Women at Atheist/Skeptic Events - Uncomfortable?

[Ronja]

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?

Now we are getting somewhere substantial regarding what could be done to make it easier for women (and in Finland, also for a steady growing number of homemaker men whose kids are too young to be left alone for a couple of hours in the evening). Inspired by this thread I have been thinking of how our local freethinker chapter could utilize e.g. the library's story or games groups for school-age kids, while their parents are at our meet. There is a library just across the street from the pub where our weekly meetings are held...

For the toddlers and preschoolers it would likely need to be something different, though. Some more thinking required. If anyone has ideas or experiences, please do share!

[Gallstones]

I feel I am in a conundrum with this topic. My only perspective is my own and I can only speak from my own experience and Coito keeps rejecting my ideas as not applicable to his OP.

From my own experience, there were many events, many activities I very much wanted to do but could not when my son was very young because I could not get childcare and his father would not help. So, I had to drop out of my desired lifestyle for those years.

[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.
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?

Now we are getting somewhere substantial regarding what could be done to make it easier for women (and in Finland, also for a steady growing number of homemaker men whose kids are too young to be left alone for a couple of hours in the evening). Inspired by this thread I have been thinking of how our local freethinker chapter could utilize e.g. the library's story or games groups for school-age kids, while their parents are at our meet. There is a library just across the street from the pub where our weekly meetings are held...

For the toddlers and preschoolers it would likely need to be something different, though. Some more thinking required. If anyone has ideas or experiences, please do share!

I think that American Atheists, for example, could hire a day care provider for the weekend, so that parents could bring their kids to the hotel to stay where the convention is located, and during the day when the speeches and presentations are going on, the kids can go to a room where they can play with the other kids, be watched, and be within reach of the parents. The cost would probably be high, though, especially for insurance. But, it might be something to look into.

I wonder how many more women would show, if that service was offered.

[Coito ergo sum]

I feel I am in a conundrum with this topic. My only perspective is my own and I can only speak from my own experience and Coito keeps rejecting my ideas as not applicable to his OP.

Stop lying. I haven't rejected your idea as inapplicable to the OP. For example, I specifically stated that your idea about the child care was, in fact, applicable to the OP in that it indicated a reason other than discomfort that women were not showing up to these events. It certainly is applicable.

I didn't "reject" it. I questioned it, of course, because (a) it was the first time I heard anyone suggest that as a reason women don't make it to atheist events, and (b) I am not sure or immediately persuaded that it is, in fact, a reason a substantial number of women don't make to these events. But, it sure as heck might be - and I said that.

From my own experience, there were many events, many activities I very much wanted to do but could not when my son was very young because I could not get childcare and his father would not help. So, I had to drop out of my desired lifestyle for those years.

O.k.

[Coito ergo sum]

You don't like that I am an exception.

I never said that, so you must be making it up. I like exceptions just fine. I prefer exceptions, actually.

You don't like my idea about childcare.

I never said that, so you must be making it up. Try to learn to make a distinction between someone talking about your idea, and perhaps questioning it, with "not liking" it. I like it fine. I think that one thing that can for sure be said for it is that it couldn't hurt, and that including daycare facilities could very well make some folks, men and women, who might find it too much of a pain in the ass to get there given their child rearing situation, to go to the event. I think it's a fine idea actually.

The part that I questioned was whether or not it really is a common reason that women don't get to these events, what with the fact that women do go to many other events even though they have children.

You don't like the way in which I make my on topic comments.

The only thing I don't like is when you personally attack me, or make snarky little comments designed to belittle me.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Why did you delete the emoticon: ?

Why did you delete mine?

And you rearranged my 's taking them all out of context.

I just responded point by point. Trust me - I got the snarkiness loud and clear.

[Ronja]

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...

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."

About the bolded part: Coito are you serious in drawing that conclusion, or are you being sarcastic towards Gallstones? I really, seriously cannot tell from how this is written.

[Gallstones]

I doubt that there is one reason why women don't attend these events in larger numbers.
I expect there would be many factors and that some men would share in those factors, but because there is already a large enough attendance by men the factors that might prevent some men from attending aren't considered.

I also don't think Skepchick is "wrong", as I am confident that some women probably don't attend because they don't feel comfortable being a minority. But her's is but one factor of many. Therefore she is "right". It would be very difficult to fix that and maybe if other factors were addressed to satisfaction, Skepchicks problem need not be addressed at all.

Maybe some women don't attend because they already have lives filled with interesting activities and are just not interested?
That would be another example of a factor that likely has no fix.

[Gallstones]

Since I have never been to one, what happens at these events?
What is talked about?

They might simply be boring.

What is the need for the numbers to be equal? What is gained that is now missing--other than more vaginas in chairs?

[Gallstones]

How many women are members of this site and currently active?

Whatever that number is, the number of those who have participated in this thread is only a fraction, why is that?

[Ronja]

Since I have never been to one, what happens at these events?
What is talked about?

I can only answer for one local chapter (Helsinki) of the Freethinkers of Finland, but FWIW here are examples, mostly from this last year:
*a meet in a pub every other week - most meets are free form, but sometimes we have our own room upstairs and some theme and speaker(s) to get the discussion started. I remember the one best where Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" was presented, after it had just been translated into Finnish
*themed "extra" meetings, like one a few weeks before our latest Parliamentary election and another for informing the parents of school-age kids about the teaching of ethics in the schools of Finland
*approximately four more party or dinner oriented events, roughly timed to each equinox and solstice: an excuse to eat well, drink well, maybe dance and definitely talk a lot of bullshit
*participating in events arranged by others in Helsinki, such as "World Is Our Guest" (Maailma kylässä) festival and the Gay Pride march (all kinds of evil liberals in cahoots with each other... )
*creating happenings, which are often designed to be controversial and stimulate debate, like the recent "Trade your Bible for porn" market square campaign

[Gallstones]

What you describe Ronja sounds interesting.
And there is enough variety that even if a person did not want to get involved in anything outwardly political, she'd have other options for other times that might be more to her liking.

[Gallstones]

Another idea: An appreciable portion of families living near or below the poverty line are headed by women alone--the fathers are absent. Those women are going to be hard pressed to allocate resources to cover their needs for childcare or transportation, etc. If solutions to those could be made, then maybe even non-atheist and non-skeptic women might find the events attractive--just to get out of the house and get a break from responsibilities.

So it needend be a situation where recruitment of women be narrowed to only those known to be atheist.

[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.

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.

No, no, I thought we were doing well, too.

And you're right-- I haven't said that I'd be uncomfortable at an atheist or skeptic convention-- I actually said I was interested in attending one, someday.

I was theorizing why, based on some of my past experiences, some women might feel uncomfortable at those events-- based largely on the relatively widely-accepted idea that currently many fewer women than men attend.

I was trying to be careful when pointing out my sense that you were offended by some women's responses to the Elevatorgate situation, or some posted reasons why women have said they feel uncomfortable in the atheist community. It's possible you were overstating your response to words like "misogynist," "women-hating," "made to feel uncomfortable," and so forth, as a rhetorical device to get the ball rolling. But you did (and do) seem... miffed.

You seem like you're insulted that men at these events are seen in such a negative light, by some. It seems like you think that's unfair. The sense I got is that these feelings might in some respect be fueling your interest in the discussion.

That could be a mistaken perception on my part.

But, you have made frequent comments about it being unreasonable for women to claim a right to not being made uncomfortable-- in the same way that it's unreasonable for anyone to claim a right not to be offended. I agree-- it is unreasonable. I'm not sure that right is what the angry women universally are asking for-- but some of them might be. The others might simply want men to care about whether they're uncomfortable or not-- whether or not they have a right to expect that. And the fact that many don't seem to care, that many in fact seem to be angered on some level simply by being asked to consider caring, might be making some of the women angry.

I'm interested in trying to talk about this seriously. I'm not trying to impugn you. I'm just trying to talk about my sense of things. And like I said, I realize that sense might be off target.

[hadespussercats]

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?

Now we are getting somewhere substantial regarding what could be done to make it easier for women (and in Finland, also for a steady growing number of homemaker men whose kids are too young to be left alone for a couple of hours in the evening). Inspired by this thread I have been thinking of how our local freethinker chapter could utilize e.g. the library's story or games groups for school-age kids, while their parents are at our meet. There is a library just across the street from the pub where our weekly meetings are held...

For the toddlers and preschoolers it would likely need to be something different, though. Some more thinking required. If anyone has ideas or experiences, please do share!

This sort of thing would certainly help me attend conferences in the future-- and might go some way public-relations wise to promote the notion that atheists and skeptics are just as invested in family life as churchgoers are.