Women at Atheist/Skeptic Events - Uncomfortable?

[Gallstones]

What conditions might prevent women from attending atheist/skeptic/similar blah blah blah events?
What conditions might be a cultural status quo that the women accept as their duty?

Their children.
Because it is still the expected norm that the women will be primary in caring for their children. The men are allowed to be unfettered from doing the bulk of the childcare.

How many children do you see at these events?
Do the event organizers ever provide child care on premises so more women can attend?

[Gallstones]

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

I didn't have this problem in the Army.

[Gallstones]

Just responding to you in kind, Gallstones. How do you think it makes you look when you engage in this juvenile shit?

Like I'm having fun?

It is another special skill to be snarky. Probably learned rather than inherent.
I think I'm better at it than you. And you can't stop yourself from getting upset about it and saying so.

[Coito ergo sum]

What conditions might prevent women from attending atheist/skeptic/similar blah blah blah events?
What conditions might be a cultural status quo that the women accept as their duty?

Their children.

you think that's why women don't go to these events? Or, you think it might be? You're the first I've heard mention this as a possible factor. Do other women feel the same way? Are you suggesting that women with children are the ones not showing up, and it would be 50-50 if not for children?

Because it is still the expected norm that the women will be primary in caring for their children. The men are allowed to be unfettered from doing the bulk of the childcare.

I'm not sure that's still the expected norm. Where do you get that from?

How many children do you see at these events?

Not many. They aren't really the kind of events that kids are prone to sit through.

Do the event organizers ever provide child care on premises so more women can attend?

Not that I've seen. That may well be a good suggestion, if indeed it's true that a lot of women don't attend because they have children.

I will point out that this suggestion does - when applied to the OP - become "Skepchick is wrong about women not attending because they are made to feel uncomfortable - the reality is, if there was child care available, the numbers would be closer to equal because women with children who wish they could attend would be able to attend."

I do wonder how many women don't attend because they have children and can't get someone to look after the children while they attend....My gut tells me it's not going to be that high, because most folks get sitters when they need to, ask their spouse to take care of the kids for a few hours or a day, etc. But, you may be right.

Oh - you forgot the links supporting your position. Remember when you called me out to post demographics and statistics supporting my claims? How about you doing the same?

[Coito ergo sum]

Just responding to you in kind, Gallstones. How do you think it makes you look when you engage in this juvenile shit?

Like I'm having fun?

It is another special skill to be snarky. Probably learned rather than inherent.
I think I'm better at it than you. And you can't stop yourself from getting upset about it and saying so.

Upset? No. As I said, just responding in kind, Gallstones. But, do continue to be overly emotional about this - bring on the snark! I hardly deserve your responses, anyway, since I'm just clueless and insincere, right?

[Gallstones]

FWIW, let me be very clear (you seem to like that word) I am not intending to support Skepchick or anything she says or has said; anything she does hor has done.

I provide only my own thoughts, feelings and views. Just mine.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

You continue with the snark, almost every post. You throw in some dig here and there. And, I have been asking you, and will ask you again - can you please stick to discussing the topic in the OP? Thanks, I would appreciate it.

[Coito ergo sum]

FWIW, let me be very clear (you seem to like that word) I am not intending to support Skepchick or anything she says or has said; anything she does hor has done.

Well, the OP - the topic of this thread - is the claim made by Skepchick. If you want to discuss something else, perhaps you'd feel better starting a different thread about a different topic?

I provide only my own thoughts, feelings and views. Just mine.

I never suggested otherwise. You could have your own thoughts, feelings and views about the OP.

[Gallstones]

Just responding to you in kind, Gallstones. How do you think it makes you look when you engage in this juvenile shit?

Like I'm having fun?

It is another special skill to be snarky. Probably learned rather than inherent.
I think I'm better at it than you. And you can't stop yourself from getting upset about it and saying so.

Upset? No. As I said, just responding in kind, Gallstones. But, do continue to be overly emotional about this - bring on the snark! I hardly deserve your responses, anyway, since I'm just clueless and insincere, right?

That wasn't me who said that. I wouldn't know if you are clueless or insensitive insincere for reals.

I thought you said you believed me when I said I was not upset? Did you lie?

I am an emotional person. Fact.
I shall be as I am, at the time that I am what I am.
I am pleased to know that you are pleased to allow me to be that, because--admit it--there is nothing you can do about it.

I don't deserve some of your responses either.
You have been mean.

[Gallstones]

FWIW, let me be very clear (you seem to like that word) I am not intending to support Skepchick or anything she says or has said; anything she does hor has done.

Well, the OP - the topic of this thread - is the claim made by Skepchick. If you want to discuss something else, perhaps you'd feel better starting a different thread about a different topic?

I provide only my own thoughts, feelings and views. Just mine.

I never suggested otherwise. You could have your own thoughts, feelings and views about the OP.

And I have very deliberately spoken to the claims Skepchick made.

More than once.

In more than one way.

You just don't like my ways.

[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.

You continue with the snark, almost every post. You throw in some dig here and there. And, I have been asking you, and will ask you again - can you please stick to discussing the topic in the OP? Thanks, I would appreciate it.

You lied--or made an embarrassing error.
I do get to point that out.

BTW, you do know that you are talking about me here and not the topic in the OP--right?
Gander Coito sauce and goose Gallstones sauce--eh?

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

If that's true, then the numbers in Montana don't accord with the overall numbers. I doubt it, though. I'll leave it to you to provide the stats. They are out there.

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.

I addressed every point you made, and answered every question you asked. In every instance where you asked me for data, I went out and got you the data and provided links and sources. If there is a point you made that I failed to address, it most certainly was not intentional, so if I missed one, please tell me which one, and I'll address it. But, go back up and read my lengthy post in response to every one of your points. I addressed both the snark and the points that you made.

I won't ignore your snark, though. I don't feel as if I am obliged to take your bullshit without responding to it.

Don't say there are none because that would be a lie.

Did you read the posts above, where I responded to everything you wrote? where I answered every question you asked?

The snark is for my own amusement, no need to address it.

I'll fucking respond to whatever of your crap I want to respond to. I have also given you the courtesy of providing you with all the explanations you've asked for. You, of course, don't respond in kind. You just skip most of what I write, and then you post something without providing any back up data or information to support it. You demand that I provide links supporting every assertion - I provide them for you, and ask you to do the same - you don't bother.

And no, I won't stop amusing myself. Stop throwing me bones if you don't like it.

I'm as entitled to amuse myself too. What? You think because you're a girl I shouldn't respond?

I took Astronomy in college, because it fascinates the hell out of me.

Who gives a fuck? So you're an exception to the rule. I gave you the overall data that proved my point. Women in astronomy are the overwhelming minority. The fact that you and some other small minority of women are involved doesn't change the overall data. I'm sure there are men who love to go to baby showers too - it doesn't mean that men are just as likely to go to baby showers as women.

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.

The numbers don't lie. Stats trump anecdotes, and I never said that no women whatsoever are interested in astronomy. I said that men are overwhelmingly involved in that hobby/industry than women. They are. That's a demonstrable fact - and I demonstrated it. I provided the back up data for it, and now you come back and say "I like astronomy and I know some other women who like it to." Well? What does that tell you? Does that mean that just as many women are into it as men? Of course it doesn't. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

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

Sure is. My data linked to in the previous post is, however, more persuasive that your own personal experience or preferences. The fact that you might like to fish says nothing about the relative preferences of men and women in general. The fact that you took an astronomy course doesn't change the demographics of the field of astronomy. Right?

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

You continue with the snark, almost every post. You throw in some dig here and there. And, I have been asking you, and will ask you again - can you please stick to discussing the topic in the OP? Thanks, I would appreciate it.

You lied--or made an embarrassing error.
I do get to point that out.

I did not lie at all. You're full of shit, as usual. I have told you, and will tell you again, can we stick to the OP and stop it with the snark? FFS - in your post that I just responded to, you ADMIT you continued with the snark -- You told me to ignore your snark - obviously, if it wasn't there, I wouldn't have to ignore it.

BTW, you do know that you are talking about me here and not the topic in the OP--right?

I'm responding to you, yes. Absolutely. I ask you again to stick to the OP. You probably won't. If you don't, I'll respond as I see fit.

Gander Coito sauce and goose Gallstones sauce--eh?

LOL - Hey you're the one who started up with all the snarky, smirky bullshit. You've got it backwards.

[Coito ergo sum]

FWIW, let me be very clear (you seem to like that word) I am not intending to support Skepchick or anything she says or has said; anything she does hor has done.

Well, the OP - the topic of this thread - is the claim made by Skepchick. If you want to discuss something else, perhaps you'd feel better starting a different thread about a different topic?

I provide only my own thoughts, feelings and views. Just mine.

I never suggested otherwise. You could have your own thoughts, feelings and views about the OP.

And I have very deliberately spoken to the claims Skepchick made.

More than once.

In more than one way.

So then what are you on about? I don't expect you to provide anybody else's thoughts, feelings and views. The fact that you think you're being asked for someone else's thoughts, feelings and views is your problem, not mine. I didn't ask you for that.

You just don't like my ways.

You seem to confuse "not immediately agreeing" with "not liking."

[Gallstones]

And no, I won't stop amusing myself. Stop throwing me bones if you don't like it

.I'm as entitled to amuse myself too. What? You think because you're a girl I shouldn't respond?

• 

Ohmyfuckinggod.