Women at Atheist/Skeptic Events - Uncomfortable?

[floppit]

I think the fuss is because Dawkins sounded bonkers! I've no sound on here so not going to get into judging Watson; but pro Dawkins versus con Dawkins seems to me to signal another uber thread, reliably.

[Gallstones]

I'm not upset.

This might be a good time to point out that you are ascribing emotions to my posts that I am simply not feeling. An example of you assuming something. It might also be that this has happened more than once and only contributes to the frustration and communication failures.

Your posts come across as if you're upset. If not, only you can know that, and I'll certainly take your word for it. You have no trouble making similar "assumptions" about my posts.

You are reading "upset" in what I posted. That is you--you are doing that. That is an assumption.
Even if I am ever upset, so what? BFD.

Let it go...

I told you that's how your posts came across. You've said you're not upset, and I accepted your word on it.

I think this is a good time to point out that you are presuming to tell me when I am finished or not. I read these kinds of comments as you giving and withdrawing permission for me to discuss and communicate.
It is you who needs to let it go.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, I see.

I wonder, though-- does "made to feel uncomfortable" necessarily mean that men are trying to make women feel uncomfortable? I think it's possible to interpret that phrase in a more passive-voiced way-- i.e.- This situation made me feel uncomfortable, even though no one there was consciously trying to make me feel that way.

Sure, absolutely. But, the question becomes "what about the situation made you uncomfortable?" In the case of an atheist convention, what other than the men would make a woman uncomfortable? And, if it's not the men consciously doing something that makes women uncomfortable, then what are the doing without thinking about it that makes women uncomfortable? Walk? Talk? Debate? Are they speaking too much and cutting women off? ARe they being patronizing and saying or doing sexist things? Could be anything, I guess - the question is - what?

But, it's possible that the term was used in the latter sense, an active making someone uncomfortable. Men might do this unwittingly-- there doesn't need to be nefarious intent involved for someone to make someone else feel uncomfortable.

Sure, but what do we do unwittingly at atheist/skeptic conventions and that we don't do elsewhere? What's making women specifically not show at atheist/skeptic conventions?

But many women in this thread, and many women in cited articles, have tried to explain specific ways men in these situations might, wittingly or unwittingly, make a woman feel uncomfortable, and have explained how to try to avoid making that happen. It seems that your reaction to these suggestions is to write them off as unreasonable. Which you can do. But then, it's difficult to believe you mean what you say when you say: "I would certainly want to look long and hard at being part of the solution in fixing that."

No, I don't write them off - and actually - maybe it would be help if you noted a couple of the specific ways here. I really have read a lot of blogs on this, and I've heard the general allegation that there ARE things that we do to make women uncomfortable - but, as far as explanations of specific ways - specific things we do - I really can't think of any that I've run across. I mean this respectfully, Hades, so please don't respond with a shrug and sarcastic call for me to go out and scour the web for these specific ways that women have explained. I'm asking for just a couple of examples of the ways. Nobody here has explained how men at atheist/skeptic conventions make women uncomfortable. Have they? Did I miss it? I freely admit that I may have. So, let's not argue about whether I should or shouldn't have missed it. If they have - can you just please do me the kind favor of quoting it, or linking to the post?

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm not upset.

This might be a good time to point out that you are ascribing emotions to my posts that I am simply not feeling. An example of you assuming something. It might also be that this has happened more than once and only contributes to the frustration and communication failures.

Your posts come across as if you're upset. If not, only you can know that, and I'll certainly take your word for it. You have no trouble making similar "assumptions" about my posts.

You are reading "upset" in what I posted. That is you--you are doing that. That is an assumption.
Even if I am ever upset, so what? BFD.

Let it go...

I told you that's how your posts came across. You've said you're not upset, and I accepted your word on it.

I think this is a good time to point out that you are presuming to tell me when I am finished or not. I read these kinds of comments as you giving and withdrawing permission for me to discuss and communicate.
It is you who needs to let it go.

You're making this up, apparently. Nowhere did I tell you that you were finished. I didn't say anything about being finished. I have no doubt you're not finished. Read what I said again very carefully. I said "let it go..." - that's a suggestion to you to "let it go" - I'm not "presuming" anything. Look that word up in the dictionary.

I also said "I told you that's how your posts came across." And, that's how they came across to me. They may come across another way to someone else. That's the way it works. I also said "You've said you're not upset." That's correct - you did say that. And, then "I accepted your word on it." Again - no "presumptions" here at all, Gallstones.

I have not given or withdrawn any permission. That appears to be another thing that you're dreaming up. You are, of course, free to post whatever you like. You don't need my permission for that, so any feelings to the contrary are your own issues to deal with.

If you're the kind of person that needs to belabor an issue after another has taken your word for it, well, have at it. I await your next post on the topic most urgently....

[Seabass]

I find baby showers and most "female" events boring.

Yeah, they can be.

To get back to Seabass's comment on this, though--
Maybe the difference, Seabass, is that you don't ever feel physically or sexually intimidated around women.

I don't know your background, but I'll take a shot in the dark, here--
What if you were invited to a Bears' Night Out?
Some convention of big, burly gay men?
Can you picture feeling uncomfortable?

To make the parallel more clear, keep in mind that none of the bears might even find you attractive. They might not feel like, in talking to you over drinks or whatever, that anything they're saying might make you uncomfortable, or seem like a come-on. But could you picture maybe feeling extra-sensitive to that possibility?

Actually, I lived in a gay neighborhood for six years, been to a several gay bars on numerous occasions, and one gay parade. Never had any problems with discomfort despite being hetero.

No, I don't feel intimidated around women, but I like to think I'm a sympathetic and empathetic person. I totally understand that women are more vulnerable than men because of smaller size and all; I just find the assertion that female attendance to atheist conferences is low because of some kind of fear or intimidation factor to be a rather odd one, considering the fact that women still manage to get out to other kinds social gatherings in good numbers.

[Coito ergo sum]

I
Again, I must

Believe me, double face palms coming your way quite often.... I am fascinated by the fact that you actually seem to believe that you make rational sense. Fascinating.

Interesting, because I can't make heads or tails about what your point is either.

Well, you may not be very bright. No shame in that.

I am not fascinated, more agog that you don't recognize your own lack of logic and your own hipocrisy.

LOL - "agog?" Really? I am pretty sure that's not what you meant, but if you're anticipating or curious with great excitement, then fine. Far be it from me to tell you what you're feeling about it. I'm more "aghast" at your poor spelling and general lack of writing ability, though.

[Atheist-Lite]

I
Again, I must

Believe me, double face palms coming your way quite often.... I am fascinated by the fact that you actually seem to believe that you make rational sense. Fascinating.

Interesting, because I can't make heads or tails about what your point is either.

Well, you may not be very bright. No shame in that.

I am not fascinated, more agog that you don't recognize your own lack of logic and your own hipocrisy.

LOL - "agog?" Really? I am pretty sure that's not what you meant, but if you're anticipating or curious with great excitement, then fine. Far be it from me to tell you what you're feeling about it. I'm more "aghast" at your poor spelling and general lack of writing ability, though.

[hadespussercats]

CES: No, I don't write them off - and actually - maybe it would be help if you noted a couple of the specific ways here. I really have read a lot of blogs on this, and I've heard the general allegation that there ARE things that we do to make women uncomfortable - but, as far as explanations of specific ways - specific things we do - I really can't think of any that I've run across. I mean this respectfully, Hades, so please don't respond with a shrug and sarcastic call for me to go out and scour the web for these specific ways that women have explained. I'm asking for just a couple of examples of the ways. Nobody here has explained how men at atheist/skeptic conventions make women uncomfortable. Have they? Did I miss it? I freely admit that I may have. So, let's not argue about whether I should or shouldn't have missed it. If they have - can you just please do me the kind favor of quoting it, or linking to the post?

I won't write you off, Coito. I haven't been sarcastic or dismissive. I am a little surprised that...

Okay. Let's see.
I tried to make an analogy, in my first post in this thread, about how the behavior of guys at a gaming convention made me uncomfortable enough that I quit gaming. I haven't been to an atheist or skeptic convention, but I thought that if the men there acted similarly, I could see why women might feel uncomfortable and stay away.

Ronja echoed that with an analogy of her own (capitalizing on some of your commentary about women in engineering programs) about her experiences as a student in a male dominated field, and how she needed to alter the way she dressed and acted to avoid the sort of attention that could have gotten in the way of her feeling comfortable enough to continue in her course of study. My sense is that she was indicating that the pressure of being in a minority-- the fact that as a minority, one often become a focus of attention in uncomfortable and pervasive ways-- not only made her alter her own behavior in ways that made her feel less able to be herself, but might have caused another woman with a different background/mental resources to leave the field entirely. She was making this analogy to explain the sort of pressures that might be in play, keeping the attendance numbers of women at atheist or skeptic conferences as low as they are.

The article "Schroedinger's Rapist" (subtitled something about how to avoid being maced when approaching women) was linked previously in this thread, and was, in my opinion, an excellent summary of ways even good-hearted men might make a woman feel uncomfortable and afraid. She listed a number of ways to avoid creating that sort of reaction, for men who were interested in that sort of advice.

Finally, there's Watson herself, talking about a specific instance in an elevator (as well as examples of on-line commentary) that made her feel threatened or uncomfortable. She suggested how men who didn't want to create that response in certain women might avoid doing so, and thus kicked off this shitstorm in the first place.

That's what I can come up with, off the top of my head.

[Ronja]

This might be a good time to point out that you are ascribing emotions to my posts that I am simply not feeling. An example of you assuming something. It might also be that this has happened more than once and only contributes to the frustration and communication failures.

Your posts come across as if you're upset. If not, only you can know that, and I'll certainly take your word for it. You have no trouble making similar "assumptions" about my posts.

And some of your posts, Coito, came across as clueless and/or insincere, and you protested loudly when I said so. Yet you embed snide comments and poorly veiled accusations in your response to Gallstones' similar-as-yours (but noticeably calmer) protest.

Where's your logic?

[hadespussercats]

I find baby showers and most "female" events boring.

Yeah, they can be.

To get back to Seabass's comment on this, though--
Maybe the difference, Seabass, is that you don't ever feel physically or sexually intimidated around women.

I don't know your background, but I'll take a shot in the dark, here--
What if you were invited to a Bears' Night Out?
Some convention of big, burly gay men?
Can you picture feeling uncomfortable?

To make the parallel more clear, keep in mind that none of the bears might even find you attractive. They might not feel like, in talking to you over drinks or whatever, that anything they're saying might make you uncomfortable, or seem like a come-on. But could you picture maybe feeling extra-sensitive to that possibility?

Actually, I lived in a gay neighborhood for six years, been to a several gay bars on numerous occasions, and one gay parade. Never had any problems with discomfort despite being hetero.

No, I don't feel intimidated around women, but I like to think I'm a sympathetic and empathetic person. I totally understand that women are more vulnerable than men because of smaller size and all; I just find the assertion that female attendance to atheist conferences is low because of some kind of fear or intimidation factor to be a rather odd one, considering the fact that women still manage to get out to other kinds social gatherings in good numbers.

I think it's great that none of these situations would intimidate you, or make you feel uncomfortable. You're like many of the women who have posted in this thread and the other elevator-gate related one, who don't have any problem going to these sorts of events, even if they are in a minority.

But I'm surprised that you can't even imagine the likelihood that other people might react differently from you, or that you can't view a situation with the sort of objectivity that would enable you to see the workings that might prompt an uncomfortable response.

ETA: not every social event is typified by the majority/minority dynamic under discussion here.

[Seabass]

I find baby showers and most "female" events boring.

Yeah, they can be.

To get back to Seabass's comment on this, though--
Maybe the difference, Seabass, is that you don't ever feel physically or sexually intimidated around women.

I don't know your background, but I'll take a shot in the dark, here--
What if you were invited to a Bears' Night Out?
Some convention of big, burly gay men?
Can you picture feeling uncomfortable?

To make the parallel more clear, keep in mind that none of the bears might even find you attractive. They might not feel like, in talking to you over drinks or whatever, that anything they're saying might make you uncomfortable, or seem like a come-on. But could you picture maybe feeling extra-sensitive to that possibility?

Actually, I lived in a gay neighborhood for six years, been to a several gay bars on numerous occasions, and one gay parade. Never had any problems with discomfort despite being hetero.

No, I don't feel intimidated around women, but I like to think I'm a sympathetic and empathetic person. I totally understand that women are more vulnerable than men because of smaller size and all; I just find the assertion that female attendance to atheist conferences is low because of some kind of fear or intimidation factor to be a rather odd one, considering the fact that women still manage to get out to other kinds social gatherings in good numbers.

I think it's great that none of these situations would intimidate you, or make you feel uncomfortable. You're like many of the women who have posted in this thread and the other elevator-gate related one, who don't have any problem going to these sorts of events, even if they are in a minority.

But I'm surprised that you can't even imagine the likelihood that other people might react differently from you, or that you can't view a situation with the sort of objectivity that would enable you to see the workings that might prompt an uncomfortable response.

ETA: not every social event is typified by the majority/minority dynamic under discussion here.

No, I can understand people feeling uncomfortable or intimidated.

All I have trouble with here is this odd assertion that atheist conferences have low female attendance due to fear and discomfort, because the fact is, there are many social gatherings and public places that do not have this problem with low female attendance.

[hadespussercats]

I find baby showers and most "female" events boring.

Yeah, they can be.

To get back to Seabass's comment on this, though--
Maybe the difference, Seabass, is that you don't ever feel physically or sexually intimidated around women.

I don't know your background, but I'll take a shot in the dark, here--
What if you were invited to a Bears' Night Out?
Some convention of big, burly gay men?
Can you picture feeling uncomfortable?

To make the parallel more clear, keep in mind that none of the bears might even find you attractive. They might not feel like, in talking to you over drinks or whatever, that anything they're saying might make you uncomfortable, or seem like a come-on. But could you picture maybe feeling extra-sensitive to that possibility?

Actually, I lived in a gay neighborhood for six years, been to a several gay bars on numerous occasions, and one gay parade. Never had any problems with discomfort despite being hetero.

No, I don't feel intimidated around women, but I like to think I'm a sympathetic and empathetic person. I totally understand that women are more vulnerable than men because of smaller size and all; I just find the assertion that female attendance to atheist conferences is low because of some kind of fear or intimidation factor to be a rather odd one, considering the fact that women still manage to get out to other kinds social gatherings in good numbers.

I think it's great that none of these situations would intimidate you, or make you feel uncomfortable. You're like many of the women who have posted in this thread and the other elevator-gate related one, who don't have any problem going to these sorts of events, even if they are in a minority.

But I'm surprised that you can't even imagine the likelihood that other people might react differently from you, or that you can't view a situation with the sort of objectivity that would enable you to see the workings that might prompt an uncomfortable response.

ETA: not every social event is typified by the majority/minority dynamic under discussion here.

No, I can understand people feeling uncomfortable or intimidated.

All I have trouble with here is this odd assertion that atheist conferences have low female attendance due to fear and discomfort, because the fact is, there are many social gatherings and public places that do not have this problem with low female attendance.

Ah. Then the question becomes-- why weren't the numbers of men and women at atheist or skeptic events more even to start with?

That I can't tell you.

[Coito ergo sum]

CES: No, I don't write them off - and actually - maybe it would be help if you noted a couple of the specific ways here. I really have read a lot of blogs on this, and I've heard the general allegation that there ARE things that we do to make women uncomfortable - but, as far as explanations of specific ways - specific things we do - I really can't think of any that I've run across. I mean this respectfully, Hades, so please don't respond with a shrug and sarcastic call for me to go out and scour the web for these specific ways that women have explained. I'm asking for just a couple of examples of the ways. Nobody here has explained how men at atheist/skeptic conventions make women uncomfortable. Have they? Did I miss it? I freely admit that I may have. So, let's not argue about whether I should or shouldn't have missed it. If they have - can you just please do me the kind favor of quoting it, or linking to the post?

I won't write you off, Coito. I haven't been sarcastic or dismissive. I am a little surprised that...

Okay. Let's see.
I tried to make an analogy, in my first post in this thread, about how the behavior of guys at a gaming convention made me uncomfortable enough that I quit gaming. I haven't been to an atheist or skeptic convention, but I thought that if the men there acted similarly, I could see why women might feel uncomfortable and stay away.

Alright - let's look at that example:

I could almost hear some of them saying "It's a ga-ga-ga-GIRL!!!" a la the Loony Tunes-- with ah-oogah horn sounds and popping eyeballs and bouncing adams-apples and all the rest. And while I suppose I should have been flattered, there were so many of them that wanted to get REALLY close to me and ask me all sorts of questions, I began to feel... well. Overwhelmed. Claustrophobic. It was TOO MUCH.

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 26#p918811

As a guy, I can tell you that when I was 13 to 16 years old, I got very nervous around girls, especially pretty ones. I was shy, didn't think much of myself, and I had absolutely no clue how to talk to girls. I was at the same time HIGHLY attracted to them, and I knew I liked them a lot. I fell in love with girls (or infatuations) easily and daydreamed about them. I suppose I could have acted in the way you describe.

That being said - I've been to atheist conventions and the demographic is elderly, generally married, and then there are some younger folks, but generally at least college age, mostly much older than college age. I haven't seen this kind of behavior. Most everyone is holding nerdy conversations, and eagerly awaiting the next speaker. They're perusing tables with people selling books and sundries related to atheism and handing out literature for different organizations. Basically, people are buying stuff, networking, and talking nerdy.

Now - I am a guy - and therefore I am not the best one to say what the guys are doing at the conventions in this regard. So, the question becomes - what do women think? Is part of the reason women are uncomfortable there (if indeed they are), because men are acting like shy, oggling teenage boys getting erections when the wind blows?

This is not an argument against that assertion, mind you. I don't have the data. The assertion may well be true. The thing is, you haven't been to an atheist convention, so while it is a good hypothesis, you don't have any examples yourself, and we don't have any data in terms of other women reporting such things, yet. Maybe we will, and that will be the answer. The answer would be - yes, women are made uncomfortable there, and one of the reasons for it is that men, purposefully or not, act like ogling boobs around the women, and the women don't like it. I freely admit that possibility. I do not dismiss it. But, I don't accept it at face value either.

Now: working toward a solution - if we assume that to be true, then we would need men not to act like those ogling doofuses like that. That's a hard one, though, because most kids or men that act that way don't do it on purpose. They do it because they are nervous as hell, but at the same time attracted. The reason I may have sounded dismissive about a suggestion such as this one is that I guess I see it as almost uncorrectable. You're never going to have men, en masse, being comfortable around women they may be attracted to - dorky men are not dorky by choice, they are just dorky. If they could have corrected their game by then, they would have. They may eventually - but, short of a societal mandatory training program to get men to behave like the "Most Interesting Man in the World" guy from the Dos Equus (sp?) I am not sure how much we could change that. But, maybe we could discuss solutions to that too.

Ronja echoed that with an analogy of her own (capitalizing on some of your commentary about women in engineering programs) about her experiences as a student in a male dominated field, and how she needed to alter the way she dressed and acted to avoid the sort of attention that could have gotten in the way of her feeling comfortable enough to continue in her course of study. My sense is that she was indicating that the pressure of being in a minority-- the fact that as a minority, one often become a focus of attention in uncomfortable and pervasive ways-- not only made her alter her own behavior in ways that made her feel less able to be herself, but might have caused another woman with a different background/mental resources to leave the field entirely. She was making this analogy to explain the sort of pressures that might be in play, keeping the attendance numbers of women at atheist or skeptic conferences as low as they are.

Another good point - the fact of being a minority. Sure - and we've talked about that a little bit. However, if women being in the minority is the issue, and it may be, then I think we have to agree that nobody is "making" them uncomfortable. They just "are" uncomfortable when they are in the minority, qua being in the minority. When people say they are "made" to feel uncomfortable, it implies responsibility on the part of whoever is making them uncomfortable. Just because women don't show up doesn't mean it's the men's fault or that they have any behavioral issue to correct.

But, let's say that is a big reason for women feeling uncomfortable and not showing - they anticipate being in the minority, and don't want the discomfort that will ensue, and then they won't show. To correct that, we would have to get more women to go. How would we do that? Again - that's fodder for more discussion here - rather than being shut down as I was, I would definitely be interested in pursuing further discussion on this. Recall, that I mentioned running some groups in the past, and I had a hard time getting women to attend the atheist events. I had some success with affirmative action programs - but, that's because in the real world I have no trouble with women, and I was able to be proactive and find women and persuade them to attend. Even then, though, it was difficult to get them to attend, and difficult to get them to be repeat attendees. I really think that even most of the avowed atheist women I run into can't be arsed to get involved in groups about it. That's not a slight against women - most men I run into that are avowed atheists also have no interest in it. I think a slightly higher percentage of men, however, will go because men like dorky stuff - nerdy convention stuff - some men are all over it.

The article "Schroedinger's Rapist" (subtitled something about how to avoid being maced when approaching women) was linked previously in this thread, and was, in my opinion, an excellent summary of ways even good-hearted men might make a woman feel uncomfortable and afraid. She listed a number of ways to avoid creating that sort of reaction, for men who were interested in that sort of advice.

I went through and analyzed that article, which I found extraordinarily sexist and condescending to men. Horribly so. Had an article like that been written about women, it would have been labeled "misogynistic" and anti-woman, and hateful.

Finally, there's Watson herself, talking about a specific instance in an elevator (as well as examples of on-line commentary) that made her feel threatened or uncomfortable. She suggested how men who didn't want to create that response in certain women might avoid doing so, and thus kicked off this shitstorm in the first place.

That's what I can come up with, off the top of my head.

The problem I have with Skepchick's discussion of the Elevator incident, is that it puts men in a no-win situation. As I recall, Skepchick at one point wrote that just being in an elevator with a guy at 4am could make a woman feel uncomfortable. Well, sure, depending on the guy, I might be uncomfortable with a guy in an elevator at 4am. I might even be MORE uncomfortable if the guy said nothing at all - stood their silently. That can be unnerving.

Isn't the question in elevatorgate whether the guy did anything "wrong." I mean - certainly - he could not get in the elevator and she would be comfortable...well, maybe - if she noticed him avoid getting in the elevator with her, then she might be unnerved and uncomfortable by virtue of that avoidance -- but, he could do that - but, is he obligated to do that? Should a guest at a hotel who is also patronizing the bar, and also going to his room at 4am, have the obligation to think about how not to make Rebecca Watson upset by his mere presence?

And, as for his question to her - my thought on that - as I said on the other thread - is that it was an impertinent question, and inappropriate. He probably meant to try to see if he could get a hummer from Watson, or more, and thought he'd see if she'd come to his room. I do leave room, however, for the possibility that he really just wanted to sit down and have a cup of coffee, talk to her, and get to know her, albeit that being a fairly small possibility. My problem is not with her saying that it was objectionable. My problem was with her labeling it "misogyny" and "sexual objectification," and later - harassment, trauma, and threatening.

The logic goes like this: all women get to set their comfort zones, and if it makes them uncomfortable it makes them uncomfortable. Which automatically makes any guy wrong by fiat, because if she's uncomfortable, he did something wrong. However, some women feel the way Watson felt about elevator guy when "bar guy" walks up to them and interrupts their drink at the bar with a pick up line. Some women even "feel uncomfortable" then. The thing I think guys can't get around is how they are supposed to know in advance where the woman's line is.

Moreover - the word "uncomfortable" I think is objectionable to a lot of people - it's like the word "offended." You're "offended?" So fucking what, right? If I'm giving a speech at an atheist convention (I never have, but if one day I do) what if I say something that makes women uncomfortable? Does being "made to feel uncomfortable" even entitle someone to a remedy? I think if a guy made the same video as Watson - nobody would take him seriously, because nobody gives men the right to have their "discomfort" remedied.

And, listen to Watson speaking at that table with Dawkins and AronRa - she says at one point - hopefully you're even a little uncomfortable - and if you're not - I'm going to MAKE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE. Why does she claim the right to make attendees uncomfortable, but she claims the right not to be made uncomfortable at any point?

Anyway - that last bit about Skepchick are just my rambling thoughts - I would say to men, don't try to pick women up in elevators. I would say that you should chat them up in the bar first, and try to get a reaction. I would also say there are better places to meet women than atheist conventions, so if that's your goal, head from the convention to a local bar and dazzle some hottie with your brilliance.

I would say to women, thought, that the dork in the elevator who clumsily hits on your and takes your no for an answer and moves on is not the guy you ought to worry about. The guy to worry about is a smooth talker who can disarm you.

Anyway - hopefully, I have done my part to reduce discomfort in regards to me, and I have adequately assured everyone that I am seriously discussing this issue, and not dismissing anyone. If anything I have written is unclear, I will clarify it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Ah. Then the question becomes-- why weren't the numbers of men and women at atheist or skeptic events more even to start with?

That I can't tell you.

How likely do you think it is that the proportion of men to women at these events is equivalent to the proportions of men and women that are interested in spending a weekend immersed in this topic, hearing lectures on atheism, science, biology, etc.?

I think it's very likely. I see the same disparity at Avalon Hill strategy war gaming conventions. Why? Because women, by and large, don't like war games. Of the people that play war games, 95% of them are men. I bet it's hard to find a woman that likes to play Advanced Squad Leader, or Diplomacy.

I think we have to acknowledge the possibility that the reason there aren't more "Skepchicks" out there is because far fewer chicks have an interest in skepticism and atheism than dudes. I sense a real resistance here to even allowing that possibility to be entertained. I think that may be because a higher percentage of Ratz women are more interested in those egghead topics than the general population. A higher percentage of Ratz men are also interested in those topics than the general population too. We're just a nerdier and smarter group, I suspect.

[hadespussercats]

CES wrote: I would say to women, thought, that the dork in the elevator who clumsily hits on your and takes your no for an answer and moves on is not the guy you ought to worry about. The guy to worry about is a smooth talker who can disarm you.

I don't know why you're so sure only smooth talkers could be bad guys.

Sounds like a throwback to old ideas about the smooth-talking Devil.

Women will worry about what they worry about. That may or may not be reasonable. Either way, they are more informed about their reasons for worrying than you can be, so, whatever. Not sure why you think women want your opinion on this.

But you're entitled to your opinion.

What I don't understand is how on one hand you talk about a desire to tackle the issue of women feeling uncomfortable, while on the other hand you get miffed when women talk about being uncomfortable, and wonder why women think they have the right to try to avoid being made uncomfortable.

Like the issue of offense, you're not required to care about other people's discomfort. But you seem to be riding both sides of the issue-- claiming to want to understand and lessen the discomfort of women, but being offended yourself at being asked to consider the discomfort of women.

Women can't force other people to make them comfortable. But there's nothing wrong with women trying to improve their situation if they do feel uncomfortable, by explaining why, and hoping other people care.

You don't have to care. But... you don't have a special right to avoid what seems to me to be perceived on your part as the offense of some women feeling uncomfortable, and talking about how they wish they didn't, and what things would have to change for that to be achieved.