Women at Atheist/Skeptic Events - Uncomfortable?

[Gallstones]

Rebecca Watson, a 27 yo woman comments on a personal experience--among other things--on her personal blog and her personal youtube channel and some people disagree with what she said and some of those can't let it go.

She's 27.
I have learned quite a bit about people and life and myself since I was 27.
You'd think some people have never made a mistake in their lives.
There isn't enough time or energy in the universe to harangue every person for their mistakes as has been heaped on Rebecca Watson for what is really a non-event.

Somewhere somebody has said something about somebody else and is getting no attention for it.
Where is the fairness?

[Ronja]

When I was still Catholic I started and ran a nursery on the premises where the younger kids could be while their parents attended mass. It was a welcome option for many who had young children who couldn't sit for the mass. I started it because I needed it myself. When my son was no longer a disruptive toddler, I gave the nursery over to someone else. These things can be made to happen and there is this one instance where it did help people attend something they were having to miss much of the time. It was manned by volunteers.

I don't think there is a person in the world that could argue that providing free child care to parents doesn't make it easier to do things. That, of course, says nothing about whether a failure to provide such care "made women feel uncomfortable" and whether that's what's meat when feminists say that women are "made to feel uncomfortable."

I think the conversation shifted to what would make it easier for more women to attend atheist events, rather than whether or not women are "made to feel uncomfortable" at them, because we've covered the latter subject as thoroughly as any of the current participants want. What haven't we covered? what are you looking to hear people say? Maybe you should recruit some more women, with different viewpoints, if you want to keep the conversation strictly to the issue you defined in the OP.

.

[Coito ergo sum]

Rebecca Watson, a 27 yo woman comments on a personal experience--among other things--on her personal blog and her personal youtube channel and some people disagree with what she said and some of those can't let it go.

She's 27.
I have learned quite a bit about people and life and myself since I was 27.
You'd think some people have never made a mistake in their lives.
There isn't enough time or energy in the universe to harangue every person for their mistakes as has been heaped on Rebecca Watson for what is really a non-event.

Somewhere somebody has said something about somebody else and is getting no attention for it.
Where is the fairness?

Skepchick is a public figure in our milieu. She holds herself out as a public champion of women.

27 is plenty old enough - she's not a child. She has said in her article about calling Stef McGraw out publicly at a conference: "This struck me as extremely disrespectful to McGraw. She is not a child, and is not incompetent. She is an adult woman who is a director for a prominent campus organization and who is more than capable of defending her own words if she chooses. When I pointed out that we all should be held accountable for our words, I was told that I should have informed McGraw before my talk."

So, for someone who is "only 27" she sure as fuck doesn't take pity on anyone else in her age group. http://skepchick.org/2011/06/on-naming- ... onference/ Is Skepchick not an adult? Is she incompetent? No. She's an adult woman who is a director of a prominent website and blog and host of a prominent skeptic podcast, and frequent public speaker, who is more than capable of defending her own words.

I sure do think people have made mistakes in their lives. I don't think Skepchick made a mistake here. I think she's just dead wrong.

[Coito ergo sum]

When I was still Catholic I started and ran a nursery on the premises where the younger kids could be while their parents attended mass. It was a welcome option for many who had young children who couldn't sit for the mass. I started it because I needed it myself. When my son was no longer a disruptive toddler, I gave the nursery over to someone else. These things can be made to happen and there is this one instance where it did help people attend something they were having to miss much of the time. It was manned by volunteers.

I don't think there is a person in the world that could argue that providing free child care to parents doesn't make it easier to do things. That, of course, says nothing about whether a failure to provide such care "made women feel uncomfortable" and whether that's what's meat when feminists say that women are "made to feel uncomfortable."

I think the conversation shifted to what would make it easier for more women to attend atheist events, rather than whether or not women are "made to feel uncomfortable" at them, because we've covered the latter subject as thoroughly as any of the current participants want. What haven't we covered? what are you looking to hear people say? Maybe you should recruit some more women, with different viewpoints, if you want to keep the conversation strictly to the issue you defined in the OP.

Not entirely. It would be very disingenuous to refer to it merely as a "shift." It was being asserted that failure to provide child care was one of the things that made women uncomfortable at these events. See your posts, and Ronja's posts. Neither of you would agree that failure to provide child care was not "making women uncomfortable," or was not what was meant by that phrase. You tried to shoehorn it in by saying that child care for free would certainly make the experience more comfortable, LOL, and Ronja talked about strict vs loose interpretations of the term.

What haven't we covered? Easy: neither of you have answered whether or not the failure to provide child care is what is meant by "making women feel uncomfortable" at atheist skeptic events. I get a lot of questions asked of me, and I answer them. It's obviously not something many others in this thread care to do, though. That's for obvious reasons on this "child care" issue - because we all know - and I think you know too, but just for some reason you are resistant to say - that failure to provide child care is not how women are "made to feel uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic events."

Hades - I'm not looking for anyone to say anything....other than perhaps giving me the courtesy of a straight answer to my questions, since I do give you all the same courtesy. That would be nice. And, I'm discussing the topic. What are you looking for me to do? Agree with you and stop the discussion? If you don't like the topic - go to another. I like discussing this topic.

You don't have to keep the issue strictly to the issue raised in the OP - although - straying away from the OP is called "derailing" a thread or posting "off topic" posts. Perhaps you should start a new thread, if you want to talk about something other than the topic of this thread. How about that?

[Ronja]

Perhaps you should start a new thread, if you want to talk about something other than the topic of this thread. How about that?

Would you agree to give your word as a gentleman to stay out of that thread?

[Gallstones]

You have been given straight answers, and you have not been courteous throughout and you have complained about what we have said and done and then said and done much the same.

This topic is a dead end.
Or a circle.

Either way. There is nothing left to say.

[Coito ergo sum]

You have been given straight answers, and you have not been courteous throughout and you have complained about what we have said and done and then said and done much the same.

This topic is a dead end.
Or a circle.

Either way. There is nothing left to say.

That's such a load of crap. The reality is, you started in with me and you were impolite, rude and obnoxious to me, and yet you piss, moan and cry when you get treated the same way in return.

It's as if, when you don't like a topic, you come in and try to shut it down. You derail it into a fight, and load it with snark and sarcasm and personal attacks, veiled and otherwise, until it can devolve into some fucking battle. This thread did not have to be that way. You, with help from others, made it that way. I'll not feel the least bit of remorse for defending myself, though.

In the end, if you think you have nothing left to say, then go to another thread. Nobody is forcing you to keep reading this thread. I like it. If you don't, fine. No worries.

[Gallstones]

I have not pissed, moaned or cried. You are projecting.

Most discussions where there are differing opinions about things will progress as battles--it is the nature of debate.
You are also imagining things with regard to my motives. Let me make it understood--you are wrong.

Your ability to discern on topic content and attempts to accommodate your demands has been seriously absent.
If you want to know why that is, look closer to home.
I have no idea what you are on about still.

Your OP question has been answered.
At least by me.

[Coito ergo sum]

I have not pissed, moaned or cried. You are projecting.

Noted.

Most discussions where there are differing opinions about things will progress as battles--it is the nature of debate.

I've been happily discussing this issue. The only folks with any issue doing that has been you and Ronja.

You are also imagining things with regard to my motives. Let me make it understood--you are wrong.

I'm not.

Your ability to discern on topic content and attempts to accommodate your demands has been seriously absent.

Your ability to construct a coherent sentence in plain English is seriously deficient.

If you want to know why that is, look closer to home.
I have no idea what you are on about still.

Only the topic. You're the one whose been "on about" anything.

Your OP question has been answered.
At least by me.

One, just because someone provides what they think is an answer to the question doesn't end all discussion. Others may have different views, and people may choose to discuss them. I know you want to say your peace and have nobody challenge your view, and you want to have your view end all discussion on the topic as if it provides the definitive "answer." Sorry, though. The discussion may continue without you.

Two, what is it that you want me to say right now? That you coherently answered the question? Ultimately, I think you ended up agreeing with me, for the most part. A while back, you at one point speculated that the reason women might not attend these conferences was a lack of time or a lack of interest. That was, of course, precisely what I speculated in the OP (which you at one point cut apart, while sarcastically attacking me). So, you were at least entertaining the possibility.

Three, if you feel you've answered the question as much as you're going to, then why do you keep on posting? If you're done, you're done, right?

[hadespussercats]

When I was still Catholic I started and ran a nursery on the premises where the younger kids could be while their parents attended mass. It was a welcome option for many who had young children who couldn't sit for the mass. I started it because I needed it myself. When my son was no longer a disruptive toddler, I gave the nursery over to someone else. These things can be made to happen and there is this one instance where it did help people attend something they were having to miss much of the time. It was manned by volunteers.

I don't think there is a person in the world that could argue that providing free child care to parents doesn't make it easier to do things. That, of course, says nothing about whether a failure to provide such care "made women feel uncomfortable" and whether that's what's meat when feminists say that women are "made to feel uncomfortable."

I think the conversation shifted to what would make it easier for more women to attend atheist events, rather than whether or not women are "made to feel uncomfortable" at them, because we've covered the latter subject as thoroughly as any of the current participants want. What haven't we covered? what are you looking to hear people say? Maybe you should recruit some more women, with different viewpoints, if you want to keep the conversation strictly to the issue you defined in the OP.

Not entirely. It would be very disingenuous to refer to it merely as a "shift." It was being asserted that failure to provide child care was one of the things that made women uncomfortable at these events. See your posts, and Ronja's posts. Neither of you would agree that failure to provide child care was not "making women uncomfortable," or was not what was meant by that phrase. You tried to shoehorn it in by saying that child care for free would certainly make the experience more comfortable, LOL, and Ronja talked about strict vs loose interpretations of the term.

What haven't we covered? Easy: neither of you have answered whether or not the failure to provide child care is what is meant by "making women feel uncomfortable" at atheist skeptic events. I get a lot of questions asked of me, and I answer them. It's obviously not something many others in this thread care to do, though. That's for obvious reasons on this "child care" issue - because we all know - and I think you know too, but just for some reason you are resistant to say - that failure to provide child care is not how women are "made to feel uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic events."

Hades - I'm not looking for anyone to say anything....other than perhaps giving me the courtesy of a straight answer to my questions, since I do give you all the same courtesy. That would be nice. And, I'm discussing the topic. What are you looking for me to do? Agree with you and stop the discussion? If you don't like the topic - go to another. I like discussing this topic.

You don't have to keep the issue strictly to the issue raised in the OP - although - straying away from the OP is called "derailing" a thread or posting "off topic" posts. Perhaps you should start a new thread, if you want to talk about something other than the topic of this thread. How about that?

I was derailing a bit (actually following a tangent MiM, Gallstones, Floppit, and Ronja-- but not you-- found interesting) when I posted about child care at atheist events. We'd (you and me) been discussing that there are reasons other than sex-related discomfort that might lie behind the low numbers of women at atheist conferences-- lack of childcare being one of them. So the rest of us were exploring that. Your OP was pretty strictly about how women may or may not be "made to feel uncomfortable"-- in a sex-related way.

But if you look at my child-care posts, you can see I wasn't making a claim that lack of child-care made women uncomfortable-- just that having childcare at these events might encourage more women to attend-- among other benefits.
Here are the posts:
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 80#p925157
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 60#p923351
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 80#p925848
(and yes, the last post was a little tongue-in-cheek, but still true. Not, however, a comment on the OP)

So, yeah, derailing, but in a closely-related vein-- trying to brainstorm ways women might be encouraged to attend such events-- an end you've expressed interest in, yourself. But if you'd rather not discuss it here, fine.

I'd like to draw your attention, though, to an earlier post from me to you, that I feel like you may have missed:
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/posting ... 8&p=923349

Here's the relevant quote:

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.

Again, I could be wrong, but it seemed for a while there you and I were discussing things well-- but now you seem to feel like I'm against you, somehow-- not simply that I'm against some of what you've written. That's not the case, Coito.

I do feel like I've answered the questions you've asked me.
But if I haven't, feel free to ask again, and I'll give it another go.

[Coito ergo sum]

I was derailing a bit (actually following a tangent MiM, Gallstones, Floppit, and Ronja-- but not you-- found interesting) when I posted about child care at atheist events. We'd (you and me) been discussing that there are reasons other than sex-related discomfort that might lie behind the low numbers of women at atheist conferences-- lack of childcare being one of them. So the rest of us were exploring that. Your OP was pretty strictly about how women may or may not be "made to feel uncomfortable"-- in a sex-related way.

Yes, absolutely - and I was interested too.

Do you think that lack of childcare, however, is one of the ways in which women are "made to feel uncomfortable?" I mean - clearly, childcare is still an important issue, and I posted several posts agreeing that it would be great if childcare was available.

But if you look at my child-care posts, you can see I wasn't making a claim that lack of child-care made women uncomfortable-- just that having childcare at these events might encourage more women to attend-- among other benefits.
Here are the posts:
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 80#p925157
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 60#p923351
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 80#p925848
(and yes, the last post was a little tongue-in-cheek, but still true. Not, however, a comment on the OP)

Yes, I know. But, when I asked you a straight question "does the failure to provide free child care make women uncomfortable at atheist skeptic events," you, for some reason, wouldn't answer that in a straightforward manner. You said that providing childcare would make people more comfortable about being there. That's what I've been talking about about the straight answers and lack thereof. For some reason, people like to fuck with me when I ask a question. That's fine - except that it sucks to provide straightforward answers to straightforward questions, and then get evasions in return. It's a bit irritating. That's my feelings on it. Everyone can, of course, answer, or not, or evade, or not, whatever. But, I'm just voicing my preference - if we're having a discussion, and you ask me a bunch of questions and I answer them in a straightforward manner, I then think it's fair for me to be able to ask questions and get an answer back that isn't merely tongue-in-cheek and evasive.

There's nothing wrong, for example, in the failure to provide childcare being something other than a thing that makes women uncomfortable at conferences. It's still an important issue, and I discussed it as such. Read my posts about it. I did not dismiss it or reject it - although I was accused of doing just that - rather the opposite, I suggested that if a large organization could budget it, they should because it would get more people to come.

So, yeah, derailing, but in a closely-related vein-- trying to brainstorm ways women might be encouraged to attend such events-- an end you've expressed interest in, yourself. But if you'd rather not discuss it here, fine.

That's not fair, or accurate. I was, in fact, discussing just that - I was, and you know it, participating in that discussion. All I wanted was a straightforward answer (from those I was discussing things with) to the questions I posed. I don't think that's too much to ask - I think it's just common courtesy.

I'd like to draw your attention, though, to an earlier post from me to you, that I feel like you may have missed:
http://www.rationalia.com/forum/posting ... 8&p=923349

Here's the relevant quote:

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.

My interest in the discussion was two fold, and I discussed them both. One, I had noticed the dearth of women, especially young women, and even more especially young, physically attractive women, at these events and get together, so whenever the issue comes up, I am interested in it. I tried for a long time to increase female participation. I had some success, but not near to getting the numbers equal. Two, I loved the dust-up over this issue - and the sheer volume of debate over a short period of time. Three, I was fascinated by the allegations made by Skepchick - I thought it remarkable that a 27 year could have thought that the incident she described was the incident that merited alerting the media. Frankly, if that's the worst that happens to her, she's had a sheltered life. Four, I was interested in the different takes on this and that we had two groups of people, both of which could honestly not understand how the other group could hold the opinion they held. Five - as far as being "miffed" - I wouldn't call it miffed, but I would call it vehemently opposed - I don't appreciate being talked to, either personally or as a member of a group, in that tone of voice. Sixth, it's a fun discussion, except when someone (not you) lays into me giving me a bunch of crap, and then objects when I return fire.

But, you have made frequent comments about it being unreasonable for women to claim a right to not being made uncomfortable--

I don't think I have.

But, nobody really has that right, any more than they have the right not to be made offended. How do I know what makes you uncomfortable? Some women are made uncomfortable just walking outside their door and others aren't uncomfortable if you ask them "hey - wanna fuck?"

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.

Sure - I get that. And, my objection is not to the caring. In fact, I would never have asked such an impertinent question of Skepchick. I would never have asked Skepchick to my room for coffee (or sex) in the first place, because I am quite sure from seeing her videos and listening to her talk that I wouldn't like her personally, but that's a different matter. I wouldn't ask any woman to my room the first time I met her, with the sole exception being if we spent a considerable amount to time together (say, for example, at the bar) and it became very apparent to me that we were both interested in heading upstairs. It would be a rarity for me. But, then again, I'm a little old fashioned about things, and I treat women like ladies, generally speaking. Heck, I'm the kind of guy that stands up when a woman comes into the group, and I get the door for a woman all the time, and open my wife's door for her when she gets in the car, and all that.

My objection to Skepchick has been her overblown characterization of the incident. Just because an incident is impertinent, imprudent or even improper, doesn't make it sexist, sexual objectification, sexualizing, misogyny and the like. To throw that out there is very off-putting to many men, because - and I think I explained this before - we can all put ourselves in the position of being stupid at one time or another. Maybe not elevator incidents, but some incident where we got some stupid idea in our heads to approach a woman, and failed miserably, crashed and burned, said something stupid or that was taken the wrong way (something elevator guy asked her specifically not to do...). So, when a man hears this innocuous phrase "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you interesting and I would like to talk more. Care to come up for coffee..." being characterized as "sexual objectification" and "guys don't do that" and "sexualizing" and then "misogyny" and all that - and even worse by other bloggers - harassment, threatening, trauma and the like - well, it sure does bother some men, and we will voice our opposition to that. Not everything that a guy says that a woman doesn't like is "sexual objectification." Would I have done this? No. However, if I had 6 or 7 drinks and was a little silly on my way back to my room and without thinking too clearly slurred out "I find you interesting....wanna come to my room for coffee" would I expect, again, that the woman would need to alert the media about it? I'd answer that question "no" too.

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.

Again, I could be wrong, but it seemed for a while there you and I were discussing things well-- but now you seem to feel like I'm against you, somehow-- not simply that I'm against some of what you've written. That's not the case, Coito.[/quote][/quote]

No, actually, I don't feel that you're against me. I hope I clarified what you asked me about. Gotta roll - I'm late!

[hadespussercats]

Yes, I know. But, when I asked you a straight question "does the failure to provide free child care make women uncomfortable at atheist skeptic events," you, for some reason, wouldn't answer that in a straightforward manner.

I'm sorry-- I thought I was clear. No, I don't think lack of child-care at atheist events causes women to feel uncomfortable at those events. I think childcare at atheists events would enable, and possibly encourage, more women to attend such events.

My commentary on childcare was a derail. As I indicated below:

hadespussercats wrote:
So, yeah, derailing, but in a closely-related vein-- trying to brainstorm ways women might be encouraged to attend such events-- an end you've expressed interest in, yourself. But if you'd rather not discuss it here, fine.

Here's your response:

That's not fair, or accurate. I was, in fact, discussing just that - I was, and you know it, participating in that discussion. All I fucking wanted was a straightforward answer to the questions I posed. I don't think that's too much to ask - I think it's just common courtesy.

You suggested in your previous post that if we wanted to discuss issues that were not directly related to your OP, that we start a different thread. My response to that suggestion was that I was fine with not discussing the derail further in this thread. Your response to that was to swear at me and to imply I don't observe common courtesy. Which is a response I find confusing-- I was trying to be polite by letting you know I was okay with not continuing the derail.

But your response is also a good example of what I meant when I said you sound "miffed."

I hope we're not talking at cross-purposes anymore.

[hadespussercats]

Re- Watson "alerting the media" re- Elevatorgate:

She has a video blog. Thus, she is, in her small way, "the media." She hardly needed to alert herself. She made a post that garnered a huge reaction-- more because of Dawkins's response than anything she did herself. I think Dawkins is actually the person who caused the rest of the media to go on alert.

For whatever that's worth.

[Coito ergo sum]

I was using the term alert the media metaphorically. It was more about this incident - some dork asking her for coffee in an elevator and taking no for an answer - being something that she not only remembered more than 5 minutes after the event, but the next day....and enough to make a video about it....I would expect such a thing from an assault, or from a stalker or from something more serious. Just an observation, and my opinion of it. Others may disagree..

[Gallstones]

This thread and the related threads are atheist events.
I think they provide reasons why a person might not choose to attend any more.

When this thread started I had no reason why I wouldn't attend an atheist/skeptic event.
I think I have one now. Or I have a reason why I wouldn't go to a subsequent event.