Women at Atheist/Skeptic Events - Uncomfortable?

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito: Your question (in the OP) has been answered, several times, both in the comments to the blog post you linked to in the OP and in this thread, by Gallstones, Hades and myself, and those answers have been supported well by links and comments posted by at least Seraph and Crumple (sorry if I have overlooked someone!). Not every answer or example used in them has been specifically tailored / adjusted so that it would speak of atheist/skeptic events, but the situations and behavior patterns discussed are analogous. If you really, truly are either unwilling or incapable of connecting the dots between the various analogies used (women as a very small minority in the various settings A, B and C have experiences in common), that's your problem.

Short summary: The reasons why some women feel uncomfortable in some situations during or in connection with atheist/skeptic events are many. Few of those reasons (if any) are completely unique or exclusive for atheist/skeptic events (you apparently did not even notice that I was agreeing with you on this one).

I did notice. I didn't argue with you about it. I was explaining what my discussion with Gallstones was about, and why I was engaging in further back and forth on the topic - because ultimately, the explanation that women are made to feel uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic events because of the statistics on rape in general, seemed to me to not make sense. So, I wanted further explanation so I could understand what was being argued in that regard. If that's my "problem" then so be it.

A key feature of the problem is that it is uncomfortable for most people (both men and women) to find themselves in a very small minority in any social setting (neighborhood, school, workplace, event, etc).

So, that would mean that women the minority tend to always be uncomfortable?

And, so women aren't going to atheist/skeptic events precisely because they expect to be in the minority and as a result, uncomfortable?

Looking for answers to "Why are there so few women at atheist/skeptic events?" based on One Specific Assertion ("they are MADE uncomfortable") is pointless and likely also counterproductive.

Well, the point of the OP was to address Skepchick's specific assertion in that regard, not some other assertion.

If your goal is that women would feel more comfortable at atheist events,

My goal with this thread was to analyze Skepchick's assertion.

start asking questions like "What makes it easier for (more) women to attend?"

O.k. - I'll bite: what makes it easier for more women to attend atheist/skeptic conferences?

and "What makes it more likely for women to feel comfortable?" (such questions were asked in the blog post you linked to and answered in comments to it).

I read those comments. What do you think the answer to your question is?

BTW, the baboon article that Crumple linked to is IMO a surprisingly good start for thinking about what could be done in practice - if the reader is able to imagine analogies and develop them further (if taken only literally, that article of course would not seem very relevant). Your answering it with a link to a FauxNews entertainment piece was illuminating regarding your level of insincerity and/or cluelessness in this discussion. Cormac's protest was at least based on something relevant.

Fuck off with the "cluelessness and insincerity" bullshit. FFS! I fucking asked him to explain his point in posting a bare link in response to my comment. Typically, if people post a link they say something along with it to explain what the fuck they're asking you to go and read a lengthy article for. It's not fucking insincere or clueless to ask that.

The link to the entertainment piece was designed to illustrate exactly that point - posting a link without explanation as to what it's supposed to prove or why it was offered. Someone just posts a link to some article and it could have been posted for any number of reasons. For some reason, it was posted as a response directly to what I wrote. So, I was lleft wondering....'hmmmm....what is this forum member trying to tell me by posting this link? It doesn't seem to have much relevance to what I wrote...' so, it would be nice if he explained what his counter-argument to my post was, or whether he was just posting it as some sort of point of information, or whether it was offered actually in support of my post.

If you people aren't interested in discussing this issue with me, then go to a different thread. But, don't fucking come here with personal attacks calling me "clueless and insincere."

[Gallstones]

Yo Coito, I answered your fucking question.

Thanks for not noticing and for ignoring it.
Wow, am I surprised.

You know what? I'm about done with you.

Yes daddy. See how contrite I am ------>

Something is seriously wrong in your head.

Yes, and?

Not wrong actually, just not like your head.

"Ignoring it?" I haven't gone through every single post. I will, though. When I get whatever one you think is an answer to my "fucking" question, I'll read it. If it is anything worth commenting on, I'll comment. Generally, your posts on this thread have been incoherent and/or off on tangents, though. And, I won't be surprised if whatever "answer" you're talking about is in a similar vein.

You have repeatedly asked for input.
It has been given, but you don't seem to be able to recognize or understand it.

What I think your problem is is that you are trapped in assumptions and just can't see your way out. All you expect to read is verification of your assumptions. You are blind to anything that doesn't fit.

Maybe there is something wrong in your head.

Leave it at don't understand then.
I don't care if you comment or not.

[Gallstones]

Coito: Your question (in the OP) has been answered, several times, both in the comments to the blog post you linked to in the OP and in this thread, by Gallstones, Hades and myself, and those answers have been supported well by links and comments posted by at least Seraph and Crumple (sorry if I have overlooked someone!). Not every answer or example used in them has been specifically tailored / adjusted so that it would speak of atheist/skeptic events, but the situations and behavior patterns discussed are analogous. If you really, truly are either unwilling or incapable of connecting the dots between the various analogies used (women as a very small minority in the various settings A, B and C have experiences in common), that's your problem.

Short summary: The reasons why some women feel uncomfortable in some situations during or in connection with atheist/skeptic events are many. Few of those reasons (if any) are completely unique or exclusive for atheist/skeptic events (you apparently did not even notice that I was agreeing with you on this one).

I did notice. I didn't argue with you about it. I was explaining what my discussion with Gallstones was about, and why I was engaging in further back and forth on the topic - because ultimately, the explanation that women are made to feel uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic events because of the statistics on rape in general, seemed to me to not make sense. So, I wanted further explanation so I could understand what was being argued in that regard. If that's my "problem" then so be it.

A key feature of the problem is that it is uncomfortable for most people (both men and women) to find themselves in a very small minority in any social setting (neighborhood, school, workplace, event, etc).

So, that would mean that women the minority tend to always be uncomfortable?

And, so women aren't going to atheist/skeptic events precisely because they expect to be in the minority and as a result, uncomfortable?

Looking for answers to "Why are there so few women at atheist/skeptic events?" based on One Specific Assertion ("they are MADE uncomfortable") is pointless and likely also counterproductive.

Well, the point of the OP was to address Skepchick's specific assertion in that regard, not some other assertion.

If your goal is that women would feel more comfortable at atheist events,

My goal with this thread was to analyze Skepchick's assertion.

start asking questions like "What makes it easier for (more) women to attend?"

O.k. - I'll bite: what makes it easier for more women to attend atheist/skeptic conferences?

and "What makes it more likely for women to feel comfortable?" (such questions were asked in the blog post you linked to and answered in comments to it).

I read those comments. What do you think the answer to your question is?

BTW, the baboon article that Crumple linked to is IMO a surprisingly good start for thinking about what could be done in practice - if the reader is able to imagine analogies and develop them further (if taken only literally, that article of course would not seem very relevant). Your answering it with a link to a FauxNews entertainment piece was illuminating regarding your level of insincerity and/or cluelessness in this discussion. Cormac's protest was at least based on something relevant.

Fuck off with the "cluelessness and insincerity" bullshit. FFS! I fucking asked him to explain his point in posting a bare link in response to my comment. Typically, if people post a link they say something along with it to explain what the fuck they're asking you to go and read a lengthy article for. It's not fucking insincere or clueless to ask that.

The link to the entertainment piece was designed to illustrate exactly that point - posting a link without explanation as to what it's supposed to prove or why it was offered. Someone just posts a link to some article and it could have been posted for any number of reasons. For some reason, it was posted as a response directly to what I wrote. So, I was lleft wondering....'hmmmm....what is this forum member trying to tell me by posting this link? It doesn't seem to have much relevance to what I wrote...' so, it would be nice if he explained what his counter-argument to my post was, or whether he was just posting it as some sort of point of information, or whether it was offered actually in support of my post.

If you people aren't interested in discussing this issue with me, then go to a different thread. But, don't fucking come here with personal attacks calling me "clueless and insincere."

Can you say H-I-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?

What if you are clueless though?

How many pages?
How many posts?
How many different women addressing the topic?

I think there is ample evidence that many of us---and those of us who presumably are being solicited to provide the information you seek--have not only rallied to the call to discuss the issue with you, we have even bothered to try different avenues to make our points.

My own outline couldn't have been more elementary.

The failure, if there is one, looks to be yours.

I guess this is goodbye then, huh?

[Atheist-Lite]

I do think coito comparing a irrelavant link to my manifestly relavant one indicates a clear lack of insight here. If a person requires babyfeed explanations to obviously relavant links I do see something remniscent in a close relative of mine diagnosed on the autism scale. This isn't to dig at coito but I think it might be relavant regarding potential conflicts on such a sensitive subject matter. Literalism and the need for 'unclouded' repeat explanations can be annoying - I know from long experience. I'm not saying there is a diagnosis only that I recognise this trait, from some experience.

[Gallstones]

I do think coito comparing a irrelavant link to my manifestly relavant one indicates a clear lack of insight here. If a person requires babyfeed explanations to obviously relavant links I do see something remniscent in a close relative of mine diagnosed on the autism scale. This isn't to dig at coito but I think it might be relavant regarding potential conflicts on such a sensitive subject matter. Literalism and the need for 'unclouded' repeat explanations can be annoying - I know from long experience. I'm not saying there is a diagnosis only that I recognise this trait, from some experience.

Shit stirrer.
If you are not careful he will be about done with you too.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yo Coito, I answered your fucking question.

Thanks for not noticing and for ignoring it.
Wow, am I surprised.

You know what? I'm about done with you. Something is seriously wrong in your head.

Yes, and?

And, it apparently makes it difficult for you to communicate with any reasonable degree of clarity.

"Ignoring it?" I haven't gone through every single post. I will, though. When I get whatever one you think is an answer to my "fucking" question, I'll read it. If it is anything worth commenting on, I'll comment. Generally, your posts on this thread have been incoherent and/or off on tangents, though. And, I won't be surprised if whatever "answer" you're talking about is in a similar vein.

You have repeatedly asked for input.
It has been given, but you don't seem to be able to recognize or understand it.

Perhaps it's because you haven't explained what you mean with any reasonable degree of clarity or rationality. I certainly haven't recognized or understood some of what you've been saying. That's why I've asked followup questions for clarification. It's nothing for you get all pissy and hysterical about.

What I think your problem is is that you are trapped in assumptions and just can't see your way out.

O.k., let's assume that's my "problem." What assumptions are you referring to? Help me solve my "problem." If i'm trapped in some assumptions, then the first step to getting me out of that trap is to identify the assumptions. Tell me.

All you expect to read is verification of your assumptions. You are blind to anything that doesn't fit.

Not at all.

Maybe there is something wrong in your head.

I'm not the one who got all bitchy about their post being "ignored" for about 18 hours.

Leave it at don't understand then.
I don't care if you comment or not.

You apparently don't even understand your own assertion or position on the topic. You certainly can't explain it.

Feel free not to. You can keep posting about what my "problem" is - and how I don't "get it" or words to that effect - and you can make unsubstantiated bullshit accusations about me being trapped in "assumptions," but if you want to be the least bit intellectually honest, you'd need to at the very least set forth which "assumptions" I'm trapped in, and explain what you think I'm not understanding. But, you're reaction will probably be the stereotypical "...well if you don't know already, I'm certainly not going to tell you..."

[Gallstones]

An emotionally devoid outline isn't clear enough for you?

[Coito ergo sum]

I do think coito comparing a irrelavant link to my manifestly relavant one indicates a clear lack of insight here. If a person requires babyfeed explanations to obviously relavant links I do see something remniscent in a close relative of mine diagnosed on the autism scale. This isn't to dig at coito but I think it might be relavant regarding potential conflicts on such a sensitive subject matter. Literalism and the need for 'unclouded' repeat explanations can be annoying - I know from long experience. I'm not saying there is a diagnosis only that I recognise this trait, from some experience.

What's the relevance of your link to what I posted? You posted that link as a response. If it's so obvious what the relevance is to the material you responded to,, just write it out. Shouldn't be too hard.

It's not a good idea to assume what another person means, usually. Even though I might think your purpose in posting that link in response to my post is obvious, I could be wrong. If I type out some sort of a rebuttal, and incorrectly state your point in posting it, then you may well take umbrage to me putting words in your mouth. I gave you the courtesy of simply asking for you to explain your own point, rather than doing it for you. If that's something objectionable to you, then I most humbly apologize.

[Coito ergo sum]

An emotionally devoid outline isn't clear enough for you?

Not one written as incoherently as yours.

[Gallstones]

An emotionally devoid outline isn't clear enough for you?

Not one written as incoherently as yours.

This is pitiful.

[Atheist-Lite]

An emotionally devoid outline isn't clear enough for you?

Not one written as incoherently as yours.

This is pitiful.

ASD? Your verdict?

[Coito ergo sum]

An emotionally devoid outline isn't clear enough for you?

Not one written as incoherently as yours.

This is pitiful.

You could always be productive and explain to me what "assumptions" you think I'm trapped in.

Discussions are processes where one person makes another person understand their side of something, or their view or opinion. If one person doesn't "understand" the other, the mature thing to do is to try again to explain.

I know it's crazy to think that a discussion thread about women at atheist/skeptic events being made to feel uncomfortable and why and how ought to engender some in depth discussion, and not just unchallenged exchanges of opinions. After all, this is in the "Serious Stuff" section and the "General Serious DISCUSSION..." section.

That is, of course, what I was doing. You preferred to turn this into a "bash Coito" fest, and launch ad hominem attacks on me because you think I am incapable of "getting it." Now you think what you decided to start is "pitiful?" That's rich....

[Gallstones]

An emotionally devoid outline isn't clear enough for you?

Not one written as incoherently as yours.

This is pitiful.

You could always be productive and explain to me what "assumptions" you think I'm trapped in.

Discussions are processes where one person makes another person understand their side of something, or their view or opinion. If one person doesn't "understand" the other, the mature thing to do is to try again to explain.

I know it's crazy to think that a discussion thread about women at atheist/skeptic events being made to feel uncomfortable and why and how ought to engender some in depth discussion, and not just unchallenged exchanges of opinions. After all, this is in the "Serious Stuff" section and the "General Serious DISCUSSION..." section.

That is, of course, what I was doing. You preferred to turn this into a "bash Coito" fest, and launch ad hominem attacks on me because you think I am incapable of "getting it." Now you think what you decided to start is "pitiful?" That's rich....

Assumption number one--that I would be uncomfortable.
I have clearly said I would not.
I can't speak for anyone else though and it is unproductive for me to speculate on any one else's behalf.

What is pitiful is you being unable to understand an outline.

Poor you, being picked on.
You might try not being so condescending. It would amuse us me less.

[Atheist-Lite]

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?

[Gallstones]

I swear the words look like English but communication is not happening.

Coito, I think you are trying to make this an objective concern.
It's not. It is subjective and each individual is going to have something different--and personal--to say about it.
Therefore, no one single individual can answer the OP. And for all in tents and porpoises intents and purposes, the question will never be answered.

There are aspects of this topic you are never going to understand. And that will affect communication on it.
Rather than see me as an obstacle try and accept that my perspective is 180 degrees out of faze with yours. I would think that might add value to the discussion that would not otherwise be there.