sexy- i WOULD convert...or at least try to believe!

Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | July 21, 2009 8:17 PM

"However, we are recognizing him at our event for his ongoing contribution to exposing religious hucksterism and quackery, not for his contributions to science..."

No problem there.

My objection is that Maher is:

1) actively promoting irrational thinking, which,
of course, is a major problem with religion.

2) actively promoting actions (vaccination scaremongering)
which are harmful to the population at large,
again based on irrational thinking.

I think that this award, and the prominance that Maher has been given, is a HUGE blunder by the AAI and the RDF.

No, the award winner doesn't have to be "perfect". How about "not destructive"?

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 21, 2009 8:59 PM

[sigh]

Bill can read whatever the hell he likes into this depending on where I placed a comma...

No, the comma thing was someone else, as you well know, and I said all along that it was merely a distraction (though, from the POV of a professional editor... or anyone who cares about effective communication, really... nothing that distracts the reader is trivial).

What I pointed out to you — the distinction between the real and unreal conditional forms — is a structural semantic issue: It's critical to get it right if you want to be correctly understood.

I haven't engaged on the substance of the argument about sexism, but I've watched you complain over and over that what people are reading in your words is not what you meant... while all the while [a] refusing to recognize that your words didn't actually say what you say you intended to say and [b] continuing to say the words that don't say what you say you intended to say.

You can mock me as a grammar geek all you want, but your frustration in this conversation is entirely due to your inability to render your intended point in the the appropriate English syntax.

Well, either that... or you're just being a gratuitously argumentative twit. Who can say for sure?

Posted by: spaghettimonster | July 22, 2009 12:33 PM

And apparently, your answer to my offer is "no deal".

Did I say that? No. For someone so upset about words being put into your mouth, you're doing an awful lot of the same.

To be fair to tsg, it seems like that is the case, since you haven't answered that particular question. :)

In fact, I then went on in the same post to try and clarify that SC then did respond to what you meant, but you somehow looked past that to keep complaining that you still weren't understood.

Yeah... I guess what tsg meant was that people talking about sexism may be over-analysing it a bit too much.

AAI's convention last year had 8 women out of 20 speakers/workshop presenters. Not bad, I guess. Unfortunately I couldn't find the pages for the previous 11 conventions.

Here is a thought: this particular year, and compared to the same event last year, the organisation of the event prefered to pursue more a scientific undertone (considering the number of PhDs this year), instead of a political one.

Posted by: Obstreperous Anti-Theist | July 22, 2009 3:59 PM

Whether there is sexism or not in the convention's line up I think it's a fair subject for discussion and it's really disgusting for commenter who brings it up to be lambasted just for doing so.

Wow that was a long sentence. I stick by it. It's not "hysterical" or "irrational" to bring up a subject for discussion, people! Thank you. Now carry on. =)

Posted by: Angel Kaida | July 22, 2009 6:10 PM

Bill Dauphin, OM,
Can I just say that as an admitted grammar geek, I found your role in this conversation gloriously awesome?

I must add that as soon as I typed the preceding sentence, I scrutinized it for grammatical errors, and I'm now paranoid about the contents of this post.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 22, 2009 10:35 PM

All I ever tried to say before I had my real intentions explained to me was the problem I had with believing for a second that there is any intentional discrimination against women at work regarding the speaker selection.See the "what cock-forest" comment above my first one.

No one pointing to the gender imbalance on the list - either before or after your dismissive intervention - has made any claim of conscious discrimination. The comment "What a cock-forest! Surely there are more outspoken female atheists than just a paltry TWO???" certainly didn't. Seeing as English is not your first language, and taking into account that your ignorance has led you to make egregious errors in the past, you might want to consider that you misinterpreted that comment. You really should have considered that before responding.

Posted by: spaghettimonster | July 23, 2009 12:35 AM

Who was that?

Why! You of course, SC, OM. ;D

Here is a thought: this particular year, and compared to the same event last year, the organisation of the event prefered to pursue more a scientific undertone (considering the number of PhDs this year), instead of a political one.

Oh? Evidence?

Evidence? OK, before you jump down my throat. :P

The number of people presented as scientists in that list of speakers, compared to the list of speakers and workshop presenters of last year. It is not only that the convention last year had more women, it had more people from different walks of life. Capisce?

Which led to the 4:18 ratio how, exactly?

Actually, you said it yourself:

For months I've read here about the campaigns and actions of various organizations, including student organizations, in countries around the world and the challenges they're facing (and have noticed that a number of the people on the front lines are women).

I believe they count more as acts of activism than of science. Not that they are any less important.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 23, 2009 12:56 AM

Why! You of course, SC, OM. ;D

WTF are you talking about? I did not argue that. Nor did anyone, your winks notwithstanding.

Evidence? OK, before you jump down my throat. :P

The number of people presented as scientists in that list of speakers, compared to the list of speakers and workshop presenters of last year. It is not only that the convention last year had more women, it had more people from different walks of life. Capisce?

Yes, that's very deep. Dembski deep. Please describe the scientist/activist/gender equation you have in mind, defining your terms, because it's eluding this social scientist.

Actually, you said it yourself:...

Uh, no - you're an ignoramus looking to capitalize on any statement more nuanced than "Sexism!" without undertaking a genuine analysis.

Seriously, I think you need to give this shit up and just fucking acknowledge the obvious here. 4:18. It's a problem.

Or at least make an argument, rather than a vague allusion.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 23, 2009 1:31 AM

*considers replying to this dimwit*

*laughs*

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 23, 2009 12:37 PM

Argh! BLOCKQUOTE FAIL @258. I think it's actually obvious from context, but just for completeness, the phrase...

WTF?? ... What's wrong with people ?

...was a quote from Rorschach. I did have the tags there, but I must've made a typo in one of them.

Also, on re-reading I see that I made (absolutely predictably) at least one grammatical error in the process of explaining my personal policy about commenting on grammatical errors. 'Twas ever thus, no?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 23, 2009 12:44 PM

4:18. It's a problem.

For what it's worth, the 95% confidence intervals on that proprtion are 2% to 34%; it therefore really is untrepresentative of the population sex ratio (of atheists?).

Posted by: catsnjags | July 26, 2009 10:14 AM

damn you PZ....

your link to the convention convinced me to spend $'s that i shouldn't be spending with the economy the way it is.

however, i am in Mobile, AL (it doesn't get more "suthern" than that without gittin' wet) and the 15%/18% figures that I see nationally are WAY below that here. (at least in public). If I want to talk to a non-theist down here, I have to talk to myself!!

Can't wait 'til October!! (unfortunately the VIP tix are sold out!!)