Women at Atheist/Skeptic Events - Uncomfortable?

[Coito ergo sum]

Assertion 1:

there are still more men that women at skeptic and atheist events and part of it is because women are made to feel uncomfortable.

http://skepchick.org/2011/02/ai-the-weaker-sex/

I've been to atheist events, and I noticed how they were, well, sausage fests. I used to make intensive efforts - affirmative action - if you will to include women, to invite women, etc. to local group events and meetings in my area. I have to say, though, that I take some issue with the idea that women are "made" to feel uncomfortable. I don't think that any discomfort created by men is necessarily what keeps women away. I think that often women have no interest in showing up in the first place, and when they do show up a large percentage of women find little that interests them at atheist/skeptic meetings.

To try to explain - I think that men and women are often interested, overall, generally speaking, not referring to every single person, in different kinds of things. You'll find more men involved in say, "strategy war gaming" conventions and science fiction conventions than women. Why? Is it because women are "made to feel uncomfortable?" Or, is it because girls and women are, in our culture, not generally interested in strategy war gaming and science fiction?

When it comes to atheist conventions and groups, local meetings and local organizations as well as national conferences, I would expect more males to attend because men are more interested in that stuff, just as they are more interested in hunting and fishing and astronomy.

Now, I know that I will immediately get someone responding to this who says, "I'm a woman and I love war games, astronomy, hunting, fishing and science fiction." I know you are out there. I am merely pointing out that OVERALL the demographics of the devotees of such things, and the devotees of atheism/philosophy/debating/skepticism/science are overwhelmingly male.

Also, the phraseology is interesting to me. "Made" to feel uncomfortable. That implies that men are purposefully making women uncomfortable - shades of harassment, leering, ogling and catcalling. But, is that what is meant by the discomfort reported by women? My theory is that what is really happening is that women are uncomfortable merely because they are in an extreme minority at the events. I mean - 10% women is about the average in my experience. So, that paints a pretty clear picture that the women that do show up are engaging in an activity that is not preferred by women as much as men.

[Atheist-Lite]

Assertion 1:

there are still more men that women at skeptic and atheist events and part of it is because women are made to feel uncomfortable.

http://skepchick.org/2011/02/ai-the-weaker-sex/

I've been to atheist events, and I noticed how they were, well, sausage fests. I used to make intensive efforts - affirmative action - if you will to include women, to invite women, etc. to local group events and meetings in my area. I have to say, though, that I take some issue with the idea that women are "made" to feel uncomfortable. I don't think that any discomfort created by men is necessarily what keeps women away. I think that often women have no interest in showing up in the first place, and when they do show up a large percentage of women find little that interests them at atheist/skeptic meetings.

To try to explain - I think that men and women are often interested, overall, generally speaking, not referring to every single person, in different kinds of things. You'll find more men involved in say, "strategy war gaming" conventions and science fiction conventions than women. Why? Is it because women are "made to feel uncomfortable?" Or, is it because girls and women are, in our culture, not generally interested in strategy war gaming and science fiction?

When it comes to atheist conventions and groups, local meetings and local organizations as well as national conferences, I would expect more males to attend because men are more interested in that stuff, just as they are more interested in hunting and fishing and astronomy.

Now, I know that I will immediately get someone responding to this who says, "I'm a woman and I love war games, astronomy, hunting, fishing and science fiction." I know you are out there. I am merely pointing out that OVERALL the demographics of the devotees of such things, and the devotees of atheism/philosophy/debating/skepticism/science are overwhelmingly male.

Also, the phraseology is interesting to me. "Made" to feel uncomfortable. That implies that men are purposefully making women uncomfortable - shades of harassment, leering, ogling and catcalling. But, is that what is meant by the discomfort reported by women? My theory is that what is really happening is that women are uncomfortable merely because they are in an extreme minority at the events. I mean - 10% women is about the average in my experience. So, that paints a pretty clear picture that the women that do show up are engaging in an activity that is not preferred by women as much as men.

A short dose of positive discrimination would help the situation?

[Bella Fortuna]

I have no problem with that sort of gender breakdown, speaking hypothetically. It's how individuals behave that make the difference one way or another.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Assertion 1:

there are still more men that women at skeptic and atheist events and part of it is because women are made to feel uncomfortable.

http://skepchick.org/2011/02/ai-the-weaker-sex/

I've been to atheist events, and I noticed how they were, well, sausage fests. I used to make intensive efforts - affirmative action - if you will to include women, to invite women, etc. to local group events and meetings in my area. I have to say, though, that I take some issue with the idea that women are "made" to feel uncomfortable. I don't think that any discomfort created by men is necessarily what keeps women away. I think that often women have no interest in showing up in the first place, and when they do show up a large percentage of women find little that interests them at atheist/skeptic meetings.

To try to explain - I think that men and women are often interested, overall, generally speaking, not referring to every single person, in different kinds of things. You'll find more men involved in say, "strategy war gaming" conventions and science fiction conventions than women. Why? Is it because women are "made to feel uncomfortable?" Or, is it because girls and women are, in our culture, not generally interested in strategy war gaming and science fiction?

When it comes to atheist conventions and groups, local meetings and local organizations as well as national conferences, I would expect more males to attend because men are more interested in that stuff, just as they are more interested in hunting and fishing and astronomy.

Now, I know that I will immediately get someone responding to this who says, "I'm a woman and I love war games, astronomy, hunting, fishing and science fiction." I know you are out there. I am merely pointing out that OVERALL the demographics of the devotees of such things, and the devotees of atheism/philosophy/debating/skepticism/science are overwhelmingly male.

Also, the phraseology is interesting to me. "Made" to feel uncomfortable. That implies that men are purposefully making women uncomfortable - shades of harassment, leering, ogling and catcalling. But, is that what is meant by the discomfort reported by women? My theory is that what is really happening is that women are uncomfortable merely because they are in an extreme minority at the events. I mean - 10% women is about the average in my experience. So, that paints a pretty clear picture that the women that do show up are engaging in an activity that is not preferred by women as much as men.

A short dose of positive discrimination would help the situation?

Or armchairs?

[Coito ergo sum]

[

A short dose of positive discrimination would help the situation?

How would one accomplish that without being patronizing toward women?

What I am unclear about is exactly why women feel uncomfortable? Is it the population disparity between men and women that in and of itself creates a discomfort? Do women feel they are unable to get a word in edgewise? Are the topics "male oriented?"

[Coito ergo sum]

In the article I linked to in the OP, Skepchick.com asks:

First of all, tell me: Do you go to or have you ever gone to events like TAM or other atheist, humanist or skeptic conventions? Why or why not? Do you go to meet a sexual partner, to make friends, to learn or for other reasons altogether?

As a man OR a woman have you felt alienated or intimidated because of your sex, gender identity, race or appearance?

What do YOU think we could do to make events and conventions more welcoming? Or do you think, F-it. Things are just fine as they are.

[charlou]

Assertion 1:

there are still more men that women at skeptic and atheist events and part of it is because women are made to feel uncomfortable.

http://skepchick.org/2011/02/ai-the-weaker-sex/

I've been to atheist events, and I noticed how they were, well, sausage fests. I used to make intensive efforts - affirmative action - if you will to include women, to invite women, etc. to local group events and meetings in my area. I have to say, though, that I take some issue with the idea that women are "made" to feel uncomfortable. I don't think that any discomfort created by men is necessarily what keeps women away. I think that often women have no interest in showing up in the first place, and when they do show up a large percentage of women find little that interests them at atheist/skeptic meetings.

To try to explain - I think that men and women are often interested, overall, generally speaking, not referring to every single person, in different kinds of things. You'll find more men involved in say, "strategy war gaming" conventions and science fiction conventions than women. Why? Is it because women are "made to feel uncomfortable?" Or, is it because girls and women are, in our culture, not generally interested in strategy war gaming and science fiction?

When it comes to atheist conventions and groups, local meetings and local organizations as well as national conferences, I would expect more males to attend because men are more interested in that stuff, just as they are more interested in hunting and fishing and astronomy.

Now, I know that I will immediately get someone responding to this who says, "I'm a woman and I love war games, astronomy, hunting, fishing and science fiction." I know you are out there. I am merely pointing out that OVERALL the demographics of the devotees of such things, and the devotees of atheism/philosophy/debating/skepticism/science are overwhelmingly male.

See, I'd rephrase your "men are more interested" to be "more men are interested" .. subtle, yet important difference there for you to consider.

Also, the phraseology is interesting to me. "Made" to feel uncomfortable. That implies that men are purposefully making women uncomfortable - shades of harassment, leering, ogling and catcalling.

Yeah, I don't go along with that .

But, is that what is meant by the discomfort reported by women? My theory is that what is really happening is that women are uncomfortable merely because they are in an extreme minority at the events. I mean - 10% women is about the average in my experience. So, that paints a pretty clear picture that the women that do show up are engaging in an activity that is not preferred by women as much as men.

A woman reports discomfort and she's suddenly regarded as the mouthpiece for women? pfft.

re the bit I've bolded: Why do you come up with this 'theory'? Your statement that your experience paints a picture that fewer women than men prefer atheist conferences isn't a solid rationale for your theory. But why bother to ask and get some actual opinions when you can make up a theory?

I've not been to an atheist thingy .. as much as I might like to, I've not had the opportunity .. but, by way of comparison, my job is such that I'm in a minority of females among males who do what we do. Not as low as 10%, but still a notable low f:m ratio. I don't feel uncomfortable .. I just get on with my job like everyone else. No fucking biggie. Pretty sure an atheist conference wouldn't be any different.

That's me here in Oz, though ... My impression is that the culture and associated attitudes in the US are rather different. I note that the distinction between male and female children seems to be very important to establish ... the boy is like this and the girl is like that ...

ahhh ... I was going somewhere with this ... but now I'm just going to bed ... night.

[Coito ergo sum]

Assertion 1:

there are still more men that women at skeptic and atheist events and part of it is because women are made to feel uncomfortable.

http://skepchick.org/2011/02/ai-the-weaker-sex/

I've been to atheist events, and I noticed how they were, well, sausage fests. I used to make intensive efforts - affirmative action - if you will to include women, to invite women, etc. to local group events and meetings in my area. I have to say, though, that I take some issue with the idea that women are "made" to feel uncomfortable. I don't think that any discomfort created by men is necessarily what keeps women away. I think that often women have no interest in showing up in the first place, and when they do show up a large percentage of women find little that interests them at atheist/skeptic meetings.

To try to explain - I think that men and women are often interested, overall, generally speaking, not referring to every single person, in different kinds of things. You'll find more men involved in say, "strategy war gaming" conventions and science fiction conventions than women. Why? Is it because women are "made to feel uncomfortable?" Or, is it because girls and women are, in our culture, not generally interested in strategy war gaming and science fiction?

When it comes to atheist conventions and groups, local meetings and local organizations as well as national conferences, I would expect more males to attend because men are more interested in that stuff, just as they are more interested in hunting and fishing and astronomy.

Now, I know that I will immediately get someone responding to this who says, "I'm a woman and I love war games, astronomy, hunting, fishing and science fiction." I know you are out there. I am merely pointing out that OVERALL the demographics of the devotees of such things, and the devotees of atheism/philosophy/debating/skepticism/science are overwhelmingly male.

See, I'd rephrase your "men are more interested" to be "more men are interested" .. subtle, yet important difference there for you to consider.

That was my intent. My grammar was off. The way I wrote it, it sounds like I meant the degree of male interest was greater, whereas I am really talking about their numbers, not the strength of their interest.

Also, the phraseology is interesting to me. "Made" to feel uncomfortable. That implies that men are purposefully making women uncomfortable - shades of harassment, leering, ogling and catcalling.

Yeah, I don't go along with that .

I'm not sure she meant that, but to say someone is "made" to feel uncomfortable I think requires something more than that they are uncomfortable. There is always the possibility that people are uncomfortable without anyone having done anything "wrong."

But, is that what is meant by the discomfort reported by women? My theory is that what is really happening is that women are uncomfortable merely because they are in an extreme minority at the events. I mean - 10% women is about the average in my experience. So, that paints a pretty clear picture that the women that do show up are engaging in an activity that is not preferred by women as much as men.

A woman reports discomfort and she's suddenly regarded as the mouthpiece for women? pfft.

I didn't mean to suggest that one woman reporting discomfort meant she was a mouthpiece for all. I'm speculating here, trying to answer the question posed on the Skepchick.com website. They, the Skepchicks, apparently take it as a given or as established that women are, in fact, made to feel uncomfortable, and that is part of the reason why women are less likely to attend. My hunch is that women don't attend in as great a number as men not because of any discomfort imposed upon them, but that not as many women as men really like to spend their time at such egg-head events.

re the bit I've bolded: Why do you come up with this theory? Your statement that your experience paints a picture that fewer women than men prefer atheist conferences isn't a solid rationale for your theory. But why bother to ask and get some actual opinions when you can make up a theory?

I didn't mean to suggest that my theory was the only one, or that it was proven. I am only basing it on my experience at atheist conventions, meetings, gatherings, etc. I get the distinct IMPRESSION that they are not things that women enjoy as much as men (in as great numbers, that is). I can tell you in the groups I've attended in my area - several different ones - that it is less likely for a woman to become a repeat attendee, and 10% women is roughly what we get.

My expression of my opinion or theory was not in any way designed to block other opinions. I do object to your characterization of other people's opinions as "actual" opinions comparison to mine which are....what? Not actual?

I've not been to an atheist thingy .. as much as I might like to, I've not had the opportunity .. but, by way of comparison, my job is such that I'm in a minority of females among males who do what we do. Not as low as 10%, but still a notable low f:m ratio. I don't feel uncomfortable .. I just get on with my job like everyone else. No fucking biggie. Pretty sure an atheist conference wouldn't be any different.

That would be my assumption too, but I've been hearing a lot about this anti-woman nature of atheist, humanist and skeptic events and conventions.

That's me here in Oz, though ... My impression is that the culture and associated attitudes in the US are rather different. I note that the distinction between male and female children seems to be very important to establish ... the boy is like this and the girl is like that ...

The Australians I've met don't seem to have any evident behavioral or non-gender distinctions as compared to Americans. The males appear to behave as if gender distinction was made in the same way as in the US, and the same with women. I don't see less of a boy/girl distinction among the Austrialians I've come in contact with.

[Animavore]

I think skepchick is flat out wrong in her assertion.
I've been to a few of these myself. Turns out it's not really my thing either. I didn't see any evidence of women made to feel uncomfortable. The last meeting I was at, against the ridiculous blasphemy law that was introduced, the main speaker was a female TD and the biggest applause that night from the floor speakers were got by a rather sharp and well spoken 80 year-old woman.
I saw no evidence of men trying to muscle women out, speaking over them or saying, "Well that's lovely, darling. Now will you run along and make us some tea. There's a good girl."

[Xamonas Chegwé]

In my experience, women tend to attend conventions either as one half of a couple, or in groups. Relatively few women feel comfortable to go alone. Compare this with men, where many attendees will just turn up, hoping to meet like-minded individuals at the event. It is a societal, gender-role thing and it is the case in many arenas, not simply atheist conferences - women make up just over half of the population but there always seem to be more men around (except in shoe shops, obviously!)

[charlou]

Also, the phraseology is interesting to me. "Made" to feel uncomfortable. That implies that men are purposefully making women uncomfortable - shades of harassment, leering, ogling and catcalling.

Yeah, I don't go along with that .

I'm not sure she meant that, but to say someone is "made" to feel uncomfortable I think requires something more than that they are uncomfortable. There is always the possibility that people are uncomfortable without anyone having done anything "wrong."

I meant I don't go along with the "made to feel uncomfortable" notion .. in this and most contexts.

Although, I wouldn't negate genuine situations of discomfort (where 'discomfort' is a fucking understatement), the example given by the skepchick doesn't come close.

[Coito ergo sum]

Also, the phraseology is interesting to me. "Made" to feel uncomfortable. That implies that men are purposefully making women uncomfortable - shades of harassment, leering, ogling and catcalling.

Yeah, I don't go along with that .

I'm not sure she meant that, but to say someone is "made" to feel uncomfortable I think requires something more than that they are uncomfortable. There is always the possibility that people are uncomfortable without anyone having done anything "wrong."

I meant I don't go along with the "made to feel uncomfortable" notion .. in this and most contexts.

Although, I wouldn't negate genuine situations of discomfort (where 'discomfort' is a fucking understatement), the example given by the skepchick doesn't come close.

I've even gone so far as to say that it was inappropriate and perhaps even insulting to Skepchick - I don't even think it's a big deal that she says it made her feel uncomfortable. But, that's the most that can be reasonably said for it. I've wavered a bit on the inappropriateness of it, though. It's a party atmosphere at a hotel bar until 4am int he morning, drinking. Leaving that environment, I don't think random hook-ups are way out of the question, and simply being asked for coffee and conversation - well that seems quite polite. I'll give her the inappropriateness of it all and the offensiveness to her. But, I won't acknowledge "misogyny, harassment, objectification," or any of the myriad other bits of hyperbole that have been bandied about. I think Skepchick has been reading one too many Catharine Mackinnon books....

[hadespussercats]

I've never been to an atheist or skeptic event. I'd like to-- wish these Ratz meets weren't so far away. Looked into some of the skeptic night-at-the-pub type dealios you see here and there-- but, since I'm gestating, a night at the pub isn't as much fun as it could be.

Also, there's the fact that sometimes I prefer relative online anonymity to face-to-face stuff, because of social anxiety and so forth.

But, in a related vein--
for a while in high school I played D&D with a group of friends in one of their basements. The group was mostly guys (surprise surprise) though there were a few other girls who sometimes played.

I was still a relatively new player when my friends invited me to go to an annual gaming convention in a nearby city.

It was... interesting. But not much fun.

There were (as you might expect) many, many socially awkward guys there.
I could almost hear some of them saying "It's a ga-ga-ga-GIRL!!!" a la the Loony Tunes-- with ah-oogah horn sounds and popping eyeballs and bouncing adams-apples and all the rest. And while I suppose I should have been flattered, there were so many of them that wanted to get REALLY close to me and ask me all sorts of questions, I began to feel... well. Overwhelmed. Claustrophobic. It was TOO MUCH.

I didn't go back to the conference the next day. And I sort of just stopped playing role-playing games altogether-- got into billiards and mini-golf and hanging out at the bowling alley instead.

I think if I were really in love with D&D, I might have worked harder to stay involved with it, even after a convention that gave me the (possibly mistaken) idea that gaming would lead me places I didn't want to go. But... I really like playing pool. And let's face it-- most women look sexier leaning over a table with their cue than they do rolling for damage. So there's that, too.

I don't know if atheist conferences are like gaming conferences (it seems to me likely there's at least a bit of an overlap ), but if they are, I can see why women might stay away.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Skepticon III had lots of women, and sorta women. Female speakers as well.

[charlou]

I could almost hear some of them saying "It's a ga-ga-ga-GIRL!!!" a la the Loony Tunes-- with ah-oogah horn sounds and popping eyeballs and bouncing adams-apples and all the rest.