Women at Atheist/Skeptic Events - Uncomfortable?

[Cormac]

Not everyone is socially aware and 'cultural evolution/raising consciousness' is a work in constant progress (hopefully progressive). It is obvious there are those who are going to behave in less mature ways and this should inform the way atheist conventions are designed. Bringing in heavy 'boring' subject matters towards the end or later parts of a conference will siphon away the less mature, allowing the more sensitive to debate the issues and exit the event with people of similar maturity (hopefully similar). On a smaller scale. A review of minutes always worked when I was a member of some unnamed communist movement in my misguided youth....ideal for small meetings where conspirators for genuine social change need privacy away from the standard assortment of idiots, sociopaths and lechers. Most would wander away to the bar just leaving the 'social engineers' behind after minutes.

You were a goddamned commie? How did McCarthy miss you!

I hid under his bed. He'd never suspect me hiding amongst his wank mags.

Or his dressing up stuff...

[Atheist-Lite]

Not everyone is socially aware and 'cultural evolution/raising consciousness' is a work in constant progress (hopefully progressive). It is obvious there are those who are going to behave in less mature ways and this should inform the way atheist conventions are designed. Bringing in heavy 'boring' subject matters towards the end or later parts of a conference will siphon away the less mature, allowing the more sensitive to debate the issues and exit the event with people of similar maturity (hopefully similar). On a smaller scale. A review of minutes always worked when I was a member of some unnamed communist movement in my misguided youth....ideal for small meetings where conspirators for genuine social change need privacy away from the standard assortment of idiots, sociopaths and lechers. Most would wander away to the bar just leaving the 'social engineers' behind after minutes.

You were a goddamned commie? How did McCarthy miss you!

I hid under his bed. He'd never suspect me hiding amongst his wank mags.

Or his dressing up stuff...

He always wanted to be a actor I figure. You know what failure does to the male ego?

[JimC]

Of course they are uncomfortable!

All these men around without the fear of eternal damnation to stop them from indulging their sickening lusts on anything in skirts!

[klr]

Of course they are uncomfortable!

All these men around without the fear of eternal damnation to stop them from indulging their sickening lusts on anything in skirts!

Whoa! Whoa! There are Scotsmen at these events?

[JimC]

Of course they are uncomfortable!

All these men around without the fear of eternal damnation to stop them from indulging their sickening lusts on anything in skirts!

Whoa! Whoa! There are Scotsmen at these events?

These atheist men will force their vile embraces even on kilted celts!

[Coito ergo sum]

http://www.stanford.edu/group/svab/myths.shtml

http://www.rainn.org/statistics

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/SexualAssaultStatistics.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/Violenceprevention/s ... index.html

http://www.turningpointservices.org/Sex ... istics.htm

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbNa ... ntID=32369

http://www.slc.edu/offices-services/sec ... stics.html


There is lots more.

What's your point?

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 14#p919214

This first link - doesn't go to one of your posts. Goes to a Cormac post.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 27#p919627

This link goes to a post by Geoff.

Are you not reading the thread?

Reading it? I started it.

Can you just state your point in posting those links to statistics in a coherent sentence, if you have one? Or, don't - whatever - but, to just post two links to elsewhere in the the thread, other people's posts, and snarkily ask "are you not reading the thread?" doesn't make sense.

[Coito ergo sum]

Do women avoid all conventions or just some? If it's the latter, does that not indicate that something else must be at play besides the point you just mentioned?

And, to be clear - are you suggesting that women avoid going to longer-than-one-day conferences, etc., because they are afraid of male rapists?

My gut tells me that women don't go to atheist/skeptic/science/philosophy type conventions because by and large the people that are interested in these things are old men, and eggheads. It's the same reason women tend to be in the vast minority at Star Trek conventions - demographically, they tend not to like the subject matter.

I can't seem to wrap my head around the idea that women are not attending these conferences out of a fear of rape, and general discomfort about being around men qua men. If your supposition is true - that women are always afraid of being raped in any group of men, well, then, I guess all I can say is that I really "don't get it." Maybe I never will. I'm trying to, though. At this point, though, I am not convinced that your argument holds water.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/pri ... of-sexism/

O.k., you posted a link without stating what assertion you thought it supported. I took the time to open the link and read the entire article. Can you please clarify why you posted that link in response to what I wrote?

[Tyrannical]

Women must be too smart to fall for this atheism stuff going around.

[Ronja]

Do women avoid all conventions or just some? If it's the latter, does that not indicate that something else must be at play besides the point you just mentioned?

And, to be clear - are you suggesting that women avoid going to longer-than-one-day conferences, etc., because they are afraid of male rapists?

I presume that each person has her or his own set of motivators and demotivators for attending any specific conference. And I very much doubt that one specific explanation alone would explain the low percentage of women (or blacks) at atheist events.

Interest in the topic(s) and travelling costs aside, one likely underlying (not necessarily very conscious / aware one) is the issue of "will I be safe?" Another likely one is "will I be stared at or otherwise get more attention than I am comfortable with?" A third one might be "will there be anyone there I will enjoy meeting / anyone I can naturally talk to?" The safety aspect likely applies to all places and crowds that are unfamiliar for a person, but based on sociological and psychological research it appears that women are more safety-conscious or fearful of crime, and therefore are likely more easily scared away by safety concerns (which may or may not be consciously and rationally analyzed). The "too much attention for comfort" aspect likely applies to events where one is a part of a visible minority. The "someone to talk to" also applies to minorities: if you suspect few people at the event will be easy to talk to (there are few people at this type of events who resemble you), you may stay away.

That's three reasons, which are more likely to keep women than men away from atheist events. Then come the well-researched facts that a greater percentage of women claim to be religious than of men and that women typically value social acceptance higher than men and desire more to fit in (from which we may conclude that even if a woman is an atheist, she may not acknowledge the fact to her environment, possibly not even to herself). Also, women - even atheist women - who have children, tend to find it harder to leave their families behind than do men who have children (not to mention that most single parents are women). That's three more reasons.

And then we have the "how are women treated if they speak up about atheist issues / are visibly atheists" factor. For example, the comments on YouTube to Rebecca Watson's contribution in the beginning of that panel discussion (at the World Atheist Convention, the one in which Richard Dawkins also took part) can well have the effect that women who read them feel unwelcome in the atheist community. Among other things, she spoke about addressing religious limitations to women's freedom and health, and getting death and rape threats as a response. In many of the comments she is chided for "being completely off topic" or "talking only about herself". Whatever other mistakes in communication or choice of words she may have made, I am certain that a woman speaking or writing about how religions mistreat women (denying the right to effective protection against unwanted pregnancy, denying the right to abortion, stoning "promiscuous" women etc.), is within the topic of "Communicating atheism", and the kinds of responses she is likely to get (and in a better world would be well prepared for and supported against) are not a Rebecca-Watson-only problem. In short, these comments, without even being horrible (threatening, insulting etc. like some other comments were) showed that a number of men, who present themselves as "atheist community insiders", show zero understanding of some topics that are important for atheist women, and the majority of atheist men do not tell those clueless or mean men to Ergo: if a woman for some reason manages to draw the ire of "atheist trolls" of any description, she is likely to be pretty alone in that situation. Is that inviting or encouraging for women to become a visible part of the atheist community? IMO not bloody likely.

My gut tells me that women don't go to atheist/skeptic/science/philosophy type conventions because by and large the people that are interested in these things are old men, and eggheads. It's the same reason women tend to be in the vast minority at Star Trek conventions - demographically, they tend not to like the subject matter.

I can't seem to wrap my head around the idea that women are not attending these conferences out of a fear of rape, and general discomfort about being around men qua men. If your supposition is true - that women are always afraid of being raped in any group of men, well, then, I guess all I can say is that I really "don't get it." Maybe I never will. I'm trying to, though. At this point, though, I am not convinced that your argument holds water.

I would not claim that a majority of women are consciously afraid of rape or other types of assault all the time or even most of the time. But a sizable minority of women have personal reasons to be afraid of rape/assault much of the time (post-assault counseling is not available to all, and even if she manages to work through the experience, it is unlikely to fade completely). "General discomfort about being around men" also sounds odd, unless you mean that you don't understand how it could feel uncomfortable to be the only woman in a lecture hall with 30, 50 or 100 men, some percentage of whom are staring at you all the time throughout the presentation (the starers vary, but the staring is constant - it's a lot like being in the spotlight). Not every woman (or black person, BTW) feels relaxed and enjoys herself with such a volume of attention.

As I wrote above, I doubt that there is one all-explaining reason for why there are more men than women at atheist/skeptic/etc events, which is why I do not buy the "women are just not interested" explanation as the sole reason, either. And I don't think the examples of likely reasons that I have presented here are all possible factors - they are just the ones I happened to come to think about while writing this.

[Atheist-Lite]

Do women avoid all conventions or just some? If it's the latter, does that not indicate that something else must be at play besides the point you just mentioned?

And, to be clear - are you suggesting that women avoid going to longer-than-one-day conferences, etc., because they are afraid of male rapists?

My gut tells me that women don't go to atheist/skeptic/science/philosophy type conventions because by and large the people that are interested in these things are old men, and eggheads. It's the same reason women tend to be in the vast minority at Star Trek conventions - demographically, they tend not to like the subject matter.

I can't seem to wrap my head around the idea that women are not attending these conferences out of a fear of rape, and general discomfort about being around men qua men. If your supposition is true - that women are always afraid of being raped in any group of men, well, then, I guess all I can say is that I really "don't get it." Maybe I never will. I'm trying to, though. At this point, though, I am not convinced that your argument holds water.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/pri ... of-sexism/

O.k., you posted a link without stating what assertion you thought it supported. I took the time to open the link and read the entire article. Can you please clarify why you posted that link in response to what I wrote?

Just feed you some more 'thinking matter' around the debate. Keep you informed about the wider context in the science press today. Not to bias your freethinking enquiry or anything machievelian like that - just widen the context, helps inform the debate and even if you already knew the surrounding issues no harm done, what?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, how to deal with the awkward moment when a man with a car has been talking to you and it's time to leave? The guy doesn't want to be rude by not offering, and you don't want to be rude by bringing up safety concerns.

"Anybody need a ride? I'm rollin' in five!"

[Gallstones]

http://www.stanford.edu/group/svab/myths.shtml

http://www.rainn.org/statistics

http://www.ncdsv.org/images/SexualAssaultStatistics.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/Violenceprevention/s ... index.html

http://www.turningpointservices.org/Sex ... istics.htm

http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbNa ... ntID=32369

http://www.slc.edu/offices-services/sec ... stics.html


There is lots more.

What's your point?

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 14#p919214

This first link - doesn't go to one of your posts. Goes to a Cormac post.

Right because he asked the question the links were in response to.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 27#p919627

This link goes to a post by Geoff.

Right, because he repeated the question Cormac asked that my links were in response to.


Other people are participating in this thread. Every response is not to or about you.

[Ronja]

So, how to deal with the awkward moment when a man with a car has been talking to you and it's time to leave? The guy doesn't want to be rude by not offering, and you don't want to be rude by bringing up safety concerns.

"Anybody need a ride? I'm rollin' in five!"

This is, IMO, a really good approach - I have heard it several times at our fraternity's parties, and I observed sometimes that certain more female-safety oriented guys timed their offers just before some well-known creep was about to leave. And made a real point of driving several people, often to the first metro stop or to the "big" bus stop at the nearest freeway. All good, and that usually meant that we girls got to leave a) in a group of at least two and b) with one or two male "body-guards" also for the bus or metro ride.

Some of these "nice guys" were pretty successful sexually, too... I.e. providing a safe ride could well lead to positive payback, in time - because there was no pressure, no demands for such payback. Gentlemen ARE hot!

Which of course makes it even sadder and more infuriating that some predators use exactly this kind of "nice guy" moves to create trust, and then reveal their understanding of a "fair deal" when it is too late for her to back out.

[Gallstones]

So, how to deal with the awkward moment when a man with a car has been talking to you and it's time to leave? The guy doesn't want to be rude by not offering, and you don't want to be rude by bringing up safety concerns.

"Anybody need a ride? I'm rollin' in five!"

This is, IMO, a really good approach - I have heard it several times at our fraternity's parties, and I observed sometimes that certain more female-safety oriented guys timed their offers just before some well-known creep was about to leave. And made a real point of driving several people, often to the first metro stop or to the "big" bus stop at the nearest freeway. All good, and that usually meant that we girls got to leave a) in a group of at least two and b) with one or two male "body-guards" also for the bus or metro ride.

Some of these "nice guys" were pretty successful sexually, too... I.e. providing a safe ride could well lead to positive payback, in time - because there was no pressure, no demands for such payback. Gentlemen ARE hot!

Exactly.

Which of course makes it even sadder and more infuriating that some predators use exactly this kind of "nice guy" moves to create trust, and then reveal their understanding of a "fair deal" when it is too late for her to back out.

Yes.
The offer of a ride may have nothing to do with tit for tat. It might be him positioning her into being unable to back out. In his mind he isn't doing her a favor and expecting one in return; as reprehensible as that is. He is setting the trap.

Forming acquaintances gives that kind of person an opportunity to assess potential victims close at hand and to work on them so they are relaxed and more likely to cooperate with the initial set up.

[hadespussercats]

Ronja wrote: ...And then we have the "how are women treated if they speak up about atheist issues / are visibly atheists" factor. For example, the comments on YouTube to Rebecca Watson's contribution in the beginning of that panel discussion (at the World Atheist Convention, the one in which Richard Dawkins also took part) can well have the effect that women who read them feel unwelcome in the atheist community. Among other things, she spoke about addressing religious limitations to women's freedom and health, and getting death and rape threats as a response. In many of the comments she is chided for "being completely off topic" or "talking only about herself". Whatever other mistakes in communication or choice of words she may have made, I am certain that a woman speaking or writing about how religions mistreat women (denying the right to effective protection against unwanted pregnancy, denying the right to abortion, stoning "promiscuous" women etc.), is within the topic of "Communicating atheism", and the kinds of responses she is likely to get (and in a better world would be well prepared for and supported against) are not a Rebecca-Watson-only problem. In short, these comments, without even being horrible (threatening, insulting etc. like some other comments were) showed that a number of men, who present themselves as "atheist community insiders", show zero understanding of some topics that are important for atheist women, and the majority of atheist men do not tell those clueless or mean men to Ergo: if a woman for some reason manages to draw the ire of "atheist trolls" of any description, she is likely to be pretty alone in that situation. Is that inviting or encouraging for women to become a visible part of the atheist community? IMO not bloody likely.

Thank you for elucidating this point so clearly, Ronja.

One of the aspects of this dispute that struck me as particularly telling was how impatient Dawkins was with Watson's description of her emotional response to these sorts of emails and online comments.

It was hard for me not to remember Dawkins talking about his own pain and hurt feelings when he got mean comments on his website after his dog died-- or his vehement, outraged response to internet comments about Timonen before their relationship fell apart.

This is a man who clearly has experienced hurt and outrage because of internet comments-- but he showed no patience or understanding when Watson described how it made her feel to get online rape and death threats (which, IMO, were far more immediate, threatening, and hurtful that the two examples I've listed of the sorts of comments that provoked highly emotional responses from Dawkins.)

According to RD, Watson needs to get a tougher skin. But if someone laughs at Dawkins for being sad his little dog died, well, they're unfeeling monsters.
(I can search for links for the dog-related comments on RDF if anyone wants citations.)