Pharyngula

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | June 29, 2010 10:32 AM

I think it's the same problem women encounter in every area of public life: men (no matter how lefty and liberated they are) quite simply don't take us seriously. Until the overall culture changes, I don't think we'll see anything more than a sausage-party at most free-thought conferences.

Posted by: sgiffy | June 29, 2010 10:36 AM

I know lots of women skeptics and atheists but very few who would consider themselves part of the "movement".

I think unfortunately skeptics often have a reputation for being both somewhat sexist and not very good at relating to women. Sort of a 'nerd' like problem. I don't think that is a terribly accurate assessment anymore, but its certainly out there.

Also too the ranks skeptics tend to draw from, like the sciences, have historically been very male heavy. That is happily changing, but it is taking time.

I think one of the best of things we can do is to continue to give money and support to groups like skepchick so they can keep putting on great events that draw in women and men.

Posted by: lowlitmemory | June 29, 2010 10:39 AM

I'm not sure I'd exactly go as far as OurDeadSelves... but I do often find myself doubting whether or not I actually have something to contribute to a discussion, and therefore end up not saying anything at all. I would say that is down to my youth more than my gender, but perhaps there is something going on subconsciously?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 29, 2010 10:43 AM

The more I think of it, the thing comes down to money.

Women put a lot on the line when they step out of the ranks. And conventions have to bring in cash to get off of the ground.

Would a separate woman-focused convention actually draw enough cash? Would it draw enough people that women might feel safe coming out?

What would it need to have to draw women who are silent skeptics and get them to assert themselves despite the fact that they're facing more direct risk in doing so?

It would have to be a pretty powerful draw.

Posted by: trent1492 | June 29, 2010 10:45 AM

Is this the thread where we get to talk about male circumcision? Kidding!

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | June 29, 2010 10:48 AM

lowlitmemory:

I would say that is down to my youth more than my gender, but perhaps there is something going on subconsciously?

It's probably a little of both. But remember, society tells us that if we're aggressive or opinionated, we're bitches. That's a tough lesson to unlearn.

As far as what women should do if we had the helm: Not only should we be concerned with getting people of all genders into the movement, but we should also try to pull in non-sciencey types as well. We need a presence of artists, writers, historians, car mechanics, sales people etc. etc. Not only would that attract women, but it would also include the rational people who aren't necessarily middle-class and white.

Posted by: iknklast | June 29, 2010 10:54 AM

Realistically, as a female skeptic, I have met a great many other female skeptics. I think lowlitmemory is right on the mark. It isn't that we don't have anything to contribute; it's that we feel (not that male skeptics MAKE us feel) that we don't have anything to contribute. There was a similar article in this month's American Atheist; many of the women were expressing their deep conviction that the conversations were focused around "guy" things - logic, reason, politics, etc. I think part of the problem is female sexism - the determination among females that somehow or other, they want different things. Warm, fuzzy, pink things. I, and many of my female friends, would answer to that Bleck.

I don't think the answer is to have "female" sessions. It appears to me that exacerbates the problem - makes us look different, alien, peculiar, like we can't interact in a man's world. I for one wouldn't want to go to a "chick" oriented skeptical meeting, but love to attend conventions where the females and the males mix as equals, and there are high profile, female speakers such as Katha Pollitt and Jennifer Michael Hecht. We just need to begin to strut our stuff a little better.

I was brought up (in a fundamentalist home) to believe that a male disagreeing with me meant I was wrong. It took me a long time to get past that, and even now, I still have to remind myself when disagreeing with a male that I could possibly be right, and he wrong. It goes against my years of conditioning. Many of us, especially those of us Baby Boomer or older, were brought up similarly, and the messages we get from society are still very mixed.

I think part of the problem, as well, is that at some level, perhaps not intentionally, male skeptics understand this, and from time to time will utilize the mixed emotions that females have been struggling with to end an argument by using techniques of authority and power that kick back to that juvenile training we women underwent.

The real answer, I think, isn't to have a women's focus; the real answer is for all of us, particularly women, to cease the language that separates us, as though we truly had different interests. Many women are interested in the same things that men are - politics, philosophy, logic, etc - and many men are interested, at least some of the time, in child-rearing, cooking, etc.

As for how to get more women to the conferences, and into the groups? The women I know are notoriously short on time and money, even though they would like to do these things. Taking off work is tougher for women (believe me, I know); finding someone to sit with the rugrats is difficult and expensive; travel is difficult and expensive. Women make on average 80 cents to the male dollar.

Here's my suggestion: Set up a fund to help women be part of the mix. Offer child-friendly activites, day care, or some other way that they don't have to leave the little ones behind with an expensive babysitter (or a fundamentalist grandma). Offer scholarships for working women to enable them to attend.

There are a lot of women skeptics out there with a lot of talent we could tap into if we just understood the real problem: women are still doing most of the housework, working full time, and making less money. Women are interested in the same things as men, and not interested in being talked down to, or constantly "explained" to.

Posted by: Marie | June 29, 2010 10:57 AM

I just saw this on Barking Up the Wrong Tree the other day. Is belief in the paranormal a feminine trait? It would appear so.

http://www.bakadesuyo.com/is-belief-in-the-paranormal-a-feminine-trait

Posted by an apparently-not-very-feminine atheist feminist

Marie

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | June 29, 2010 10:57 AM

As for myself, time and money are a big issue. I'd love to be able to fly off to Copenhagen for a conference, but even if I used up some of my holiday hours, I couldn't afford it. And I don't even have kids that would require care if I were to go away.
Perhaps smaller conferences like Skepchicon in more places rather than one big one that requires a lot of travel.
I'm also a non-scientist. I love OurDeadSelves' suggestion of bringing together non-sciencey types (and that goes for scepticism and atheism in general, a more diverse crowd would do the whole movement a world of good).

Posted by: morigu | June 29, 2010 10:59 AM

As one of the 10% of women in computer science, my impression, based only on personal anecdote, is that the men of the department tend to spend a lot of time arguing with each other in a very belligerent fashion. Not because they actually are belligerent, that's just the fashionable style. For whatever reason, personality, socialization, I am very uncomfortable being anything other than polite, so I just tend to be quiet in these arguments and I think because of that I don't get taken as seriously.

Also, as an undergraduate, I had issues with a department chair making me very uncomfortable by looking down my shirt and telling me that I should be the secretary and copy down the notes on the board for the class (I was the the only woman in the department) so I got very uncomfortable being a visible active presence as a scientist or a skeptic, but I'm trying to get over that.

Posted by: Not Guilty | June 29, 2010 11:02 AM

Great post, thanks. It is very hard for me to put my finger on the problem because I have never let my gender determine my role in society. I am a law student, a typically male dominated profession. My undergrad was in psych, which is mostly women, but I specialized in cognitive psych, which is mainly men. I've never not done something because I thought it was just for the boys. Coming from that up-bringing, I sometimes fail to see how male-dominated things can be intimidating for women. I was known to my classmates in undergrad as "The Girl who talked in class". No joke. People from my 300+ student classes would come up and say that to me.

I think for many women it may have a lot to do with upbringing. They are taught their whole lives what their "place" is - just take a look at ads on TV for cleaning products. Women belong in the house. That can be hard to overcome. I, for one, will always speak my mind and to some extent, I think that scares most men I meet. So if a woman wants to get married and have kids, she has to fit into her role. I know there are men out there that don't require women to fit the mold, but I haven't found them. It just so happens that to me, speaking my mind and being me is more important than just about anything else. I know this may seem trite, but let's face it, women instinctively want a provider for them and their children, and bucking the system isn't going to get them that.

Not to mention, when women step out of the ranks, their appearance, marital status, child status, etc., is analyzed in minute detail. Case in point: Elena Kagan or Julia Gillard (new Aussie PM, who the right wing is up in arms about because she is 'godless, husbandless, and childless'). If men had to stand up to the scrutiny that women face for breaking ranks, they'd keep their mouths shut too.

Posted by: stompsfrogs | June 29, 2010 11:04 AM

I'd like to agree that calling the lack of female skeptics a "problem" will exacerbate the issue. Treat it as an anomaly. Skeptical organizers should put this anomaly in the back of their minds, and consciously include a female speaker in every conference. The rest of us shouldn't have to think about it. Just get enough role models, and I'm not talking about working female scientists. Shoot for celebrities, authors, those sorts. (No offense female scientists, but we're trying to draw in people from more varied backrounds, right?)

Kirsten Dunst would be a good place to start, if you can get her. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/06/kirsten-dunst-and-carl-sagan/

Posted by: lowlitmemory | June 29, 2010 11:05 AM

But also, I'm not talking about a separate, women-focused convention. I'm talking about a mainstream convention sponsored by one of the major atheist organizations for people of all sexes (or no sex) that addresses women's perspectives on any issue, not just gender, that should be of interest to all of us.

This I could go for. I've been to a couple of women-focused events in the past (like Ladyfest) but it just made me a bit uncomfortable... Like you say, the issues involved are generally of interest to both sexes. All men have female relatives, friends etc, and the attitude at women-only events can sometimes be a bit anti-male which puts me off since I've been raised to think the genders are EQUAL. But getting women's perspectives on issues which affect all would definitely be welcome.

Posted by: GAZZA | June 29, 2010 11:09 AM

ARGH.

That's http://tokenskeptic.org

(tokenskeptic.com redirects to something else. There is no excuse for this; I registered both domains. Blame me, not her).

Posted by: lowlitmemory | June 29, 2010 11:12 AM

I think the perception that the 'atheism movement' (or whatever you care to call it) is very confrontational is very off-putting to a lot of women

Posted by: podblack | June 29, 2010 11:17 AM

As you mentioned me in the blogpost, PZ - I've written in response to the matter several times on Podblack.com, mostly at: Skepticism, Women And Research, where I've tackled the issue of representation at conventions, amongst other issues.
Some of the more popular posts include:
Female Representation At Paranormal Research Conferences. :)

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 29, 2010 11:19 AM

Yep, non science here too. It was pretty much never an option for me.

I agree it would be a good idea to reach out toward the non-science crowd.

Also, as an undergraduate, I had issues with a department chair making me very uncomfortable by looking down my shirt and telling me that I should be the secretary and copy down the notes on the board for the class (I was the the only woman in the department) so I got very uncomfortable being a visible active presence as a scientist or a skeptic, but I'm trying to get over that.

And then there's this. We've almost all had to deal with this, pervasively... and the effect adds up.

Case in point - while the kids were at Camp Quest, my daughter and her friends who also went were shown in the video that went along with a nice little article The Columbus Dispatch did. So, I posted a link to the article on my friend's wall on Facebook to make sure she had seen her kids were in it.

This is what I'm talking about. The backlash against women for coming out is hard and fast. So hard that some women skeptics are likely to keep their "little secret" so as not to be seen as unfit mothers. Why do you think the first thing out of so many women's mouths is "I'm not a feminist..." after all?

These conferences are always held in large, showy, glittery places like San Francisco, Chicago, New York, etc. That is expensive and time consuming. Quit expecting we can pick up and go to those places (though I love it), and come to us for a change.

I like this idea. Hell, have one in Dallas! See what happens :/

But more seriously aren't most conventions held in cities like that to draw people in? So that it's sort of a vacation?

Maybe more like a small tour could reach out to a variety of communities that are likely to have people who just can't make it to a larger convention?

Posted by: te24hours | June 29, 2010 11:21 AM

Could it be that we tend to see more men in most of the outgoing vocal movements? I haven't done the stats, but I don't think the skeptical movement is alone in this. Most major gatherings of people who seek to promulgate their ideological agenda seem to be male-dominated. Whether religious, scientific, or even casual, like sports fandom.

Posted by: Arthur Taylor | June 29, 2010 11:22 AM

I had to post this, since it appeared in my feed at the same moment this post did: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/06/are_women_prone_to_paranormal.html

Got to love coincidence!

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | June 29, 2010 11:23 AM

Nineveh:

send out a memo: atheism - or at the very least, secularism - stands to benefit women more than men. A lot of social, economic, and cultural restraints on us have their root in religion. We will see more improvement in our social/economic mobility then men will, because we're more constrained by them. This should be an oft-repeated talking point.

Yes yes yes yes yes! I think we often don't think about atheism from this angle and we certainly don't publicize it enough.

I'm seriously tempted to mock up some fliers now.

Posted by: Annie | June 29, 2010 11:25 AM

I'm the president of the local humanist group. Around here, we have more women than men attending our atheist and humanist activities. Maybe it depends partially on having a woman leading.

Female speakers would be interesting, but then, I'm just as interested in hearing from many of the top male atheists. And child care is always good (although it seems to me that I've seen this offered at a number of conventions - I know of one at least where Camp Quest had a "mini-camp" that was cancelled for lack of interest). Maybe conventions just aren't all that interesting to some of us. Speaking for myself, I'd rather spend time at home with my family. I'm not really one for big group activities, especially when most of the group are strangers. As for the lectures and content - I can get that online. It seems like a lot of hassle to attend a conference (keep in mind, too that in most households all the arrangements and packing for the family will be done by the woman) for relatively low return.

Another issue for me is that I find atheist men (and some women) to be offensively rude and hostile toward religious people, and it makes me uncomfortable. I'm all for being rude and hostile to religion, but I try to remember that the people are a product of their upbringing and that brainwashing can be very difficult to overcome. Perhaps I'm defensive because it took me so long...But I do get angry when atheists insist that anyone who holds a religious worldview is virtually retarded. I graduated from college with honors and am a member of Mensa. If it took me most of my adult life to recognize that religion is not true, how much more difficult must it be for the average person who is brought up in a really repressive religion? Remember Dan Barker, anyone? Anyway...I digress...

I find increasingly that atheism has little to offer. Which is hardly surprising since it doesn't purport to be anything other than a lack of theism. I find humanism, and recently, though to a lesser extent, Buddhism, have more to offer me as a way of life and philosophy.

Maybe a humanist retreat, with spa treatments...hmmm...I could get into that. If I could just find someone to mind the farm for a few days.

Posted by: hillaryrettig | June 29, 2010 11:26 AM

some of the prior comments in this thread are about how women need to adapt to the rough-and-tumble culture of real argumentation, but maybe it's the culture that should change. you can debate vigorously without sacrificing respect and tolerance, and while welcome diverse viewpoints - Pharyngula itself exemplifies that.

Posted by: nathaniel.tagg | June 29, 2010 11:29 AM

I know I'm supposed to keep my trap shut, but let me just take this opportunity to recite the very good and appropriate Possum Lodge Man's Prayer:

I'm a man.
But I can change.
If I have to.
I guess.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 29, 2010 11:32 AM

I don't think male groups or men in general have this tacit understanding that "agreeing to disagree" and dropping any controversy which might be "hurtful," is the gold standard for how one should relate to others. I wonder how many female skeptics have adopted it, just from cultural habit. I don't know.

From the sound of it, a lot? So perhaps we need a softer side of atheism approach?

You'd lose my participation though.

I fucking hate that mess :/

No love for confrontational women in this world, eh? But if it serves the greater good...

Posted by: callipsofacto | June 29, 2010 11:33 AM

Wow, after a year of stalking, you finally got me to register and comment.

Before I was a skeptic/athiest, the idea that as a woman I was expected to 'shut up and play nice' in social situations was pounded in pretty clearly my entire life. I managed to overcome that training, but...

What's the #1 criticism against athiests, especially those terrifying "new" athiests? They won't shut up, and they won't play nice. To theists, a man refusing to do those things is annoying/disrespectful, but when a woman does it, it's unnatural. Terrifying.

So there's pressure in two directions. Internally, as a woman I am constantly fighting the internalized voice telling me to shut up and play nice. Externally, people who are plain ol' hostile to male athiests have a tendency to freak the fuck out about female ones.

I'm only slightly ashamed to admit, this is why for a long time I identified as a secular Buddhist rather than athiest. It just sounds nicer. Gack, saying that makes me feel icky.

Posted by: LenaGuinn | June 29, 2010 11:36 AM

OurDeadSelves

But remember, society tells us that if we're aggressive or opinionated, we're bitches. That's a tough lesson to unlearn.

In short - a lot of women don't like fight :-) And the atheist movement looks like Fight Club.

This is very true. I think the structure of female relationships often balances upon a non-confrontational tone. We don't want to be labeled as bitches, and we don't want to drive away any friends or family because of our strong opinions.

Also, a lot of people here have been saying that they don't speak out because they are not a scientist. I also feel that way. If you need more artists, I'll be there, but my interest in science is more of a hobby supported by GE classes in college and what I hear through podcasts or on lovely blogs like this. I feel, as it seems many do, that I am not experienced enough with the sciences to speak out or attend big events.

Posted by: iknklast | June 29, 2010 11:38 AM

Thanks, stompsfrogs :-)

One of the things I've noticed, and why I always hate questions like this - many of the responses, even by this well-educated, skeptical group - are the same pat responses I heard from my mother for years to "keep me in my place". Let me translate:

"Women aren't confrontational" - read: not good at business (and I find it not to be true among the women I know; most the men I know are LESS confrontational than the women, so show me data)

"Women don't like philosophy" - read: Not deep thinkers, only concerned with shallow, family-focused issues

"Skeptics are mean" - Read: Skeptics don't buy into the woo that other people like, and challenge them to think

"Women go to religous conferences, tarot readings, etc, more than men" - Read: women are gullible, and need to be led. Unfortunately, this last comment is all too true, but perhaps its because we're brought up to think we're soft, sweet, feminine airheads

As for women being at more religious events, I would note that most of these events give high rewards for attendance, often provide some sort of day care, and have all sorts of fundraisers to pay for them. Perhaps we need a group bake sale/garage sale? And, one BIG problem I see with atheists - we don't have pancake luncheons, bowling nights, movie nights, or pot lucks. Big mistake!

What I'm noticing here is the same as in other places, where sexism is expected: women are perceived, and perceive themselves, as something so drastically different from men as to be a totally alien culture. Not true. We want the same things: a decent life, a good job, a happy home, and a world that works out well for us and our descendents.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | June 29, 2010 11:40 AM

Ol'Greg:

I fucking hate that mess :/

Me too.

Women should play nice because that's what society tells us we should do? We should be soft spoken and non-argumentative? We shouldn't stand up and say "you're wrong," but find a happy middle ground instead?

Fuck that shit. I'm not an accomodationist.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 29, 2010 11:43 AM

We (Pharynguhorde) already put together a heavy, almost even comprehensive, list of ">online femiatheists last November.

Posted by: Lilie | June 29, 2010 11:43 AM

Great post. It would take a blog to answer anywhere close to completely how I see this issue. Undoubtedly there are far more men in the conferences than women. It seems like everything I get involved in has this problem. I remember going to a chess tournament and being THE ONLY female.
I just went to a student leader conference at CFI however, and there were a LOT of girls there. So then the question is, is this a generational thing that may be changing (I hope), or does something pull the girls away from the movement?
My suspision is that it is a little bit of both. I do think that things are changing in the younger generation of girls(I'm 33). I also think that girls will be pulled away when life hits. The question then becomes how do we stop this from happening, or at least happening disproportionately to women? Men can step up here. It has been my experience that when the children come, the women often grow up faster than the men. I would hope that skeptical families can do a better job balancing so that both can continue to be active.
Additionally, skeptical women need to be more active so that other women who are 'on the fence' can see that you can be a good person and an atheist.
Finally, we need to continue to tear away at the myth that you must raise your children religously in order to be a 'good person'. I know that I stayed in religion much longer than I would have because I had a daughter and I believed that I should give her a strong religious education. Moms want to be good moms and unfortunately they look at society to tell them how to do that. More effort on this area will have the additional benefit of bringing not only the mothers but the children out of the artificial constraints of religion.

Posted by: CW | June 29, 2010 11:45 AM

Women have more responsibilities than men. (Tough shit, it's true. Now go change those diapers, guys.)

Posted by: Sastra | June 29, 2010 11:47 AM

hillaryrettig #43 wrote:

you can debate vigorously without sacrificing respect and tolerance, and while welcome diverse viewpoints - Pharyngula itself exemplifies that.

Sure, but that only works when people are already on board with the idea of debate in the first place. Despite my usual habit of bending over backwards to be as non-threatening and polite and positive as possible, I've still been told, numerous times, that debate -- or anything like it -- is rude, bigoted, and confrontational. I am supposed to "share" my views, while "respecting" the views of others enough to not imply that I think they're wrong. Nobody is wrong, we only think differently.

This is more than a bit uneven, though, because it allows everyone else to tell their stories, anecdotes, and beliefs about the supernatural as much as they want, insisting that they KNOW this is all true, with emphatic nods and looks in my direction -- and somehow this is classified only as "sharing." My turn, I apparently get to say "well, I'll agree to disagree. But do tell me more."

Greta Christina has done a few entries on this issue, on her blog. Liberal women of spiritual persuasion see honest debate as hostile. You can't do it nicely enough. I have tried. Mr. Rogers on ludes wouldn't satisfy them.

Posted by: 24fps | June 29, 2010 11:48 AM

This was a great post, and it's always terrific to see a high-profile man be willing to listen.

I think skeptifem hits some right notes, but I think the lack of visible representation from women is a multi-faceted and nuanced problem. Women's lives are complicated. The way we have to interact with the world is needlessly complicated. Feminists are "feminazis" if we don't nod at the status quo every five minutes, we are still bearing much of the load of domestic life (although I am fortunate in that regard, I see that most women aren't) and there are times where even pointing out the males' unconscious expressions of privelege means you're just plain mean.

My perspective is as a non-scientist - I am a filmmaker and tv producer. I came of age in the '80s, and I recall very clearly that we girls were not encouraged to take up sciences - although we weren't entirely conscious of it at the time. Coming from a working-class background, my focus was just getting into university. So finding myself in an environment that fostered skepticism wasn't much of a focus.

I consider myself a skeptic, but coming from an arts background, I am hesitant to attend a conference because I regard myself as something of an outsider or anomaly. And on one level, I realize that this is kind of silly. But I also think that there are many skeptics like me, that think in those terms and do a lot of reading and agreeing and walk the walk without talking so much. Or talking differently and in different contexts, in my case. Being a woman with a full time career (sometimes more than full time) and a couple of kids and having aging parents, there's not a lot of time left over for much else. I've already pulled back from volunteer commitments that I used to make.

The most likely context for me to attend a skeptic's convention would be if I were making a documentary...

That said, I think the next generation is going to see more women coming to the fore. My daughters are already identifying as skeptics at age 9 and 12 respectively, both very interested in sciences and not afraid to leap into male-dominated activities. I suppose part of my walking the walk is to teach them fight the good fight. I also see this with many other women, those artsy mums who eschew the woo and airy-fairy "believe" stuff and teach our kids to THINK.

Who knows, maybe someday I'll find my way to an organized group... I'm certain that if I don't, my girls will.

Posted by: Tom S. Fox | June 29, 2010 11:52 AM

Off-topic — I found a poll on the website of a South-African newspaper that you might be interested in:

Glo jy in evolusie? (”Do you believe in evolution?“)

Ja, dis wetenskaplik bewys. (”Yes, it is scientifically proven.“ Currenty at 25%)

Nee, dis teen my geloof. (”No, it goes against my faith.“ Currently at 61%)

Ek is nie seker nie. (”I’m not sure.“ Currently at 14%)

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | June 29, 2010 11:54 AM

Alter the tone of the discourse, or encourage women to be more outspoken?

I'm sorry, but being "nice" doesn't get you anywhere. It is my great utopian dream to have a society where women don't feel like they have to shut up and listen to the menz or be the peace-keepers in every argument.

If being rude isn't you bag, that's great. But you can be assertive and still be polite. I just hate to see women back down because that's what's expected of us.

Posted by: Ben Goren | June 29, 2010 11:55 AM

I’ve made this point in the past with respect to the Taliban and their ilk. A non-trivial part of the reason for the poverty of the Afghan people is that they not only waste the potential productive output of half their population, but they also waste a significant amount of the resources of the other half in doing so. This is morally abhorrent precisely because it is so damaging to everybody’s best interests.

Here in the west, our kindler, gentler discrimination against women is less evil only in degree. Until women receive equal pay for equal work and are hired and promoted on an equal basis when they present with equal qualifications, our society cannot and will not live up to its full potential. We’re moving in the right direction, to be sure, but we still have a looooong way to go.

The astute will note that this applies to all other forms of discrimination based on anything other than actual qualifications and capabilities. My home state of Arizona, for example, is shooting itself in the foot by discriminating against those with built-in suntans. We would all be much happier and wealthier if we didn’t.

Cheers,

b&

--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''

Posted by: Rokkaku | June 29, 2010 11:58 AM

@69 OurDeadSelves: Thank you so much for that reply. It raised a smile (in a good way.) I agree totally with you that reinforcing the "be nice" role is distasteful...

... BUT I'm not speaking from a female perspective here, and I didn't feel it my place to simply pronounce it. I still want to know what practical effect altering the tone of argument would have. Would it encourage more women but dampen what we are trying to achieve? It's a tricky one.

Posted by: dezcrawford | June 29, 2010 12:02 PM

P.S. -- one reason I'm not big on attending conventions is that I am running two households (ours and my elderly mother) and running a business full-time. It takes a LOT of planning in advance even for a weekend getaway. And if I go by myself, I don't like the "after-session" mood at conventions -- no, I don't want to be hit on. No, I didn't leave my husband at home so I could get wild, I left him home because he has things to do and someone needs to mind the family. No, I didn't come here to get kinky, I came to listen to speakers. No, I'm not a prude, I just think random sex with just anybody is both tacky and a health risk, so it's not for me.

Posted by: Amber | June 29, 2010 12:04 PM

I've found a big problem with the atheist/skeptic community is the lack of community. I'm generalizing, but a lot of women like to talk, myself included. I need other women to talk to. If they aren't there I can't talk to them, and so I get bored.

But I'm working on changing that. Here's the link to our local humanist group, the Carpe Diem Society of BC (Canada). We're still getting things off the ground after it came to a halt from lack of interest. It's going to take some work, but hopefully with my female multitasking abilities we can fix it up and attract new (both genders) people.

Posted by: Cannabinaceae | June 29, 2010 12:04 PM

So, to turn the situation around, assume that women are the predominant caregivers-n-stuff as has been mentioned above, and that this explains their lack of equal meeting attendance. Further assume that caregiving-n-stuff is good and proper and we shouldn't strive to have less of it. If we then assume that the total attendance at these currently male-dominated meetings is a desirable number, then the solution is not to try to get more women to come to the meetings, but to get more men to take up a caregiving-n-stuff role, to afford women the opportunity to go.

To immediately go all contrarian on myself, my prediction would be that, if my suggestion were adopted, there would just be fewer people at meetings, where the sex ratio would be more equal, with an increase in caregiving-n-stuff (i.e. the caregiving-n-stuff women wouldn't take the opportunity to go to the meeting: they would revel in the amazing and unprecedented amount of male participation in the caregiving-n-stuff, and just do more and/or better caregiving-n-stuff).

Full disclosure: I'm a man, and I don't do caregiving-n-stuff, and I get all confrontational and aggressive and dominating in conversations, just like the stereotypes. and you probably wouldn't want me to try to behave in a caregiving-n-stuff way: not because I disapprove; I simply don't have the particular types of sympathy/empathy that would lead to decent caregiving. I 100% believe that women and men should have equal rights, which I think makes me a feminist by definition.

And yes, it probably is a good thing I'm not a parent.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | June 29, 2010 12:09 PM

I still want to know what practical effect altering the tone of argument would have. Would it encourage more women but dampen what we are trying to achieve?

It is a sticky wicket. My guess is that the younger atheist/feminist crowd is probably more outspoken by default-- I know I was raised at the very beginning of the "girls can to anything" parenting movement. I could be wrong, though. In fact, I totally hope that I'm proven wrong.

The concepts of having a "spa day" and a "ladies night out" that been flown on this thread totally churn my stomach. No, we aren't all silly women who are more concerned with hanging out with the girls than serious endeavors. What a way to reinforce the stereotype of women not being serious or intellectual.

Posted by: skeptiheidi | June 29, 2010 12:11 PM

PZ, talk to women who attend conventions. It is not just random skeptics. It includes some leaders.

There are known open creepy dudes high in the ranks.

Posted by: gabrielle.star | June 29, 2010 12:13 PM

Female atheists ARE OUT THERE!!! We just don't get as much as the publicity as the men. :-(

http://missinfidel.blogspot.com/

My blog, for instance.

Posted by: startlingmoniker | June 29, 2010 12:13 PM

I'm with #22-- I'm a house-husband, but her comment seems to fit my experience. These cons are always in some big city, expensive, and have no real draw for me. I'd have to find somewhere for the kids to be, pre-manage all the little details of running the house over a weekend, find transportation... heck, just getting a bathroom to myself can be difficult! The spa doesn't sound like my thing, but I can imagine a lovely free weekend spent reading a good book or watching a movie without interruptions!

#28 has the right idea: bring it to us.

Posted by: cha | June 29, 2010 12:15 PM

Wondering why there is a lack of female skeptics? Try looking at the lack of self-identified feminists. No, really, I mean it. As a recent graduate from the arts department at UBC I nearly cried at the number of women I met who refused to call themselves feminists, let alone the incredible lack of women who are willing to stand up and be counted in class discussions.

Do I scare you because I'm loud, and brash, or do I scare you because I have an opinion?

Women are taught to be passive and if you're not, then you're going to suffer for it and sadly I've received the most flack from other women. I don't play nice and there's nothing wrong with that because I don't take things personally.

You disagree with my opinion, that's your right, but you better have a good defence because I won't accept the wishy-washy--it's all subjective view.

Okay, so maybe that sounds a bit harsh, but to be honest, I'm often pinned as a 'mean' person by female acquaintances because I like to debate, it's strange because I've had similar debates with close male friends and they have never accused me of being hateful or mean.

When it comes down to it I know that I'm not a 'mean person' but I am a 'bad girl' in many women's eyes for liking to question other people's opinions or beliefs. Ask that naturopathic friend HOW one of her 'tests' works--no you can't do that because she just knows that it does, therefore it must work, right?

By the way, it's not just women who like the woo, I've got an otherwise bright male friend who wants to go to medical school who just told me last night that he's considering naturopathy instead...sigh.

Posted by: 24fps | June 29, 2010 12:15 PM

@Not Guilty --

You know, some of us are capable of critical thinking AND getting down on the floor to play with a toddler -- get this: SIMULTANEOUSLY. Cool, huh?

What's really great is that it tends to rub off on the tikes.

Not that I'm pushing parenthood -- it's a deeply personal choice that should not be made lightly, and is absolutely not for everyone. But if you could just condescend to us parental units a little less, that would be much appreciated.

Posted by: pdblack | June 29, 2010 12:17 PM

I read you quite often, pz, but I missed this call for links. Puck sent me over.

Here's mine: the id, the ego, and the single misfiring brain cell (the inner life of a hard atheist, flaming liberal, chronic student, and literature lover with spotty social skills, aberrant beguilements, and a houseful of cats). I write about whatever bug is up my butt at the moment, but I recently did a post on my atheism.

d

Posted by: cinnamon | June 29, 2010 12:17 PM

Another homogametic non-blogger here. I absolutely agree that lower-wages mean less opportunity to spend on atheist interests or even on developing atheist interests. Not to mention that the less money you have, the less you have to spend on camps and pins and bumper stickers -- you know, the sort of things that spark conversations about atheism or simply announce your own. But more than that, I think that woo has been historically empowering for women. So many outlets for social activism among women started out as or were funded by church groups with outside interests.

Want your local atheist club to attract and keep more women? Don't spent every meeting discussing how silly religion is over pizza. Go biking, to the movies or the beach. Sponsor volunteer activities, BBQs, and poker games, and invite the public. Start an atheist choir that sings only sciency songs or a sports team (seek donations from local businesses?) to play against church teams. Start a book club and read fiction, not just Dawkin's latest book. (Sample challenge: Try and find atheist themes and main characters in romance novels or fantasy. Not just church-free but magic/fate/spiritual-free themes.)

One of my favorite church groups in college had a weekly rosary dinner party. How about turning that into a woo-free party? Take turns making dinner for your friends and present woo-free news articles while the food is being prepared.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 29, 2010 12:19 PM

Im speaking at the Texas Freethought Convention this fall in Dallas.

Seeee?

lol

I'll be there as an attendee on Saturday. Can't do Friday as I'm out of vacation time this year. Trying to get my mommy to go too.

dezcrawford: now you make me worry. I've never noticed that at these conventions...

PZ... are you kidding me? Seriously. The sad thing is the social side is important for networking.

I'm good at dealing with that, but at a cost to my sense of myself as a group member and not as a group infiltrator.

Posted by: gettingfree | June 29, 2010 12:20 PM

I agree with PZ's idea that this would need to be part of a larger atheist conference. To do a separate conference would just reinforce atheist women not commingling so well with atheist men, I think.

I agree with women here who have stated that we women are culturally brainwashed to think that males are probably 'right' and we are 'wrong'. I myself constantly fight this internal battle, even though I have a lifelong history of feedback that I am quite intelligent and level-headed.

The men were asked to listen in this thread, but one thing that comes to mind as I am writing this is that it might actually be nice to have a separate thread in which we could hear from men who share PZ's willingness to listen to women in a respectful way. To have men come forward with open support of women in the atheist community. I know it's not a conference suggestion, but I think that women need to know that maybe there are many men who are interested in finding out how better to integrate us into the atheist community?

Also, perhaps PZ could have female-friendly threads from time-to-time where he calls off male negativity to build the type of environment that could get the momentum going for a women's segment at an atheist conference? Maybe threads highlighting atheist women? Or even how secular community is good for the things that are important to women as a previous poster mentioned?

Posted by: carolyn.macleod | June 29, 2010 12:22 PM

Hmm, the thing I've found in majority-male groups like skeptics' groups is that they're pretty full of people who talk loud, interrupt, and make every conversation an argument. Now, as a woman, I realize I've been socialized not to use that conversational style. Sometimes I don't think I can win. I try to argue that way, and I feel both that the substance of my opinion doesn't come across well, and that suddenly I'm considered a bitch, more than the men are considered jackasses. Or I try to speak assertively but not argumentatively and get lost in the noise. So I shut up and leave quietly.

Then there's the occasional, unchallenged sexist statement. (It's amazing how many men have never met a single competent female engineer) Or assumption that we're all men who date women, (and of course slightly dirty jokes are fine). Or we all have stay-at-home wives who take care of all family obligations. Maybe most of the men don't believe these things, but if they aren't challenged, they set the tone.

Oh, and don't get me started on the men who notice "attractive female" and get a slightly creepy personality transplant, and act "nice". It becomes very obvious when a partnered/gay/older/larger woman doesn't get the same treatment at all.

I'm in Computer Science, have a math degree, worked in engineering, and have been in the army reserves, so I'm used to being in majority male groups. Small things seem to make a huge difference, but mostly at least a critical mass of the men involved need to be willing to see things from a feminist perspective.

Tiny changes in tone mean many more or less women hired/attending/contributing/whatever. A couple unchallenged dirty jokes at an IT industry event I was at meant all the female undergrads didn't come back the next month, or ever. Of course, most of the organizers keep wondering why women aren't interested in IT (facepalm).

Posted by: Randomfactor | June 29, 2010 12:25 PM

Embarrassed, I now see I miscounted and only three of eleven speakers were female at SkeptiCal 2010.

Posted by: skeptiheidi | June 29, 2010 12:27 PM

I keep forgetting to add the link to the blog:

http://shethought.com

Posted by: lowlitmemory | June 29, 2010 12:27 PM

PZ:

I see comments along the lines of "women are more X" or "women don't like X" or "women need to be more X".

But suppose some of these are (partly or mostly) true. For example, it might be quite reasonable to think "women tend to be less confrontational", for a variety of reasons which have been touched on above. If we don't acknowledge this, won't that lead to us not having a full understanding of the factors which lead to the lower representation/visibility of women amongst the atheist community? And therefore hinder us from doing something about it?

Posted by: ForgotMyGingko | June 29, 2010 12:28 PM

First, I'm too busy. Seriously - I'm a one-armed paper hanger and stopping for a conference just never seems to work out. I'm a teacher and business owner .... all after being wife and mother. That's FOUR full time jobs if you're keeping count.

Second, even in as lovely a group of men as we get here - being seen as an equal is tough. There's a lot of posturing, chest beating and pissing out territory to contend with. It comes down to "how much energy am I willing to expend?" See the above reason and it pretty well sums things up. I don't NEED in on the pissing contest, I don't WANT in on the pissing contest.

Even if you DO get in on the pissing contest, 9 out of 10 times you're branded a bitch, overly-emotional, or seen as a creature to be looked after and dismissed summarily. But that phenomena isn't relegated to a skeptics - that's the real world - and its up to the individual woman to pick when and where its worthwhile to wade in.

Posted by: violingal | June 29, 2010 12:29 PM

PZ, first, thanks for this post. As one who is not a scientist and also not keen on argument for argument's sake, I have never commented here; but I've read your blog daily for years.

I agree with dpattersonmonroe that the "organization", for lack of a better word, is more confrontational than what my life can take (my family and family-in-law are devoutly Southern Baptist - almost all the men on my husband's side are pastors - and I would rather live and let live than fight with them all the time. Not to say I condone their ideas at all; I would just rather avoid further evangelizing by facebook, text message, etc.). However, I don't know what to do about that other than wait for a gradual change as things balance out. Of course, maybe this is a less than optimal approach and some other women have more insight.

Also, I second the idea for funding/scholarships and conferences in smaller cities when possible. Childcare would be helpful for many I know. It seems logical that atheist and skeptic groups be the first to do something about this problem. And, as a working musician trying to support a husband through his 6th degree, I hope it happens. Now I'm off to pester AAI.

Posted by: iknklast | June 29, 2010 12:31 PM

"That's interesting. A ladies night out makes women feel unserious or unintellectual, but when the guys go out to a bar for a beer afterwards, it doesn't?"

Bingo. "Chick flicks" vs. "action films". "Hen party" vs. "stag party". "Let's have 'tea" vs. "Miller time!". Is it the women who make it so, or the men? Or both (which is what I suspect). Time to change the language, not necessarily the activities. I've had a number of social luncheons with women where we discussed science, philosophy, and politics, and never once mentioned kids, diapers, or soap operas. Still, we were perceived as "girls night out". Perhaps if we could refrain from the juvenile noun, it might help some.

(Sorry, all, but I'm not a regular poster, and I have no clue about block quotes - you'll have to take me as I am)

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 29, 2010 12:33 PM

Oooh, tell me about it in IT. I almost never go to work related conventions without my male coworkers. Some of them truly never had the chance to see the difference in treatment up close.

It's amazing.

Then there's the occasional, unchallenged sexist statement. (It's amazing how many men have never met a single competent female engineer) Or assumption that we're all men who date women, (and of course slightly dirty jokes are fine). Or we all have stay-at-home wives who take care of all family obligations. Maybe most of the men don't believe these things, but if they aren't challenged, they set the tone.

It would be nice, even for an argumentative person like myself, not to have to get deeply embroiled in an argument with random men... see what I mean?

So if some one doesn't speak up maybe some women just don't come back, and if some one does speak up then they ruin it for everybody by derailing things with feminist rhetoric.

This is the struggle I find myself in regularly although I'm usually deeply embroiled in the argument before I see the trap because... I... just argue.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | June 29, 2010 12:34 PM

For what it's worth, I am an artist who dips into the skeptical waters from time to time in my. I write plays. While they are not overtly "feminist" or "skeptical" or "atheist" most of the time, I write about what I understand, so those themes come through. My audience is often quite small (I was being produced in a small, controversial theater in a conservative town not known for its theater scene), but it's still an audience. Just doing my part.

I don't know if hosting a theater/arts/music festival geared toward atheist artists would alienate or empower, but it is certainly worth investigating. As others have said, the arts are more approachable to a broader range of people than the technical science stuff is. The arts are a way to present methods of critical, skeptical thinking that do not alienate those without technical expertise. It doesn't have to focus on women, per se, but anything that broadens appeal will most likely increase the female ranks.

As for my personal experience with the problems of female atheist perception, I've often been told that I am a surprising person because I "seem sweet" but I'm also "confrontational." As if those two were mutually exclusive somehow. It takes a lot of patience to stick it out through discussions because I know I'm expected to back down once disagreements become evident. I stand my ground most of the time, but sometimes I just don't have the energy. Being nice, pretty, and domestic* all get canceled out when I refuse to change my position without sufficient reason to do so.

Honestly, I don't see a way out of that in my lifetime.

*I'm a stereotypical 1950s housewife by any number of metrics. Except that whole godless atheist, science-loving, feminist bitch thing. And being unmarried.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI | June 29, 2010 12:37 PM

Male here, finding this discussion fascinating.

Am I wrong to think that perhaps PZ is in search of a solution for which there is not a problem?

There are a lot of atheist women. OK.

Of those atheist women, many or most don't attend conferences about atheism. OK.

And this is a problem for the atheist woman, how?

My sister-in-law is an atheist. She would no more attend an atheist convention as ... well, I can't find the appropriate analogy, lets just say the thought of doing that would never cross her mind.

She (and my similarly atheist bother) raised both their kids as areligious - except for the exchanging of presents at Christmas (ie, cultural Christianity). To my niece -- who is 32, married and terrific in every way -- life is not about her lack of belief in god. It's like an appendix. There, but not something you're aware of unless it gets you into trouble.

I think the best thing you can provide those women are support systems that allow you to be OK with your atheism and the knowledge that you're not alone. But otherwise, get out of their way and don't expect them to attend "meetings".

[BTW: And I know I'm going to get slammed for this, but those meetings sorta sound like 'church' to me. An association of like-minded individuals having their own beliefs reinforced in a group setting?]

I think the real issue is not convention attendance, hierarchy on the speaker list, etc, but finding ways to normalize atheism in every day life. In other words, to provide the support mechanisms that allow atheists of all genders to 'come out' as normal, everyday, non-baby-roasting members of society, who work and mow the grass and pay taxes and have fun exactly like (well maybe not EXACTLY like) our theist neighbors.

Posted by: Tony | June 29, 2010 12:39 PM

I'll tell you what won't work on a local level (from experience): having your Atheist/skeptic group form an intentionally insular "women skeptics only" sub-group that doesn't allow male members to attend. The effort crashed and burned (people stopped going) for reasons my dumb man-brain is probably too ignorant to understand.

Point being, it seems that artificially inverting the female numbers by further segregation isn't going to help the issue either.

Posted by: CW | June 29, 2010 12:41 PM

@CW, stats show your family is the exception, not the rule.

Women generally have more responsibilities than men because child-rearing duties tend to fall upon them.

Women have more responsibilities than men. (Tough shit, it's true. Now go change those diapers, guys.)

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | June 29, 2010 12:44 PM

Am I wrong to think that perhaps PZ is in search of a solution for which there is not a problem?

Possibly. Which is probably why PZ asked the question (rhetorically, obviously, since he was prompted to it by female voices already highlighting problems). It would be stupid of us to assume that low female attendance is simply due to then not wanting to be there, and especially so if that assumption masked real barriers.

It isn't for us males to say.

I will shut up now.

Posted by: originaldoodles | June 29, 2010 12:46 PM

Religion depicts the female experience as noble. It is the noble duty of women to raise kids and obey her husband. Once we leave religion, we're still stuck living in a society which treats us badly without the cushion of belief that this is all part of god's master plan.

Posted by: ButchKitties | June 29, 2010 12:48 PM

I think part of the problem is that when women are vocal, confrontational, interested in the sciences, funny, etc. - they are perceived as being like men. It's never seen as evidence against the common perception of women. Women who deviate too much don't buck any trends because they aren't really women. They're men who happen to have vaginas.

I couldn't even begin to count the number of times that my male friends have told me, "You're practically a guy," and meant it as a compliment.

Posted by: florakinz | June 29, 2010 12:51 PM

I consider myself a radical atheist and skeptic. I guess I wasn't really aware of the women problem until reading this post, since I considered women to be just as capable of skepticism, but it certainly is there. I really appreciate this timely post since I have been considering starting my own blog, although I haven't had time to do the writing yet...so I don't have a link. :)

Well, ok, so what do I do with my time instead of being active in the atheist movement, which I would really love to do? Let's see. In a little while, after I finish coffee, I will do the dishes. Then I will do the laundry. Then my son will probably need some attention. Then I'll do general picking up, and sort out my son's clothes so I can give some to a friend's son. Then I will take him out to get some exercise, if it doesn't get too hot. Then I will give him antibiotics to treat the tick bite he got last week. Then I will work on a sculpture, (I carve wooden dolls on the side) to try to earn money for his school fees. In my town in Massachusetts, full-day kindergarten costs us $4200 a year at public school. Half day is free-- 6-9 whole hours a week. We're having trouble meeting the fees since I was laid off from my job in computational linguistics in January. Oh, yes, and later I will drive to the town office to pay that bill.

Tomorrow, I will take care of two of my friend's children, so that her husband can go to work at a temp job. She's been supporting her family since he lost his job and he picks up work where he can, while caring for his kids most of the time.

Sometime today, I will call another close friend to find out if she needs any help with her four kids, since she is usually overwhelmed in summer.

My point is, my husband's industry demands 60-80 hour workweeks and has become more abusive than ever since the tech bubble in 2000-2001, and since the recession last year. So, I spend my time taking care of my son. And the idea of taking money out of our family budget to attend a conference is ludicrous, even if I had time to come up with something to say at such an event.

And please, please, no answers of 'well, why did you have kids if you didn't want to take care of them?' That gets so old.

Here's my connection to the atheist/skeptic movement: listening to anything about atheism that comes out on Audible, (I can listen while I do housework), having long conversations with my five year old son about how magic isn't real, and god is a weird kind of magic some people believe in... and commenting on blogs like this.

Unfortunately, visiting any on-line discussion can be pretty depressing, because no matter where you go, there's guaranteed to be some level of woman-bashing, even if it's just a comment or two. Sometimes I just don't have the mental energy to face the same-old-shit. It's a catch-22 for me, (just finished Hitch-22, excellent book), because I believe strongly in free speech, but it gets so depressing when so much of that speech displays men and women's internalized contempt for women.

Posted by: johnlil#0a224 | June 29, 2010 12:53 PM

Two suggestions forwarded on behalf of my quietly atheist wife: She says:
A) Many woman don't want to rock to boat, and,
B) Wife says science is hard for her, and science seems like the opposite of religion.
Sounds reasonable to me, but then I'm just a guy.

Posted by: Rokkaku | June 29, 2010 12:54 PM

@108:

The idea that these are "guy things" might be 75% of the problem right there.

Indeed. I couldn't agree more. Same with (as OurDeadSelves excellently put it) a woman's role being that of being "nice."

But as I said earlier... do we fight these (mis)conceptions or try to make the best of them? That's the tough part. Try to uproot too much conventional thinking and you'll alienate a lot of people, no matter how right you are ;)

Posted by: irenedelse | June 29, 2010 12:55 PM

Great blog post, PZ! And a welcome opportunity.

If we are listing female skeptics, don't forget Harriet Hall, a.k.a. The SkepDoc, and co-founder of the blog Science-Based Medecine. There's also Karen Stollznow, best known today as one of the hosts for Point of Inquiry. She also blogs at Bad Language and is also a co-host of the podcast MonsterTalk.

And any list of female atheist bloggers should include Stephanie Zwan, of Almost Diamonds and Quiche Moraine.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 29, 2010 12:58 PM

Wife says science is hard for her, and science seems like the opposite of religion.

Ha! I knew false dichotomy was at the heart of it. Oh how I loathe that concept. It seems to be one of the deep philosophical failings of our time.

Yin and fucking Yang.

Posted by: iknklast | June 29, 2010 12:59 PM

Couple of comments from above: I realize that to many people, these conventions seem like "church", but for those of us who live dangerously (i.e., the Bible Belt), they can be the only way to connect with people with whom you can have a conversation that doesn't include the words "Jesus loves..." or "God created....". That was reinforced for me over this weekend, during a visit with my dad, who managed to work in the creator god he believes in no less than 7 times each day over his 3 day stay. In short, we are in diaspora, and we need the contact. For those who live on the coasts, it might not seem as necessary, but I honestly didn't know the name of another atheist until I read about Michael Newdow. The moment was wonderful for me, though I knew there were other atheists, finally knowing one by name.

#133: Science is hard for her, but that shouldn't be made to apply to all women; I am a scientist, and I heard my whole life from my mother about how women who are scientists are lesbians, abnormal, or some sort of male/female mutant. Science might be hard because so many teachers presented it (as they did to me) as too hard for women.

Posted by: caseyhov | June 29, 2010 1:02 PM

I've been talking to my girlfriend about the idea of her starting a blog, and she always says that she would rather not deal with the internet chiming in on her views of it.

Honestly, I know a lot of people who are smart, specifically don't blog or get active in it because of how similar it can be to banging your head against the wall when your opponents are Christians.

Posted by: jonathon.j.smith | June 29, 2010 1:04 PM

The girl that writes this blog is an atheist I think ...

http://mapmaker-girl.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Randomfactor | June 29, 2010 1:09 PM

The problem PZ is talking about is not a problem for atheist women, it's for atheism as a whole (if there is any such thing). Like the Taliban, we're apparently creating an atmosphere where the insight and talents of arguably the better half of the race are being excluded or marginalized. Whether making things more inclusive would make things easier for the prototypical female atheist I cannot say. But it would increase the chances that *SOMEONE* at the conventions would be right.

Seems to me that if you want to foster female participation in atheist gatherings, you should do it *AT* Camp Quest or in conjunction with, and make tracks for the kids to participate too.

Posted by: Xplodyncow | June 29, 2010 1:11 PM

Well, I'm just some chick editor* in marketing for Big Pharma, with a (useless) master's degree in English. And now that you couldn't possibly think any less of me, here's my two cents.

Change the perception.

From the outside looking in, conventions (etc) appear to be gatherings for nerdy old white men to do nerdy old white things. Why the hell would I want to waste my precious free time and discretionary income on THAT?

Instead of skepticism (or atheism or some other -ism) being seen as a destination -- an expensive one -- it should be portrayed as a part of one's life.

Short of hiring an expensive ad agency, I'm not sure how to launch a massive campaign to change the public's perception of atheists. Grassroots effort, maybe?

-- Heather

* This admission guarantees there will be typos and other errors in my post.

P.S. I'm going to TAM8 next week for my birthday (the big 3-0!). AAI in Burbank was my first "nerd convention" -- and I was surprised by what a great time I had. Who knew?

Posted by: Mandukhai | June 29, 2010 1:15 PM

Reading through these comments, I suddenly wonder whether the dynamic noted by many of the posters (men being raised to be more confrontational and outspoken, women conditioned to sit back and listen) is repeated even on enlightened, non-patriarchal sites like this one. How many of us (women) tend toward lurking more than posting? I've noticed a few self-identified first time female posters in this thread, and I've been lurking daily for six months (to the detriment of the work I need to get done) but have only posted three or four times.

Regarding participation at conferences: I attend academic conferences in my field, but as a single parent I would not travel very far to attend a meeting of skeptics. On the other hand, I fully agree with the posters who have noted that the religiously inclined are MUCH better than we are at creating local, weekly kinds of community and that is something I would definitely be interested in. I even took my daughters to the local Unitarian church a few times so we could participate in the social aspects, until they complained that during the children's activity time "They talked about God even though you said they wouldn't," so that was the end of that.

I think that we could easily use the power of the internet to facilitate more local potlucks, movie nights, etc., which over time might lead to carpooling to regional speakers or single day conferences. In other words, I'm suggesting a grassroots, bottom-up model rather than a top-down approach.

Posted by: gooseofserenity | June 29, 2010 1:18 PM

These posts always intimidate me because I really don't have any real ideas on what to do about the whole problem. A problem for me is that as much as I'd absolutely -love- to go to these events and participate and really get involved, I can't afford to. I don't even have a passport, so unless it takes place in the UK, I'm stuffed. But that's got nothing to do with me being a woman, just poor.

The only perspective I can really offer is that I think skeptics should be making more of a big deal about the fact that freethought is ultimately a fantastic liberating tool for women, and that being involved is a really good thing for everyone.

I think that often I'm intimidated out of these discussions because I feel that my identity is going to be considered invalid (due to being a trans woman) which really makes me feel awkward to contribute to 'womens' discussions. At best I feel as though I'm hijacking it (like I do right now), at worst I feel like a non-person entirely.

Posted by: Ophelia Benson | June 29, 2010 1:22 PM

tell me what these stupid male-dominated conventions have to do to correct the imbalance

Try a whole lot harder to get more women up front. Not one of them has ever invited me, for example, and I daresay that generalizes to other mouthy atheist women. If Katha Pollitt and Polly Toynbee can't make it, then keep asking until you get women who can make it, even if that means going down the list to unknowns like me. Don't just invite a few stars and let it go at that when that means women are still outnumbered four to one.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | June 29, 2010 1:26 PM

I think that often I'm intimidated out of these discussions because I feel that my identity is going to be considered invalid (due to being a trans woman) which really makes me feel awkward to contribute to 'womens' discussions.

Not at all! I'd personally love to see more LGBT folk speaking up/speaking out about the atheist/skeptic movements.

Just like the point that was made about rational thought benefiting women, it actually benefits all people, no matter what their sexuality/gender/identity is. So many of societal hatreds aimed toward people who aren't hetero-normative comes from religious indoctrination.

Posted by: Teshi | June 29, 2010 1:28 PM

@156 (me) Link fail! Link.

Posted by: Sal Bro | June 29, 2010 1:31 PM

I think the main reason that women remain a vocal minority in atheism* is due to low recruitment of women into atheism, in general. As sgiffy said way back in comment #3:

[T]he ranks skeptics tend to draw from, like the sciences, have historically been very male heavy. That is happily changing, but it is taking time.

I see other problems (cultural, interest) as being secondary to the recruitment problem. For example, I disagree that issues related to gender stereotypes play a primary role in discouraging female atheists from being active in the movement:

Many women are so indoctrinated into being "nice" and not saying anything "offensive" that they avoid speaking up publicly, or even in their families, because we were raised NOT to initiate a guaranteed heated discussion.

Maybe I just surround myself with assholes, but I have plenty of female friends who love to argue and be offensive. Sadly, very few of those women are atheists or have had much exposure to skepticism, in general. Among them, as the token atheist, I'm the quiet, reasonable one (not that that is really a bad thing--establishing myself as "reasonable" means I don't have to shout as loudly to be heard), but that doesn't stop me from being active with atheist groups.

This gets at the underlying point that I also don't buy that, to be an active atheist, you have to embrace belligerence. Atheist internet hangouts like Pharyngula prefer substance over style and, so, leave tone up to personal preference--you're equally free to say "fuck you sideways" as "I disagree with you", as long as you follow your statement with a well-reasoned "here's why". Both styles can be persuasive, and, I've learned, both have their place. Also, both styles seem to be used on Pharyngula with equal effect by men and women.

In meatspace, it's a whole different ballgame. I'm not "out" as an atheist to my family (although I've all but said the word) for reasons that have been echoed by many people on this board--lack of desire to deeply hurt them for no apparent gain, primarily. Everyone, regardless of sex, faces discrimination for being atheist, and judging from comments here, I doubt that many male or female atheists regularly go around IRL telling religious people to fuck themselves sideways.

* You may also substitute "skepticism" and possibly "secularism" for "atheism" throughout.

Posted by: Teshi | June 29, 2010 1:38 PM

Oh, now it works and also I see what I was doing wrong.

*facepalm*

Posted by: Azkyroth | June 29, 2010 1:54 PM

Who buys Bob Barker's book for children, "Just Pretend" if not mothers?

Fathers? *checks Amazon*

Posted by: 24fps | June 29, 2010 1:56 PM

Hmm. Perhaps it's not the lack of spa treatments so much as there is more of a focus on those in the sciences, and women are under-represented in that field. Perhaps opening up to more non-scientist skeptics as speakers would be a benefit. In other words, perhaps building a more multi-disciplinary event would attract a broader group, including more women would be the ticket.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8nuEGr2AboPw3B5JlVHLruh87cSf2gi4 | June 29, 2010 1:58 PM

When my husband (agnostic) and I (atheist lady) got married, he talked about how the one thing he did miss about the church he'd left as a child was the sense of community, and tried to hint that he wouldn't mind joining up with a church again to get that group feeling back. (I flatly refused. I told him it would be rude to the church janitors to make them clean up the char marks every week when my footsteps burst into flame.)

It is one thing I would really love which we don't have in our neighborhood: an atheist community group. Somewhere I could go, on a weekly or monthly basis, and hang out with other critical thinkers. Somewhere I could bring my daughter so she could spend time with other non-theist adults and kids. "Community" is one thing the theist groups do very well -- meeting up every week with other people who live near you and have ideas similar to yours.

The only person who is horrified that I'm completely unapologetic about being a "loudmouthed, confrontational woman" (which means I will say what I think whether the group, or the MEN, agree with me or not) is my mother-in-law, who thinks I'm a snotty bitch. I am okay with that. :) She's still despondent about my atheism, but she's never tried to convince me to have my daughter baptized or any such fool thing because she knows I'll bite her head off without blinking.

--Lauren Ipsum

Posted by: Classical Cipher | June 29, 2010 2:03 PM

Atheist new-feminist woman chiming in here:
Don't attend conferences due to lack of funds and the lack of will to go to any event alone, especially when the event involves large groups of people. Also, I would find an all-female group crazy intimidating, whereas a male-dominated group would be okay only if there was an absolute guarantee of being neither hit on nor talked over. (Reasonably equally-divided group would be fine.) I would feel most comfortable in an environment that was dedicated to action, I think, in an area where I could actually contribute in a meaningful way. Lectures and such are great for learning, but I don't tend to get into the social scene, and I wouldn't pay/inconvenience myself and others by traveling just to learn something I could probably find online.

Posted by: Jennifurret | June 29, 2010 2:05 PM

I just wrote a huge post but my iPod decided to delete it, fuckmuffins. Anyway, short version:

1. www.blaghag.com and I have a link on the main page with a list of female atheists. Can someone post it here?

2. Us women seem to be in a lose lose situation. If you embrace sex or like dressing sexy, people (men AND women) assume you're using that to make up for a lack of intelligence. If you don't, men treat you like a humorless fuddy duddy. Both of these stem from the attitude that us women are hanging around as dating fodder, not intellectual peers. It's off putting regardless of a woman's personality (aggressive and outspoken vs more reserved etc).

That being said, I think that's a human problem, not a skeptical one. I've actually felt much more comfortable in atheist circles, even though they aren't perfect.

Posted by: ashleyfmiller | June 29, 2010 2:07 PM

I get really upset when I look at threads like this and people are insisting that the difference is that women are less confrontational, or less science oriented, or less interested in logic. That they've been conditioned to be nice. It implies that the problem is women.

I think the problem is that it's difficult to be a girl going on her own to a big conference -- it doesn't feel safe to go to hugely male dominated places alone. It's sort of self-perpetuating, in that as long as something is mostly men it's going to be difficult to get women involved.

And I know it's been mentioned, but it's really difficult to go to events dominated by geeky boys if you're a girl. It's not that all of them are socially incapable of not being creepy and not staring at your tits, but there are a lot of that type. Add to that a general air of almost no female speakers, almost no groups of more than one woman, and the sense that you're some sort of weird species because you're a girl, it's not a girl friendly environment. That's not a problem when you're used to hanging out with geeks and can ignore it, but that's not everyone. And even if you are a geek, sometimes it's a lot to deal with.

I also think conferences in general would get better female attendance if there were options for daycare. I say this based on the number of guy skeptics I know who go a-conferencing, but leave their ladyfriend mommies behind to care for the kids. I imagine if conferences were at all kid friendly, it'd make a big difference.

I notice at JREF there's a workshop on women and skepticism, but I feel like it's something that shouldn't be shunted off to the side. And I think the thing is that most women perceive that the girl stuff is specialized, not included. Why can't that discussion happen in a big group of everyone, instead of a workshop for what's going to end up being mostly girls anyway?

And finally I hate that I feel like I have to represent my gender well, as though it's my job to convince dudes that women have worthwhile thoughts. My blog isn't strictly skepticism, atheism, or even that smart, but it's there: http://ashleyfmiller.wordpress.com

Posted by: Ewan R | June 29, 2010 2:10 PM

As a meaningless aside I think most atheist conventions do have childcare - generally buffet style.

Posted by: TopsyTurvySal | June 29, 2010 2:12 PM

I'm an atheist and a woman, and I've considered going to various atheist events. Most of the people I work with are male, so I've gotten over a lot of the "must be nice" mantra that has been drilled into us.

There are a couple of things that stop me from taking part.
Based on a few things of his that I've read, Hitchens is both openly misogynistic, and not terribly scientific in his views. He also has a group of adoring fans that are largely atheist and male. When I already deal with, and argue about, background level sexism most days, I'm not entirely sure that I want to go out of my way to spend time with a group that isn't that much more enlightened about sexism than society is generally.

My feminism is as much a part of me as my atheism, but it seems to be one area where many otherwise rational people (like atheists) have a blind spot.

Posted by: echidna | June 29, 2010 2:15 PM

The atheist conference in Melbourne exemplified the problem, and how to address it. It was male-dominated by design. The single best speaker at the conference (that is the only speaker who got a standing ovation - not even PZ or Richard Dawkins managed that) was one of very few (2?) women who had a full-length speaking spot. The numbers of women speaking were boosted by having a panel of four women squeezed into one speaking space. It was obvious, demeaning and unnecessary.

Many previous comments reflect that women are socialised to not partake fully in society, and that socialisation is apparent even in atheist conferences. It is much harder for women to overcome the damage that this socialisation, reinforced heavily by religion, has inflicted on their society than men - see comments 101,129 and 133, to name just a few.
The smoking gun is in comment 13:

many of the women were expressing their deep conviction that the conversations were focused around "guy" things - logic, reason, politics, etc.

Nineveh nailed an obvious tactic in #32:

C) send out a memo: atheism - or at the very least, secularism - stands to benefit women more than men. A lot of social, economic, and cultural restraints on us have their root in religion. We will see more improvement in our social/economic mobility then men will, because we're more constrained by them. This should be an oft-repeated talking point.

Posted by: CW | June 29, 2010 2:15 PM

#61, are you fucking serious?

Posted by: gillt | June 29, 2010 2:18 PM

#175: "If you embrace sex or like dressing sexy, people (men AND women) assume you're using that to make up for a lack of intelligence. If you don't, men treat you like a humorless fuddy duddy. Both of these stem from the attitude that us women are hanging around as dating fodder, not intellectual peers. It's off putting regardless of a woman's personality (aggressive and outspoken vs more reserved etc)."

So true. In science, I know women who are clearly the smartest people in the room play the clueless card because they assume correctly that this is perceived as aggressive and threatens their male peers and superiors.

Posted by: eyster777 | June 29, 2010 2:21 PM

From post #123:

"Yes they do. So, as I suggested, saying;

Women generally have more responsibilities than men because child-rearing duties tend to fall upon them.

beats the in-your-face

Women have more responsibilities than men. (Tough shit, it's true. Now go change those diapers, guys.)

One I agree with and wholeheartedly deplore. The other ignores the fact that progress in this area is being made and just generally annoys me."

I just LOVE how a woman expresses a bit of snark and right away, she's told how she SHOULD speak. This is why we tend to not speak up as much. You get awfully tired of crap like this. It's snark, born of frustration, get the fuck over it.

Posted by: Sal Bro | June 29, 2010 2:23 PM

PZ said:

what we really need is a Women and Secularism conference, organized by women and for both male and female freethinkers, where the women call all the shots and bring together all these great homogametic speakers

A conference that is women-organized and with all women speakers--yes. But instead of the topic being Women and Secularism (PZ may not have been advocating this exactly, but just in case someone misunderstood), it'd be much more interesting to me as a woman if the topic were just Secularism. Show the world that we women can have interesting and relevant discussions without only talking about ourselves.

In that vein, I just have to say that I personally get tired of talking about children and domestic chores every time we talk about women. Admittedly, this is for the purely selfish reasons that I don't really give a fuck about either children or domestic chores and would rather talk about atheism or skepticism. Trust me, I do know that these topics arise because plenty of people are parents, and women get stuck with disproportionate quantities of child-rearing, and making accommodations for parents & families at conferences is important, blah blah blah.

I guess I'm just annoyed that these issues about children and housework aren't brought up in conversations about how to increase participation among atheists in general. Also, with so many skeptic women choosing to not have kids (especially in science, and not always for good reasons) or choosing to have messy houses (or share the work, whatever), I'd just like to acknowledge that I think childcare at any conference is a great idea, but the point is that it should be targeted at parents, not women.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI | June 29, 2010 2:23 PM

@ 171...

Laura: You said what I was thinking. It's the local sense of community that's needed, not the great grand once-yearly pilgrimage. And I agree that churches do that sort of thing as second-nature. They're WAY better at it than we are.

My parents are church-goers. Their church does blood drives, runs a food pantry, holds bake sales, has pot luck dinners...all to connect the members with each other and to assist the community at large. There's no praying, no bible-verse-spouting, no evangelizing/proselytizing...just people "living" their faith.

Are there local, routine, community-oriented, safe, non-confrontational outlets for people to "live" their non-faith? Not that I'm aware of.

I often joke about bringing lemon squares to the weekly baby-roasts...I think people are more amused by the concept of atheists getting together as they are about the baby-roasting part.

Posted by: Tony | June 29, 2010 2:25 PM

@ bennioj #132: I wasn't even aware of your group's activities. I'm acutally in the US. If you've got something going that works for you, then great! A couple things I failed to mention about the female group that formed in my organization: it was thought up and implemented by male leadership who immediately handed ownership of the group to a vociferously anti-male female member.

To summarize, reproducing the male-centered homogeneity of the atheist/skeptic community as an all-female clique within it is not the way to go.

Posted by: pnrjulius | June 29, 2010 2:26 PM

What I'm hearing is that this problem has very little to do with atheism. It has to do with the way women are treated in education, in the scientific community, and in society at large.

There is quite a bit about childcare and family-friendly stuff, and if that's an issue, we should just fix that. There is no reason not to have family-friendly conferences.

And it's definitely true that men are trained to speak up, even shout at each other; women may find that very intimidating. I'd like to move toward more civil, reasonable discussions (in the world in general, really), but in the meantime if you want to get heard, you are going to have to shout over the din. In fact I think an atheist conference is one of the few places where people are likely to shut up in time to let a woman speak her mind.

But that's not the main sense I'm getting here. The most significant thread I'm hearing in fact is that women are afraid to speak up, afraid to be called "bitchy" or to lose a sense of feminine identity. If you express your sexuality, you'll be called a "slut". If you express your anger, you'll be called a "bitch".

And it's going to sound harsh, but if that's really the problem, suck it up! People aren't going to like it when you speak up. They are going to call you names. They are going to hate you and threaten you.

In fact, they may do this more to women than they do to men, but they definitely do it to men all the time. We have learned to deal with it, and you can too. We'll help you; we have experience. How many people have called PZ terrible, terrible names? How many people have threatened Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris?

Because I spoke up for atheism, for equality, and for science, I've had my masculinity impugned, my life threatened, my character debased; and I'm only 22 years old. I've been called a "heathen sodomite" by Christians, an "apostate" by Catholics, a "rape apologist" by feminists, a "wanker" by accomodationists, a "socialist" by conservatives, and "dork" and "fag" by more people than I care to count.

It hurts. It definitely hurts. But you can survive it. The best way I think is to remind yourself that the people who are willing to throw insults like that are precisely the people whose opinions don't deserve your respect. When people are saying to you, "I respect you as a person, but I think you are mistaken about X", those are the people you should be listening to. The people who call you names are people you should ignore.

Because we need your help. We need your voices.

Posted by: florakinz | June 29, 2010 2:34 PM

Really, #186? CW's characterizing women as 'pissing on' him is ok, but I'm the one who's sneering? He's a 'shining example of possibility' and I'm 'deeply unhealthy?'

Thank you to those who are demonstrating why women don't speak up much, in a thread that was supposed to be about women talking about why they don't speak up much.

Posted by: eleusis | June 29, 2010 2:36 PM

What Sastra said seems spot on. I've noticed it too. Women tend not to get into political / philosophical debates. Most of the women that I know who are comfortable doing that are, not surprisingly, in science.

Women are also less likely to get into debates with people that they don't know well. I can strike up a conversation with a random stranger in a bar and get into a political debate, but his girlfriend/wife sitting next to him won't say a word, even though she was openly talking about something else just minutes before.

For whatever reason, women try not to be confrontational, especially in polite company.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 29, 2010 2:41 PM

And it's going to sound harsh, but if that's really the problem, suck it up! People aren't going to like it when you speak up. They are going to call you names. They are going to hate you and threaten you.

You idiot.

They're not afraid of being unlikable they're afraid of having their lives ripped up, afraid of the consequences of the fact that women are punished harder for these offenses.

Posted by: Teshi | June 29, 2010 2:41 PM

To me, the idea that there are any 'natural' (as opposed to nurtured) differences between mens' and womens' minds is as ludicrous as the idea of god. I find it sad and depressing that there are so few people, men or women, who are radical skeptics about gender essentialism.

If non-human animals have essential gender differences in their behaviour, why is it so hard to believe that humans do?

I believe it's a scale and that men and women cross over a LOT more in the middle without any nurture, and scatter a lot out to the sides but I do think that men and women have different behavioural programming as a general rule.

I also believe very strongly that nurture plays a key role in the way this behaviour manifests.

I think female brains are different from male brains enough to make a noticeable difference between the way boys and girls and men and women act as generalized groups. However, there is as much diversity between men and women as there is between one woman and another woman. It's just a matter of what the differences, highly generalized, are.

And I don't have a problem with this. I don't think that it impedes women's ability to think scientifically or rationally, or to lead a group of people, or to make good decisions or to balance books*. It merely affects how they, as a general group, approach these things.

*The same way it is only nurture and experience that makes men less associated with raising children. However they do do it differently from women, even if they were raised only by women (and a lot of men were). It's not bad, just different.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/nMaSoEl_zfCk38bFleAi1vpy7RVV1vuw#6133c | June 29, 2010 2:47 PM

And it's going to sound harsh, but if that's really the problem, suck it up! People aren't going to like it when you speak up. They are going to call you names. They are going to hate you and threaten you. In fact, they may do this more to women than they do to men, but they definitely do it to men all the time. We have learned to deal with it, and you can too. We'll help you; we have experience.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 29, 2010 2:50 PM

Personally, I am deeply skeptical about any form of gender essentialism-- but I find very few men or women who question the idea that there are at least SOME essential differences between men and women. I'm skeptical. I have seen no convincing evidence of any natural differences between mens' and womens' minds.

QFT!

I really think most of that shit is completely insane, but then that's because no matter how hard I try I am incapable of *fitting* the gender-norm.

Posted by: florakinz | June 29, 2010 2:51 PM

Hi Teshi, #205. I'm familiar with all the arguments you bring forth. The thing is, I am rationally skeptical of all of them. I'm truly sorry I don't have time to break them down. I will try to check back later.

Why is it so hard to believe that there are essential differences between men and women? Because I see no convincing evidence to suggest they are naturally different, and a great deal of convincing evidence that they are not different.

In the meantime, please, please, ANYONE else here skeptical about gender essentialism? I'm trying to appeal to any of my fellow radical gender-nonconformists here. I realize it is typically far harder for gender non-conformists to speak up than cis-women. But we need to be heard. Anyone?

Posted by: ashleyfmiller | June 29, 2010 2:52 PM

And it's going to sound harsh, but if that's really the problem, suck it up!

It doesn't sound harsh, it sounds ignorant and privileged. As though that kind of behavior is going to make women more interested in talking to you. Sigh.

Posted by: florakinz | June 29, 2010 2:52 PM

Thanks, #209! I just saw your post after I posted my last post. :)

Posted by: Garbledina | June 29, 2010 2:55 PM

As a woman and an Atheist/Skeptic/Humanist/etc, I find that one of my biggest frustrations is the socially accepted idea that women are more innately intuitive and spiritual and sensitive than men are. That logic and reason and rationality are somehow "masculine" traits, and alienating to women. I'm pretty outspoken about my atheism, and I think the idea that I am less than feminine because I don't tolerate woo is bunk.

However, the idea that women are the gentler sex is very pervasive, even among women, and it is very real to a number of women I know, even the free-thinking types. So I guess if I was running the show, I would go out of my way to make those women feel comfortable. I would offer a lot of programs and talks that discussed these things head-on, but in non-confrontational ways. I would like to see women question their assumptions about themselves. Don't really feel like there's a God, but your unwilling to part with the idea that there's a vague "something" out there (AKA "I'm really spiritual, I'm just against organized religion."? OK. Let's talk about that, let's get to the bottom of it. Ask questions.

The problem is (not so much for the in-your-face godless girls like me, but for a lot of women)that there is strong cultural conditioning at work here. Many women aren't even aware of how much they have been trained to see themselves as "intuitive" their whole lives, told that they are ruled by their feelings and "instincts." These women aren't idiots. I am sure that most of us aren't thinking specifically of "WOMEN" when we target the wishy-washy, not-willing-to-commit, and the logically inconsistent, those not willing to go quite as far as we are, but that attitude is going to alienate a lot of women. Some men as well, but mostly females. I'm not suggesting that we stop being "shrill" and start pulling punches (My blog is called "The Bible is Useless" for FSM's sake!), but maybe the occasional event where we do don the kid gloves is not compromising our ideals. It's extending an olive branch to a group of people who have never had the opportunity to learn the full range of their own strengths, including how fierce and rational they can be, and how that is safe, and it doesn't make them "militant" and it doesn't make them less of a woman, no matter what Jenny McCarthy says.

I can't say this enough: these women are not idiots! Culture is powerful. Going with the flow does not make you weak. They just need a different perspective, and by assuming they must be stupid to fall for woo-thinking, and making sure they know it in advance, we are depriving them of the opportunity to gain that perspective.

Posted by: gillt | June 29, 2010 3:00 PM

@192:

Allow me to channel Chris Mooney: a scientist I fail to comprehend this "Western Culture" you speak of.

Posted by: toth | June 29, 2010 3:08 PM

I don't think that a quota approach is a healthy way to look at this. That is, I think it's silly to look at the makeup and say "Hmm...there's not enough women to meet my expectations. What are we doing wrong?". Now, if there are actual, concrete examples of bias impeding the inclusion of women, that's different, and should certainly be remedied. And I'm not saying that there definitely aren't such obstacles. But I think that evaluating the worth of a movement by the number of each sex is silly. Your heart is in the right place, I'm sure, but nevertheless...

Posted by: Garbledina | June 29, 2010 3:09 PM

@Not Guilty

Women who buck stereotypes are punished, that is why women don't tend to get involved.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 29, 2010 3:13 PM

I respectfully disagree. I feel that in this particular movement it is the women who do not buck stereotypes who are punished.

And I disagree with both of you. Women are punished for fitting the stereotype, and then punished for not fitting it.

Divide and conquer.

Posted by: florakinz | June 29, 2010 3:15 PM

CW #224

No, I assume you are either a man, or a woman policing women's behavior for men.

Posted by: abb3w | June 29, 2010 3:19 PM

skeptiheidi: Some people (women included) get involved with skepticism and this community to exchange ideas, and are not interested in partying, flirting, being sexy, or dealing with comments on their looks.

Modern society isn't very good at providing social opportunities for mate-seeking; religion traditionally provides a major social cultural outlet for such that is less feasible for Atheists; for evolutionarily obvious reasons, sex is one of the fundamental drives for humans; unfortunately the prospective benefit of being noticed outweighs the associated hazard, when compared to the prospect of remaining lost in the crowd; and while the "settled already, stupid" signal remains clear-cut (and preferably at least .75 carat), the social signal language for "looking" variations isn't well-developed at present.

I suspect the "best" option would be to engineer/evolve such a signal set and propagate it so it is widely understood across the culture (both atheist and Western), but this doesn't seem the thread to get in depth for that design problem.

Meanwhile, please do NOT take the above as a suggestion that you should "lighten up", "take it as a compliment", or "stop being such a prude". Quite the opposite: I would suggest you be more heavy-handed in dealing with the boorish and unsubtle, to increase the costs of standing out badly. If someone can't set a good example, let them serve as a hideous warning.

skeptiheidi: There are known open creepy dudes high in the ranks.

Perhaps I'm too focused on the Altemeyer books I read recently, but that could be a symptom of a very big problem not very long down the road. High SDO (or high-RWA) isn't necessarily limited to theists. (And once again, this seems noteworthy.)

24fps: The most likely context for me to attend a skeptic's convention would be if I were making a documentary...

You might also want to think about the problem of science communication. Mooney may be wrong about a lot, but not entirely wrong when he indicates additional/increasingly competent efforts there could be helpful.

PZ Myers: "here are atheist values for family and school and government"

That sounds interesting.

Posted by: florakinz | June 29, 2010 3:21 PM

And CW, yes, I was assuming you were addressing comments from a woman, because I'm a woman, and they were my comments you were addressing.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | June 29, 2010 3:23 PM

#230, once again, I have to question this constant characterization of atheist discourse and conferences as belligerent and confrontational.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 29, 2010 3:25 PM

I find very few men or women who question the idea that there are at least SOME essential differences between men and women. I'm skeptical. I have seen no convincing evidence of any natural differences between mens' and womens' minds.

QFT!

Because I see no convincing evidence to suggest they are naturally different, and a great deal of convincing evidence that they are not different.

Too bad you don't see fit to, you know, present any of that evidence. Ten seconds of googlin brings up lots of this kind of stuff, though: link link link link and anybody who knows anything about animal behavior knows that sex differences are ubiquitous in all other mammals.

Top insist otherwise borders on denialism, in my opinion.

no matter how hard I try I am incapable of *fitting* the gender-norm.

In the meantime, please, please, ANYONE else here skeptical about gender essentialism? I'm trying to appeal to any of my fellow radical gender-nonconformists

Look, you guys realize, right, that your personal brains are anecdotes and not data? And also that "essentialism" is a caricature?

(This is part of the argument I got into with Cerberus recently and I should probably just shut up...)

Posted by: woodsong | June 29, 2010 3:29 PM

Okay, if I try to catch up on all of the comments before posting I'll never get my 2 cents in.

I see a lot of good suggestions and identification of obstacles here. One in particular catches my attention, namely the observation that it's intimidating for a woman to go to a male-dominated event by herself.

Before I met my husbeast, this would have been a major reason for me to not go to any gathering. I was excessively shy in school, and I still dislike being alone in large groups of strangers.

A couple of things that could help to reduce this problem:

--The "Ladies who do Skepticism" could help shy women (and men!) meet up with each other at the conference. Speaking for myself, it's always easier to go to a party if you expect to meet someone in particular to socialize with.

Other suggestions that I agree with:

--Holding several smaller-scale conferences in places where inexpensive parking is readily available (Syracuse or Rochester instead of NYC, for example).

--Scholarships!! (Lack of money is the major reason I don't go to non-local events now).

--Arts fair. I'm an artist in a variety of media, my husbeast and I are both musicians. We could be interested in participating in an art show.

Those are what particularly caught my attention.

One little note of hope: My 10-year-old niece is a very outspoken and intelligent child, who does not hesitate to tell people that she doesn't believe in god when the topic comes up, who also doesn't let gender divisions stop her. In her school band, she's the only girl in the percussion section, and I saw her give one of the boys a rap on the head with her drumstick when he was annoying her before a performance!

Posted by: JustLisa | June 29, 2010 3:35 PM

Well, I'm certainly not in any place in my life to be able to get all "uppity" about my skepticism and atheistic thoughts and beliefs, however I do believe women and girls need to ask more questions. They need to be re-conditioned, need to re learn to ask. 

Women and girls have been taught  and repeatedly reinforced not to ask questions all their lives. Studies have continued on this for decades. 

I realize, it's not just females who don't question the BS they are fed.  No one checks resources anymore- why do you think FOX news has a following?

If you really want to address the source of your chromosomal attendance problems in the long term, try encouraging more female participation in youth classrooms.  Get them into a debate class rather than teaching them to avoid discussions about politics and religion with friends and family their entire lives.  They CAN and need to be taught to have civil discourse. It takes practice and skill to learn to avoid your own hot buttons. Yet so many of us were taught just to shut down, ending the discussion saying "we can agree to disagree". 

We have all been raised differently, held different jobs with vastly different heirarchys, all of which play out in our day to day interactions with others. Including if we ask questions or not. I continue to ask. At work, it's a fine line between a "pain in the ass" and "nice catch!" but no one else seems to care. What role do you play? How about your kids if you have them? How many times do you have questions or comments, but you never open your mouth? 

You asked for ideas about getting more women to attend conferences. Specifically "tell me what these stupid male-dominated conventions have to do to correct the imbalance."
Organization is something many movements require as they grow.  The attitude needs to be less "build it they will come" and more "we are a growing movement, let's drop some false pride and mimic what those have done before us to get the population we want in our doors". (Even if that means following what other organizations have done). It might seem ridiculous but why reinvent the wheel? I'm not suggesting bake sales or televangelism, but maybe making thinks easier for families if that is what is needed to get what you want. 

I blog occasionally about everything at http://www.yessillyknowledgeispower.blogspot.com/

Posted by: ashleyfmiller | June 29, 2010 3:37 PM

@Josh TOSG

I agree that at least part of the problem is that the conventions are characterized as needing people to be confrontational. I don't think I've ever had a particularly confrontational conversation at any atheist/skeptic event. However, there is a lot of confrontation online, and I think that's how a lot of women generally participate in the skeptic movement. If you've never been to a conference, and you think people behave in real life like they do in the comments section on Phayrngula, you'd probably be a bit hesitant.

Not that I think the behavior should be different online, it's fun, but I think that there's definitely a problem with appearance. People just think it's going to be confrontational if they don't know any different. Maybe there needs to be an "Angry online, nice in person" explanation.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 29, 2010 3:43 PM

Look, you guys realize, right, that your personal brains are anecdotes and not data? And also that "essentialism" is a caricature? (This is part of the argument I got into with Cerberus recently and I should probably just shut up...)

Sven, another place another time.

And the real differences I do not in any way think amount to what we see manifest in our society.

I AM NOT having this argument here though. Fucking hell no.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 29, 2010 3:46 PM

And yes, when you have enough people reporting that they feel a direct sense of pressure from society to change themselves to fit gender essentialism that *is* sociological data.

FFS!

Posted by: Calli Arcale | June 29, 2010 3:48 PM

I've finally been motivated to register. ;-)

I'm not sure my ideas will be entirely welcome here, for I represent another minority group in skepticism -- not only am I a woman, but I'm a Christian as well. I don't want to get into how I justify that right now, as it's far too big a topic for this thread. But some have contrasted how women get into churches with how women *don't* get into skeptical organizations, and I feel I've got some insight, being in both.

It is a curious phenomenon: though churches are almost all led by men (even in denominations where women can be ordained), the actual work of the church tends to be done by women. My own church is rather small, and getting smaller due to demographic shifts in the community. This has severely exposed the problem. With a few exceptions, if a vacancy appears on staff and there is difficulty filling it, a woman steps in. Or, very commonly, a bunch of other women step in, unobtrusively and often without any recognition, to make sure that whatever it is gets done. But even at large, healthy churches I've seen the same thing. Women make sure the wine glasses are filled for communion, and the candles' wicks are trimmed. Women run the nursery so that parents can attend the service, and run the Sunday School. Women see to any post-service refreshments, and make sure there's fresh coffee in the coffeepot. Women manage the library. Women do most of the music. At my small church, this is almost laughably obvious -- if all the guys in the choir show up, they have two baritones, one of whom can't hold a pitch, and the tenor part is covered by a woman; the remaining 80% of the choir is altos and sopranos, which gives a rather severe skew to the sound.

This is not a new phenomenon either. It has pretty much always been this way. It started because in the olden days, it was the only way women were allowed to participate. It preserves out of deeply ingrained social habits. Men don't often think to volunteer for these petty tasks, and there's always at least a few women who can't stand to see them go undone.

This is by no means exclusive to religion, however. Public schools are secular (something I passionately support -- it is my firm belief that letting religion get involved with politics and academics is bad for all concerned), and yet the secretaries are nearly all women, a disproportionate number of teachers (especially outside of science, math, phy ed and history) are female, the nurse is invariably female, and when you get to the volunteers, it becomes even more stark. The occasional father who gets involved sticks out like a sore thumb, and indeed, many men involved in PTAs and such bow out because they feel like outsiders, surrounded by all those women. My high school marching band, which was an awesome thing to be involved in and totally secular, relied heavily on parental involvement. The "machine" that kept it going was the band booster organization, and though there were men involved, it was about 75% women, and the most active volunteers, especially the organizers, tended to be female. Some of this is down to practicality -- like Skeptifem said in her blog posting, if you work full-time, you simply don't have as much time. A working parent is going to have a tough time chaperoning a weekday parade, especially if they have a non-working spouse who can do it more easily. So traditionally, all that sort of school-related stuff has fallen to the women.

Eventually, of course, women are freed from that. Their children grow up. But by then they have less energy, and less motivation to get involved in this sort of thing -- and may already be caring for grandchildren. Grandmothers often volunteer even more than mothers, often in even less visible ways, because they remember what the burden was like for them and they'd like to ease that burden for their daughters.

So what's the answer?

I think trying to draw more women to the big conventions may be a mistake. The priority isn't to get more women at the conventions. It's to get more women interested in science and skepticism. More women at conventions will follow naturally (and already are -- the cultural shift, though ponderous, has already begun). What we need to do is get more grassroots interest, and usually more general. Not skepticism activism, per se, but stuff like astronomy clubs and science clubs, especially stuff geared towards families. And get it out there where they're already looking. I think one of the most powerful forces for skepticism in recent years has been the Mythbusters, who are on basic cable and have a huge audience, not all of which are nerds. A lot have just tuned in to watch them blow stuff up, but they get a lot of science in the process. And hey -- they have women on the show! Most don't stick around like Kari Byron has. She's awesome, and makes a good role model for skeptical girls. She shows that you can be girly *and* assertive *and* science-geeky *and* still have the guys find you attractive. She's even showing you can be a mom while being geeky, by very obviously being pregnant on the show. I thought that was all brilliantly handled, because they never made a big deal out of it. Her pregnancy was very matter-of-fact. She's pregnant. That's cool. Now let's get on with the science. ;-)

That, I think, is what we need more of. And it will take time, but I think we can get there. In a few generations, gender may not be all that significant in terms of whether or not a person is taken seriously.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/yoSsYDocyJxDNviwi5Tnc_kM6w--#50186 | June 29, 2010 3:50 PM

CW @ 61

I'm not sorry that my caustic and sarcastic language upsets you, because frankly, I don't have the energy anymore to care how others feel about my opinions.

And good for you on having a househusband to take care of everything for you.

As for generalizations hurting people, well, they can't possibly hurt more than the facts they are based on. Employed women (general) spend an hour more a day on housework than their spouse. That doesn't affect you, apparently. But to the people it does affect, I assure you it hurts them far more than my snarky generalization makes you sore.

Now I shall go back to my dutiful contempation of how The Patriarchy Hurts the Men Too, as is necessary in EVERY discussion of womens' issues.

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | June 29, 2010 3:52 PM

One great alternatives to the big expensive conferences is the SkeptiCamp model: http://skepticamp.org/wiki/Main_Page. Local skeptic groups arrange local camps. I attended my first one in Atlanta in March and it was a blast. It was held on a Sat & Sun - no charge and free tees (because a member's company donated meeting space, and some money was donated to the organizers). All the speakers were locals which had the benefit of providing opportunities for local talent to shine. One woman did a talk on "Old Wives Tales" - no in depth psychoanalysis of the phenomena, but an amusing overview of those common misconceptions we all learned to assess skeptically. Another woman talked about pros & cons of "Green Living" i.e. fluorescent bulbs, and appliance energy labeling.
Someday I might make a once-in-a lifetime splurge to go to some big convention, but I will definitely being going back to SkeptiCamp.
It is interesting how many women are commenting that they aren't confrontational. Well, who are you confronting? Family, friends, co-workers? Gees, does anyone but the most obnoxious asshole go around shoving their beliefs down the throat of those you must live, work & play with? That's precisely why I hate the religious. Why would I want to emulate them?
(Note, I am not saying you shouldn't stand up for your beliefs if your mother is teaching the grand kids about God; or defend taking God out of the PoA if it comes up in a discussion with a co-worker. My view is that you keep your religion out of our relationship & I'll return the favor in regards to my lack of religion.)
And you couldn't PAY me to go to a spa!!

Posted by: florakinz | June 29, 2010 3:58 PM

CW -- How do you know what's convenient to me? Why would you make a comment about whether or not I've thought about something?

Posted by: Aquaria | June 29, 2010 3:58 PM

One of the questions here is, if you have been so far apathetic about these meetings, what could change that would make them interesting to more people?

Some things I considered to make them more women-friendly:

Distance is a huge disincentive.

Have the convention site near a variety of attractions and shopping, so that family members not attending aren't bored.

Have it near a variety of restaurants, so that I don't have to eat awful, overpriced hotel food. Or live on pizza.

Have a playground within a ten minute walk.

Have decent public transportation. Fine, free parking, too (USA).

Have panels for teens, and a special event for younger children.

Kick off the convention with a luncheon and a popular speaker, so that people can get acquainted from the beginning, in a place where alcohol is less likely to be in the equation.

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | June 29, 2010 4:02 PM

About feminist atheists/skeptics - Lauren from feministe has self-identified as atheist more than once.

Posted by: frautech | June 29, 2010 4:06 PM

First time commenter, I blog about engineering/coffee/feminism(bet that scared you all off) here: http://frautech.blogspot.com

I'd really want to ask the reverse question, why would men want more women at an atheist conference? Admit it, your first thought was some sort of sexual one. Even if men are not looking for a mate, there is something still relationship-related into how they view women in their lives. I'm a geeky girl but most often when I meet geeky guys in groups and they find out I am geeky they are either a) immediately disappointed that i am married or b) get creepy. Now, the first reaction is what happens more often than not. Apparently I am not valid as a friend for these people, probably because I am a girl.

Secondly, I am tired. Even wading through the comments here there is a lot of "women should be more..." from both the men and the women. And when one guy who washes dishes and cleans diapers doesn't get his cookie for it he is angry. I work in a very conservative setting and deal with a lot of crazy neo-cons talking about how "unfair" this whole PC thing is, how christianity is becoming a target, how good, white christian men like themselves are a persecuted minority. To keep my job I've learned to shut my mouth and ignore them. I consider my husband a modern man (he'd be a proud Pharyngulite if he read blogs) but even he gets tired of me complaining about only women in cleaning commercials or constant objectification of women in certain contexts. So if he's slow to realize there's any difference in treatment, I won't suspect a bunch of geeky skeptics like himself to be any different. And I adore him and I'd love to go to a place of skeptics and feel welcome. But instead I feel like a piece of meat. The fact that I am mostly in a workplace setting with the majority of men helps keep the creepy at bay. They know their jobs are at risk. But every single after work event seems like an open door for them to make comments that make me realize they don't see me as an equal, as a coworker, as a person. I'm just a piece of meat. If I thought skeptics were any better than the general population I'd definitely go.

Posted by: Skepticmama | June 29, 2010 4:12 PM

As a stay at home mom with young children, time, money and access to a broader community are the primary reasons why I'm not inclined to attend events. Also,I am not a scientist nor even a professional at this point so many conventions just don't appeal to me.
Yet another factor for not being as vocal is that I fear that my actions could alienate my children from some of their peers. I'm always very clear when asked about my beliefs or how we are raising our kids, but I don't really discuss it unless asked. I had a incident where one of my neighbors stopped having my kids over to play after I declined the mother's invitation to attend her bible study group. It hurt my children and created one of those teachable moments before they really had the capacity to understand what was going on.

Posted by: CW | June 29, 2010 4:14 PM

Now I shall go back to my dutiful contempation of how The Patriarchy Hurts the Men Too, as is necessary in EVERY discussion of womens' issues.

Posted by: ashleyfmiller | June 29, 2010 4:26 PM

I'd really want to ask the reverse question, why would men want more women at an atheist conference? Admit it, your first thought was some sort of sexual one.

Women might want more women at atheist conferences. I mean, I certainly would, and not for sexual reasons, necessarily. See what I did there, I confounded your gender expectations by joking about sex even though I'm a girl! Someone bring the fainting couch...

Anyway, what a ridiculous thing to post on this blog, unless you think PZ is some kind of sex fiend. Do you seriously think that men only want to talk to women to get them into bed? That's just offensive.

I would think that men want more women involved because they think women are worthwhile contributors and that their exclusion hurts everyone, male or female.

Posted by: Dana | June 29, 2010 4:31 PM

I started a message board back in the mid-nineties called "The Godless Zone." It was pretty popular at the time. Even back then, when atheists weren't speaking out, we had a good mix of male and female atheist posters.

I am now one of several female mods at The Secular Cafe. It is a very atheist friendly place, with what I perceive to be an equal active membership of males and females.

Posted by: CW | June 29, 2010 4:32 PM

why would men want more women at an atheist conference? Admit it, your first thought was some sort of sexual one.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 29, 2010 4:40 PM

Maybe my experience is the exception. But it makes me want to throw in the towel with interacting with the human race. And here we go again because I've already offended dudes with my opinion, and you dudes have rightly put me back in my place.

Hey... come on now.

This is one for patriarchy hurts men too really.

You were speaking to your perception and experience. It may not ultimately be true, but the fact that it seems so completely true as to be a general rule is actually significant if we are to actually come to grips with what is going on.

A problem just means that the expected results are inaccurate right?

In this case you're seeing a problem from the other side.

That's not actually accurate about men so the question is why your perception has been affected in such a way that you expect that, right?

Still a problem and only just with you if *no one* else experiences that.

I'm quite certain you are not the only on as you are not even the only one in the thread that said something like that in essence.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | June 29, 2010 4:42 PM

Oh wow, I just started reading the Copenhagen thread, and the cognitive dissonance between some (not all, of course) commenters between these two makes my head hurt. A lot of the issues of women in atheism are the same as gays in atheism, and minority groups in atheism, and the dynamic that keeps all of them away is pretty clear.

atheist group:"Here's a statement on what is important to atheists."

member of minority:"This statement you've made is problematic because many members and sympathizers of minorities will interpret it as hostile."

atheist group:"That's stupid. That's not what it means at all, and you're being deliberately obtuse and an asshole for saying that."

other members/allies of minority:"No, it really does come off that way, and a simple change of x statement to y would convey the same information without adding that subtext that you claim you don't want there to start with."

atheist group:"You're wrong, and here's why you're wrong, and we don't need to change it."

atheist group:"Why do we have problems getting people in minority A to join us? We don't understand."

Posted by: parclair#d615c | June 29, 2010 4:43 PM

Heh. The conversation has started.

The idea of atheist values needs to be expressed more, the anti-religion screaming addressed less (not stopped, but balanced). (by the way, my hubbie calls flame wars "testosternoid mental masturbation")

Anti movements never seem to go anywhere fast. Pro movements seem to do better. Tangible things are the best (the anti-choice movement has done great things with pictures of fetuses.)

So, the question is then, and in a tangible way, "What are the postive ideas of the atheist movement?"

As a discussion starter, I'll list a few of mine:

1. People are basically good and empathetic.

2. I try to find ways to encourage #1.

2a. People all think differently, respect their opinion because you know not from whence they come.
2b. A sense of humor is useful. After all, we're all in this together. Alone.
2c. Kindness toward others is a must, life is grim and who knows what horrors another experiences.

3. People need to understand alternative ways of dealing with the fear of death. I think that fear of death is the primary motivator behind religion .

3a. I take comfort from changing "ashes to ashes" (negative: must have god to prevent) into "startdust into startdust" (living and open ended).
3b. In addition, focussing on death as an end can make life very rich.

4. Keeping religion out of schools and government is healthy for religionists: If you can force your particular brand of religion onto your public school, then, in the future, another brand of religion can force their beliefs into your public school. No religion in school is a positive force for religious beliefs. (US version)

On the other hand, I suspect trying to get atheists and skeptics into a "community", even with postive values, might be like herding cats.

Posted by: crowepps | June 29, 2010 4:46 PM

Well, yeah, a piece of meat is indeed the feeling you get when you are in the middle of an interesting human to human conversation with a group and the apparently inevitable 'creepy dude' makes some subtle or overt jokey sexual reference and all those other people, the ones who assert that they would NEVER treat a woman like a sexual object, all ignore how offensive the comment was or worse yet, laugh.

There are two reasons dudes should call out dudes who do that - one is that dudes who do that sure don't care if their behavior to offensive to the person they see as 'sex object', and the second is that they are making the reference in part to impress the onlookers and so a failure to correct them means being part of the problem.

We've gone through this same cycle of repatterning social responses to ensure a place at the table for Jews, for Blacks, for gays, even for atheists! You'd think we could collectively transfer the lesson -- the actions of the, to put it kindly, socially inept are perpetuated by their peers who tolerate their discriminatory and offensive behaviors committed in their presence.

Posted by: skeptibug | June 29, 2010 4:50 PM

(First time commenter)

My observation (of at least on-line atheist and skeptical participation) is that many of the participants have a background in a) science, b) IT or c) Engineering (disclaimer: I am a male and my training is Finance) all of which typically are populated primarily by males.

Perhaps, rather than trying to target females specifically, the events/conference could target subject matter that relates to occupations which (rightly or wrongly) skew to a much higher female demographic.

A couple of (stereotypical?) themes could be providing a skeptical focus on health care or education.

Many campuses skew to a female majority lately and many programs are strongly female leaning. At my university, these included Social Work, Education and many of the Arts programs. These might provide another area of focus for skeptical events.

~bug

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 29, 2010 4:51 PM

And Third, is there something about having an extra x that pushes one towards following religions, and if not that, maybe social institutions, many of which happen to be centered around churches, at least in the states.

How would your body have evolved to know it was in the United States.

I think it has everything to do with power, control, how you can get some of it, how much you can get, and where from.

You're only mistake seems to be in even considering women might actually be somewhat less interested in control and power from the get go as men.

I doubt this.

Not naturally anyway.

Posted by: IndieGirl | June 29, 2010 4:53 PM

Many have pointed out expense as a major deterrent to going to these events. Can we then use a TED type approach, where these talks are simulcast online?
Will this encourage more people to actively participate?

Posted by: NitricAcid | June 29, 2010 4:56 PM

I know I'm not supposed to comment in this thread, but I just had to point out that the ad beside this post showed a caricature of a "hot woman" with the caption, "Click here to create your perfect woman!" Speaking of being skeevy....

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | June 29, 2010 4:58 PM

#252 Ol'Greg I can't say spa's are horrible. I just hate being fussed over, so the whole idea of being massaged with stinky oils grosses me out. I even avoid the hairdresser but have to go every 2-3 years to get my ponytail hacked off.
"Yeah, I consider myself "confrontational" by my bible belt dwelling standards. But that's just it, where I live, being non-religious is confrontational." Yep, that's the issue I ignored. I live in the big city, where most people have enough common sense to avoid the topic of religion. In small towns (& with family members), it is not so easy.

Posted by: Xena | June 29, 2010 5:00 PM

Let the women plan the social events at conferences. It would help a lot if we could get to know each other. I don't think that women are neccessarily just interested in the social aspect, but do you know how overwhelming it can be to walk into a lecture hall filled with men and listen to a science discussion? It's a little daunting if you are new to the skeptics world. Just being able to recognize other women in the crowd and talk to them about the skeptic worldview would go a long way.

As it stands now, most of the conferences have lame social activities if any at all. The best social events are usually planned outside of the conference by people actually interested in socializing, but if you're not already in the skeptics world, you don't know about them or even neccessarily feel invited if you do know about them. Those start to take on an 'in-group' feel.

I think that having women at the helm of social activities would make it easier for other women to see them and feel free to talk to them at said activities. And I think that the women in the skeptics world need to take it upon themselves to approach other women if they are interested in having women join. They need to take an active role in letting women know that it's not just a boys club.

Basically, the conferences like to have the token women appear, but just seeing women doesn't mean women will magically feel comfortable. You need to setup an environment where female skeptics are approachable.

I think a women's conference could be a start. But there are some risks that I think have been addressed in previous postings.

Posted by: abb3w | June 29, 2010 5:00 PM

frautech: I'd really want to ask the reverse question, why would men want more women at an atheist conference? Admit it, your first thought was some sort of sexual one.

Yes. I'm an unattached heterosexual male; I blame a billion years of evolution for setting queue priorities for the millisecond responses.

Arguably, even my second is as well, albeit less self-centered: long term, it's demographically disadvantageous for atheism to rely only on meme transmission rather than also on reproduction/upbringing opportunities as religion seems to. However, the third is much on the lines of PZ's about underutilization of over half the population; and the fourth is that I'm willing to consider that it might not be a problem in and of itself, but seems likely a symptom of some problem (also similar to PZ's remark about "half the population turned away").

frautech: And I adore him and I'd love to go to a place of skeptics and feel welcome. But instead I feel like a piece of meat.

Hm. I wonder if expressly organizing a "mating opportunities" social session as an controlled outlet would reduce the unwelcome advances elsewhere? Probably not, given some ladies' earlier remarks seem "goods are odd" typed, but I'll throw it out anyway so I can be mocked properly.

frautech: If I thought skeptics were any better than the general population I'd definitely go.

Meh. The Hunsberger/Altemeyer Atheists study leaves me the vague impression of "likely better, but likely only MARGINALLY better". Not worth the effort for the gain, although I wonder if there's hard data.

frautech: I mean in the all-male engineering world men treat women like sexual objects more often than not.

Some of that is generational; some of that is cultural. It's improving over time, although arguably not fast enough.

frautech: Maybe my experience is the exception.

Probably not. I would expect some regional variations in degree (EG: the South is wretched), but not characteristic difference of kind. Sorry to continue disagreeing with you. =|

TechSpoon: I'm a female engineer, and I've watched several discussions between guys that seem more like a battle for dominance than an attempt to find the best solution/most probable answer.

Pretending testosterone blood level has no effect on personality is delusional. (I read an interesting blog once by a lesbian who "borrowed" one shot from a F2M TG friend....) Pointing this out may not be helpful, however, depending on the degree of testosterone poisoning.

Posted by: blf | June 29, 2010 5:02 PM

frautech, sorry for @284, I hadn't seen your clarification @268 when I—somewhat angrily—replied.

Returning to shutting up mode…

Posted by: crowepps | June 29, 2010 5:14 PM

"Moments like these I'm not sure if I should keep fighting to be heard and be allowed to have an opinion or if I'm really as stupid and wrong as I'm afraid I am."

No, you're not stupid and wrong, and even if you are, you have as much right to be stupid and wrong as any other posters here, particularly those who have appointment themselves post monitor so they can scold you for being 'over-sensitive' and 'stereotyping men'. It does seem to me that this string of comments is an excellent DEMONSTRATION to PZ of exactly why women aren't showing up. We can be told to shut up and get over it at home for free.

Posted by: parclair#d615c | June 29, 2010 5:16 PM

@frautech, "Moments like these I'm not sure if I should keep fighting to be heard and be allowed to have an opinion or if I'm really as stupid and wrong as I'm afraid I am."

Hon, just keep saying your piece, have an opinion, no fighting or allowing involved. You are not either stupid or wrong. If I've learned anything (and all my learning has been the hard way), name-calling by others is evidence of their own lack of self-esteem, and says more about them than it ever does about you.

Yes, I remember being treated like a piece of meat when I was the ONLY woman around in a male profession starting out 40 years ago. It's really hard to keep a sense of sanity when you think that somefew respect your work, and then you turn quickly and find them staring at your ass. Then, I had to travel by myself, and a woman alone in a restaurant was automatically assumed to be a prostitute. (Hence the useful quote).

You need to do what I did, and find yourself a female support group with whom to vent. As you can see by this thread, even the most supportive males don't always get it. The group may be cross-profession. (I found mine with my customers and sympatico co workers picked up over the years.) I'm saddened that it's still needed 40 years on.

I could go on and on. I'd be charmed to be part of your support group, but I'm not willing to give contact info in this public forum (mainly 'cause I don't want to deal with creeps). Perhaps we can e-mail PZ and connect that way?

Posted by: frautech | June 29, 2010 5:17 PM

I see how the "your" made it focused on the bloggers who read here, I definitely didn't mean that. I sort of meant, general you in the population. I sort of hope the bloggers reading here are probably more exposed to stuff than my ignoramus coworkers, so if I came out in attack mode I'm really sorry, pent up stress and anger and all that. I really appreciate the followups though, definitely will keep me thinking. I certainly don't have this whole thing figured out and it's really great to read the intelligent responses here.

Posted by: angieantitheist | June 29, 2010 5:24 PM

Well, since you asked for them, here are my bitchy, uppity, girl-brained thoughts on my blog and YouTube channel.

http://angietheantitheist.blogspot.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/AngieAntiTheist

I think one thing forget is that women in PUBLIC deal with a crap load of unwanted sexism, before we ever open our mouths about not buying the whole Baby Jesus thing. So I think a lot of women choose not to deal with it. I can't say I blame them. I'm willing to, but sometimes the hatemail, misogyny, and detailed sex dreams I get as a female atheist can be a little draining. I'm sure ALL the female atheist YouTubers deal with this, not just me.

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | June 29, 2010 5:26 PM

I don't consider myself a feminist, I enjoy working and socializing with men.

I am sorry, but I don't see how one follows from the other - it seems to me that you're indicating that if someone enjoys working and socializing with men, then they are not feminists (and that if you're feminist you can't enjoy that).

This seems a bit strange to me. Could you please elaborate a bit?

[As a pro-feminist man, I don't see any problem self-identifying as feminist and liking working and socializing with men]

Posted by: CW | June 29, 2010 5:28 PM

Jennifurret:

are we just assuming women care more about kids than men do?

Posted by: Jennifurret | June 29, 2010 5:33 PM

OlGreg: I guess I'm just pointing out more sexism inherent in our society. Women are expected to take care of the kids. I'm sure many men who go to skeptical conferences have kids, but they're not asking for day cares. If they're just leaving them at home with the significant other, why can't women do the same?

Large conferences should have day cares for parents. To me it's just unfortunate that we automatically assume family issues = burden of women.

Posted by: Madam Pomfrey | June 29, 2010 5:36 PM

at home, we are usually the sole 'voice of reason' in our women's groups, and our critiques of ideas seem to be classed in the same category as personal attacks. They wouldn't mind so much if we didn't believe them, If only we said "well, everyone has their own opinion, I'm happy to just agree to disagree" the way we are supposed to.

Been there. I'm the only female scientist in my extended family, and the most acrimonious arguments I've had have been with (a) female relatives advocating homeopathy, acupuncture etc. (who invariably believe that everyone is entitled to their own equally valid facts) and (b) religious women who appear "subservient" but turn on you with vicious intensity when their dogma is challenged. The rare disagreements I've had with fellow atheists -- male or female -- don't hold a candle.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 29, 2010 5:39 PM

To me it's just unfortunate that we automatically assume family issues = burden of women.

Oh believe me, I agree. I don't think it's fair to be automatically accepting of that, but for pragmatic purposes if we're to be realistic then it is a valid concern because it reflects the current problems faced.

If women tend to have have lives more intimately tied to their children than males whether right or wrong, then it makes sense to respond to that immediate need.

The presence of family could also help cut into the meat-market atmosphere some are finding unhelpful.

Which could then cause a targeted singles event which would allow people who are looking for potential dates a venue in which to do it and maybe help them lay off of the uninterested?

Posted by: crowepps | June 29, 2010 5:41 PM

I'm sure many men who go to skeptical conferences have kids, but they're not asking for day cares. If they're just leaving them at home with the significant other, why can't women do the same?

Posted by: ldl | June 29, 2010 5:49 PM

I understand that women are socialized to be more agreeable. I tend to find myself leaning that way, maybe because of how I've been socialized, or maybe because, um...I find overly aggressive and confrontational people really annoying. Women (as a rule) could benefit from being more confrontational. But men (as a rule) could benefit from chilling out and not turning everything into a fight.

I love the idea of increasing the number of highly visible female role models in the skeptic/atheist community, and I agree with many of the earlier comments that having a special "women's" conference would be detrimental. There is not need for gender segregation, just equality.

Posted by: crowepps | June 29, 2010 5:50 PM

Not to mention single mothers, of which there are many.

I agree that a family-friendly atmosphere tends to 'feel' more friendly to many women precisely because it dilutes the meat-market atmosphere.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 29, 2010 5:57 PM

Oh yeah, that is unless PZ wants to steps in there? Maybe he does :P

Posted by: frautech | June 29, 2010 5:59 PM

Thanks Ol'Greg!

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 29, 2010 6:01 PM

Ah... time to check out for a while! It's awesome to see all these first time commenters though :D

Posted by: caseyhov | June 29, 2010 6:07 PM

I don't know what we can or can't do for sure to change it, but I found I

I had read a couple of things she had written but never explored her site so fully. If nothing else, this post made me look at some of the ones I hadn't before. I think that could very well be a step in the right direction.

I can say that I don't seek out any blog based on the author's gender, and I know I frequent a lot of the a-hole pits of the internet, so I probably don't get links to blogs where people are as polite as they are over at Butterflies & Wheels.

I think some of the existing blogs out there may just need a bit more direction for people to go to them.

Posted by: parclair#d615c | June 29, 2010 6:12 PM

Ciao folks.

Posted by: crowepps | June 29, 2010 6:15 PM

I don't consider myself a feminist, I enjoy working and socializing with men.

Sigh --

Posted by: scanadensis | June 29, 2010 6:18 PM

I personally might go to these events if I were closer and had money. BUT my thought on the matter is that women are supposed to be passive and mild and quiet, and a woman leading/participating in a group about something highly controversial seems just downright sacrilegious! Oh, wait, it would be in this case. My bad.

Anyway, not being one to care about fitting into stereotypes, I led a freethought group in college. With three other women. It was successful for a year and a half or so, then started to crash because I would do all the work, organize events, and show up, and no one else would. No one wanted to plan, organize, or contribute in any way. They basically were telling me, without telling me, "Well, you're in charge. Do something. We'll sit here and watch." Whether or not that's related to gender is another question. It might be more to do with lazy college kids.

Posted by: zeneece | June 29, 2010 6:24 PM

I think I'm one of those female anomalies in the skeptical/atheist movement. Maybe it's just because I'm uppity and have very strong opinions and a desire to pass on information to others.
I run a skeptical/atheist blog: http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/

But I am also the co-director of Morgantown Atheists and the coordinator of Morgantown Coalition of Reason.

Honestly I think I ended up in charge of these related groups because I have the free time and the motivation. We have a few women in our groups but mostly it's all men. Which is fine. It doesn't bother me.

I don't know what would make it more friendly for women. Maybe, like me, other women just have to do the legwork, maybe even form the groups themselves. I didn't form our groups. I just sort of took over when I saw no one else wanted the job.

One thing I think our group offers women is a real voice in the discussions, since I moderate. We have just as much say as to what we do with our group as the men (of course). I have to say, the women in our group are mostly quite strong-willed as well, though.

Just some food for thought!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 29, 2010 6:40 PM

The brains of humans are very different from the brains of all other animals, and we broke off from our closest ancestors a very long time ago.

This sentence makes exactly as much sense as yours: The brains of humans are very similar to brains of other animals, and we broke off from our closest ancestors very recently.

I find that most biophiles romanticize and anthropomorphize animals enormously, and that there's a lot of projection going on in people's relationships with animals.

I have noticed the same thing, though I'm not sure what a "biophile" is, exactly. You talking to me?

And I'm suspicious of any 'science' reported in the MSM that neverendingly reinforces the status quo.

Put another way, Ya'll are liars! Fuckin' magnets, how do they work?

Posted by: SC OM | June 29, 2010 6:51 PM

Put another way, Ya'll are liars!

Skating on pretty thin ice there, Sven C. Pygerythrus.

Posted by: Rachael | June 29, 2010 6:56 PM

I have a feeling that a lot of what I'll say has already been covered, but I might as well add my voice to the choir. I've been doing the (officially) skeptical thing for about four years now, starting with the first Colorado Skepticamp.

1) Try to involve more women from the top down
I think that if an effort is made to make women more prominent at the top, so to speak, you'll get more female interest in attendance. A lot of times, that means the speaker wranglers are going to need to roll up their sleeves and do a bit more work, to find women who are available and willing to participate. But having more women in a speaker lineup will probably have the effect of drawing more women to an event, because the event won't look like nothing but a giant sausage fest. This may mean giving up a couple of "big names" to find new people who have something interesting to say. However, considering what a feedback loop fame often is, if someone gets plucked from obscurity to speak at a major event, they'll likely end up becoming a "big name" within the movement because of it. If they're interesting to listen to. Or, on the other hand, if women are continuously treated as if we have nothing interesting to say, you will continue to hear nothing interesting from us, thanks to lack of opportunity.

2) Provide some kind of child care service
I'd be willing to bet real money that you'd see a spike in female attendance at an event if there were some kind of daycare service available, even if it was one that required a somewhat higher membership fee. From the standpoint of personal experience (whee, anecdotes!), I've got quite a few female friends who are the primary caregiver for their children, and simply can't attend events no matter how much they'd like to as long as children are basically unwelcome.

3) Less mansplaining
Really. I mean it. The first drinking skeptically I ever went to, I got cornered and mansplained at, quite possibly because skeptical dudes think that they're more enlightened than your average Joe and can't comprehend that they may sound just a teensy bit patronizing. I almost didn't go back because I was so disgusted.

I don't think having a special conference for feminist/skeptical issues would be the way to go. I've noticed that lately there's a resurgence in sites having women's sections, for instance, and all it really does it segregate us off and make us easier to avoid by people who don't think we have anything worth saying. A more permanent solution really would be examining the barriers that are keeping women out (such as the fact that women have nowhere to stash their kids while they're attending a conference) and dealing with those.

Oh, and finding everyone who claims that ladybrains just can't do math and we're really "intuitive" and "feeling" instead of "thinking" and then punching them all in the face. Twice. That would be great too.

My blog:
http://geo-geek.blogspot.com

Posted by: Cobolt | June 29, 2010 7:02 PM

@ crowepps #338

In a way this is a war of ideas being fought by eloquent speakers using knowledge and beliefs brought together within their own camps - Atheism, Theism, Agnosticism etc. Anyone who contributes can be considered a "combatant" and so is opening themselves up to having their ideas/words attacked by other groups. The higher the profile of the contributor/speaker the more attention they will get and the harder their ideas, and to often their character, is attacked in this sense.

All I am saying is if people are held above their natural station - please see my comment at #332 for clarification - they will be more vulnerable to being pulled to pieces.

@Carlie #334
Glad to help - I think.

Posted by: naddyfive | June 29, 2010 7:07 PM

Carlie at #275 has it exactly right, as far as I'm concerned.

The reasons she lists for female non-inclusion in atheist events are exactly the same reasons why feminist/womens' groups have historically had a difficult time uniting with socialist, anarchist, and communist groups toward a common goal. The universalist language relied upon by groups with revolutionary political ideals often tends to pre-empt membership on the part of those people the group needs most to propagate itself-i.e. the oppressed, the marginalized, those who don't yet have a voice, who aren't yet fully included in the royal "we" of the party.

Fitting, then, that P.Z. has used wording reminiscent of the famous Marxist line about "The Woman Problem" as the title of this post...

P.S. Harassment and casual sexism certainly are factors that need attending to, as well.

Posted by: skeptifem | June 29, 2010 7:11 PM

Maybe if skepticism was used to examine issues that matter to women it would draw them in. Aiming skeptical inquiry towards things like male privilege typically doesn't happen at these things. Skepticism is only used on paranormal/conspiracy stuff right now, ant is a shame.

Posted by: heatherly | June 29, 2010 7:14 PM

If we're discussing personal perception, then yes, my perceptions of this blog, of atheist conventions, or of talking with other atheists in general, is a perception of confrontation, aggression, hostility towards theists, and very definitely a science oriented atmosphere.

The ONLY reason I have actually made my very, very few comments on this blog was because several months ago I listened to PZ give a lecture at GMU (Or GW? I can't remember), and spent maybe 20 minutes mostly listening to PZ, Ed Brayton, and others at a bar meetup afterward. And because of that experience, I can keep in my head an image of PZ as a polite, intelligent man that doesn't actually breathe fire in person.

I am the daughter of a UCC minister and a nurse. I have been Christian, Pagan, Agnostic, and finally admitted I was Atheist less than two years ago. I am also a social worker. All of my social conditioning, upbringing, and professional training insists that I should be polite and always non-confrontational.

I work with clients everyday that call me a cunt, motherfucker, bitch, whore, slut and whatever else they think of, and my response is: "I'm hearing that you don't like me. Can you tell me more? I'd like to understand why you feel I'm an evil bitch who took your kids away."

(OK, that's an exaggeration. Most of the time. ;)

I also have a chronic illness (*waves* at Chantal for talking about that perspective so eloquently), and as much as I would love to participate more frequently in active discussion, I don't always have the time or energy; sometimes I choose to empty the dishwasher rather than post on a blog.

The bottom line is that even though I really, really have learned so much from this blog, and actually started identifying as atheist partially b/c of this blog, I don't always feel that my opinions would be valid or appreciated here. That they (and I) would be dismissed as not scientific enough (not smart enough), not expressed in the 'right' debate/persuasive argument way, not assertive enough...just not enough. And if I'm still this nervous about posting to a freaking internet blog, why the hell would I go to a conference and have that experience in person?

So that's my perception of the 'problem.' My ideas about the solution?

*I would agree that social connection would be helpful. Having a friendly and SAFE space to learn and discuss atheism, and also to just have fun with like-minded people would be fantastic. Going to a festival or a dinner out with some locals is a lot less intimidating than a conference, and builds a sense of community.

*@Hairhead mentioned education in debate/effective confrontation, and I think that is a good idea. There are a lot of women who have posted that they ARE good debaters and are assertive themselves, and that is FANTASTIC. But I'm not. And I don't think I'm the only one. I am not ashamed of that, but I would like to learn more about ways to debate more effectively. I am a licensed social worker, and my training in how to communicate with people is based on a very different model than many commenters here seem to utilize.

*@ ashleyfmiller #302: Ditto!

*As far as family-friendly conferences, if anyone organizes a conference close enough to the DC area, I will happily volunteer to help create kid's activities/teen activities or coordinate childcare. I think having families at a conference provides a fantastic opportunity to have very real-world discussions/support for issues relating to education, neighborhood activities, the only daycare in the area is run by a church, etc.

*Finally: wearing makeup doesn't mean I'm not a feminist. Not shaving my legs doesn't mean I AM a feminist. And liking spas or manicures doesn't mean I'm not an atheist. If a conference offers an Atheist Ladies Night, fine. They can also offer an Atheist Harry Potter fans night or an Atheist Individuals with Beards night or an Atheist Deaf Persons night or an Atheists with Chronic Illness night. Some women will be interested in a Ladies Night--some will be interested in the Beards Night. Recognizing that we are all diverse individuals and have diverse needs is as important as recognizing we have many things in common. Fuck stereotypes. Make me feel I am valued as a person.

PZ: Thank you for doing this. I haven't even eaten dinner yet or taken my meds, and I have to go to bed in 30 minutes, but having this opportunity to talk and learn was absolutely worth it.

(ps: *waves* at alysonmiers)

Posted by: florakinz | June 29, 2010 7:19 PM

Carlie, 344,

Florakinz, the magnet reference was a throwback to another conversation regarding skepticism of all of science. Not that it makes his point any more valid, because he was conflating research with MSM reporting of research, and ignoring bias in interpretation, but the magnets were a rhetorical comment.

Carlie, thanks so much. I admit I was a little blown away thinking that reference was just for me. I'm still blown away that someone thinks, based on what I said, that I'm skeptical of all science. I'm closer to being skeptical of all non-science.

Posted by: doubtfuldaughter | June 29, 2010 7:25 PM

Heatherly @351 I think you nailed it with this:

The bottom line is that even though I really, really have learned so much from this blog, and actually started identifying as atheist partially b/c of this blog, I don't always feel that my opinions would be valid or appreciated here. That they (and I) would be dismissed as not scientific enough (not smart enough), not expressed in the 'right' debate/persuasive argument way, not assertive enough...just not enough. And if I'm still this nervous about posting to a freaking internet blog, why the hell would I go to a conference and have that experience in person?

Posted by: Cobolt | June 29, 2010 7:25 PM

@SC OM #340

But some, like cobolt, evidently want people - men - to tell them what to do. Very sad.

If I am to be led then let that person be a leader on their own merits.

Your feminist blinkers are strikingly blatant and only serve to undermine your own arguments.

There are many qualities that make for good leadership but all others account for nothing if you don't have the confidence, knowledge and presence of mind to lead effectively.

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | June 29, 2010 7:29 PM

#322 Pookumsy Ohh, your story makes me so mad! You are half my age and there are still people talking you out of math & science because you're a girl! That BS was so supposed to die out after my generation.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/CmcUpM0h2eQXK59uQE5a80Vb74cwyvFNMMk-#20c72 | June 29, 2010 7:39 PM

I’ll agree that the church set have the leg up on getting women invested in their groups. They are the ones that have the expectation that women are busy (because they’re supposed to be, yo) and work at being easy to join up and stick with.

I socialize with pagan groups the same way some here have said they go to church functions. The pagans welcomed me with open arms and don’t give a hoot about my atheism. The pagan group is much more local than the atheist group which meets 50 miles from my area, plus they will never try to convert me.

How many of us (women) tend toward lurking more than posting?

Me! Me! As much as I love reading posts and threads about science, I get a little intimidated by it all. So, YES, PLEASE be more inclusive of creative types! We can be very handy when you need some mad illustrative/graphic design/copywriting/marketing skillz.

And, as much as I would love to be able to attend a conference and meet some like-minded folk, as I said, I don’t even have the means or time to go 50 miles to knit with the most local atheist group I can find. :/

-dwarf zebu

Posted by: SC OM | June 29, 2010 7:41 PM

Please SC OM, quote me on where I say I want a male leader.

OK, you want to be led in general. Still pathetic. I confidently stood up to be counted, pointing to my knowledge, earlier in the thread. Guess that makes me your new leader!

There are many qualities that make for good leadership but all others account for nothing if you don't have the confidence, knowledge and presence of mind to lead effectively.

Way to ignore my point by simply making another unsubstantiated and ridiculous claim. And to now add new qualities not mentioned in your original post. "Knowledge" is specific to circumstances and can be defined in a number of ways. "Presence of mind" is just ridiculously vague. Neither has anything to do with "standing up to be counted" (as if all of those who do so receive the same response - surely no one is ignored, marginalized, or excluded). But the central point is that some of us are capable of leading ourselves, assclam. We're talking about who speaks at and attends meetings.

Posted by: SC OM | June 29, 2010 7:50 PM

I agree with Cobolt in that there shouldn't be any special concessions, or any stepping aside.

Yes, listening to the ideas of people whose views aren't usually as attended to or taken as seriously rather than talking at them is so illegitimate and undemocratic.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | June 29, 2010 7:53 PM

Thank you Sven Di Milo and Cobolt for breaking what must be the best record there has ever been on one of these threads.

Every thread on women's issues, ever ends like this. Especially on percentages of women in sciences or skeptical movements ends with the same fucking debate about inherent gender roles (Sven's contribution) and "anti-PC" blather that ignores the effects of cultural sexism because a man can't understand why there can't just be a fiat by which everyone is equal already damnitt (Cobolt's contribution).

This would be why PZ wanted men to shut up and listen, because this fucking conversation is one of the biggest blocks to contribution. It means only the exceptional will bother, will continue fighting and pushing through on the same damn arguments.

And well, only the exceptional is going to leave you with one hell of a gender gap.

And a dumb one to boot, one enforced because thanks to cultural sexism, women need to literally fight for the right to speak and have a conversation outside the usual same damn fights over and over and over again.

Answering Sven, we've been over this on this blog over and over again, Sven. You're a regular, you should know better. The evidence for extensive biological (not cultural) separations between men and women has continuously been found to be wanting. Not only does the assumed gap continue to shrink in the sexist's arguments, but real life populations such as trans people show that biological separations in the brain are actually fairly minimal.

We've spent the whole of human history continuing to push an assumption of male-female biological mental separation against the evidence and to continuous failure. Assuming a mental parity not only fits the evidence better, but would be a novel change of pace, don't you think?

And seriously? SERIOUSLY? The same damn conversation on this thread?

Sven, what the fuck, man? You don't usually strike me as an asshole who finds collections of women so emasculating he needs to piss on them from on high, so what gives?

Why'd you feel the need to break the thread like that?

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | June 29, 2010 7:58 PM

And I can't tell you how pissed it made me to go through what was a very productive and interesting thread, read all 350+ comments and have it end in the same damn place.

Fuck, guys, one thread. You just needed to shut up and listen for one fucking thread. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Posted by: Cobolt | June 29, 2010 8:10 PM

@Carlie #354

Well, I'm glad I asked for clarification, I guess, since now I know that you do believe this is a 'war of ideas', that the participants have to 'fight', that the leaders/combatants as you defined them are 'above' their followers, who ought to be content not to have their contribution valued because they should attempt to rise above their 'natural station'.

Does it strike you as at all weird how closely this language mirrors the religious explanation of who gets to be in charge and who is relegated to the audience?

Does anyone not beleive the Atheist movement is in a war of ideas with theists? Why else are we organising conferences and protests at kook's presentations and add campaigns?

And please, go back and read my comments and then quote where I have suggested anyone's contribution should not be valued or where I have pre-defined anyone's natural station with anything other than their ability/desire to put themselves forward through their own actions.

It's quite clear that it is your own prejudice that is clouding this discussion, you are seeing things that aren't there simply because you are developing a reply before understanding what is actually being said.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | June 29, 2010 8:13 PM

I, like most women on here, have also had to deal with the piece-of-meat issue.

Anytime I go out alone (which is fairly often because I recently relocated and don't have a real social network yet), I get hit on. Nearly every fucking time. I understand, I suppose. I'm a woman out alone. I must want/need a date. [/sarcasm]

Recently, I was sounding off to a male friend about this. His response was, "As far as problems go, you should count yourself lucky."

I get that I'm luckier than a lot of people, but it's not because I get constant male attention. It was as if he couldn't conceive of why it would bother me. Perhaps he's lacking female attention and so is projecting. But I met another guy recently, and when I vented about the same thing (after he made a pass at me by saying I must get hit on a lot being an attractive single woman in a male-dominated field), he said he thought that I should be grateful for the attention because "it's what most girls are after anyway."

It's frustrating to be belittled on so many levels and with such brazen cluelessness. For the record, unwanted attention is UNWANTED, therefore an intrusion. And it's not only possible for a woman to not want attention, it's pretty fucking likely a lot of the time.

That's not to say I don't enjoy a good conversation with a stranger at a bar. I do. I've met some wonderful people that way. But those guys treated me like a human, not a prospect.

Posted by: marilove | June 29, 2010 8:19 PM

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | June 29, 2010 4:58 PM Frautech: You'll find most people here (men, women, straights, gays) really are allies in the things you want to see changed. I sure am. I don't doubt for a minute that what you say reflects your experience (and social reality), I just wanted to point out that coming out all guns blazing toward a pretty empathetic group wasn't a good tactic.

It's not about not being allowed to have an opinion, really. I hope you don't go away, cuz I think you'd like a lot of the people who comment here on Pharyngula

Really? I'm a long-time reader and very occasional commenter (not because I'm shy -- I'm not -- but becuase I usually can't get the commenting system to work when I'm at work).

This is Pharyngula! Commenters here are known to come out with their guns blazing, and while I wouldn't say this crowed isn't empathetic, exactly, I wouldn't call it kind and I certainly wouldn't call it non-confrontational (note: I'm not describing all of the skeptical and/or atheist movement(s); just this blog). So, why is it that when a woman comments here about the sexism she encounters every day*, she is suddenly being too crass? Why is it okay for the men here, during every other fucking discussion, to come out with guns blazing, but suddenly, she is being too confrontational? Seriously? Stop with the tone arguments! It wouldn't be allowed for any other subject in this blog, so don't do it now!

*And tell me, why is it that I've seen several commenters in this post -- and not just men -- try to brush off a woman's experience with sexism? "Well, I haven't seen it/experienced it!" "Maybe it's like that in some places, but not here!" Or, "I promise you not all men are like that!" (Which is condesending as hell -- of course they aren't! We're not idiots.)

When women talk about their experiences with sexism, why not believe them, instead of constantly questioning them? It gets damn tiring having to prove yourself over and fucking over again.

And Cerberus is completely correct, as usually. I've seen him/her (sorry, I'm not sure?) come in here and explain the same shit about gender over and over and over again.

And people wonder why there is a lack of women in the skeptical movement! Perhaps we just tire of being brushed off, and don't feel like talking to people who clearly have no plans to listen to us?

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | June 29, 2010 8:20 PM

Cobolt @371

What part of shut the fuck up and let the women speak for ONCE in THEIR GODDAMNED LIVES was so hard for you to understand?

Was it "the"?

"The" always confuses me too. I feel your pain, man, I feel your pain.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | June 29, 2010 8:26 PM

Marilove, come on. I said nothing about Pharyngula being non confrontational. I said nothing to even slightly suggest frautech's experiences weren't valid. I took issue with her broad accusation that all men were 'really' interested in getting women into atheism for sexual reasons. You know, exactly the same sort of thing any woman/gay person/minority would have objected to had it been aimed at them (and Pharyngulites would have joined in with the objecting).

That is all. And it's not debatable- it's all right there in black and white, if you care to read it. And it's blown over now.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | June 29, 2010 8:30 PM

aidel:

PZ.' Then I read that you consider yourself one who 'possesses' a trophy wife and thought, gee, I wonder why lots of women atheists don't click here?

For crying out loud - are you serious? Do you not see the totally obvious ™ after the term "trophy wife?" Did it not trigger just a momentary suspicion that the term is an affectionate joke? Especially after the content of the actual post PZ wrote?

Cripes.

Posted by: SC OM | June 29, 2010 8:35 PM

Sorry, something wrong with the blockquotes.

Believe me when I tell you that no one gives a shit. Everything that followed was but a repetition of your earlier idiocy. You have nothing useful to add. Piss off.

No gods, no Santa, 'nuff said. We have to worry about other things like rape (globally) and the enormous time/energy it takes to rear children (if we have them), since all domestic responsibilities still (for some curious reason) fall to us.

Because none of that has anything to do with religion. Not atheist/skeptic issues at all, really.

Posted by: CGW55 | June 29, 2010 8:40 PM

Hey (I'm a female atheist btw),

I haven't been able to read all of the comments but I did want to give a quick proposal on how to either get more women to participate in atheist/skeptic events or to at least take this conversation we're having online to the bigger skeptic and/or atheist community. Having a Women and Skepticism Conference is nice and I'm glad to hear that such a thing is around but I can see a couple of problems with having a separate conference. One issue would be that we're separating resources and numbers that could be used for the greater community. I could see myself (if I had the funds to go anything, I'm a poor college student at the moment) debating whether to go to the Women and Skepticism or a different atheist or skeptic because I don't have the time or money to go to both. Either way it's a loss for the community whichever one I were to choose. If I go to the a conference like the Copenhagen one and not the Women one the talks on women and skepticism or female speakers at the Women one would lose one person when they ought to have as many people as possible hear them speak. But if the I were to choose the Women one over one like the Copenhagen conference, then that's one female (and the other parts of my identity) face and voice that the conference doesn't get. So I would like to propose that at larger atheist/skeptic conventions (if they do run for more than 1 day, I've never been to one but I'm assuming with my proposal that they do) groups like Skepchicks organize something like a "girls night out" where the talks of that day focused on women skeptics and/or women speakers were to focus of the day. That way, as many people as possible in the atheist/skeptic community are in one place and the issues that pertain especially to women and women speakers would be heard by as many people in the atheist/skeptic community as possible. Well, that's my little two cents I wanted to add. I'm liking everyone's comments so far as well!

Posted by: marilove | June 29, 2010 8:43 PM

"I just wanted to point out that coming out all guns blazing toward a pretty empathetic group wasn't a good tactic."

There you are, telling her to calm down. No, sweetie! Calm down! Don't be so confrontational! When this is freakin' pharyngula!

And until you have been that lone woman entering a room full of strange men, you will never understand. You are instantly a piece of meat. No, not every man thinks that way. I know many who don't. But a good majority of men in that room will -- or at least enough to make it uncomfortable, and tiring, and it doesn't take many.

Her broad strokes are perhaps based on experience -- experience of being that lone women, entering a room full of men, and instantly feeling the shift in the air. It's not a good feeling.

Posted by: windy | June 29, 2010 8:45 PM

Not only does the assumed gap continue to shrink in the sexist's arguments, but real life populations such as trans people show that biological separations in the brain are actually fairly minimal.

Sorry, but I don't think the experiences of transpeople disprove possible sex differences in the averages of men and women for some traits. Consider the analogy of human height. But even if there are developmental biases that contribute to sex differences, it does not imply that the differences are "fixed" or "determined" or that nothing should be done to increase the participation of the underrepresented sex.

Posted by: SC OM | June 29, 2010 8:48 PM

The bottom line is that even though I really, really have learned so much from this blog, and actually started identifying as atheist partially b/c of this blog, I don't always feel that my opinions would be valid or appreciated here. That they (and I) would be dismissed as not scientific enough (not smart enough), not expressed in the 'right' debate/persuasive argument way, not assertive enough...just not enough.

heatherly, you should try anyway. Really. You might be pleasantly surprised!

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | June 29, 2010 8:51 PM

What part of shut the fuck up and let the women speak for ONCE in THEIR GODDAMNED LIVES was so hard for you to understand?

Apparently it's hard for a lot of men to understand. You see, it's quite difficult for them to sit and watch us screw up in telling how we're affected by things, being as how we're not being affected by them properly and/or not telling the story of it properly and/or not interpreting it properly, and all we need is for them to explain it to us so that we'll understand what our life experiences really are.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | June 29, 2010 8:56 PM

Alright, marilove. I'm outta here, because I've derailed enough already. But you're unreasonable and you're aiming at the wrong target (and yes, I'd use the word "unreasonable" if you were a man saying the same things). Have at it.

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | June 29, 2010 8:59 PM

windy @389

No, it's not perfect, but since most mind-characteristics are most affected by hormones and the shifts are well, non-existant, it would mean all of it is in initial brain wiring by biological basis on either an embryonic or genetic level.

Such location of disparities has also been found to be lacking by study after study after study and furthermore as noted, the assumed bias constantly needs to be shortened as women prove the null hypothesis correct by succeeding in industries where they were barred.

The biological separation hypothesis has been around forever and the evidence for it has continually been found to be non-existent and the evidence for the counter-proposal, that of cultural bias, internalized and external, found to be accurate time after time...

And dear Bob in Himmel am I tired of this damn discussion.

I don't know how many times I have gone over it with men who just need for there to be a distinct biological separation.

You know what there are. You grow a penis, ciswomen grow a vagina. Injecting in hormones has measured and reliable effects on fat distribution, muscle distribution, sensitivity to touch, and maybe even a small effect on the mind in terms of raw libido level (disputed) and the ability to restrain the physical effect of emotions (but not the mental effect, i.e. likelihood to resist crying, not likelihood to feel sad and affected mentally by that emotion).

Thank transpeople for testing that for you, now leave us alone about your unproven, bullshit theses about the rest of it, because there is not one iota of evidence and constantly having to point that out gets incredibly tiring.

And why am I having this conversation AGAIN on this of all threads. Was the topic too emasculating? Are men so privileged that the idea of a space where they are not to speak, but to listen, openly offensive to them (Yes, this would be it)?

Cause damn, guys.

Damn.

Posted by: SC OM | June 29, 2010 9:03 PM

Yeah, and if the skeptic movement were actually doing something about it directly-- instead of working for some nebulous future free of religion in which we will all magically be equal-- I'd be more likely to invest in it.

That was my point. Read again what I was responding to.

I don't doubt that religion has played into this, but it's not the One True Cause of All Evil. It's not.

Nor did I claim that it was. It's major, though.

And attending a skeptic conference/speaking out against pseudoscience/standing up to religion isn't going to reduce the rate of date rape in my town.

Depends on how it's done and a number of factors.

The skeptic movement doesn't address these issues.

Sufficiently. Again, my point.

There isn't a subset dedicated to wiping out male privilege and deconstructing notions about rape and gender roles, except to burn up some patriarchal religious strawmen.

Bullshit. There is, and many here are part of it.

I'd rather go with an activist platform that directly addresses the issues I face, instead of just seeing my liberation as a side effect of their ultimate goal.

It's not an either/or. (And religion is a significant factor in the issues we face.) Maybe people should familiarize themselves a bit more with the history of these movements, especially in the late 19th century and the beginning of the last.... (I could, of course, give a talk about it! :D)

***

Well said yet again, Cerberus. On a related note, I've actually long had a problem with some of the political aspects of the skeptic/atheist movement and trying to bring a critical, social-justice approach to science. It can be exhausting.

Posted by: crowepps | June 29, 2010 9:06 PM

I've got to say, the number of times women here have mentioned that they need to feel SAFE while participating, that it is extremely UNCOMFORTABLE if even a small percentage of men are doing the "piece of meat" leer, ought to receive more attention.

Bluntly, women walking into a large group of strangers, away from home, have to be proactive and wary about their physical safety. Open leering and sexist jokes and being hit on and having guys talk to your nipples make that worry escalate. If there's alcohol involved it goes stratospherric. If a certain level of that is evident AND tolerated by the other participants at the convention, women just aren't going to show up twice.

Posted by: windy | June 29, 2010 9:29 PM

No, it's not perfect, but since most mind-characteristics are most affected by hormones and the shifts are well, non-existant, it would mean all of it is in initial brain wiring by biological basis on either an embryonic or genetic level.
Such location of disparities has also been found to be lacking by study after study after study

Again, sex differences in height imply otherwise

I don't know how many times I have gone over it with men who just need for there to be a distinct biological separation.

You know what there are. You grow a penis, ciswomen grow a vagina.

I have yet to grow a penis and a lot of people have mentioned/alluded to the topic in this thread, so I commented on it. I don't "need" it to be one or the other.

Posted by: Xplodyncow | June 29, 2010 9:35 PM

We've been married for 30 years now.

Posted by: Aquaria | June 29, 2010 9:47 PM

I don't always feel that my opinions would be valid or appreciated here. That they (and I) would be dismissed as not scientific enough (not smart enough), not expressed in the 'right' debate/persuasive argument way, not assertive enough...just not enough. And if I'm still this nervous about posting to a freaking internet blog, why the hell would I go to a conference and have that experience in person?

I don't get this.

1) There are plenty of non-science posts to get involved in. Like this one.

2) Being nice doesn't mean you can't participate. Sastra is terminally nice, and I can't think of anyone who doesn't respect her tremendously. Anybody who doesn't, I'll kick his ass.

3) I am the dumbest person here, without a doubt. I dropped out of high school and later got a GED. All the college I've had was what hours I could squeeze in here and there over the years. A lot of what I've learned has been from watching science shows, and reading books and blogs like this one.

I've been commenting for a couple of years now. I have never felt unwelcome or looked down on. Maybe it helps that I'd been on political blogs in the past, and thus had enough familiarity with logical fallacies, backing up claims with citations, and other such factors of good debate. Maybe it helped that I knew how to shut up when I knew nothing about a subject, and was prepared to be smacked down if I said something stupid.

And maybe it's that I don't set much store by being nice to liars, con artists, manipulative twits, cheats, delusional fucktards, bigots, or simpering jerkoffs. :::Coat condition: Sniny:::

Living in Texas, I spend all day (or night, as the case is), listening to the truth getting slaughtered, and feeling alone in stemming back the tide of stupid. I come here at the end, because it's good to be around other people who care about the truth, and enough to fight for it. It's really the only requirement for participating.

Posted by: windy | June 29, 2010 9:52 PM

You are right, my statement was wrong and alienating to transmen, third-gender, intersex, and those who forego gender and sex altogether, I apologize.

WTF are you on about? It's a little bit alienating, yes, that you continue to talk past me and only address men on this issue.

Posted by: Mandukhai | June 29, 2010 9:56 PM

Caine @ 402:

Please do comment more, new voices and points of view are always welcome.

I've been commenting for a couple of years now. I have never felt unwelcome or looked down on.

You are a *prime* example of why newbies need to read more and keep their fingers off the damn keyboard. You're so damn wrong it's beyond wrong.

Posted by: spanner | June 29, 2010 10:07 PM

It can be difficult to find fellow skeptics, freethinkers, atheists, etc., out in the world and I bet many people don't go to atheist events (where they could meet such people) because they'd have to go alone. It's much more difficult for women to do that, I think. It is certainly more dangerous, no matter how much we might wish that weren't so.

Perhaps event organizers could find women, men, couples, groups, who are familiar with these types of events who will commit to guiding newbies or loners throughout the event or until they feel comfortable on their own. Like some sort of social network that would ensure that women (or men, for that matter) would not be left alone under any circumstances not of their own choosing.

Now, being very late to the thread, I'm going to read the comments to see how many other people already suggested this and find all the better ideas.

Posted by: florakinz | June 29, 2010 10:23 PM

Azkyroth, #396

Really, #186? CW's characterizing women as 'pissing on' him is ok, but I'm the one who's sneering? He's a 'shining example of possibility' and I'm 'deeply unhealthy?'

Thank you to those who are demonstrating why women don't speak up much, in a thread that was supposed to be about women talking about why they don't speak up much.

You know, it looks to me like several dozen women have expressed opinions, even strong ones, and not been criticized the way you have. Are you sure there couldn't possibly be anything else about your statements, other than the fact that they're coming from a woman, that someone might find objectionable?

Gee, and here I was starting to feel like I WASN'T being critized more than other women here for expressing strong opinions. And here I was all feeling a little welcome, less isolated, less lonely. Thanks for pointing out that (most of) the other ladies are behaving and it's my misbehavior, not my ladieness, that's getting me in trouble.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 29, 2010 10:30 PM

Phew... just read all this! Wow.

This is getting sad. Please let's not have a gender essentialism derail. Florakinz, you'll find that the question comes up here a lot and that there have been some pretty good arguments on the subject.

Yes, it is questioned. In fact there was a very good post on the subject not long ago with a lot of commentary that might be worth reading here.

But I really hope we can keep from that spiral in this particular thread!

To you, and other newer posters, you may get pushed back at here but you will not be shut up.

I was terrified to post here and lurked for years. A lot was going on in my life, and a lot had happened in the past.

I read, I felt inferior, but at some point I got into an argument and was surprised to find that while I was on one hand feeling so opposed I started to question and doubt my very perception, at the same time there were others who felt I was voicing their perceptions too.

And so I started to try to find better ways to do this, because I realized that until I stood up I had been hoping some one else would.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 29, 2010 10:37 PM

florakinz:

Um, I've read the whole thread, and that's exactly what you're doing. Are you one of those guys that thinks because you're gay you can't possibly be sexist?

You're really off track here, florakinz. At any rate, since Josh kept his word and left the thread, there isn't much point in hashing it over.

Posted by: Murphy | June 29, 2010 10:45 PM

@418
Hi Caine! Thanks for the suggestion, I will check it out.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 29, 2010 10:52 PM

I definitely did not intend to derail, or open up a huge can of worms.

Oh I think it deserves discussing, but it's a topic that tends to generate massive discussions. Some people bring a lot of good information to the table, and despite seeming out of place here Sven is actually one of them although I often disagree with some of what he says. Windy is also good to watch for that. And of course Cerberus.

There's biological differences and then there's biological justifications and the arguments therein can be a great way to strengthen your own voice.

I've learned a lot from it and I'm not even a scientist!

My only concern is that if that topic gets lively here there really won't be much of anything else being talked about anymore... :/

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawl2qTiTnACSo2J28faXiEQZA22htFvePg0 | June 29, 2010 11:01 PM

Virtually every skeptic I know is a woman. Our husbands are more conservative and more routed in tradition than we are.

But most of them don't discuss it, because their husbands are not on board, and they don't want to rock the boat.

Raising four atheist kids in a household with a Jewish man who won't give it up isn't easy. It has, however, made me even less tolerant of tolerance. Which makes me the loudmouth of the group--the token woman godless skeptic in my social circle full of atheist women and their more religious husbands.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 29, 2010 11:11 PM

Dae:

Can anyone link me to the "gender essentialism thread" that has been referenced many times in the last 30 posts or so?

Here you go.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 29, 2010 11:17 PM

florakinz:

I live about 11 miles North of Boston. Anyone want to come to my house for a skeptical potluck?

The endless thread is a good place to find out if people live in your area or if there are meetups there.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 29, 2010 11:22 PM

Actually I think there's a better link too from the infamous Pinker quote...

but I'm doing a crap job of finding it.

Posted by: Betelgeuse | June 29, 2010 11:30 PM

I have to apologise for my typos.
In that order, *..Activity, *I think, ..parents'.

Posted by: SarahContrara | June 29, 2010 11:41 PM

Haven't read past about post #30, because I've got to get up in 6 hours and I haven't made it to bed yet.

The blogger you linked to has hit the nail on the head, for me. I am a SAHM to two kids under 4. I work 20 - 30 hours a week as a technology writer, whenever I can possibly squeeze it in (and often when I can't). I also lead two community groups for neighborhood crime prevention, which my community desperately needs right now, and ongoing campaigns to fix problems within my city.

I can spare about 25 minutes a week to catch up on my atheism and skeptic blogs, read a bit of Dawkins or McGowan, and squeeze out a comment or two.

I can't imagine how I'd find the time to blog or write a book or attend a conference.

I think the unfortunate reality is that many female skeptics and atheists, like myself, don't have careers that are related to those things. So it requires a change in momentum and direction to get involved, and for most of us, it just never makes it high enough on the to-do list to actually get done.

I tell myself that when my kids are another year older, I'll have more time to get into it. But every year, I just seem to have more to do, because as they move out further and further into the community, attending preschool and then grade school, there are more problems in the world I feel compelled to solve. Plus I have increased opportunity to tend to that career I've been stringing along for 4+ years.

So yeah, I get where she's coming from. (And now I'm going to bed, dammit.)

Posted by: raven | June 29, 2010 11:47 PM

Just skimmed this long thread. A few points.

1. You don't have to know much science to be an atheist. Most atheist thought leaders, although not all, are philosophers, biblical scholars, and ex-ministers. Religion is more in the realm of the humanities.

2. You can always pick up the basic science. Between the libraries, book stores, and the internet, there are numerous resources. It isn't hard.

3. It might be nice to go to atheist/skeptic meetings but that isn't necessary. Today, much of the public life of our society is carried out online. This is the old Greek forum or public square in the digital age. The most important of my societal activities is voting.

Posted by: articulett | June 29, 2010 11:56 PM

When my son was young, I kept my skepticism to myself because I didn't want my views to affect how others treated him.

I think subservient, peace-making woman were more likely to pass on their genes than assertive woman judging from the type of women who have the most children. And I suspect that uppity women like myself were over represented in those who were killed for being witches. This might account for why women are more cautious about speaking up.

It took me a while and some practice before I felt "ballsy" enough to jump in. The internet allows women to speak up in a way that real life may not. I suspect the ratios will even out with time-- especially, once word gets out regarding the awesomeness of skeptical men (they still think they are right all the time, but they don't invoke divine beings as "evidence" --ha!) Actually, I find skeptics to be the smartest, most honest, and funniest people around-- especially those snarky, edgy "new atheists"!

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 30, 2010 12:14 AM

#434

Yeah, that's it I think Cerberus!

Posted by: CanadianChick | June 30, 2010 12:35 AM

I can't speak for any woman other than myself, but the reason I don't go to skeptic meetings is because they mostly just don't interest me. Im a non-scientist, but i can follow the basics (i chose accounting instead of biochem). Adding woman-centric activities would send me screaming out the door - I find spa sessions a form of torture, I have no kids, and I don't really want to hear the latest feminist theory of how horrible men are. I'm basically happy with asynchronous communication via the Internet and maybe the occasional talk by PZ or Dawkins or someone like that.

I've never been raised to think I should be meek and quiet or non-confrontational. I like arguing about politics, religion, philosophy, although sometimes I'd rather not. Most of my friends are guys, I'm happy to bullshit over a beer. Large crowds are unpleasant to me though...and as an introvert, I'd rather avoid situations where I'm surrounded by strangers (like the local Skeptics in the Pub meetups in Vancouver).

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 30, 2010 12:45 AM

C. Pygerythrus.

Biopedantically, it's C. pygerythrus; both the capitalization and italics are important conventions. And I stand by everything I said about science on the thread to which you obliquely refer. (btw, do I still have the last word there? I haven't checked in a a long time)

inherent gender roles (Sven's contribution)

No, no. I was reacting--not unusually--to unreferenced assertions by others. If you don't like it, don't make 'em. You, Cerberus, still don't get that part.

You don't usually strike me as an asshole who finds collections of women so emasculating he needs to piss on them from on high, so what gives?

That's twice in one thread I've been called an 'asshole'. If you seriously think that acknowledging the reality of measurable differences in the brains and behaviors of human males and females is equivalent to 'pissing on women from on high', and that caring more about data than feelings is equivalent to being an 'emasculated asshole' then we don't have much to talk about.

DIe in a fire.

Sorry, C. I'm killfiling you.

Are you trying to sarcastically imply that because I don't accept gender essentialism, that means I'm so stupid I don't know how magnets work? But I don't really appreciate you suggesting I'm a complete moron for disagreeing with you. For the record, I was referring to the heteronormative status quo, not the status quo in information about magnetism.

Sorry; all wrong. It;s a pop-culture reference to a recent song by an outfit called the Insane Clown Posse...too hard to explain. The point, though, was denialism: willful denial of scientific knowledge that one finds politically or cognitively or religiously inconvenient is indistinguishable from ignorance.

A biophile is someone who is obsessed with animals. Not intended as a pejorative, but it can cause a fair amount of bias.

*shrug* I'm obsessed with animals--I'am a professional turtle physiologist for chrissakes--and I'm far more skeptical in general than you are, I'd wager. It's just that I prioritize data over wishes.

we have language...And thus I'm deeply skeptical about comparisons between human behavior and animal behavior, especially when it uncritically supports the heteronormative status quo.

Spoken like a nonheteronormal linguist. Do you actually know anything about animal behavior, or are you ignorant as well as skeptical?

And why am I having this conversation AGAIN on this of all threads. Was the topic too emasculating? Are men so privileged that the idea of a space where they are not to speak, but to listen, openly offensive to them (Yes, this would be it)?

There is absolutely no need for the gender essentialism discussion on this thread, period. None. It's a derail.

This is getting sad. Please let's not have a gender essentialism derail.

Out of respect for the last two quotes above I'll shut up.

Posted by: j_silent | June 30, 2010 12:59 AM

I've really appreciated this discussion. As someone who really wants the secular/sceptical movements to be successful, I think it's critical that they do not remain overwhelmingly populated by geeky white guys. Settling on that equilibrium makes it much harder to gain more broad-based acceptance and achieve public policy goals.

As a dude, I wasn't going to comment, but I couldn't resist after reading a few facepalm comments. Fortunately the discussion seems to have moved on maybe I should not bother but I can't help it.

CW @ 61, etc. Glad to see you've stopped digging deeper. The discussion is supposed to be about listening to concerns women have, one of the recurring themes is that women are socialized to not be aggressive which can be an awkward fit with the atheist movement, and you have to chime in to criticize a woman for being a little to snarky for your taste? Yeesh. Plus I see some parallels to this Chris Rock bit.

A few other random commenters (e.g., Hairhead), read PZ's post again. Several more times if needed. This isn't a forum for men to instruct women on how they should act. Believe women when they say you can't really understand what they deal with.

@Cobolt - Where to start? Dude, you don't get it. Even if there weren't clear instructions that guys should really think twice about commenting and listen to what women are saying, there's clear evidence that there are real problems that dissuade women from participating and that hurts the cause. Some are broad systemic social issues, where atheist leaders aren't necessarily "at fault" or whatever, but there are other issues where that isn't the case. Regardless, we need to take this issue seriously, listen, and work towards solutions. I get the impression that you're either very young, not terribly bright, or a giant douche. Either way, I hope you can grow out of it.

Posted by: parclair#d615c | June 30, 2010 1:03 AM

Hi-- I'm back because I've been hovering over my email account, looking for an email from frautech and coming up empty. FT, have you e-mailed Ol'Greg? Ol'greg, did my e-mail get to you?

As I read through the comments, a thought occurs to me. I'm a feminist from waaaay back (raised one). But the organized movement and I parted ways when it became, yes, angry, intolerant of other views, and generally filled with flame. As I recall, that's when many women who otherwise would be feminists started saying "I'm not a feminist, but....." (I've always stated I'm a feminist).

Why is courteous discourse such a bad thing?

A number of women have made excellent points. In fact, I think most of the issues have been covered. Now, the question is, are the men listening?

Posted by: marilove | June 30, 2010 1:06 AM

That's twice in one thread I've been called an 'asshole'.

And you're surprised about this? If you're not an asshole, then perhaps you just didn't read the post. Is that it? Because then ... well, you'd still be an asshole.

Oh, and guys: in this thread, unless you're sincerely trying to be fem-friendly and make positive suggestions and ask for more information and read attentively, take a back seat for a bit, OK? It's not that hard to do.

But, you know; reading is so hard.

Or perhaps .... the thought of shutting up and letting women speak for themselves for one damn thread was so emasculating, that you chose to ignore that request? Which still makes you an asshole.

You know what? Every time I read a thread here about women in science, or feminism, or any other related subject, some fucktard has to come waltz in here and mansplain' how different the brains of men and women are; and every fucking time,t he argument is debunked.

Yet here we are again.

EVEN AFTER PZ TOLD YOU TO SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Here we are again.

Seriously, dude?

Fuck off.

Posted by: Hmm | June 30, 2010 1:08 AM

To PZ Myers

The first thing I’d like to share is a general point about the orientation of this blog post. I very much appreciate how it really emphasizes listening to the perspective of others and that it increases the possibility of people sharing their perspective, especially those who often don’t.

I am a female and an atheist and I’d just like to bring up a couple of points that I am not clear on. You say that you don’t want to “tell the women what's wrong here and how they can fix it” and instead say that you think “the right answer is for us males to shut up now and then and listen.” But then you end by saying “All we need is some uppity women with ambition to make it happen, and the application of a little pressure to the staff at AAI,” which, seems to me, is doing exactly what you did not want to do, that is, tell women “how they can fix it” and, in addition, your suggestion for fixing the problem is based in traditional (male gender) values of “ambition,” asserting one’s own self-importance over others, and force. Perhaps I have misunderstood your perspective or perhaps you were being ironic…

My other issue is that you say that you think that the proposed conference called Women and Secularism (which I do like a lot) ought to be organized entirely by women. I don’t see exactly see why it would have to be limited only to women. From my perspective, my presence or lack of presence in a particular dialogue and situation is virtually always engaged with others and with men, so to understand the situation from my perspective as a woman would suggest that the men with whom my perspective is formed would very likely have something very valuable to contribute in bringing forth my perspective to others and myself. At the same time, I want to make sure than I am not misrepresenting someone else’s perspective, so I would want to bring as many different perspectives into the organizing as possible.

A related point is that I also think that men could be brought into a discussion such as this one, but only if they strive to listen, endeavor to make sure that they are not monopolizing the discussion, and take active steps (like you have done) to bring women into the discussion, all of which culturally are often difficult to do.

Despite these comments, I do agree with most of the points in the post and I agree with posters who said that funding women or providing child care, etc. so that they can afford to go to conferences, in other words, recognizing the situation of women and doing something about it, is crucial.

To close, I would like to say that I am completely open to the possibility that I have misunderstood your perspective and that my perspective is inadequate in light of certain gender studies and further reflection.

Posted by: marilove | June 30, 2010 1:11 AM

And I'm going to copy/paste your reply, because he said he's going to "killfile" you. What a fucking coward.

Sven @445 You don't know why bringing up debunked gender essentialist bullshit on a thread where men were specifically told to shut up and listen is assholic behavior?

Ok, fine, killfile me, if you must, but honestly, I thought you weren't an asshole. I was honestly surprised.

But this?
Dear Bob, I can't express how punched in the gut I am by this revelation, Sven. Or how much my opinion of you has plummeted into the ground.

There. That's her reply, which you should very well read.

Shut
The
Fuck
Up

Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com | June 30, 2010 1:34 AM

I see no persons of color or minorities, either!

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | June 30, 2010 1:59 AM

jcmartz @457

Personally, I think that might be the harder and much more important problem to solve. I mean, there is the beginning of outreach to feminism and women, but there has been little to no outreach to the POC community by skeptics and atheists or even recognition of POC atheists, humanists, and skeptics.

And the Copenhagen Declaration thread and the Declaration itself has revealed some of the inherent blocks and certainly consequences of that failure of outreach.

I sense an atheist community push-back against sexism in the community, but the push-back against racism has been slow to start and is necessary to occur if atheism wants to continue to connect with and recruit those most needing of them (minority communities who are almost constantly fucked over by religion).

And the comments many made about feeling alienated or unsafe in a sea of men certainly would be the same for someone being the only POC in a white-washed community.

Even this community, which has a lot of out women, is a bit dearth on out POC.

Posted by: aynsavoy | June 30, 2010 2:09 AM

Been following this discussion all day long and decided to finally de-lurk. (I've only posted once before, on the Kraken thread.)

Married 23-year-old female feminist atheist (or atheist feminist; my feminism and atheism are very intertwined), raised as an atheist and feminist. Was first ostracized for these views in 1st grade; gradually became vocal about them again during high school, thanks to an unapologetically atheist mentor, and have been developing my own atheist views since then. I don't actively avoid debates about religion, but I also don't come across many opportunities and don't go out of my way to find them.

Long story short? While I am passionately atheist, I am not involved in the atheist/skeptic community, though I find more and more that I would like to be.

This morning, just before I read this post, my cat sitter mentioned that he was going to be speaking at Skepticon 3. The only obstacle to my attendance that I immediately noted was the face that it is in Missouri, and I am in California.

Earlier in the thread, someone (maybe PZ?) mentioned wanting to get more women involved so that they can help to shape the movement. I want to know, how does my attending an atheist conference help shape the movement?

I enjoy reading blogs and listening to talks that reaffirm my beliefs as much as the next person, but I am not necessarily willing to spend my time and money to sit in the choir that is being preached at. I'm sure I would learn something new, but if I'm going to make an investment I don't just want to enrich my own being--I want to be able to take action.

This could be a perception problem, and if I have the wrong impression of these conferences I would love to be corrected. I am not sure this is a female/feminist concern in particular, but it might resonate with those in this thread who have mentioned wanting to stand up and do something about social issues.

This post is too long already, but finally wanted to add: yes, I've read the responses that say that the atheist movement isn't really all about science, but I often don't feel confident debating a point because, even if I've read and understood the science behind my views, I haven't internalized it well enough to articulate it in a debate.

Posted by: lizzbee | June 30, 2010 2:25 AM

I just registered to leave this quick comment.

I'm not a member of any atheist organizations; some of the fervor behind many of these organizations rubs me wrong and feels akin to that felt by some of the more outspoken theists I've encountered. I'm reasonably scientifically literate, but I'm not one of those people continually intrigued by new developments and discoveries as many of my fellow atheists seem to be. I looked at the Skepchicon agenda, and found that most of the topics discussed are scientific in nature. I'm just not interested, alas, so there would be little point in attending.

I'm a quiet atheist, who will only say something if I'm confronted with some kind of suppression of my rights by a fellow individual. I want to be left to my lack of religion in peace, both by more outspoken atheists, and by theists intent on converting me. I think religion, just like a lack of religion, is entirely a private choice, and should be spoken of privately. None of the atheist organizations out there (at least that I've seen) really speak to my own needs, and the conferences seem to cater to a different kind of atheist than I am. And I think organizations like the ACLU do a better job of representing my own interests than, say, the American Atheists. I have no desire to be an outlier or a crusader, I just want to be an American who is left alone when it comes to matters of faith.

Posted by: Aquaria | June 30, 2010 3:01 AM

I'm reasonably scientifically literate, but I'm not one of those people continually intrigued by new developments and discoveries as many of my fellow atheists seem to be.

You're assuming that, little realizing that plenty of atheists aren't scientists and have little or no interest in it (Christopher Hitchens). We can appreciate it, but we don't need to know it well

Most of the time when science comes up in regards to atheism, what's being referred to is the Scientific Method, not the minutiae of zebrafish spinal cord development. If you can understand why the Scientific Method is important to many vocal atheists, then you'll realize why you're worried about science for nothing.

I want to be left to my lack of religion in peace, both by more outspoken atheists, and by theists intent on converting me. I think religion, just like a lack of religion, is entirely a private choice, and should be spoken of privately.

You won't be left alone with your beliefs if someone isn't standing up for them. The ACLU has enough on its hands, and it can do only so much. It's not their job to raise awareness about atheists and our concerns, either.

So sit back and let other people do the hard work, the dirty work, while you sneer at them, even though you benefit from their efforts just as much as they do.

Even sponges will give back what they take in.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 30, 2010 3:48 AM

skeptifem:

Sven has been an asshole for quite sometime.

I'm going to tack on the qualifier you should have: in my opinion. You butt heads with quite a few people around here, and that's fine. I'm sure you think there are a fair amount of assholes here, and that's fine too. Please don't make it sound like there's some sort of consensus you're simply reporting on. Everyone here wouldn't necessarily agree with your assessment.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 30, 2010 4:00 AM

Aquaria @ 458:

As for Caine's remark, did it occur to you that there is a way aidel could have brought up the Trophy Wife issue without being so pissy, sanctimonious and presumptuous? Did it occur to you to see it from Caine's viewpoint, or to challenge her response directly?

Since I've been brought up, I'll clarify. The main reason I slapped aidel was because her/his comment started out positive, then took off with an incredibly off the wall negative assumption about PZ, Pharyngula and everyone else here because of the mention of the Trophy Wife™. It was beyond silly that aidel completely ignored a post they were in agreement with because of it, and couldn't bother to take the time to think for a moment; not even pausing to wonder about the TM attached.

It would have taken mere minutes to copy and paste Trophy Wife™ into the search box at the upper left of the page, it would have taken even less time to simply ask "what the fuck is the "trophy wife" about? I find if offensive, but maybe I'm on the wrong track here..." or somesuch.

I have nothing against pouncing with claws out and ready for shredding, if you're going to pounce, however, it's best to make sure you have something to pounce about. And, if a person pounces without reason (which most of us have done, at least once, I certainly have), the best course of action is to take a deep breath, own up to it, and then move on. An incorrect pounce and flounce isn't impressive.

For the record, I have a Trophy Husband™, found him 31 years ago.

Posted by: Killua | June 30, 2010 4:27 AM

It's 1:27am, excuse the blatantly obvious grammatical mistakes in my post. I'm tired, and work was long... I'm not usually quite that sloppy. (Still sloppy but not THAT bad)

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 30, 2010 4:31 AM

lizzbee:

I'm a quiet atheist, who will only say something if I'm confronted with some kind of suppression of my rights by a fellow individual. I want to be left to my lack of religion in peace, both by more outspoken atheists, and by theists intent on converting me. I think religion, just like a lack of religion, is entirely a private choice, and should be spoken of privately. None of the atheist organizations out there (at least that I've seen) really speak to my own needs, and the conferences seem to cater to a different kind of atheist than I am. And I think organizations like the ACLU do a better job of representing my own interests than, say, the American Atheists. I have no desire to be an outlier or a crusader, I just want to be an American who is left alone when it comes to matters of faith.

In an ideal world, I'd agree. I would *love* faith or the lack thereof be a truly private matter. That is not the case, however, particularly in the U.S. There are a lot of non-theists like yourself, lizzbee, and unfortunately, they're part of the problem when it comes to the near constant attempts to place religion where it has no business being.

I appreciate the desire for a quiet life; however, someone needs to speak up when people are pushing creationism into schools, happily editing textbooks to fit a xian ideal; when people still think political leaders must bow down to things such as a national day of prayer, etc. The list goes on and on and on. The more someones who manage to speak out, the better. So, enjoy your quiet life, but it's those of us who are active and who do speak out who are doing the heavy lifting - the ACLU can't cover it all, you know.

Posted by: sophia b | June 30, 2010 5:31 AM

Ok, don't know if other people feel the same way, but with me i only start to feel uncomfortable with large gender skews in groups when they're focused on things i don't or feel i don't know much about (I've been in male dominated situations for most of the past 10 years though, so maybe i've just gotten used to it). So a room full of mostly male physicists is just fine, but a room full of mostly male comp sci nerds not so much. I start to feel conspicuous and want to feel less so.

This may be relevent to skepticism as a lot of people are new to this movement. Given that often with the same level of knowledge more women will feel like they don't know much than men, this may be part of the problem. This could be helped by more local smaller groups that get people used to the issues/feel confident talking about them. The other thing that could help is making people from a variety of backgrounds feel welcome, not just science-y folks (which i am proudly one of). Artists, teachers, lawyers, comedians etc are all people we want in this movement.

Posted by: DLC | June 30, 2010 7:10 AM

475 comments.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmrm3faHMWCwRp1LfisEv1ZR8Nvzw4KGpw | June 30, 2010 7:40 AM

http://www.teenageatheist.com

A teenage & female take on atheism.

Posted by: Killua | June 30, 2010 7:58 AM

Caine you miss my point. If I wanted to specifically name prominent women in such fields, I could, but my point was more that as far as "first to come to mind", or the most easily recognizable people in such areas, are not women. I truly doubt that when you thought "name the first ten chefs that pop into your mind" cold, Anita Lo will make it to the front of the list. (Though Julia Childs in any reasonable person should have, I'm just an idiot) The problem is that you said "focusing on females", but I'm saying that if we don't "focus on females", if we pick just the first people that spring to mind in any given field, rarely will women outnumber the men.

I was never even remotely trying to indicate that women were incapable of doing any of that, rather, I was trying to say that despite women being as equally capable in these areas, they don't by and large achieve the same prominence as their male peers. The reason could very well be that women in general are simply not treated as seriously, and though yes you will get very prominent women, yes Julia Childs really really REALLY should have been on my list (seriously I wanna strangle myself for that omission) they are the minority. The problem is not coming from a lack of ability.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | June 30, 2010 8:10 AM

Killua:

Caine you miss my point. If I wanted to specifically name prominent women in such fields, I could, but my point was more that as far as "first to come to mind", or the most easily recognizable people in such areas, are not women. I truly doubt that when you thought "name the first ten chefs that pop into your mind" cold, Anita Lo will make it to the front of the list.

I got your point just fine, Killua. As for Anita Lo making to the front of my 'spring to mind list', yes, she would. She might not make yours. *shrug* We're different people.

My point was that I think you were painting with a brush that was bit too broad. While your point was valid, it was overly general. My individual taste in matters makes me very aware of women in various fields of endeavor. Individual taste, education, interests and general knowledge would make lists from people, both male and female, very different. I don't think the canvas you're attempting to paint is as simple as you wish it to be.

Posted by: Masala Skeptic | June 30, 2010 8:16 AM

I am a minority among women in that I don't have the traditional things holding me back (no kids, lucky enough to have the money to be able to attend conferences etc) but here's my two cents:

1. I think that one of the key things to solve this 'problem' is for women to take ownership of the solution themselves. I suspect a lot of women want to be asked to participate as opposed to jumping in and proposing that they do. Submit paper presentations for TAM, speak to local groups or contribute in other ways. This isn't entirely a problem for women to solve but in my experience, these organizations are very receptive to ideas. Carrie Iwan pretty much pulled Skepchicon together on her own - she had the idea and just did it. It was received very well last year and I expect an even bigger response next year. Cons are a really interesting place to promote skepticism. Dragon*Con is a great example - we get a lot of women AND men at DragonCon who have never heard of Skepticism but wander into the Skeptics Track and stay because they are fascinated with the ideas. It's a great way to promote to both genders.

2. As others have said, there are plenty of women who are skeptics and atheists but they don't necessarily feel like they want to be part of the 'movement.' This may be because atheism in and of itself has limited impact to everyday life. I'm an atheist but whether or not there is a god really doesn't come up on a day-to-day basis (even though I live in the South). However, issues like anti-vaccination, evolution being taught in the classroom and alternative medicine are issues that have real impact to women and their families. I think bringing these issues up and demonstrating the real-life dangers of these things is much more likely to get women riled up and participating.

3. Also, just a clarification: Skeptiheidi - the 'mission' of Skepchick isn't that Smart girls can be sexy. It's that smart is sexy. That's a pretty small but critical distinction. The idea that intelligence is an attractive quality is much more important and, let's be honest, less condescending, than 'you're a smart girl but you can be attractive TOO!' - which is just about the opposite of the message we want to promote :)

Posted by: TrineBM | June 30, 2010 8:25 AM

More scattered thoughts:
A lot of posts here seem to circle around the subject of women who feel inadequate, or "too stupid/uneducated" to attend conferences. That puzzles me.
I'm a musicologist, ex-radioeditor, current editor of a trivia-game. I'm no scientist, no sir.
I am, and have always been an atheist. I feel quite the expert on that field, and I know I'm an expert in areas where even the nerdiest scientist would be scratching his/her head (The importance of the serial principles in the composition "Kreuzspiel" by Karlheinz Stockhausen from 1950 for instance. Anyone feel up to debating that? no?? really???)
I went to the conference in Copenhagen to learn, not to be quizzed... and I learned a lot. No one - man or woman - belittled me, or quizzed me on science-subjects. Why should they? There was a lovely bunch of Pharyngulites present, and I felt I'd given myself a real treat by attending.

As to the comments on the feeling of entering a meat market. Hmmm, I wonder if men feel the same way the first time they walk into choir practice or the like.
It never bothered me one moment at this specific conference (Copenhagen), but then again I'm the worst flirter on the planet, so maybe it just doesn't register with me.

Posted by: llewelly | June 30, 2010 9:05 AM

Ol'Greg | June 30, 2010 12:38 AM:

What is it with the feminist hate? You'd think we just sit there going
"yup, men are pigs"
all day.

Posted by: SarahContrara | June 30, 2010 9:35 AM

I think adding tracks or speakers or themes that women are interested in could include:

* A Skeptical Look at the Claims of Modern Parenting Methods (Attachment parenting, baby training, etc.)

* Alt Med: Is there any evidence?

* Dissecting the anti-vax movement

* Living or loving a theist (from spouses to grandparents to children)

* Closeted atheists (How to come out without alienating your family, friends, or community)

* A brief history of modern skepticism

* Kids talk about their experiences at Camp Quest

* Atheists Are Philanthropists, Too: Foundation Beyond Belief

* Surprising sources of theism in public schools

* Sexism and Skepticism: Should we just "get over it"?

* Q&A with a panel of female skeptics

etc.

I don't think has to all be about family life, but just move more toward topics in liberal arts, community, relationships, activism, etc. There are plenty of women who are interested in science and will attend those topics, too, but who are less likely to come out for a conference that's heavily weighted in that direction.

That said, if it was in my city (or nearby), I'd be there no matter the topics. :) So again, proximity, proximity, proximity... and maybe scholarships, if that's not possible.

Posted by: MsAnnThrope | June 30, 2010 10:01 AM

@various women who are complaining about being hit on at conferances..

If you can't stand up for yourself enough to tell a creepy guy to bugger the hell off, how on earth do you ever manage to defend your non-comformist (atheist) views at all?

Seriously, how is the even an excuse?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 30, 2010 10:07 AM

It's almost poetic that this statement:

But there are some fights that just aren't worth fighting.

Is followed by this one:

If you can't stand up for yourself enough to tell a creepy guy to bugger the hell off, how on earth do you ever manage to defend your non-comformist (atheist) views at all? Seriously, how is the even an excuse?

Isn't it?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 30, 2010 10:17 AM

If you can't stand up for yourself enough to tell a creepy guy to bugger the hell off

And I'll go on... who says they aren't standing up to tell him to leave them alone?

Who wants to spend money and vacation time having to tell creeps to leave them alone?

Even after telling him to fuck off it can be irritating. Especially if it's not one, but five, or a couple every night... or if you don't get to talk to anybody much because the whole *excuse* of speaking to you feels more like a thin charade to get a quick lay.

Why do you make such vast assumptions about people who don't appreciate having to spend their free time combating assholes and the ever-present Schroedinger's rapist?

It's not an excuse, idiot, it's a valid *complaint* and your eagerness to attack women for responding to the problem is a part of the problem itself.

Apt name, by the way.

Posted by: jupiter9 | June 30, 2010 10:27 AM

Here's another hint.

When you make fun of woo people or other stupids, please don't do it in falsetto with effeminate gestures.

Posted by: MsAnnThrope | June 30, 2010 10:40 AM

@ Cereberus
I agree with SophStarfish. Don't you see that its a little condescending to have all the men "step aside" just to give us poor helpless women a chance to be heard?

A lil bit OT:

I feel the same concerning people insisting on using PC gender terms, like "postperson" vs "postman". Who the fuck cares? Changing the language doesnt change centuries of misogyny.

Posted by: marilove | June 30, 2010 10:43 AM

If you can't stand up for yourself enough to tell a creepy guy to bugger the hell off, how on earth do you ever manage to defend your non-comformist (atheist) views at all? Seriously, how is the even an excuse?

Oh, yeah! It’s OUR job to police how a man behaves! It’s up to US to tell the men to stop being creepy assholes!

Are you serious?

It’s not our fucking job!

Maybe, just maybe, when we enter a room and start getting hit on or leered at, we just don’t feel like, yet again, dealing with the same crap that we have to deal with on a daily basis. Maybe we’re tired of having to tell men that their behavior isn’t appropriate. Maybe, just maybe, we have to deal with inappropriate behavior from men on a daily basis, and so we choose not to deal with it at all when we have that choice. Maybe we’re tired of dealing with it in places we havechoose to go, we choose to not attend places where asshole men are.

It is not a woman’s job to tell a man to stop being a creepy asshole. Or are you saying men just can’t help themselves? Are you saying that men are too weak to control themselves? Are you saying that men are a prison to their sexuality? That when a woman enters a room, they just can’t help it?

Seriously?

How is, “Oh, she didn’t tell me I was being a creepy asshole!” an excuse for asshole behavior? Shouldn’t grown fucking men know better? Shouldn’t so-called enlightened Skeptical men know better?!

If you are not a woman who has been in this situation, you will never understand how uncomfortable and dangerous it can feel.
This isn’t related to the Skeptical community, but it’s a true story: Once, I called my office to fix my air conditioner in my apartment. It was 105 degrees out at 9pm. Two men showed up. One was the maintenance guy, who was very respectful and nice but didn’t speak a whole lot of English and I couldn’t really communicate with him. The other was a man who worked in the office, who was far from respectful and nice; we’ll call him Creep. He was there to help translate, I guess. Creep spent the entire time leering at me and hitting on me, when all I wanted was for my fucking air conditioner to be fixed. That was awesome: I live alone, and I had two strange men in my apartment, one of whom was leering and hitting on me and generally being a creep. The maintenance guy had to leave for a bit, to get a part from the office. It took him forever, and Creep hit on me the entire time, completely invading my space. The entire time I felt unsafe, but it was incredibly hot and I just wanted my air conditioner fixed, and I was afraid that if I kicked him out, the maintenance guy wouldn’t return, because I couldn’t communicate with him and Creep could. I was also concerned because Creep had a key to my apartment. That was a nice feeling!
Should I have “stood up” for myself? Risked being raped? Risked having Creep come back, because I hurt his poor little feelings by rejecting him, and risk being raped as I slept? I decided it wasn’t worth it. I waited for the Maintenance guy to return. Then they left. I left a bat by my locked bedroom door that night. I complained to the management the next day. The following day he was fired, thankfully. I changed my locks.

And what about that time I entered a full bus, only to get physically groped – and when I complained to the bus driver, he laughed at me? Yeah. That was fan-fucking-tastic.

And what about that time at the bus stop, when I was alone and a strange man came up and started to physically grope me and almost wouldn’t let me go (he was much larger), until, thankfully, the bus came? Then he ran away.

But, it’s up to me to tell these men to stop! Because of course they’ll totally listen, since it’s clear they respect me, right? WRONG. They’ve already made it clear they don’t respect me; why would they listen to me?

Maybe … just maybe, I except that Skeptical men – men who claim to be enlightened -- to behave better than that. And when they don’t – and many won’t – I might decide, “FUCK IT. I have to deal with this crap on a daily basis anyway. FUCK this shit. I’m out.”

Just maybe, women have to deal with this crap so often they decide not to deal with it when they have the choice not to. Maybe, just maybe, we feel unsafe enough that when we have a choice to not attend an environment where we feel unsafe, we won’t go.

And this Asperger’s excuse is bullshit. There is being socially awkward and then there is being creepy. I don't care if you have Aspergers; it is never, ever appropriate to view women as sexual objects and sexual objects only. I’ve got many friends with Aspergers who AREN’T creepy, because they don’t view women only as sexual objects. They may not be the greatest at social situations and may even get really awkward around women, but they don’t leer; they don’t grope; and they don’t hit on women in inappropriate situations. There IS a difference and most women can tell.

I’m REALLY tired of Aspergers being used as an excuse for inappropriate behavior. Aspergers does not mean “creep”.

**Note that I actually would deal with it, because I’m loud and brass and not afraid to tell someone to shut the fuck up and get out of my space, as long as I know I’m in a safe environment and won’t risk getting raped (room full of people). But not all women want to deal with that crap, and I can’t blame them. Why should I? It gets damn tiring having to deal with asshole men on a daily fucking basis.

In all seriousness: This is where sexism hurts men too. This assumption that men just can’t help themselves, and that if we don’t like it, it’s up to us to tell them so – except, of course, the men rarely listen, because their excuse is they just can’t help it. If that wasn’t their excuse, they wouldn’t do it in the first place! And if they respected us in the first place, they wouldn’t have been inappropriate. Again: Why do you expect a man that is being inappropriate to a woman to respect her enough to listen to her? Please. If he respected her from the get-go, he wouldn’t have been a creepy asshole.

Oh, and: A woman doesn’t have to be conventionally attractive to get unwanted attention. Trust. Plus, if she’s seen as “not attractive enough” she’s then usually completely ignored – or worse.

Also, it’s conformist, btw.

Also, disclaimer: Not all men are like this. I have to put this disclaimer here because if I don’t, some asshole will invariably come in and try to tell me, “But we’re/they’re not all like that!”

No fucking shit, Sherlock. But a lot of them are like that. Enough, anyway, to make women wary of attending conventions full of men. And can you blame them?

Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification | June 30, 2010 10:45 AM

MsAnnThorpe @493

Well, I'm pretty damn opinionated and that didn't stop me from getting sexually assaulted at a conference. The two aren't the same thing at all.

Secondly, the nature of things being the case, most women aren't responding that they don't know how to shoot down men, but that a culture where they feel they are constantly shooting down creepy men and otherwise being regarded as a piece of meat or a booth babe is alienating.

In other words, a woman comes, successfully fends off advances all week, and goes home. Did she have fun? Did she feel part of a community? Would she want to return?

No. No, she didn't, no she wouldn't.

Conferences take a lot of effort and time to get to. They are an investment. One goes because one sees the payoff as being worth the cost. If they see attending meaning they'll just get more cost, cost they see in their day-to-day life as a public woman already, then that means they'll be less likely to show up or even feel welcome at all.

Just because one has the social conditioning to survive such an incident doesn't mean one wants to be in such an incident.

Posted by: MsAnnThrope | June 30, 2010 10:52 AM

@Ol'Greg

I'll ignore the sarcasm and say a genuine thank you appreciating my nick.

Who wants to spend money and vacation time having to tell creeps to leave them alone?... Especially if it's not one, but five, or a couple every night... or if you don't get to talk to anybody much because the whole *excuse* of speaking to you feels more like a thin charade to get a quick lay.

Isn't this a slight exaggeration perhaps?
I realise that there are creepy guys, but there have always been, and unfortunatly will always be creepy guys (I'm not excusing them, this is our unfortunate current reality). Yes its unpleasant, but if you want to avoid all creepy men in the world you would never leave your house!

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 30, 2010 10:55 AM

Don't you see that its a little condescending to have all the men "step aside" just to give us poor helpless women a chance to be heard?

No I don't find it condescending at all. I find it sad that it's necessary and that all these commenters provide insight into viewpoints that aren't getting addressed because they're getting shut up at every turn.

It's taken fucking effort not to have this thread totally derailed. Most of the time there would be two or three women left posting *TOPS* and the rest would just have quietly accepted that there are really no women on the internet.

It's a part of a large sociological problem and your brilliant amazing incredibly insightful suggestion is one that hasn't worked in a couple hundred years so maybe, just maybe, there's more going on than you're accounting for.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 30, 2010 11:02 AM

I realise that there are creepy guys, but there have always been, and unfortunatly will always be creepy guys (I'm not excusing them, this is our unfortunate current reality). Yes its unpleasant, but if you want to avoid all creepy men in the world you would never leave your house!

If you have to deal with creeps at work, at the grocery store, when filling up with gas (just yesterday a man with an impressive golden grill asked me if I was married, twice if I "lived around here", and once how old I was... all answers which I evaded), while getting on a bus, etc. then you may just not want to put yourself in any more situations where you have to deal with it.

I'm going to be frank. I've been assaulted. It changes the way you think about *people* and realistically women who have experienced this make a very large part of the female population.

No, if every day feels like a battle it's perfectly sensible to avoid any un-needed conflict.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | June 30, 2010 11:02 AM

Isn't this a slight exaggeration perhaps

And you think that it might be an exaggeration based on what?

Your experience as a creepy guy, and therefore not noticing when you're doing it yourself?

Your experience as a non-creepy guy, who is therefore kind of oblivious to how it happens to other people? (as PZ mentioned is true of himself)

Your experience as a woman who isn't hit on very often, and therefore is somehow suspicious of other women who say that they are?

I'm a woman, but I'm not attractive. I don't get hit on, ever. It just doesn't happen to me. But believe it or not, I somehow don't automatically disbelieve it when other women say it happens to them! Why, sometimes, when I'm paying attention, I even notice it happening to them! It's almost like there are people in the world who have different life experiences than I do! And I don't have to experience those things myself to know that they happen to other people! Amazing what you can learn when you take your head out of your own ass.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | June 30, 2010 11:07 AM

Isn't this a slight exaggeration perhaps?

hasn't been necessary lately, but then, I actually have withdrawn from meatspace almost completely

Posted by: MsAnnThrope | June 30, 2010 11:12 AM

Jadehawk

an another person pretending like women don't have significanntly more obstacles to overcome just to draw even.

I'm a young black (petite) atheist woman finishing a PhD in Biochemistry. Tell me again about how I don't understand the usual obstacles women face?

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | June 30, 2010 11:19 AM

I'm a young black (petite) atheist woman finishing a PhD in Biochemistry. Tell me again about how I don't understand the usual obstacles women face?

Posted by: MsAnnThrope | June 30, 2010 11:20 AM

@Carlie

Your experience as a woman who isn't hit on very often, and therefore is somehow suspicious of other women who say that they are?

If this wasn't so untrue I would be insulted :) the reason I felt I could comment on this is BECAUSE I get hit on fairly often. Its annoying, but most men leave you alone after being shut down once, and I've never had an experience so bad (like Ol'Greg or Cereberus) that it has put me off going out anywhere.

Posted by: marilove | June 30, 2010 11:24 AM

I'm a young black (petite) atheist woman finishing a PhD in Biochemistry. Tell me again about how I don't understand the usual obstacles women face?

I'll tell you how: You are using your experiences as a way to describe the experiences of all women. You are also forgetting to, oh, blame the men who are doing the actual harassing, and are questioning the validity of women's claims of harassment.

That's how.

Having a vagina and being black ("and petite") doesn't mean you can't also be a sexist asshole.

Posted by: marilove | June 30, 2010 11:30 AM

I've never had an experience so bad (like Ol'Greg or Cereberus) that it has put me off going out anywhere.

You are not every women. Your experiences are not the same as someone else’s. Stop acting like they are. Start listening.

Posted by: MsAnnThrope | June 30, 2010 11:30 AM

@Marilove

And, you tell women to "stand up for themselves" -- but how do you expect that to happen if people don't believe them when they say, "Hey, I'm being harassed!" How do you expect women to "stand up for themselves" if they are being told they are exaggerating the situation? If they are being told, “Oh, it happens everywhere. Just suck it up!”

At no point did I say any of this.

I have obviously not made myself very clear. I have more faith in womens' ability to overcome obnoxious men than I do in the idea that all men might eventually behave like gentlemen. Note, I'm not making excuses for men, this is just our reality. This is my humble opinion. As a woman.

Posted by: naddyfive | June 30, 2010 11:39 AM

I'm not sure that it's a real trend, but a lot of British men and women I've met share MsAnnThrope's attitudes.

Perhaps it has something to do with the lower crime rate of violent crime over there.

Either way, it's really strange to me.

Posted by: marilove | June 30, 2010 11:40 AM

You DID say that. You said that women should "stand up for themselves"; then you went on to imply that women are exaggerating, which is a way to silence women and brush off their experiences; and THEN you say, "well, there will always be creepy men" which implies women should just shut up and deal with it. Again, how do you expect women to "stand up" for themselves if they are being told their claims are just "exaggerations"? Or that they should just "deal with it"?

How 'bout this: Men can stop being dickwads. And the responsibility of men being dickwads can be put on the men being dickwads instead of the women being targeted. How 'bout that?

By assuming that "men can't help it" -- which you are -- you aren't helping the situation. You are only perpetuating the situation, and giving the men some nice excuses. The same fucking excuses they've used for decades. The same fucking excuses that need to stop.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 30, 2010 11:42 AM

You've got to also be overtly feminine

I call myself... Greg.

And why can't women identify as feminine? Why should that be a problem?

Posted by: MsAnnThrope | June 30, 2010 11:53 AM

Sigh. Marilove, please point me to the place where I said woman

"stand up for themselves"; then you went on to imply that women are exaggerating, which is a way to silence women and brush off their experiences; and THEN you say, "well, there will always be creepy men" which implies women should just shut up and deal with it. Again, how do you expect women to "stand up" for themselves if they are being told their claims are just "exaggerations"? Or that they should just "deal with it"?

When I mentioned exaggeration there was a context, I did not intend to belittel anybody's experiences, I stated that earlier.

Also I have prefaced some statements with this

(I'm not excusing them, this is our unfortunate current reality).

I do not have much faith in men's ability to treat women better. I have much more faith in empowering women. I don't quite understand what is sexist about that.

Posted by: YourSharona | June 30, 2010 11:56 AM

@Ol'Greg

I call myself... Greg.

And why can't women identify as feminine? Why should that be a problem?

Touché. :) I wasn't trying to paint everyone with the same brush, but in rereading, I can see how it came off that way.

I don't protest identifying as feminine, but I used the word "overt" for a reason"; there are women very active in the community who I sometimes feel are shoving their gender down my throat, and I don't get that feeling as often from the guys. But that could be because I haven't been looking for it.

Posted by: MsAnnThrope | June 30, 2010 11:57 AM

@Jadehawk
Please see my post at #535

Posted by: marilove | June 30, 2010 12:03 PM

We can whine all we want about guys hitting on us, not taking us seriously, or making us feel inferior, but seriously - is that all it takes to overwhelm us? If they're hitting on you, make it clear you don't want that - we can do it in the bar, in the workplace, and at the grocery store, so why can't we do it at a convention?

Have you read what others have been saying, or are you ignoring the other comments on purpose?

What about this: Maybe we don't want to have to deal with them when we have a choice. Maybe we don't feel like paying an arm and a leg to attend a conference, only to be ignored, brushed aside, and treated like a piece of meat.

If women are being marginalized in the skepical community, I think we're doing a lot of it ourselves.

YAY! Blaming women for the actions of sexist men!

Are you serious?

And why can't men stop being dickwads? Why do we have to "deal" with it? Why is the focus on how women should "deal" with it, and not on how men should FUCKING STOP IT?

THIS is why this shit keeps happening: The focus is on the victims of the harrassment, and not on the harrassers.

Posted by: YourSharona | June 30, 2010 12:05 PM

@marilove

Skepchick isn't about the pink microphones, though. In fact, if you look at some of their previous posts, you'll see that they really, really hate pink items being targed at women (I'm lookin' at you, Dell).

Also, they have a wide variety of commenters and contributors -- that include men. And their yearly calendar ALSO includes men.

If it's not somewhere you feel like hangin', that's totally cool; but it's not all about sex, and it's certainly not about pink. It's just a place FOR women, BY women, that also happens to be quite welcoming to men.

I'd suggest giving them a shot before turning away just because of the name.

You don't know it, and you probably didn't intend it, but you just gave me a moderately sized private epiphany. (I'll give you a hint: it's possible I have a tendency to project my fears onto others.)

I still want to argue that there's no skeptical website (that I've seen, anyway) that's by men, for men, where women are also very welcome. I said it dismissively earlier, but is it actually true that skepticism, like many other fields, is so predominantly male that it's "by men, for men (and girls can come too)" by default?

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | June 30, 2010 12:08 PM

Please see my post at #535

not helpful.

We can do it all! Women it's all on you, whatever you get is your own damned fault.

Posted by: Pookumsy | June 30, 2010 12:11 PM

#526 - I totally agree

Women shouldn't have to be made to feel like they have to prove that they can still be feminine if they're competing in a "male" discipline. As if even a female scientist has to be concerned about being sexy for men. This exacerbates the entire problem!

It's not about whether we can be smart AND sexy. It's still not even about whether smart IS sexy or not. That's just like saying "well, I'm intelligent and well educated, but don't you worry, because I'm still concerned about whether or not men view me as attractive."

Women should stop giving a shit about whether smart is sexy or not, and demand that their contributions be given proper respect and recognition (including skeptical SAHMs who fight half the battle for us in the way they raise their kids). Yes, it can be difficult to find men who value intelligence in a woman (although that's not the case in my experience), but why settle for trying to reassure men that just because you have a brain doesn't mean you aren't still a sex object for them to play with?

Posted by: YourSharona | June 30, 2010 12:14 PM

Okay. I don't know how much clearer I can try to make it in my comments that I didn't mean to come off all confrontational-like.

Ol'Greg, I'm sorry you haven't seen my comments elsewhere in this blog, but I assure you I'm not a dude (I can send you photos if you like). The bit where I ended with the "what can you do, some guys are pricks and there doesn't seem to be much arguing with them" sentiment - that was me conceding that it does seem to be a problem, and I don't know what else to suggest.

Marilove, I was actually kind of moved by your first response. I haven't been to a convention, and by my own admission, I'm not as active as I'd like to be in the skeptic community (though I guess I indicated the wrong reason). I don't, and didn't, deny that there's probably a lot going on that I'm missing by virtue of that fact. And no, I didn't read all the comments, so I'm sorry about that (I read what comments were there yesterday whe I first read the post, then commented this morning without looking to see what had been discussed in the interim).

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | June 30, 2010 12:20 PM

Speaking of Trophy Spouses™, Sid Rodriguez didn't seem all too pleased to be called The Trophy Husband™. Tough shit.

I should get that photo transferred to the computer. Unless that nice German judge beats me to it. Where are you, Ralf? We miss you.

Posted by: marilove | June 30, 2010 12:24 PM

I still want to argue that there's no skeptical website (that I've seen, anyway) that's by men, for men, where women are also very welcome. I said it dismissively earlier, but is it actually true that skepticism, like many other fields, is so predominantly male that it's "by men, for men (and girls can come too)" by default?

I agree with you there!

And yay! I'm glad I was able to help you, even if I'm not sure how. :)

I tend to be okay in male-dominated spaces because I'm so damn agressive (lol, can you tell?), but even *I* get exhausted with it all sometimes, and I can't blame women for just not wanting to fucking deal with it.

Posted by: jupiter9 | June 30, 2010 12:31 PM

Others have touched on it, but I want to emphasize.

If you're a guy, and a guy says something sexist, pounce on it just as you would if he spouted some woo. It's just as irrational. So don't give it a pass.

Especially if there are no women present.

And if you're a guy and you find something sexist coming out of your mouth, which I know can happen, because you've lived in a sexist society your whole life, have the decency to be embarrassed. "I'm sorry, I know that's wrong, I don't know what made me say that" works a lot better than making excuses or explaining how it wasn't really sexist.

Again, especially if there are no women present.

Posted by: MsAnnThrope | June 30, 2010 12:36 PM

Carlie

FFS I was honestly trying to be polite!

I also said I ACKNOWLEDGED that my experiences are not the same as everyones!

Fuck the politeness

Marilove

It IS sexist to imply that 1)all men are pigs and that 2)men just can't help it and 3)you don't have faith that men can't help it.

Posted by: pteryxx | June 30, 2010 12:53 PM

I'm hearing several kinds of responses here:

-Woman who doesn't have the energy, patience, or courage to speak out (and told she's part of the problem when she doesn't),

-Woman who'd like to speak out, but isn't sure she'd have the opportunity or debate skills (encouraged with caveats like 'Sure you might get slammed but just deal, it isn't so bad'),

-Woman who *does* speak out, and gets tired of constantly fighting the brick wall of ignorance and disrespectful men.

Aren't we failing to address the problem unless *all* of these aspects are taken into account, instead of trying to convert one kind of woman into another kind? Some people will be more aggressive, some less social, some have suffered more, but all of them have viewpoints worthy of respect and probably have ideas worth sharing, as evidenced by this very thread.

I'm also seeing a dichotomy between 'woman who gets hit on constantly, thus withdraws' and 'woman who gets hit on constantly, thus defends herself'. Isn't it implicit in this picture that the woman is alone, without allies?

This thread has so many voices and so much wisdom because it's posted as a safe space for women to be heard. It's not absolute, it still got invaded, but champions and veterans stepped forward to make arguments and quash derails. And that is what makes it a safe place and not just a place with a sign saying 'safe'.

Woman-only events would keep out male douchebags, yes, but also men who want to listen and learn. Big events select for the brave, debate-centered events select for the outspoken, and small events select for the shy, uncertain or alone. There ought to be ways to construct a convention to bring together all kinds of participants who need different systems of support and micro-environments... I guess what I'd like to see is an ecology of women, with tracks where groups of women can converse freely, where men can participate, where there are enough outspoken men and women present (on average) to quickly address incidences of attempted douchebaggery. I'd think many respectful men, as well as women, would like to converse in a safe space without having to gird themselves for the role of Lone Defender against Douchebags.

My humble suggestion for a convention (in addition to the many other ideas here) would be to have one or several "Safe Space" sessions. These would be refuges for conversation, per the definition of "safe space", but also workshops specifically to discuss *and instruct* people in what's involved in maintaining a safe discussion environment. Then give out buttons or stickers with "Safe Space Participant" on them, to be worn all over the conference, so everyone would be able to see at a glance that there are people nearby who will at least try to be allies. Some will be quiet, some veterans, some rookies, and many will make mistakes and need to be corrected, but that's also part of the process - learning when one's own privileges or blindness harm someone else. Or, for that matter, when one's own reticence harms oneself.

Posted by: marilove | June 30, 2010 1:03 PM

I also said I ACKNOWLEDGED that my experiences are not the same as everyones!

You only "acknowledged" it after we pointed out, several times, that you were trying to speak for all women. And you very, very clearly were. "shouldn't women" "can't women" etc. You were addressing all women.

And you still belittled women's experiences by telling them they are exaggerating. And that you said quite clearly.

Posted by: jupiter9 | June 30, 2010 1:09 PM

Cerberus: "thanks to cultural sexism, women need to literally fight for the right to speak and have a conversation outside the usual same damn fights over and over and over again."

As I've said before: The dirty word in "Vagina Monologues" is Monologue. Because somewhere, some woman is up there talking without a man to correct her.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 30, 2010 1:13 PM

Is it OK if I respond directly to those comments that have mentioned me by name? If you feel this is inappropriate, skip this comment. It's easy to do.

You don't know why bringing up debunked gender essentialist bullshit on a thread where men were specifically told to shut up and listen is assholic behavior?

Here is my very first comment on the subject; you'll note that it quite clearly replies to the people who actually "brought it up". If I'm shut up and listening, and I hear what I think is bullshit, do I have to stay shut up? If I have breached some unwritten ethical rule here I'll apologize, but to be honest I'm not seeing it.

I can't express how punched in the gut I am by this revelation

In the course of an otherwise rational discussion, you called me an asshole and invited me to "die in a fire" and you're "punched in the gut" by my decision to not read more of what you have to say (a decision that, clearly, I did not implement anyway)?
I don't follow.

Why are all your arguments ad hominim attacks based on weird assumptions about me?

Um...they're not. Perhaps you noticed the question mark there after "Do you actually know anything about animal behavior, or are you ignorant as well as skeptical?". That, see, makes it a question rather than an argument. Assuming something about you would have taken the form of a statement; for example: "You are ignorant of animal behavior."
But since you still haven't demonstrated any knowledge of the subject, I am in fact inching closer to applying the assumption of ignorance to you.

based on weird assumptions about me

Here, I'll give you an example of what it looks like when somebody actually makes unwarranted assumptions about somebody else:

I find that most biophiles romanticize and anthropomorphize animals enormously, and that there's a lot of projection going on in people's relationships with animals.

See? That's how you do it.

The difference is I don't keep insulting your intelligence

Me neither. Ignorance has zero to do with intelligence.

Every time I read a thread here about women in science, or feminism, or any other related subject, some fucktard has to come waltz in here and mansplain' how different the brains of men and women are; and every fucking time, the argument is debunked.

The hypothesis has never been "debunked". Just shouted down by unreferenced assertion. Every time. *shrug*

Fuck off.

That was indeed my sincere intention, but kind folks like you have sort of dragged me back in. I will, however, be fucking off from this thread permanently in juuuust a second.

EVEN AFTER PZ TOLD YOU TO SHUT THE FUCK UP.

He'd never do that. He asked me us to "take a back seat" and listen, but SIWOTI syndrome got the better of me. I apologize for contributing to the derail.

What a fucking coward.

Hi marilove. Have a nice day.

Sven has been an asshole for quite sometime.

Hi skeptifem. Have a nice day.

he is just guessing

This is classic. I posted evidence for my statement. Nobody else has bothered.

It is a damn shame that he has any power where he works, over women. Asshole. He makes peoples lives hell

Amazingly off base. Insultingly so.
Seriously, you don't know me at all.
I'm a feminist. But I'm a scientist first. I care about data, not feelings. If you have some evidence, show me. If all you're bringing is your feelings, I don't care (unless your feelings are the actual topic of discussion). (To be clear, I don't care much about muy own feelings either. Feelings are a proven shitty way to try to understand reality.)
Nobody who does know me IRL, in any gender combination or power relationship, thinks I'm an asshole. And those are people whose opinions I care about.
Random identity-politics warriors on the internet? Not so much.

Everyone here wouldn't necessarily agree with your assessment.

Thanks Caine. (I think)

he told some female posters off for reading too much feminist literature because they felt alienated by Kerouac

That's certainly not exactly how I remember it, but I apologize if that's how it came across.

perhaps you missed that?

I did, in fact. Sorry.

Your "last word" was simply another example of said stupidity.

Hi, SC. Have a nice day.

fucking off now

Posted by: Fractelle | June 30, 2010 1:27 PM

My opinion is that we women must stay vigilant in encouraging each other to speak our minds whenever we face injustice in any of its forms and religion has to be just about the worst kind of injustice ever visited on womankind. We are relatively recently breaking through the glass ceiling on many gender issues and while freethinking is paramount in the minds of many of us, for many others, its still taking shape and they remain in the perceived safety which is offered in the myth of patriarchal dominance. Once we get freethinking on the schools curriculums it will permeate deeper into the psyche of all. I believe changes are gathering momentum, we are slowly getting heard above the clamour of superstition and that things will continue to improve...... Change is a slow process.....

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 30, 2010 1:42 PM

Here is my very first comment on the subject; you'll note that it quite clearly replies to the people who actually "brought it up". If I'm shut up and listening, and I hear what I think is bullshit, do I have to stay shut up?

Context is everything Sven. Whether there's truth in it or not it is used as a justification for overtly sexist treatment of women. It is used to tell females from birth that they might as well give up, and it is used as an excuse for assuming they will not have aptitude even when they display aptitude and the cumulative effects of that are significant.

In the context of this thread a lot of people seem to be questioning the conclusions assumed by research into gender intelligence and aptitude difference.

And it does start to get horribly offensive that the question keeps coming up again and again almost as a way to curtail any research into the sociological impact of sexism. "If we just look harder we'll find it's all in their brains" has been around for a long time.

IMO:

No difference at all? Unlikely.

Difference that accurately accounts for the discrepancy is entirely in the differences between the sexes? Unlikely.

Posted by: pteryxx | June 30, 2010 2:03 PM

to YourSharona:

I want to give Pteryxx a standing ovation, and I'm sorry that I was more "part of the problem" than "part of the solution" for a minute there.

Remember when, far far upthread, someone (some woman?) wrote that they'd lurked for months before daring to comment, were pleasantly surprised to be not only tolerated but agreed with, and resolved therefore to be braver and comment more often?

This. Thank you.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | June 30, 2010 2:34 PM

Sven,
Women were asked a question about their own participation in skeptical groups. They answered. Your first comment was to tell them that their own experience doesn't matter.

Look, you guys realize, right, that your personal brains are anecdotes and not data?

In this case, the anecdotes are the data. These are the women who are most likely to be attracted to atheist conferences in the first place. This is the audience for it, right here. These are the women who are the target, who are the focus of the attention, who have been asked for their opinion, and have given it. And your response was that it all doesn't matter, because the more important thing is the theoretical difference between the averaged-out brains of men and women in general. Do you see where that statement was not relevant to the discussion, and insulting to the women who had spoken up? Here's an analogy: I hate pink. Lots of women I know hate pink. So get a group of those women together, and ask us what color we like, because our meeting room needs to be painted. We all say green. Then you come in and say that our opinions are just anecdotes, and lots of research shows that women love pink, so it's going to be painted pink. That's why you got on so many nerves so quickly - because once again in our lives, the actual information being given by actual women was being dismissed. That's a point I think you could agree with completely divorced from any issues about gender essentialism itself; it's the way you discarded the information you had already been given in favor of something else you thought was more true.

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | June 30, 2010 2:51 PM

Similarly, it was the audience at one of these events that started a minor riot over a speaker's idiotic anti-woman comment. attendees can contribute. really :-)

And, sorry, but I'm a skeevy guy, myself.

Posted by: windy | June 30, 2010 3:16 PM

The initial topic of gendered brain differences in this thread was brought up specifically in the context of sexism.

FWIW, that's the context in which I was trying to address it. Since a lot of women interested in going into science/atheism/skepticism are going to run into essentialist arguments, I think it would help to explain to both sides that research into average sexual differences does not equal essentialism. If we just insist it's all been "debunked", what happens when Jane or Joe Skeptic comes across some popular science article that discusses the existence of such differences? Maybe they'll feel disheartened, or vindicated, that this somehow supports the idea that women and men are 'essentially' different, or that it allows them to draw conclusions about individual women. When that's not the case.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 30, 2010 3:19 PM

I think it would help to explain to both sides that research into average sexual differences does not equal essentialism.

qft

fucking off for good and real now

Posted by: mentallyinept | June 30, 2010 3:26 PM

#573

You took Sven's quote out of context then proceeded to draw conclusions from it.

The full context...

I find very few men or women who question the idea that there are at least SOME essential differences between men and women. I'm skeptical. I have seen no convincing evidence of any natural differences between mens' and womens' minds. QFT! Because I see no convincing evidence to suggest they are naturally different, and a great deal of convincing evidence that they are not different.

Too bad you don't see fit to, you know, present any of that evidence. Ten seconds of googlin brings up lots of this kind of stuff, though: link link link link and anybody who knows anything about animal behavior knows that sex differences are ubiquitous in all other mammals.

Top insist otherwise borders on denialism, in my opinion.

no matter how hard I try I am incapable of *fitting* the gender-norm. In the meantime, please, please, ANYONE else here skeptical about gender essentialism? I'm trying to appeal to any of my fellow radical gender-nonconformists

Look, you guys realize, right, that your personal brains are anecdotes and not data? And also that "essentialism" is a caricature?

(This is part of the argument I got into with Cerberus recently and I should probably just shut up...)

...clearly shows that Sven was responding to one persons assertion that their personal skepticism of gender essentialism supercedes the scientific evidence that clearly demonstrates some difference between male and female human beings. Furthermore, Sven drew no conclusions about the evidence he presented only that denying the evidence constitutes denialism.

Nothing more.

The rage in this thread against Sven is unfounded IMO.

Posted by: abb3w | June 30, 2010 3:46 PM

skeptifem: Oh bull shit. It is culture.

I agree that culture is the dominant reason for the obviousness of the reaction in most men; and culture could certainly do more to encourage control of the outward expression of a semi-instinctive reaction.

skeptifem: I like sex as much as anyone else, but I wasn't socialized to think it was a triumph or something I have to try obtain from other people constantly

In contrast, my sex drive seems below average for males; and while "jock" socialization as you describe is quite common for males, I don't think my particular "geek" socialization has much resemblance your characterization. Nonetheless, my initial UHM reaction remains. Based on past instances, I expect changing "unattached" would also change my queue order-- which "jock" socialization does not seem to be affected by.

Of course, I may just be blinded by my patriarchal privilege; but on the other hand, you may be presuming conditions at the norm apply even out to statistical outliers, and over-generalizing.

Regardless, yeah, a hell of a lot of guys are that way, the evolutionary instinct doesn't justify the frequent droolingly unsubtle expression of it, and the frequency of such unsubtlety gives any possible overreaction of yours all the excuse it might need.

Cerberus: Assuming a mental parity not only fits the evidence better, but would be a novel change of pace, don't you think?

Sorry. Assuming that there are NO biological differences seems as unrealistic as assuming that all the traditional differences are biological, especially given the known psycho-pharmaceutical effects of testosterone, and the differences in its levels between the sexes. While the forms will be different (and perhaps not as bad), making ought-decisions based on an flawed is-model generally increases the chances of design failures.

On the other hand, I agree "inherent gender roles" doesn't seem to offer much explanatory power for the actual phenomenon PZ is asking after.

[too-long-yahoo-id @ #488]: Now imagine being someone who has a neurological disability that means you cannot, I repeat, CANNOT interpret body language.

Sigh. Not quite Aspie, but this is one reason why I suggested the deliberately engineered signal set. Still doesn't seem the thread.

marilove: It is not a woman’s job to tell a man to stop being a creepy asshole. Or are you saying men just can’t help themselves? Are you saying that men are too weak to control themselves? Are you saying that men are a prison to their sexuality? That when a woman enters a room, they just can’t help it?

It may not be a conscious reaction, and they may not realize they are coming across that way. If no-one ever tells the social misfit what they're doing wrong, they're less likely to learn to do better. Nonetheless: no, you're not obliged.

PZ Myers: For the newbies: The Trophy Wife™ thing is a long-running joke.

Perhaps in the interest of sensitivity, you might occasionally say that you are possessed by The Trophy Wife™, rather than the other way around?

Posted by: Chgo_Liz | June 30, 2010 4:28 PM

Through some interesting coincidences yesterday and today, I was reminded of the time (nearly 20 years ago now) when I was responsible for "the woman problem" at an international convention. Our local organization was responsible for putting on the convention, and our group (like the conventioneers as a whole) was overwhelmingly male. It was also a group that had historically been known to be very sexist (tales I could tell, but not in this thread). Sagely, they knew they needed to put extra effort into alleviating people's concerns on that subject.

We set up a separate but neighboring room in the midst of the conference where women could come to get a break from the testosterone. This meant that women who were new to the convention experience (and quite possibly the only female from their local contingent) could find other women to talk to and get ideas from...everything from where to eat outside the hotel complex to how to hand "x" issue in their local group/area. We made sure the hours and location of this resource were prominently mentioned in the welcome packet.

One California group came to me to ask about one of their members. She was a non-op transwoman. Could she come to the women's room? At this point, it would be appropriate to mention that there was a small but highly vocal group of men who would make a point of dressing up like really bad drag queens as part of the "fun" at this convention every year, and they were well known (among the women at least) for their EXTREMELY sexist speech and behaviors. So, there was a legitimate concern about cross-dressing men among the women. However, the assurance of the California contingent that this was a legitimate person, not one of THOSE guys, was enough to convince us that she was of course welcome in the women's room. I would absolutely state that transwomen get to be part of the women's room at a skeptic convention too.

Other conventions after ours continued this idea. Some years worked better than others, but it was definitely appreciated and used. I would say that having the room open for a certain number of hours but not the ENTIRE time works best. It should be "staffed": at least one woman scheduled to be there whenever it's open so the room is never empty. Perhaps it could be a position that would allow the volunteer free access to the rest of the conference...perfect for cash-strapped students. And snacks are a must!

Posted by: florakinz | June 30, 2010 4:35 PM

Cerberus @ #538

"but rather mansplainin to us wimmins what were doing wrong."

Thanks for this-- I've been wondering all day if a person has to be a man to be a mansplainer. Based on some of the comments from a few women here, I was tending toward thinking that mansplaining is actually a very equal-opportunity activity.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | June 30, 2010 4:55 PM

What I took from it was the idea that being female gives us some kind of base set of experiences

Similar experiences, but the vast differences in individual women mean that they are not going to interpret those experiences the same way and are going to see different solutions as viable.