Women at Atheist/Skeptic Events - Uncomfortable?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This reminds me of another burning issue.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[Cormac]

Assertion 1:

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

http://skepchick.org/2011/02/ai-the-weaker-sex/

I've been to atheist events, and I noticed how they were, well, sausage fests. I used to make intensive efforts - affirmative action - if you will to include women, to invite women, etc. to local group events and meetings in my area. I have to say, though, that I take some issue with the idea that women are "made" to feel uncomfortable. I don't think that any discomfort created by men is necessarily what keeps women away. I think that often women have no interest in showing up in the first place, and when they do show up a large percentage of women find little that interests them at atheist/skeptic meetings.

To try to explain - I think that men and women are often interested, overall, generally speaking, not referring to every single person, in different kinds of things. You'll find more men involved in say, "strategy war gaming" conventions and science fiction conventions than women. Why? Is it because women are "made to feel uncomfortable?" Or, is it because girls and women are, in our culture, not generally interested in strategy war gaming and science fiction?

When it comes to atheist conventions and groups, local meetings and local organizations as well as national conferences, I would expect more males to attend because men are more interested in that stuff, just as they are more interested in hunting and fishing and astronomy.

Now, I know that I will immediately get someone responding to this who says, "I'm a woman and I love war games, astronomy, hunting, fishing and science fiction." I know you are out there. I am merely pointing out that OVERALL the demographics of the devotees of such things, and the devotees of atheism/philosophy/debating/skepticism/science are overwhelmingly male.

Also, the phraseology is interesting to me. "Made" to feel uncomfortable. That implies that men are purposefully making women uncomfortable - shades of harassment, leering, ogling and catcalling. But, is that what is meant by the discomfort reported by women? My theory is that what is really happening is that women are uncomfortable merely because they are in an extreme minority at the events. I mean - 10% women is about the average in my experience. So, that paints a pretty clear picture that the women that do show up are engaging in an activity that is not preferred by women as much as men.

Promote the elevators and the all-night coffee...

[Cormac]

Also, the phraseology is interesting to me. "Made" to feel uncomfortable. That implies that men are purposefully making women uncomfortable - shades of harassment, leering, ogling and catcalling.

Yeah, I don't go along with that .

I'm not sure she meant that, but to say someone is "made" to feel uncomfortable I think requires something more than that they are uncomfortable. There is always the possibility that people are uncomfortable without anyone having done anything "wrong."

I meant I don't go along with the "made to feel uncomfortable" notion .. in this and most contexts.

Although, I wouldn't negate genuine situations of discomfort (where 'discomfort' is a fucking understatement), the example given by the skepchick doesn't come close.

I've even gone so far as to say that it was inappropriate and perhaps even insulting to Skepchick - I don't even think it's a big deal that she says it made her feel uncomfortable. But, that's the most that can be reasonably said for it. I've wavered a bit on the inappropriateness of it, though. It's a party atmosphere at a hotel bar until 4am int he morning, drinking. Leaving that environment, I don't think random hook-ups are way out of the question, and simply being asked for coffee and conversation - well that seems quite polite. I'll give her the inappropriateness of it all and the offensiveness to her. But, I won't acknowledge "misogyny, harassment, objectification," or any of the myriad other bits of hyperbole that have been bandied about. I think Skepchick has been reading one too many Catharine Mackinnon books....

But, there is no right in society not to be offended. If a person is offended in a given situation, then unless there's an incitement to hatred or violence, it is tough luck.

[Ayaan]

To a certain extent your expectations are going to color your experiences. I've been to a few atheist events alone and have never felt uncomfortable - other than my usual shyness. Once I got over that, I met lots of people, made plenty of friends, and had a great deal of fun - and yes, there were usually more men than women, but I never found it to be a problem.

[Hermit]

there were usually more men than women, but I never found it to be a problem.

Good for you. I do see, though, how women can feel uneasy because of the mere presence of men, and why that is not necessarily an unreasonable feeling even if those men (singular or plural) do not behave menacingly at all. Phaedra Starling explains it much better than I could in Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced.

[Animavore]

there were usually more men than women, but I never found it to be a problem.

Good for you. I do see, though, how women can feel uneasy because of the mere presence of men, and why that is not necessarily an unreasonable feeling even if those men (singular or plural) do not behave menacingly at all. Phaedra Starling explains it much better than I could in Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced.

Or, alternatively, mace her first

Remember guys, until you've searched a woman's handbag while she's scrambling on the ground with her eyes burning she is Schrödinger’s Macist. Don't get caught out. Pre-empt that tactic and eliminate the threat

[Callan]

there were usually more men than women, but I never found it to be a problem.

Good for you. I do see, though, how women can feel uneasy because of the mere presence of men, and why that is not necessarily an unreasonable feeling even if those men (singular or plural) do not behave menacingly at all. Phaedra Starling explains it much better than I could in Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced.

Thank you for posting this link, Seraph - the whole article is just perfect.
If you posted it on the "Dawkins at war with the feminists thread", maybe certain people might finally be granted understanding...?
Or maybe not.

[Cormac]

there were usually more men than women, but I never found it to be a problem.

Good for you. I do see, though, how women can feel uneasy because of the mere presence of men, and why that is not necessarily an unreasonable feeling even if those men (singular or plural) do not behave menacingly at all. Phaedra Starling explains it much better than I could in Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced.

I see absolutely no reason for men to change ordinary behaviour, or for society to impose restraints on men's ordinary behaviour, because someone feels anxiety or discomfort. Life happens.

[Cormac]

there were usually more men than women, but I never found it to be a problem.

Good for you. I do see, though, how women can feel uneasy because of the mere presence of men, and why that is not necessarily an unreasonable feeling even if those men (singular or plural) do not behave menacingly at all. Phaedra Starling explains it much better than I could in Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced.

I would also like to see the detail behind her assertion that 1 in 6 women in America are sexually assaulted. What constitutes sexual assault? Does it, for example, include being asked for coffee in a lift at 4am?

(This is not to in ANY way trivialise rape or physical abuse!).

[Cormac]

there were usually more men than women, but I never found it to be a problem.

Good for you. I do see, though, how women can feel uneasy because of the mere presence of men, and why that is not necessarily an unreasonable feeling even if those men (singular or plural) do not behave menacingly at all. Phaedra Starling explains it much better than I could in Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced.

This article is a fucking prime example of the bullshit that has arisen in relation to these matters, and I suspect it is driven by a combination of:

1. Shrill sensationalist media
2. Bad statistics
3. Radical misandrist feminists

I remember a lecture during my English degree that promoted this concept that ALL males are rapists.

I seriously doubt if the percentage of rapists amongst males is as high as she declares.

This is not to say that women shouldn't be careful. There are after all, lots of weirdos out there. But not that many.

Oh, and incidentally, men and women are always communicating. Women are just as poor at interpreting male body language and overall communication as men are females.

When will people realise that women and men are just as stupid, just as prone to error, just as venial, and just as greedy as each other. Women aren't paragons of virtue by simple fact of being female.

I have had several experiences where women continued to intrude despite being told in no uncertain terms that I had no interest. She says this has happened to her too. So fucking what. This is life. There are assholes who just don't know how to behave appropriately. Chalk it down to life and move fucking on, without making it into a big psychodrama.

[Hermit]

the whole article is just perfect.
If you posted it on the "Dawkins at war with the feminists thread", maybe certain people might finally be granted understanding...?

Charity begins at home. Same non-result too.

[klr]

One of the article comments links to this cartoon, which highlights part of the problem as I see it:

[Animavore]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

To a certain extent your expectations are going to color your experiences. I've been to a few atheist events alone and have never felt uncomfortable - other than my usual shyness. Once I got over that, I met lots of people, made plenty of friends, and had a great deal of fun - and yes, there were usually more men than women, but I never found it to be a problem.

How about that crazy guy at Skepticon? The one sitting on the other side of James Randi?

[Coito ergo sum]

From Schrodinger's Rapist....

So far, so good. Miss LonelyHearts, your humble instructor, approves. Human connection, love, romance: there is nothing wrong with these yearnings.

http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest ... ing-maced/

The author will need to specify which yearnings she doesn't approve of. I get the impression that the yearning for no-strings-attached sexual encounters does not meet her approval.

The first thing you need to understand is that women are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a man. To begin with, we would rather not be killed or otherwise violently assaulted.

The desire not to be killed or violently assaulted is "strange" to men? Not by a long shot. Men are far more likely than women to be the victims of violent crime. Sex Differences in Violent Victimization U.S. Department of Justice Special Report September 1997, NCJ-164508.

“But wait! I don’t want that, either!”
Well, no. But do you think about it all the time? Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for women, it is.

For men also. The risk of the kind of violent crime may be different, but men are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime in general, so why wouldn't "preventing violent assault or murder" be part of a male's daily routine?

When I go on a date, I always leave the man’s full name and contact information written next to my computer monitor. This is so the cops can find my body if I go missing. My best friend will call or e-mail me the next morning, and I must answer that call or e-mail before noon-ish, or she begins to worry. If she doesn’t hear from me by three or so, she’ll call the police. My activities after dark are curtailed. Unless I am in a densely-occupied, well-lit space, I won’t go out alone. Even then, I prefer to have a friend or two, or my dogs, with me. Do you follow rules like these?

The part about the dates seems paranoid. Certainly, if you're going on a blind date, then sure - someone else should know where you're going, that makes sense. But, "when I go on a date?" You mean - even with a man you've dated several times before? You have a buddy system for every time you go to the movies at night with a male "friend?" Friends are calling the cops if you don't check in by 3pm? Huh. Well, about the going out at night thing, most guys won't go walking around alone in a dangerous neighborhood alone in the dark either.

So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?

That sounds horrible. If that's what the author does every time a guy approaches her, then it sounds like the life of a woman is a living hell.

She writes:

To begin with, you must accept that I set my own risk tolerance.

Fair enough. But, by the same token, as she wrote 2 paragraphs previously,

I can’t see inside your head, and I don’t know your intentions.

That cuts both ways, actually. We don't know what your own risk tolerance is. So, when we say "hi, my name is Bill, I find you interesting..." we don't know whether your "risk tolerance" is that you feel uncomfortable about that, and we won't know it in an elevator or at a bar.

She writes -

If you expect me to trust you—to accept you at face value as a nice sort of guy—you are not only failing to respect my reasonable caution, you are being cavalier about my personal safety.

- I suppose whom you "trust" is something wholely within your own head. We don't even know if you're trusting us or not. How is a guy approaching a woman and saying hello or asking her for a date equivalent to an expectation that she trust us? It's up to the woman whether she trusts the guy. The guy can't ever know what her level of trust is. So, now, if she doesn't trust him, according to this writer, he is failing to respect her reasonable caution and being cavalier about her personal safety. And, that's all by doing absolutely nothing but opening up a conversation.

Now that you’re aware that there’s a problem, you are going to go out of your way to fix it, and to make the women with whom you interact feel as safe as possible. To begin with, you must accept that I set my own risk tolerance. When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm. That possibility is never 0%. For some women, particularly women who have been victims of violent assaults, any level of risk is unacceptable. Those women do not want to be approached, no matter how nice you are or how much you’d like to date them. Okay? That’s their right. Don’t get pissy about it. Women are under no obligation to hear the sales pitch before deciding they are not in the market to buy.

That's all well and good. But, how is a man to know which women have been the victims of violent assaults and don't want to be approached no matter what? The only alternative for a man, apparently, is to approach zero women, because they are all "Schodinger's Assault Victim." Right? Any woman that we come across might have been assaulted, and therefore it is disrespecting their risk tolerance and being cavalier with her personal safety to even talk to her.

The second important point: you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment. We are going to be paying close attention to your appearance and behavior and matching those signs to our idea of a threat.

All well and good, but just like women don't know our intentions, we don't know what "appearance" and "behavior" constitute threats. Some women like biker dudes, who appear scruffy and dangerous, and have utter disdain for emo guys who appear small and safe. We don't know what you think is threatening.

This means that some men should never approach strange women in public. Specifically, if you have truly unusual standards of personal cleanliness, if you are the prophet of your own religion, or if you have tattoos of gang symbols or Technicolor cockroaches all over your face and neck, you are just never going to get a good response approaching a woman cold.

Personal cleanliness? What level is appropriate. I take 2 showers a day, which most people say is far more than average. Some people shower once every other day, which I find kind of gross. Tattoos and gang symbols and drawings on one's face? Really? It's just a rule that "those people" are never to approach women, ever? That sounds absolutely ridiculous.

Pay attention to the environment. Look around. Are you in a dark alley? Then probably you ought not approach a woman and try to strike up a conversation.

Why would a woman, according to this writer, even be in a dark alley? That is being a tad cavalier with her own safety, if she can't even step outside her door without constantly calculating her risk of being raped, and leaving her whereabouts known so her body can be found.....

The third point: Women are communicating all the time. Learn to understand and respect women’s communication to you.

Sure, but women are all over the map on this. One woman's obvious hint, is not another woman's hint. This is a request to be a mind reader.

You want to say Hi to the cute girl on the subway. How will she react? Fortunately, I can tell you with some certainty, because she’s already sending messages to you. Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer, arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb. So, y’know, don’t disturb her. Really.

That may be the author's tells, but not all women send those messages purposefully. Most women don't go around broadcasting their sexual intentions, whether positive or negative, as they go through their daily routine. A woman may be reading a book, because she's passing the time on the way to work,and she may have seen you many times, but hasn't thought to send out any signal that she wants to be talked to. Sometimes, whether a woman wants to talk to a guy DEPENDS on the approach by the guy. Is he smooth, does he seem nice after actually saying something? Is he polite or does he try a corny line?

If you speak, and she responds in a monosyllabic way without looking at you, she’s saying, “I don’t want to be rude, but please leave me alone.” You don’t know why. It could be “Please leave me alone because I am trying to memorize Beowulf.” It could be “Please leave me alone because you are a scary, scary man with breath like a water buffalo.” It could be “Please leave me alone because I am planning my assassination of a major geopolitical figure and I will have to kill you if you are able to recognize me and blow my cover.”
On the other hand, if she is turned towards you, making eye contact, and she responds in a friendly and talkative manner when you speak to her, you are getting a green light. You can continue the conversation until you start getting signals to back off.

This all sounds suspiciously like that internet email joke that tells us how to "decode" what a woman says into what she "really means." You know that one... http://beerpla.net/2008/01/05/what-a-wo ... lly-means/

The fourth point: If you fail to respect what women say, you label yourself a problem.

This fourth point I think is quite good. When a woman says “Look, this is a disproportionate response to a single date. You are making me uncomfortable. Do not contact me again.” It is incumbent on the man to not contact her again, ever.