Women at Atheist/Skeptic Events - Uncomfortable?

[Gallstones]

Do I want to be talked at?
That's fine if it is only a portion of the time.
I want some time to talk about and talk to.
More being talked at would cause me to be reluctant, even unwilling to go back.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

In reality, my comment in that regard was in response to requests to me to do things like 'recruit other women' to discuss the topic, and stuff like that.

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.

The common courtesy was about straight answers, and was directed in general at a few folks posting on this thread. Maybe I took your questions in the post where you ask me why I don't go out and recruit other women for this thread to be sarcastic. So, I reacted defensively.

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.

Seems like we understand each other.

[Hermit]

Coito ergo sum, you do not cause me to suffer from Fremdscham. You keep backing your assertions up with links to what you regard as supporting evidence, you more often than not reply to queries to your corespondents and you frequently refrain from replying to bileful posts in kind. Much as I disagree with you on most issues, I would not accuse you of suffering from the Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

[Cormac]

I'm not bashing you coito. Just noticing a correspondance and from experience seeing the pitfalls - in a way I'm protecting you, if only from yourself. Language is not argument, discussion especially on sensitive matters like this will include, where those partaking may have 'hidden trauma' discussion needs by its nature to be meandering, vague even nonsensical at times. Does it matter if the bus takes twice as long to reach its destination, on a long day like this?

With all due respect Crumple, this is an utterly bullshit statement.

"discussion needs by its nature to be meandering, vague, and nonsensical"? And you are saying that Coito is failing to understand?

It seems to me that all Coito has done in this thread is to try to get people to adhere to normal discursive behaviour, and to make their arguments within the thread. I see nothing unreasonable or incorrect in anything that Coito has asked.

For that matter, I see nothing wrong in what he argues either.

[hadespussercats]

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.

In reality, my comment in that regard was in response to requests to me to do things like 'recruit other women' to discuss the topic, and stuff like that.

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.

The common courtesy was about straight answers, and was directed in general at a few folks posting on this thread. Maybe I took your questions in the post where you ask me why I don't go out and recruit other women for this thread to be sarcastic. So, I reacted defensively.

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.

Seems like we understand each other.

I see you've edited one of your earlier posts-- got rid of the swearing, and made some clarifications. If you did that as a nod to me, then thanks-- that was kind.

I'm interested in the discussion here, but I'm not sure what else I have to add, as it stands.

I guess I'll just lurk for a bit...

[Coito ergo sum]

I do that sometimes. Sometimes I say "fucking" this or "fucking" that and if I give it a re-read it often seems unnecessary to me, so I pull that kind of thing out. I at no point cursed you out, or called you names.

[hadespussercats]

I do that sometimes. Sometimes I say "fucking" this or "fucking" that and if I give it a re-read it often seems unnecessary to me, so I pull that kind of thing out. I at no point cursed you out, or called you names.

I can confirm that. It's all good.

[Coito ergo sum]

Updates to the TAM 9 Agenda to deal with the Elevator Guy incident and rampant misogyny among our liberal atheist community:

The Amaz!ng Meeting 2011 TAM 9
Revised Schedule

Due to unforseen circumstances some late alterations have been required to the order and content of talks at TAM 9.
Please note the new talk schedule

12.00 . Announcement of newly agreed policy on the use of chat up lines at atheist and skeptic conventions. Don’t Ask, (so we) Don’t Tell (you no).

13.00 Expert Panel discussion:
‘Women in the Atheist movement, are we being denied a voice?’
(With panelists PZ Myers, Greg Laden and Jeremy Stangroom)

14.00 Open discussion:
“Is suppression of dissention becoming a problem in the modern skeptic movement?”
This question will be answered by a show of hands amongst attendees.

14.15 Those who voted ‘Yes’ will be lined up, maced by Amanda Marcotte and escorted from the premises.

14.30 Apology to the Religious.
The Atheist movement as a whole (well, at least those unmaced by Amanda) announces an official apology to the religious community.
“We have previously stated that people do not have the right not to be offended by others. We realize now that we were wrong and offer our sincerest apologies. We promise to avoid all behavior or public statements that offends others because to do so in future would make us hypocrites of the highest order."

15.00 Book Burning
Please bring along your copies of ‘The Ancestors Tale, The Selfish Gene, The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth.
Professor Dawkins, will be at hand to sign your copy before it is tossed on the pyre. Please come early as Professor Dawkins can only stay for one hour.

16.00 Richard Dawkins Burning.
Sponsored by ‘Accomodationists-R-Us’

16.30 Stoning of the gender traitors

17.00 2011 Anti-Misogynist award.
The presentation of the 2011 award for those individuals showing true example in avoiding privileged white male behavior towards women at atheist conferences.
This years award goes to the five Islamists who attended the Dublin Convention to promote Sharia Law.

17.30 The Winners of the James Randi 1 Million Dollar Challenge will be presented their prize. The 1 million will be divided evenly between the 500 individuals on the Pharyngula and Skepchick messageboards for their demonstration of perfect psychic abilities, mind reading exactly what was going on in the head of Elevator Guy.

18.00 Keynote Speaker. Rebecca Watson
“Misogyny in the atheist movement: What some random commenters on my youtube channel have to say.”
(Rebecca’s 60 minute talk will be followed by a 1 minute period for questions and macing.)

22.00 - 4 AM 'Annual Skepchicks Keg Party'
The Skepchick 2011 ‘Hot College Girls Tickle Fight’ will be judged, as usual, by Rebecca Watson.

http://sneerreview.blogspot.com/2011/07 ... edule.html

[Coito ergo sum]

Big round of applause to Paula Kirby for the following:

I have been keeping very quiet over the last week or so, saddened to see the movement tearing itself apart over something that I do not see as central to atheist activism in the first place, and reluctant to do or say anything that might add fuel to the flames.

But I am encouraged by Jerry’s insistence on cool, calm discussion on the subject here at least, and so there are some things about my position that I would like to clarify.

My background is in business. I have lost count of the number of times I have been present at meetings when the women said nothing and left it all to the men. I’ve been guilty of it myself, many a time. Was it because the men weren’t willing to listen to the women? I don’t think it was. Did the men dismiss our comments if we made them? No, they didn’t. Did they try to stop us making them? No, they didn’t do that either. Were the women lacking in ideas? No, of course not. We just didn’t speak up. Crucially, many of us didn’t speak up, even when openly invited to do so.

Similarly, I spent 7 of the last 10 years organising events for business people: conferences, seminars, workshops, that kind of thing. Over and over again, I tried – how I tried! – to find women speakers. Over and over again, other delegates, both male and female, would tell me they’d like to hear from more women speakers. So the desire was there on the part of the audience to listen to what women had to say, and it was there on the part of the organisers too. And we didn’t just invite: we encouraged, we offered support, we offered coaching, we offered to change the format of events to make them feel less daunting: we went out of our way, event after event after event, to encourage women to take a more prominent part. And almost always to no avail. There were two or three who were already happy to do it anyway and didn’t need our encouragement. Another, I remember, who finally agreed to do it after her initial panic at the very idea, and who, despite being very nervous on the day, said afterwards it was the best thing she’d ever done. But otherwise, it was all for nothing. Try as we might, try as I might, most women we approached simply refused to even consider it, saying ‘Oh no, I couldn’t possibly.’

So I have to ask: Who was holding those women back? They weren’t just being given equal access to prominence as speakers – they were being positively encouraged in ways that male speakers were not. But ultimately, there was something in their own heads that was stopping them. It wasn’t that men didn’t want to listen to them, it wasn’t that they weren’t being given the opportunities, it wasn’t that they weren’t respected, it wasn’t that no one thought they had stories worth telling and valuable contributions to make. They just didn’t feel confident enough to do it – even when offered coaching to help them prepare.

So this is my frustration. I did a sociology module as part of my degree many years ago: I know the arguments about socialisation and normative values, and structural discrimination and all that malarky. All I can say in response is that, while all these things may be true to a greater or lesser extent, banging on about them does not even begin to help women achieve their goals. If we, as women, externalise the reasons why we are not being heard as much as we say we’d like to be, and seek to put the blame on other people, nothing is going to change or, at the very best, it is only going to change painfully slowly. It is a simple fact of life that it is always easier to change our own behaviour, than to persuade other people to change theirs.

So there is an alternative, and it is this alternative that I would urge women to seize with both hands – whether we’re talking about how we interact in our jobs, in our social lives or in the atheist movement. And that alternative is to take responsibility for ourselves and our own success. To view ourselves as mature, capable adults who can take things in our stride, and can speak up appropriately. To really start believing that we can do whatever men can do. To stop seizing on excuses for staying quiet and submissive, stop blaming it on men or hierarchies or misogyny or, worst of all, ‘privilege’, and start simply practising being more assertive. To wake up to the fact that, actually, the lack of prominent women is a theme in almost all walks of life, and many, probably most, organisations will leap at the chance to put a woman into a position of leadership. I would even say that some organisations will leap too far to put a woman in a position of leadership: I have seen, more than once, a mediocre female candidate put on a short list for a Chief Executive position simply because the organisation hoped against hope that she’d be more impressive in person than she was on paper, because they would have actively liked to appoint a woman.

I am not saying that all men, or even all women, are enlightened on this subject, or that all sexism is dead. But I am saying that we women do ourselves no favours by assuming that the system is weighted against us, or by claiming prejudice when, in fact, we have just been slow or even reluctant to take the opportunities that are there. The doors are open – but it’s no good just standing on the threshold and peering fearfully across at what’s on the other side. All I have ever asked for myself is that there be no barriers put in my way on account of my being a woman: I do not ask that men actively go out of their way to make it easier for me than it otherwise would be. I still need to summon up my courage and my confidence, and step through that open door. And what I’m saying is that, in my experience, whether in the atheist movement or elsewhere in the western world (in Western Europe, at least), women who do just that will almost always be welcomed. We just need to DO it.

Yes, there’s the occasional neanderthal, in any walk of life But it’s up to us whether we let him put us off doing what we really want to do. At the risk of sounding like a tedious self-help book, we don’t have to give him that power over us. We can choose to rise above him (or sidestep him) and continue pursuing our own goals. And what I am suggesting is precisely the attitude that I have found in the vast majority of successful women I’ve met in a range of walks of life. In almost any field you care to consider, the women who have made it to the top are generally not sympathetic to the view that men or the system were desperately trying to hold them back. They have simply adopted the tactics I am describing here, and have refused to let anything hold them back. They certainly haven’t diverted their focus from their goals to how men are treating them, and they haven’t waited for men to give them permission to succeed. Are we going to say their voices and experiences do not count, because they have made it? – that the very fact of their success makes them ‘privileged’ beyond the point of having anything valid to say on the subject? That any woman who has made it automatically doesn’t count or can even be advanced as further evidence that ‘ordinary’ women can’t make it? Would that not be truly bizarre, akin to the Roman Catholic Church trying to spin Mother Teresa’s doubts as further evidence of the truth of her beliefs?

Two final points, before I finish what has already been an overlong screed. The first, unlike everything else I’ve been saying, is specific to the atheist movement. Activism is by definition controversial: we don’t need activists for causes that are already widely accepted. This means that conflict comes with the territory. Activists need to be able to cope with that, we need to be able to deal with people who really do want to silence us and discredit us at any cost. It can turn nasty. And the religion/atheism divide – as I’m sure I don’t need to spell out to anyone here – is one of the most aggressive areas for activism there is, largely because religion is something visceral, that people attach themselves to with the full force of their emotions. All too often, it is not a polite, nice, friendly debate. It can be foul. Anyone – male or female – considering becoming prominent in this field is likely to be letting themselves in for a considerable amount of really nasty stuff. There is no reason why women shouldn’t be able to cope with that as well as men can. But I do find it hard to see how anyone who is shy about speaking up within the movement, in front of people who are broadly on his or her side, is going to be able to deal with some of the abuse that will start coming their way from those outside the movement if he or she becomes more prominent.

And the second is that I see a parallel here with one of the arguments we often have with the religious. Many of the religious don’t want to abandon belief in God because they find the thought of having to stand on their own two feet too daunting: they are afraid of having to take responsibility for themselves. And generally speaking, we atheists might have some sympathy with the fear, but we don’t accept it as a good reason for giving in to it: ‘Tough’, we say: ‘That’s just the way it is’. And that’s sort of what I’m saying here too. All of us have to take responsibility for ourselves, make things happen for ourselves, learn from our mistakes, brush up our skills, and stop waiting for other people to make things easy for us. Man or woman, if we want success we just have to get on and make it happen, because no one else is going to do it for us. And no: this is not ‘privilege’ speaking, as anyone who actually knows me and my history would be able to attest. Other, that is, than the enormous privilege (shared by most women in the atheist movement, I suspect) of having been born into a western society, where women enjoy a degree of opportunity and freedom that would have been unimaginable to our grandmothers and still is so to countless of millions of women around the world.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... ent-116920

[hadespussercats]

Interesting read. Thanks for posting it.

[mozg]

I just read this entire thread, so please forgive me if I didn't quote individuals over the course of 22 pages to respond, but I do have an opinion of why I (female) haven't gone to any atheist events/conferences.

I don't go to conferences for a lot of reasons, and none of them have to do with men making me feel uncomfortable. Traveling is an expense in both time and money, so if a conference is not located near me, I have to make a decision as to whether I want to spend the time and money to get there, have lodging and buy food. Typically there's not enough of interest at a conference even when it regards something I'm very interested in for me to fork over precious dollars and vacation days to visit. I did, however, go to the annual members meeting of the NRA... because it was local and it cost me about a half gallon of gas to drive there. I went alone, was in the clear minority, and had absolutely no worries about Schrodinger's Rapist or any of that.

I talked to dozens of men that I had never met before and who I will probably never see again over the course of the event, and there were thousands of people there both of the days that I visited. Would I have gone to the NRA convention if it were so far away that I would've needed to book a hotel? No. Despite my interest in firearms and that I own them and enjoy shooting and hunting, I'm not about to fork over for a hotel so I can listen to a few speeches and go see product demos. I feel the same way about atheist conventions. Have one 15 miles from my house where I can just walk around the convention floor and see the booths and maybe go to a speech or two, and I'll be there. If it involves a hotel stay, I'll pass.

That's also not because I'm bothered by travel. I travel upwards of 40 weeks a year, almost invariably by air, to places I've often never been to where I don't know anyone and I go alone. It's my job. And it's not to say that I don't travel for pleasure either. I'm spending two weeks in Germany this year for no reason other than that I think it would be fun. I planned the trip with no trepidation at all about going alone, no worry about the fact that I'll be at Oktoberfest with all those men who I don't know and who don't know me. I love beer, and I've wanted to visit Germany since I was ten years old, so off I go.

The linked article about Shrodinger's Rapist bothers me. It completely ignores the fact that not every woman on earth lives her life in constant terror, and that if I'm reading a book maybe I still want the attractive guy to strike up an interesting conversation because that could be the beginning of a great relationship ... or even a good one night stand!

That's more than two cents, but it's what I had to say after reading this thread.

[Daan]

Big round of applause to Paula Kirby for the following:

I have been keeping very quiet over the last week or so, saddened to see the movement tearing itself apart over something that I do not see as central to atheist activism in the first place, and reluctant to do or say anything that might add fuel to the flames.

But I am encouraged by Jerry’s insistence on cool, calm discussion on the subject here at least, and so there are some things about my position that I would like to clarify.

My background is in business. I have lost count of the number of times I have been present at meetings when the women said nothing and left it all to the men. I’ve been guilty of it myself, many a time. Was it because the men weren’t willing to listen to the women? I don’t think it was. Did the men dismiss our comments if we made them? No, they didn’t. Did they try to stop us making them? No, they didn’t do that either. Were the women lacking in ideas? No, of course not. We just didn’t speak up. Crucially, many of us didn’t speak up, even when openly invited to do so.

Similarly, I spent 7 of the last 10 years organising events for business people: conferences, seminars, workshops, that kind of thing. Over and over again, I tried – how I tried! – to find women speakers. Over and over again, other delegates, both male and female, would tell me they’d like to hear from more women speakers. So the desire was there on the part of the audience to listen to what women had to say, and it was there on the part of the organisers too. And we didn’t just invite: we encouraged, we offered support, we offered coaching, we offered to change the format of events to make them feel less daunting: we went out of our way, event after event after event, to encourage women to take a more prominent part. And almost always to no avail. There were two or three who were already happy to do it anyway and didn’t need our encouragement. Another, I remember, who finally agreed to do it after her initial panic at the very idea, and who, despite being very nervous on the day, said afterwards it was the best thing she’d ever done. But otherwise, it was all for nothing. Try as we might, try as I might, most women we approached simply refused to even consider it, saying ‘Oh no, I couldn’t possibly.’

So I have to ask: Who was holding those women back? They weren’t just being given equal access to prominence as speakers – they were being positively encouraged in ways that male speakers were not. But ultimately, there was something in their own heads that was stopping them. It wasn’t that men didn’t want to listen to them, it wasn’t that they weren’t being given the opportunities, it wasn’t that they weren’t respected, it wasn’t that no one thought they had stories worth telling and valuable contributions to make. They just didn’t feel confident enough to do it – even when offered coaching to help them prepare.

So this is my frustration. I did a sociology module as part of my degree many years ago: I know the arguments about socialisation and normative values, and structural discrimination and all that malarky. All I can say in response is that, while all these things may be true to a greater or lesser extent, banging on about them does not even begin to help women achieve their goals. If we, as women, externalise the reasons why we are not being heard as much as we say we’d like to be, and seek to put the blame on other people, nothing is going to change or, at the very best, it is only going to change painfully slowly. It is a simple fact of life that it is always easier to change our own behaviour, than to persuade other people to change theirs.

So there is an alternative, and it is this alternative that I would urge women to seize with both hands – whether we’re talking about how we interact in our jobs, in our social lives or in the atheist movement. And that alternative is to take responsibility for ourselves and our own success. To view ourselves as mature, capable adults who can take things in our stride, and can speak up appropriately. To really start believing that we can do whatever men can do. To stop seizing on excuses for staying quiet and submissive, stop blaming it on men or hierarchies or misogyny or, worst of all, ‘privilege’, and start simply practising being more assertive. To wake up to the fact that, actually, the lack of prominent women is a theme in almost all walks of life, and many, probably most, organisations will leap at the chance to put a woman into a position of leadership. I would even say that some organisations will leap too far to put a woman in a position of leadership: I have seen, more than once, a mediocre female candidate put on a short list for a Chief Executive position simply because the organisation hoped against hope that she’d be more impressive in person than she was on paper, because they would have actively liked to appoint a woman.

I am not saying that all men, or even all women, are enlightened on this subject, or that all sexism is dead. But I am saying that we women do ourselves no favours by assuming that the system is weighted against us, or by claiming prejudice when, in fact, we have just been slow or even reluctant to take the opportunities that are there. The doors are open – but it’s no good just standing on the threshold and peering fearfully across at what’s on the other side. All I have ever asked for myself is that there be no barriers put in my way on account of my being a woman: I do not ask that men actively go out of their way to make it easier for me than it otherwise would be. I still need to summon up my courage and my confidence, and step through that open door. And what I’m saying is that, in my experience, whether in the atheist movement or elsewhere in the western world (in Western Europe, at least), women who do just that will almost always be welcomed. We just need to DO it.

Yes, there’s the occasional neanderthal, in any walk of life But it’s up to us whether we let him put us off doing what we really want to do. At the risk of sounding like a tedious self-help book, we don’t have to give him that power over us. We can choose to rise above him (or sidestep him) and continue pursuing our own goals. And what I am suggesting is precisely the attitude that I have found in the vast majority of successful women I’ve met in a range of walks of life. In almost any field you care to consider, the women who have made it to the top are generally not sympathetic to the view that men or the system were desperately trying to hold them back. They have simply adopted the tactics I am describing here, and have refused to let anything hold them back. They certainly haven’t diverted their focus from their goals to how men are treating them, and they haven’t waited for men to give them permission to succeed. Are we going to say their voices and experiences do not count, because they have made it? – that the very fact of their success makes them ‘privileged’ beyond the point of having anything valid to say on the subject? That any woman who has made it automatically doesn’t count or can even be advanced as further evidence that ‘ordinary’ women can’t make it? Would that not be truly bizarre, akin to the Roman Catholic Church trying to spin Mother Teresa’s doubts as further evidence of the truth of her beliefs?

Two final points, before I finish what has already been an overlong screed. The first, unlike everything else I’ve been saying, is specific to the atheist movement. Activism is by definition controversial: we don’t need activists for causes that are already widely accepted. This means that conflict comes with the territory. Activists need to be able to cope with that, we need to be able to deal with people who really do want to silence us and discredit us at any cost. It can turn nasty. And the religion/atheism divide – as I’m sure I don’t need to spell out to anyone here – is one of the most aggressive areas for activism there is, largely because religion is something visceral, that people attach themselves to with the full force of their emotions. All too often, it is not a polite, nice, friendly debate. It can be foul. Anyone – male or female – considering becoming prominent in this field is likely to be letting themselves in for a considerable amount of really nasty stuff. There is no reason why women shouldn’t be able to cope with that as well as men can. But I do find it hard to see how anyone who is shy about speaking up within the movement, in front of people who are broadly on his or her side, is going to be able to deal with some of the abuse that will start coming their way from those outside the movement if he or she becomes more prominent.

And the second is that I see a parallel here with one of the arguments we often have with the religious. Many of the religious don’t want to abandon belief in God because they find the thought of having to stand on their own two feet too daunting: they are afraid of having to take responsibility for themselves. And generally speaking, we atheists might have some sympathy with the fear, but we don’t accept it as a good reason for giving in to it: ‘Tough’, we say: ‘That’s just the way it is’. And that’s sort of what I’m saying here too. All of us have to take responsibility for ourselves, make things happen for ourselves, learn from our mistakes, brush up our skills, and stop waiting for other people to make things easy for us. Man or woman, if we want success we just have to get on and make it happen, because no one else is going to do it for us. And no: this is not ‘privilege’ speaking, as anyone who actually knows me and my history would be able to attest. Other, that is, than the enormous privilege (shared by most women in the atheist movement, I suspect) of having been born into a western society, where women enjoy a degree of opportunity and freedom that would have been unimaginable to our grandmothers and still is so to countless of millions of women around the world.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com ... ent-116920

It is a well-known fact that women are more active in churches than men. So somehow, science and atheism is more popular with men than with women, while for religion it is vice versa.

i know from a few women in my life that when i talk about science, politics or atheism, they feel annoyed and want to change the subject. Subjects they do want to talk about is private life, gossip, poking fun or other kind of non-serious conversation.

I can imagine that efforts to get more women at atheist conferences has become more difficult due to elevatorgate. But, even without such an event, atheist conferences will always be dominated by men. Within the western world, secularism and atheism are on the rise, also among women, despite their lack of attendance at conferences.

[epepke]

I know of several women who say that they would feel uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic events and would never good to one.

The thing is that the people who make them feel uncomfortable are the Skepchicks. They don't want to be surrounded by stupid, officious women. Nor do they want to be surrounded by women who tell them what they are allowed to do and think. They believe that this is the opposite of skepticism.

I think they're right, but I'm a mere male.

[mistermack]

I know of several women who say that they would feel uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic events and would never good to one.

The thing is that the people who make them feel uncomfortable are the Skepchicks. They don't want to be surrounded by stupid, officious women. Nor do they want to be surrounded by women who tell them what they are allowed to do and think. They believe that this is the opposite of skepticism.

I think they're right, but I'm a mere male.

Are they still going?
I thought they'd all be married and settled down by now.

[JimC]

I know of several women who say that they would feel uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic events and would never good to one.

The thing is that the people who make them feel uncomfortable are the Skepchicks. They don't want to be surrounded by stupid, officious women. Nor do they want to be surrounded by women who tell them what they are allowed to do and think. They believe that this is the opposite of skepticism.

I think they're right, but I'm a mere male.

Are they still going?
I thought they'd all be married and settled down by now.