Women at Atheist/Skeptic Events - Uncomfortable?

[Ronja]

With regard to this:

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.

If you exclude these women from your study aren't you biasing skewing the statistics?

Yeah, this seems pretty weird to me, too.

I am a computer nerd, a Star Trek TNG fan, avid reader of SciFi, have done quite a bit of target shooting in my youth, like to fish (and definitely kill and gut my own catch), and generally like to get dirty, sweaty and scratched in the forest when I have a chance (which has been way too seldom since we had the kids). Should I, too, have stayed away from this discussion, then?

And if, say, liking science fiction alone disqualifies a woman from taking part in this discussion, how many RatZ women are left who *would* "qualify"?

[Atheist-Lite]

Some folks, mostly male, have not got over Star Trek Voyager and a woman captaining a StarShip.

[Ronja]

Some folks, mostly male, have not got over Star Trek Voyager and a woman captaining a StarShip.

You don't say...

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

You have me at a disadvantage then, as I have never been to one of these events.

I have eaten sausage.

I applaud your efforts in that regard.

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 shouldn't have tried to get more women to come to the events? Or, I should? Both? Neither? What would be the right thing to do?

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.

Those women, the ones you worked your affirmative action on ........pardon me .......did they relay any responses back to you that support your ideas about what women really feel and really think about attending atheist/skeptics events? What is your sample size?

Now the sarcasm is coming on thick. "Worked your affirmative action on" - you know what, Gallstones - I tried - tried via gargantuan efforts to increase the number of women. I had discussions with others involved in our groups, men and women, about how we could get more women to attend. I talked to every new woman that showed up, and while I did not put them on the spot and say "what do you like and dislike about atheist skeptic events" - I did get to know each of them as much as I could, and I think I gained a pretty good appreciation for who came back and who didn't.

I didn't keep track of the "sample size" - but, it was dozens of women per year.

My sense is that there is not as large a pool of women as there are men to draw from to seek out members and attendees of atheist skeptic groups because many that consider themselves atheists and agnostics have very little interest in attending these events. Think of yourself - you're chiding me with sarcasm here - but, you've never gone to one of these events? Have you joined an atheist or skeptic or freethinker group in your area? Gone to meetings? Gone to happy hour social events? Why? Is it because you think you'll be uncomfortable, or is it because you just haven't been all that interested in it to want to spend your time that way?

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 don't say!

Again - more fucking sarcasm. You agree, though, right? The statement is true? I never implied that what I was saying was shocking or groundbreaking, or something nobody would agree with. Quite the opposite - I think it's almost axiomatic.

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?

I'd agree with this, but with one reservation; women would probably be interested in strategy war gaming if they were given more encouraging exposure to it while girls. IMO there will be overlap of interest in anything with both males and females even if the larger number of adherents are of one categorical class or another--male or female in this instance.

That is as may be. That's why I used the phrase "in our CULTURE" - I didn't say women were genetically predisposed to not like these things as much as men. I would agree with the same statement - "women would probably be interested in atheist conventions if they were given more encouraging exposure to egghead themes, philosophy, and science while girls..." -- I think our culture does a disservice to young girls by, essentially, making intellectual pursuits like that seem less femine, or less appropriate for girls.

So - all your sarcasm aside - apparently we agree here. We both agree that in our culture women and men tend to like certain things that the other demographic doesn't like as much. My contention is that atheist and freethinker and skeptic groups and conferences tends to fall closer to the strategy and war gaming convention than to baby showers (an event that almost no men go to, or want to go to).

(How is my vocabulary and grammar so far--acceptable? Understandable? Or are you more interested in knowing why I do this at all? (<---I bet you don't understand what that means)

It's alright.

I'm not certain what you're referring to by "this." You mean - be snarkily sarcastic, while essentially agreeing with one of my main points?

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,

Why?

Why doesn't matter for the purposes of the OP. NOTE: Not that it doesn't matter AT ALL - "why" certainly does matter in the larger sense, but for the purposes of the OP, it doesn't, because the OP is about the assertion that there are more men than women at the conventions and events because women are made to feel uncomfortable. My contention is that it wasn't because they are made to feel uncomfortable, but rather because in our culture, men and women tend to be interested in different things, and atheism and the minutia of science discussions, and listening to AronRa talk about foundational falsehoods of creationism, for whatever reason, is something that appeals to the male demographic more than the female demographic.

Now - to your question - "why?" I think that it is largely cultural, as a short answer. It's probably deserving of a whole 'nother thread to discuss "why" more men are interested in atheism and science related topics/conventions/events than women.

just as they are more interested in hunting and fishing and astronomy.

Really? can you substantiate this? Where, geographically, does your sample population (of men and women) reside?

The US and the entire western world.

Are you really going to argue that 1/2 the hunters and half the fishermen in the US are women? Just go to any river where people fish and look for yourself who is fishing. Are there some women in the duck blinds, getting read to shoot a mallard? Sure - but, not many in comparison to the men. The National Sporting Goods Association study determined that women account for about 16 percent of the hunters. They represent more than 51% of the population of the US, but only 16% of the hunters. And, that's a dramatic increase from just 20 years ago, when women hunters were much fewer and farther between than that.

As for fishing: 25 percent of U.S. males fish, and 8 percent of U.S. females fish. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-associated Recreation.

For astronomy, just research a list of prominent astronomers and astronomy professors - vast majority are men. You can look and see who goes to the major astronomy conventions - like Stellafane, which has been going on for about 90 years, every year. Go to Stellafane.org, and see how many women are in the convention photos. The percentage of women in astronomy is about 13 % - http://www.aura-astronomy.org/diversity ... 20NOTA.pdf That's up from about 8% in the 1980s - http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_ ... 27mmm00017

Do you really think there isn't data to substantiate that women don't fish as much as men, don't hunt as much as men, and don't engage in astronomy as much as men? I would've thought that intuitively most people would have understood that.

Read more: Percent of female hunters is growing - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... z1SvsZFu3H

84% are men, and about 16% are women. But, yes, getting to 16% is a dramatic increase.

Can you give any details regarding the cultural practices of your sample population of men and women, that would be pertinent to a discussion about atheist/skeptics events and women, their comfort or discomfort; the reason for discomfort if there is some......am I on the right track?

I don't know what "track" your on. You'll have to state why you think that is. You haven't done that. You've said that you wouldn't be uncomfortable, and you said you couldn't speak for anyone else at all. I'm not clear what your position is on this, other than to be snarkily sarcastic to me.

So, o.k. - your question is - can I give any details regarding the cultural practices of my sample of men and women that would be pertinent to a discussion about atheist/skeptics events and women? Only generally so - I'm not exactly sure "why" women don't seem to like atheist/skeptic events as much as men, or atheist/skeptic groups as much as men. I am pretty sure, though, that far more men like them than women.

I don't know why they are uncomfortable, if they are. That's kinda why I created the OP - to ask people what they thought, because I can't wrap my arms around it. I don't see anything about, say, the American Atheists convention that could possibly make a woman "uncomfortable." I discussed with hadespussercats different ideas about, say, a lot of women possibly being uncomfortable just by the mere fact of being in the overwhelming minority, though. I found the items hades pointed out quite intriguing - what did you think about them? Did you agree that many women are uncomfortable for the reasons she outlined?

Like that, "reside" for "live"?

I don't think of "reside" as a particularly lofty word.

I bee reding the dickshonayry.

I wasn't aware that "reside" was an unusual word. I use the dictionary a lot too - I think it's important for people to have a good vocabulary. It increases their ability to comprehend written passages, gives them more tools to write in more nuanced ways, and allows them to articulate themselves in a more colorful way. Good use of the dictionary is something to be applauded, not ridiculed.

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.

Well fuck. Thanks a lot for closing that door.

Can you not in the least understand that because 16% of hunters are women and 1% of Avalon Hill strategy wargamers are women doesn't mean that women are just as likely to hunt and play strategy war games as men? Do you really not understand that?

Can you tell us why you felt it was important to close the door to a member here--who is a woman--to voice her exception to your stereotype? What does it threaten the topic?

Because the fact that one woman attends a Dungeons and Dragons game doesn't change the fact that the other 9 are male and therefore 90% of the gamers are male and 10% female. It provides a perfectly good explanation why DragonCon conventions where D&D players get together is roughly in accord with that statistic 90-10 because women generally don't like D&D as much as guys. The fat that one woman here will chime in and say, like Hades did, that she liked D&D as a kid doesn't change that. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be on that.

Of course, since I am such a simpleton I am probably missing some obvious clues that any dolt would pick up with a glance. So I must beg your indulgence to explain things to me. I hope that is not an inconvenience and you don't have to steel yourself to ignore me.

If you're suggestion is that I have failed to answer some inquiries or to provide explanations when asked - you must be joking. I always give people the courtesy of an answer to a question. You, on the other hand, routinely just ignore and evade answering simple, straightforward questions.

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.

Where did you get the data to determine what the OVERALL demographic of the devotees--who?---of athesim/philosophy/debating /skepticism [fuck this goes on] /[and]science from? Can we have a link?

With regard to astronomy, I provided links above. Atheists and agnostics comprise 12% of adults nationwide. On the website atheistnexus.com, there are two men for every one woman: http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/bl ... e=activity Women are far more religious than men: http://www.livescience.com/7689-women-r ... s-men.html A new analysis of survey data finds women pray more often then men, are more likely to believe in God, and are more religious than men in a variety of other ways. The survey involved interviews with more than 35,000 U.S. adults by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. George H. Gallup, Jr., in an analysis for the Gallup polling organization back in 2002, wrote that the differences in religiosity between men and women have been shown consistently across the previous seven decades of polls. "A mountain of Gallup survey data attests to the idea that women are more religious than men, hold their beliefs more firmly, practice their faith more consistently, and work more vigorously for the congregation," Gallup wrote.

And, here is a Pew research study - see page 96: Twice as many men as women identify themselves as atheists: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/repor ... y-full.pdf

That would certainly indicate that the pool of potential male attendees of atheist conventions is much larger than potential women attendees. Not a lot of religious folks attend atheist conventions out of interest in what goes on there - I'm sure there a few of those too, but not many. So, the bulk of the attendees are very likely "atheists," and when 1/2 as many women say they are atheists as men, and far more women are religious than men, it stands to reason that the pool of women interested in these conferences will be lower.

Also, the phraseology is interesting to me.

No way! Sonofabitch--I too am interested in phraseology.

More snark and sarcasm.

"Made" to feel uncomfortable. That implies that men are purposefully making women uncomfortable

Some are. Fact.

Yes, everywhere. On the street, in bars, at work, at home, etc. Yes, some men, I'm sure, purposefully make women uncomfortable. I'm sure you can puzzle out the distinction between that "fact," and whether or not that causes women to be less likely to attend atheist/skeptic conventions. Is the incidence of men purposefully making women uncomfortable higher at atheist conventions than in the general population? The very liberal - left leaning - socially conscious crowd that attends atheist conventions are more likely to purposefully try to make women uncomfortable? That's your assertion? If so - back it up - let's see your numbers. I provided back-up for my assertions and statistics above. Will you do me the same courtesy? Or, shall I expect more snarky bullshit and personal attacks?

- shades of harassment, leering, ogling and catcalling.

Some do. Am I correct?

I'm sure they do - see my paragraph above.

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.

What kind of "theory" do you mean, the vernacular "theory" or the scientific "Theory"?

Vernacular.

Also, on what do you base your theory that what is really happening is that women are uncomfortable for being an extreme minority?

Folks like Hadespussercats, who made similar points in their posts. And, the fact that women being in the extreme minority seems to be the only evident difference in behavior at an atheist convention as opposed to in the general population. It seems to me that there is no evidence that the behavior of men at atheist conventions is worse than their behavior in places where women represent 50% of the population.

Of what pertinence is being an extreme minority to feeling uncomfortable?

For the reason Hades stated above, and for the reasons Skepchick stated and other women - that sometimes women are intimidated when they are far outnumbered by men. I'm just going by what a lot of women have said. If that's wrong - I certainly am willing to accept that. Maybe women are just as comfortable being alone in a room of 100 guys as they are being in a room of 99 women and 1 guy, and every ratio in between. I did not make this assertion as if it was fact or proven. I offered it as a "theory." An idea that I was "theorizing" about.

Also if you will, what do you mean by uncomfortable?

Me? I mean something like, "in a state of discomfort, disturbance, mild pain or unease; uneasy; conscious of stress or strain." What do you mean by it? If you will....I doubt you will, because while you ask for answers to questions, you rarely will provide anything but snark and sarcasm.

I mean - 10% women is about the average in my experience.

How many have you been to? Did you take attendance or a head count?

Lots -- I've been many many small conferences, monthly meetings of atheist groups and meetups - and I've been to several American Atheist annual conventions - Atheist Alliance International, and I've been humanist events, Center For Inquiry events, etc. The 10% is an estimate - no I did not do a head count, but as a human being of at least normal intelligence, I am perfectly capable of estimating things to a rough approximation. Certainly, at some the demographics might be different - 5% rather than 10% at one, 15% rather than 10% at another. But, I have always noticed a dearth of women - I've NEVER seen the demographics come anywhere close to 50-50. This is a problem that has been discussed openly.

It's the whole reason for Skepchick's existence, as a matter of fact. Part of her goal is to increase the participation of women in this arena, because their participation is routinely so low.

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.

Unless one is mixing mud, it paints no such picture as there might be other variables, other constraints that are as status quo to adult females preventing them from attending atheist/skeptic/ [fill in the fucking rest yourself] events, in the cultures under discussion (what are they BTW?

I've already answered what cultures are under discussion. And, now it's my turn to ask a question, and let's see if you give me the courtesy of an answer: What are these other constraints that are as status quo adult females preventing them from attending atheist/skeptic events? I'd like to know. That was, after all, the purpose of this thread. And, is the constraint something personally applicable to you, or are you claiming that the constraints you're talking about account for large numbers of women not showing up.

This is, after all, what I was asking for in the OP. Rather than be all snarky and huffy about it - why don't you explain it? What are the constraints? If you would explain what they are, then we could talk about how to remove those constraints, so we could accomplish the goal of getting more women to attend.

I'll wait, but not too long), as some other (or the very same) ordinary social factor enables male attendance?

Wait for what?

I am very interested in the constraints you mentioned. Please - what are they? And, the "ordinary social factors" that enable male attendance - what are those factors?

Again - you raise a very good point here - if there are "constraints" preventing women from attending when they would otherwise go, and "ordinary social factors" that enable male attendance" - then let's discuss them specifically. I don't know what they are, and I can't read your mind, so you're going to have to list them for me if we're going to talk about them.

Run on sentence you think?

You realize you have thrown down the gauntlet don't you?

Honestly, I have not idea what you're talking about? Gauntlets?

Fine - I gave you straight answers to straight questions. Now the ball is in your court - let's hear about the constraints and the social factors that you're aware of.

Me, let it go? Oh, no no.

I think you're talking about a different "it." The only thing I suggested you "let go" was your bullshit about being upset or not upset. You came across as upset to me, you said you weren't, I took you at your word, and asked you to let it go at that. That's the only thing I suggested you "let go." If you don't want to let it go, I don't give a flying fuck, really. You do sound very upset. You get all pissy about this issue - it might not be the best one for you to involve yourself in, because you seem to get all worked up about it. You tell me, though, that you're not upset, so I'll take your word for it. You're not.

Watch your spelling old man.

I do make mistakes sometimes.

[Coito ergo sum]

With regard to this:

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.

If you exclude these women from your study aren't you biasing skewing the statistics?

Yeah, this seems pretty weird to me, too.

I am a computer nerd, a Star Trek TNG fan, avid reader of SciFi, have done quite a bit of target shooting in my youth, like to fish (and definitely kill and gut my own catch), and generally like to get dirty, sweaty and scratched in the forest when I have a chance (which has been way too seldom since we had the kids). Should I, too, have stayed away from this discussion, then?

And if, say, liking science fiction alone disqualifies a woman from taking part in this discussion, how many RatZ women are left who *would* "qualify"?

Well, I haven't "excluded" anyone from the "study." Is it really that "weird?" You're a pretty smart woman, Ronja. Surely you can see that the statement that, say, 98% of baby shower attendees are women is not invalidated because one man raises his hand and says, "Hey, I've been to a baby shower before, and I love them." The statement "most men don't want to go to baby showers" is still generally applicable.

I never said that "liking science fiction disqualifies a woman from taking part in this discussion." It doesn't disqualify anyone from participating. Nothing disqualifies anyone from participating.

The fact that you like to fish, for example, doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of women don't. That's why like 80% of fishermen are men. Surely it's understandable why I made that statement? It wasn't to "disqualify" anyone - it was to direct the conversation to the issue of why there is such a low percentage of women attendees and whether it's because, as Skepchick says, they are made to feel uncomfortable (and if so, how). The fact that one particular woman or one particular man goes or doesn't go to an event doesn't change that.

Now - if that was interpreted as trying to exclude women from saying "I go to these conferences because, " or "I don't go because..." etc. - then let me clarify that I did not mean to imply such an exclusion. Clearly, any suggestion as to why a woman does or doesn't go is directly relevant to the issue. The question, of course, then becomes - how common is that particular reason?

Hopefully that clears it up. You all can go on smirking and snarking, of course - that may be more productive to you.

[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.

Fine.
Fewer chicks are interested in skepticism and atheism than dudes.


Now what?

If we then approach the issue from that perspective - we can ask ourselves - why that is. The approach to getting a more equal participation at these events is much different if the problem to be solved is the relative interest of women in the topics, as opposed to whether they are "made to feel uncomfortable." If we're right about the former, and Skepchick is wrong about the latter, then the solution is different. We would want to see how we could increase women's interest in atheism and skepticism, and direct efforts of these organizations toward educating, informing, inviting, marketing and appealing specifically to women.

That could be a whole 'nother discussion thread, where people could discuss how to increase women's interest in atheism and skepticism.

[

We are an allegedly smarter (what does smarter mean?) group----except for me.

Smarter means having or showing quicker or higher intelligence or a better mental capability.

I'm not smart at all, but I have nothing to be ashamed of.

Never said you did.

As far as anyone knows that is.

You'd have to let us know, if you want to.

Spell checker and I are getting along just fine. I think I even managed proper grammar.

[Coito ergo sum]

Some folks, mostly male, have not got over Star Trek Voyager and a woman captaining a StarShip.

Oh, snap. You go girl. Mmm hmmmm.

[Coito ergo sum]

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?

Well, if they did, then hopefully I've clarified that by now. I'm not clueless or insincere. You can accept that, or not - you're call.

I only embed snide comments and veiled accusations in response to Gallstones when she personally attacks me, and hits me with poorly veiled sarcasm and snarky remarks.

My logic is that if someone is going to get pissy with me, and make snarky, sarcastic, bullshit comments toward me, then I'll reserve the right to respond in kind. It's up to Gallstones - she fired the first shots, and I have responded. I have also appealed repeatedly for us to get back on topic and discuss the issue. She can't seem to stop with the snark and the smirk, though.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

I didn't say only, did I?

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.

Another issue men should just shut up about?

But you're entitled to your opinion.

Thanks, so are you.

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.

I haven't gotten miffed when women talk about being uncomfortable. Frankly, Gallstones didn't talk about being uncomfortable - quite the opposite - she said she would not be uncomfortable at all. Ronja didn't say she would be uncomfortable, and in fact quite the opposite, she said she participates in lots of activities that are predominantly or traditionally majority male. And, you too didn't really say you'd be uncomfortable, as far as I can tell - I think you said you were uncomfortable at a D&D event at some point when you were younger, but I don't think you said you'd be uncomfortable just going to an atheist or skeptic event. So, where have I gotten miffed when women talk about being uncomfortable? You and I discussed this issue in depth, and we were having a nice, serious discussion about this. What happened?

And, I don't wonder why women think they have the right to try to be avoid being made uncomfortable. I think they have every right to be made uncomfortable. I just think Skepchick is wrong when she says that women are generally made to feel uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic conventions. I don't see any evidence for it. I agree with Gallstones that men sometimes make women feel uncomfortable, but I don't see it as being worse at atheist/skeptic conventions, so I don't see it as explaining why women don't go there, as opposed to elsewhere (a point Seabass made).

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.

The implication that I don't care is coming out of nowhere here. I do care. Nor have I claimed any special right. I've been trying to rationally discuss the issue in the OP with you. I thought we were doing well, but apparently I was wrong.

[epepke]

Not much left to be said about this, but this: The top person trying to make women feel uncomfortable is now Rebecca Watson. Her chief targets have been Paula Kirby, Stef McGraw, and Rose St. Clair.

[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.

Well, maybe fewer women than men are interested in skepticism or atheism. That's possible. But why would that be?

That question is a big derail from the OP, and likely unanswerable. But-- even if fewer women than men are interested in these subjects currently, I'd like to see more women becoming interested in the future. And that's part of what Skepchick is trying to accomplish. So she can't be all bad, in my book.

Exactly - I don't think she's all bad. I think she's off base on some things, and I don't think she's the best mouthpiece for women on this, because from what I can tell she doesn't have the science chops. But, if she can get more women interested in atheism, skepticism and science - then she's great in that respect.

Why would that be? That's a good question. I think it might be cultural - the same reason that women seem to drop away from the math and sciences in education sooner than men, and overwhelmingly more men than women take engineering and science curricula after high school, and the graduate degrees in sciences are almost exclusively male. I'm definitely not saying I'm sure why that is - but, something in our culture is causing that - I don't think that women are genetically predisposed to not like math or science. I am just not sure.

I think it's a solvable problem, though, but I think it requires a different solution than the problem of "being made uncomfortable." To make women more interested, we would have to get more and more young girls focused and interested in the sciences, I think. That is happening, and maybe in another generation, we'll see some progress. I would also think that the marketing efforts of atheist organizations could change to focus more on children and girls - more things like Junior Skeptic, but targeted to the girls' demographic. Sponsorship of girls' clubs in the sciences and about atheism/agnosticism, etc. Maybe CFI could start a Freethinking Girls' club and that sort of thing, where girls are exposed to other girls and women role models who have an interest in these topics. Just spitballing.

[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.

You know this kind of juvenile shit just makes you look desperate--right?

Just responding to you in kind, Gallstones. How do you think it makes you look when you engage in this juvenile shit? I've been asking you to stick to the topic and stop it with your snarky bullshit. You just won't, apparently.

[Gallstones]

You, on the other hand, routinely just ignore and evade answering simple, straightforward questions.

Big Lie.

In regards to my not having attended any atheist/skeptics/related blah, blah, blah events---it is because we have none.

BTW you have fucked up the quotes.

[Gallstones]

I've been asking you to stick to the topic and stop it with your snarky bullshit. You just won't, apparently.

Another lie

If you are going to continue to misrepresent my conduct I might have to be done with you.

[Gallstones]

If I was to go out to the nearest river or lake to compare numbers of men fishing to numbers of women fishing I bet the numbers I come up with will be closer to the mean than your numbers----because I live in Montana. Other than going outside to hike and camp and fish we don't have much else to do. And everyone does it, not just the men. I think the women who hike and fish and camp do it because they want to as do the men.

Can you please ignore the snark and just address the salient points I make. Don't say there are none because that would be a lie.
The snark is for my own amusement, no need to address it.
And no, I won't stop amusing myself. Stop throwing me bones if you don't like it.

I took Astronomy in college, because it fascinates the hell out of me.
And you know what else, there were a bunch of other women in the class and it was a science elective, AKA not mandatory. I can only surmise that most of them were in the class because they were interested in Astronomy and wanted to be there. After all, they were paying for it.

My use of the term "bunch" is a valid as your use of the term "lots".