Women at Atheist/Skeptic Events - Uncomfortable?

[Cormac]

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.)

Fair points well made.

[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?

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.

Of course. But, not every person has their own UNIQUE set of motivators. There are commonalities. And, either women are not showing up because of a fear of rape/sexual assault, or that isn't the case. You posted information about women being afraid of sexual assault - sure. I get it. So, the question is - is that what makes women (or many women - a large percentage of women) uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic 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.

Maybe. I guess.

That's three reasons,

Three reasons asserted as sort of maybes.

which are more likely to keep women than men away from atheist events.

"Atheist" events? Or, wouldn't those same reasons apply to any event?

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.

Bingo- those would be reasons not to "go" to an event. They wold not be reasons to feel "uncomfortable" at an event.

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.

They might. They might indeed. Do they?

Among other things, she spoke about addressing religious limitations to women's freedom and health, and getting death and rape threats as a response.

Well, everyone who is of any prominence on youtube or the internet in general gets rape and death threats, even men. She found the threats against Dawkins to be "hilarious" and made his reading of one of them her ringtone on her phone because of how "awesome" it was. Threats against her, beyond the pale.

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",

Sure - but, listen to her talk. She wasn't talking, for the most part, about "Communicating Atheism." I found her talk to be almost completely off-topic.

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,

Understanding? Or, "pat pat pat - we agree with you - pat pat pat?" - Make them understand. Explain it. Clearly. What is it that is not being understood about the discomfort felt at atheist/skeptic conventions?

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.

Doesn't it depend on what the issue is? I mean, if a woman says "some guy asked me for coffee and conversation at an impertinent time/place" and then claims that that is misogyny, sexual objectification, and harassment and threatening, and the mere fact of such a question at 4am when the question is posed is "traumatic" - then is it really surprising that some folks might say: "hey, wait a second - that sounds like a total crock of shit to me?" I mean - it really does. As uncomfortable as that might make women - I can't help it - I think a 27 year old woman, while perhaps may be "creeped out" by a guy who asks her for "coffee" at 4am in an elevator - I think she hasn't been "objectified." And, I don't think the guy can be fairly said to be a woman-hater.

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,

I can understand that. But, what are men supposed to "understand" about that? That our mere presence is discomforting? That we ought to be "sensitive" to going where we want to go because there is a risk it will be a sausage fest?

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.

Sure - but, chances are the average woman at an atheist convention is not being stared at. Believe me. Even the lovely Rebecca Watson who raised this whole issue in the first place - who the hell is "staring" at her? Not many, I assure you. Although - I guess i have to admit the number will be higher at atheist conferences, because the number of women attendees are fewer.

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.

I agree there is no "sole" reason. But, a big reason, I submit, is that most women - more than men - are not at all interested in spending their time this way. Even men - most MEN don't want anything to do with these egghead conventions - I do - and I know I'm different than most men in that regard. Of the men I grew up with, maybe 1% would be caught dead at an atheist convention. I think the number of women is probably 1/10 of 1%.

[Gallstones]

jesus christ you have confused me
cornered, wasted, blessed and used me
forgive me girls guys i am confused
stiff and pissed and lost and loose ~the National

Men.
You are confusing.
You say one thing today and tomorrow you have forgotten.
JSYK I forget nothing.

[Gallstones]

Yo Coito, I answered your fucking question.

Thanks for not noticing and for ignoring it.
Wow, am I surprised.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yo Coito, I answered your fucking question.

Thanks for not noticing and for ignoring it.
Wow, am I surprised.

You know what? I'm about done with you. Something is seriously wrong in your head.

"Ignoring it?" I haven't gone through every single post. I will, though. When I get whatever one you think is an answer to my "fucking" question, I'll read it. If it is anything worth commenting on, I'll comment. Generally, your posts on this thread have been incoherent and/or off on tangents, though. And, I won't be surprised if whatever "answer" you're talking about is in a similar vein.

[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?

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?

No harm done. http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... test=faces

[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.

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

So? Other people's points are your points?

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.

So what's YOUR point?

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

I'm not saying it is. Either you have a point to make, or you don't. I was interested in your point. Now I'm sorry I ever was.

[Ronja]

Coito, some of your responses here look a bit as if you are looking for a complete answer to your question in the OP from both Gallstones and me separately (and possibly other people as well) - and that to be acceptable to you, such an answer should be presented, in whole, in one post and apply exactly and specifically to atheist/skeptic events. Is this your intention in this thread - to get an exact, comprehensive and specific answer to the OP?

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Huh - well, Watson thinks the email and threats Dawkins got were "hilarious." Ringtone worthy, even.

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.)

Maybe because everyone of any prominence on the interwebz gets the same or similar bullshit in their email boxes.

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.)

Rebecca Watson laughed at email threats, and made light of them.

It's not so much her objection to being hit on or receiving nastygrams - it's her overblowing it into misogyny and sexual objectification, etc.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, some of your responses here look a bit as if you are looking for a complete answer to your question in the OP from both Gallstones and me separately (and possibly other people as well) - and that to be acceptable to you, such an answer should be presented, in whole, in one post and apply exactly and specifically to atheist/skeptic events. Is this your intention in this thread - to get an exact, comprehensive and specific answer to the OP?

No - I'd be happy if they made sense.

Assertion: "there are still more men that women at skeptic and atheist events and part of it is because women are made to feel uncomfortable."

Is that true? The answer may well be "no."

If it is true, then how are women "made" to feel uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic events?

So far, the main answer appears to be a litany of rape statistics. All I asked was that whoever is citing those stats connect up the stats to the OP. It's o.k. if that can't be done -I mean, lots of threads go off on tangents. But, I suspect the stats are not offered as a tangential, informational point. They seem to be offered as: "Oh, yeah! Wanna know why we are uncomfortable? Here ya go! [insert litany of rape statistics]" - so, are we supposed to glean that men make women uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic events because in general the crime of rape is committed by some men on some women in the general population?

Is it really so bad for me to then suggest that the same "discomfort" ought to apply to ANY conference or meeting or meetup? Meaning - women are ALWAYS "made" to feel uncomfortable by men, just by the mere fact of our presence? I'm just trying to clarify if that is, actually, the case.

Why?

Because, if the assertion is that it is NOT the case that the incidence of rape causes women in general to be uncomfortable at ALL events/meets/conferences, then the question remains why are the uncomfortable specifically at atheist/skeptic events?

And, if the assertion is that it IS the case that the incidence of rape causes women in general to be uncomfortable at ALL events/meets/conferences, then I would like to explore that and see if it is true. I strongly suspect it isn't, and I think the resistance to be clear on this point comes from the recognition that it probably isn't true (IMO).

I realize and I regret angering anyone by trying to puzzle this out with some precision.

[Ronja]

I haven't gone through every single post. ...
So far, the main answer appears to be a litany of rape statistics.
... trying to puzzle this out with some precision.

.

[Coito ergo sum]

I haven't gone through every single post. ...
So far, the main answer appears to be a litany of rape statistics.
... trying to puzzle this out with some precision.

.

Yeah - a riot. I hadn't gone through every post posted since the day before.

I have now, though. Completely up to date and current. If, after I move on to my days affairs, I happen to not get back to this thread immediately and be up-to-the-minute on every single post, don't worry, I'll get to it tomorrow. So, no need for anyone to post bitchy fucking posts about how I "ignored" their post. FFS.

And, I apologize for trying to understand what someone is apparently very passionate about.

[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.

Huh - well, Watson thinks the email and threats Dawkins got were "hilarious." Ringtone worthy, even.

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.)

Maybe because everyone of any prominence on the interwebz gets the same or similar bullshit in their email boxes.

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.)

Rebecca Watson laughed at email threats, and made light of them.

It's not so much her objection to being hit on or receiving nastygrams - it's her overblowing it into misogyny and sexual objectification, etc.

My post was a reflection on Dawkins's original posts, in response to Watson's commentary at the Conference and her first video blog post.

We discussed Dawkins's impatient body language in the other thread, and how it might have influenced his initial response to her posts.I'm just pointing out an additional thought I had about his reaction to her emotional response to internet nastiness-- a response he is guilty of himself, not infrequently.

You seem far better informed than I about the subsequent flame war being waged at Camp Watson. I haven't been keeping up with it, and my comment isn't meant to be an exoneration of behavior I don't know anything about. I'm just saying Dawkins was a bit of a hypocrite.

[Coito ergo sum]

Watson called the threats against Dawkins "hilarious" in the original panel discussion - at the conference - shortly before the infamous Elevator incident - while she was sitting next to Dawkins. That's what I find so remarkable about her flagrant hypocrisy. She didn't seem in the least to even recognize that it's even just a tad bit strange to be complaining about threatening emails while at the same time making light of threatening emails to someone else. The only difference is that Dawkins is a male. Threatening emails against women are horrible and we all need to think very seriously about them. Threatening emails against males are "hilarious."

Dawkins may have thought some comments or another were hurtful. But, that's not in the least hypocritical when one is comparing threatening or hurtful comments with, "Hi. Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you interesting and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come up to my room for coffee...." I mean - it would be hypocritical if Dawkins told her to suck it up after some guy gloated gleefully about her dog dying or her family member getting hit by a car.

Anyway - after all this - I've become of the opinion that Watson is an arrogant, hypocritical, and conceited little know-nothing, who wouldn't receive the time of day if she wasn't a passably physically attractive woman in a predominantly male milieu.

[Ronja]

Coito: Your question (in the OP) has been answered, several times, both in the comments to the blog post you linked to in the OP and in this thread, by Gallstones, Hades and myself, and those answers have been supported well by links and comments posted by at least Seraph and Crumple (edit: and Zilla and RobertS - sorry if I have still overlooked someone!). Not every answer or example used in them has been specifically tailored / adjusted so that it would speak of atheist/skeptic events, but the situations and behavior patterns discussed are analogous. If you really, truly are either unwilling or incapable of connecting the dots between the various analogies used (women as a very small minority in the various settings A, B and C have experiences in common), that's your problem.

Short summary: The reasons why some women feel uncomfortable in some situations during or in connection with atheist/skeptic events are many. Few of those reasons (if any) are completely unique or exclusive for atheist/skeptic events (you apparently did not even notice that I was agreeing with you on this one). A key feature of the problem is that it is uncomfortable for most people (both men and women) to find themselves in a very small minority in any social setting (neighborhood, school, workplace, event, etc).

Looking for answers to "Why are there so few women at atheist/skeptic events?" based on One Specific Assertion ("they are MADE uncomfortable") is pointless and likely also counterproductive. If your goal is that women would feel more comfortable at atheist events, start asking questions like "What makes it easier for (more) women to attend?" and "What makes it more likely for women to feel comfortable?" (such questions were asked in the blog post you linked to and answered in comments to it).

BTW, the baboon article that Crumple linked to is IMO a surprisingly good start for thinking about what could be done in practice - if the reader is able to imagine analogies and develop them further (if taken only literally, that article of course would not seem very relevant). Your answering it with a link to a FauxNews entertainment piece was illuminating regarding your level of insincerity and/or cluelessness in this discussion. Cormac's protest was at least based on something relevant.