Women at Atheist/Skeptic Events - Uncomfortable?

[Ronja]

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

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

[Gallstones]

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

[Gallstones]

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

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

[hadespussercats]

CES wrote: I would say to women, thought, that the dork in the elevator who clumsily hits on your and takes your no for an answer and moves on is not the guy you ought to worry about. The guy to worry about is a smooth talker who can disarm you.

I don't know why you're so sure only smooth talkers could be bad guys.

I didn't say only, did I?

Sounds like a throwback to old ideas about the smooth-talking Devil.

Women will worry about what they worry about. That may or may not be reasonable. Either way, they are more informed about their reasons for worrying than you can be, so, whatever. Not sure why you think women want your opinion on this.

Another issue men should just shut up about?

But you're entitled to your opinion.

Thanks, so are you.

What I don't understand is how on one hand you talk about a desire to tackle the issue of women feeling uncomfortable, while on the other hand you get miffed when women talk about being uncomfortable, and wonder why women think they have the right to try to avoid being made uncomfortable.

I haven't gotten miffed when women talk about being uncomfortable. Frankly, Gallstones didn't talk about being uncomfortable - quite the opposite - she said she would not be uncomfortable at all. Ronja didn't say she would be uncomfortable, and in fact quite the opposite, she said she participates in lots of activities that are predominantly or traditionally majority male. And, you too didn't really say you'd be uncomfortable, as far as I can tell - I think you said you were uncomfortable at a D&D event at some point when you were younger, but I don't think you said you'd be uncomfortable just going to an atheist or skeptic event. So, where have I gotten miffed when women talk about being uncomfortable? You and I discussed this issue in depth, and we were having a nice, serious discussion about this. What happened?

And, I don't wonder why women think they have the right to try to be avoid being made uncomfortable. I think they have every right to be made uncomfortable. I just think Skepchick is wrong when she says that women are generally made to feel uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic conventions. I don't see any evidence for it. I agree with Gallstones that men sometimes make women feel uncomfortable, but I don't see it as being worse at atheist/skeptic conventions, so I don't see it as explaining why women don't go there, as opposed to elsewhere (a point Seabass made).

Like the issue of offense, you're not required to care about other people's discomfort. But you seem to be riding both sides of the issue-- claiming to want to understand and lessen the discomfort of women, but being offended yourself at being asked to consider the discomfort of women.

Women can't force other people to make them comfortable. But there's nothing wrong with women trying to improve their situation if they do feel uncomfortable, by explaining why, and hoping other people care.

You don't have to care. But... you don't have a special right to avoid what seems to me to be perceived on your part as the offense of some women feeling uncomfortable, and talking about how they wish they didn't, and what things would have to change for that to be achieved.

The implication that I don't care is coming out of nowhere here. I do care. Nor have I claimed any special right. I've been trying to rationally discuss the issue in the OP with you. I thought we were doing well, but apparently I was wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

That could be a mistaken perception on my part.

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

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

[hadespussercats]

What conditions might prevent women from attending atheist/skeptic/similar blah blah blah events?
What conditions might be a cultural status quo that the women accept as their duty?

Their children.
Because it is still the expected norm that the women will be primary in caring for their children. The men are allowed to be unfettered from doing the bulk of the childcare.

How many children do you see at these events?
Do the event organizers ever provide child care on premises so more women can attend?

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

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

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

[Gallstones]

And, I don't wonder why women think they have the right to try to be avoid being made uncomfortable.

Grammar.

I think they have every right to be made uncomfortable.

Huh?

I just think Skepchick is wrong when she says that women are generally made to feel uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic conventions. I don't see any evidence for it.

I think she overemphasized it as a reason.

I agree with Gallstones...

.....that men sometimes make women feel uncomfortable, but I don't see it as being worse at atheist/skeptic conventions, so I don't see it as explaining why women don't go there, as opposed to elsewhere (a point Seabass made).

Men make some women feel uncomfortable in some situations; women make some men feel uncomfortable in some situations, and so it has been for millenia (no I'm not going to substantiate that). There are many situations and an atheist event would not be unique in character such that the male majority who attend would be changed by it into horny, slavering, ogling boobs.

Sure as I am here causing Coito to get all emotional with my snark and my ways, there are additional reasons for the low attendance of women at atheist/skeptic events and their ilk.

[Ronja]

A few further thoughts on why childcare especially for the younger kids (2-4 year olds) in connection to our Finnish freethinker events could be important:

Our experience and the experience of many secular parents whom MiM and/or I have spoken with and whose posts we have read on the Finnish freethinker forum is that until the kid(s) go to daycare, secularism/atheism/youchooseaname is not a big deal in our lives - it's not something we think about that much. But as we do not have separation of church and state in Finland yet (and don't believe the xian/political apologists who claim otherwise!) the Evangelic Lutheran Church of Finland (ELCoF) has close ties to county day care. To our dismay, secular parents find that in pretty much all day care centers a representative of ELCoF comes around to sing and play with the kids about once a month, and in some day care centers even more often.

Now we do have the legal right to demand that our kids not be subjected to this religious indoctrination (which it is - again don't believe the xian/educational apologists who claim otherwise!) but many parents experience pressure from the day care personnel, for whom the time when the ELCoF person is in charge of the kids gives a valuable chance for meetings, organizing, in general doing stuff that is hard to do with the kids around. Parents hear comments like "It would be so much easier if your kid also participated..." or "What harm can it do?" and of course one also has to deal with the child's own aversion to being left out, to being different. It's emotionally tough and ethically/legally confusing, and this is the time in their lives that many people seek up their local freethinker organizations for the first time.

Yet the time when the kid(s) is/are day care age is often also quite tough when it comes to finding a) any time for the parents to spend together, without the kid(s) and b) any time for each parent's own hobbies and interests. So when many parents would need to come to our meetings the most, it is also the hardest for them. And coming to our meetings together could to some extent also answer the need for grown-up time as a couple, I think.

Lack of child care had stopped me from attending our chapter's (or should I say "affiliate's"?) meetings when MiM has been on a business trip and it has stopped him from attending when I have had lectures in the evening at the campus. When we have been able to alternate which one of us attends, we have been a bit sad that we have not been able to go together. Now that the kids are older, we can leave them for a couple of hours in the evening, but our need for peer support was the greatest when the practical realities of freedom of and from religion in Finland dawned on us for the first time (and we were tolerably well prepared - it did not come as a complete surprise to us).


Please note: the purpose of this post is not to claim that lack of child care would be the only or even the most important reason why women do not show up at atheist/skeptic/etc events in general.

[Coito ergo sum]

Do the event organizers ever provide child care on premises so more women can attend?

Not that I've seen. That may well be a good suggestion...

I will point out that this suggestion does - when applied to the OP - become "Skepchick is wrong about women not attending because they are made to feel uncomfortable - the reality is, if there was child care available, the numbers would be closer to equal because women with children who wish they could attend would be able to attend."

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

I wasn't being sarcastic toward Gallstones there. I threw that out there to get a response. If she agrees, fine. If she doesn't, then the next question will be: O.k., so how, specifically at atheist/skeptic events, are women made to feel uncomfortable again?

The point being - if childcare access is the issue, then that is solved one way - by finding a way to provide more child care. But if being made, at atheist/skeptic events specifically, to feel uncomfortable, then the solution would be something else. Wouldn't it?

[Coito ergo sum]

I doubt that there is one reason why women don't attend these events in larger numbers.

That plainly may be true. However, that doesn't mean we can't identify some of them. Identifying the causes is the first step to finding a cure. If we just have to throw up our hands and say "it could be any number of reasons" then we can't really offer solutions.

I expect there would be many factors and that some men would share in those factors, but because there is already a large enough attendance by men the factors that might prevent some men from attending aren't considered.

Well, there are going to be a myriad reasons why people don't attend conferences - the number one reason is probably lack of interest/desire - another might be lack of time - inability to travel to the location - work schedule - family commitments - the list can go on and on. That's why the OP is narrowly tailored toward the assertion that women are made to feel uncomfortable at skeptic/atheist events, and that's why there is a dearth of females at the events.

I also don't think Skepchick is "wrong", as I am confident that some women probably don't attend because they don't feel comfortable being a minority.

The assertion is that women being made to feel uncomfortable is why there are so few women - not merely that a few women have been made to feel uncomfortable. It's offered to explain why the attendance is overwhelmingly male, like to the point of 90-10 ratio. It's offered as an overwhelming, overarching cause.

I mean - if discomfort is only applicable to a few women, then it's not that big of a problem, is it? I mean, if removing the "discomfort" factor only, say, raised the attendance proporation of women by 1%, one would hardly consider "men making women feel uncomfortable at atheist events" a significant factor in the failure of women to attend in large numbers.

The only reason this factor is offered by Skepchick is because she thinks it's the dominant factor, and apparently many women think so too -- i.e., remove the fact that men make women uncomfortable at atheist events, and the numbers would be more equal, or significantly closer to equal. If that's not the case, then what is the bother?

But her's is but one factor of many. Therefore she is "right". It would be very difficult to fix that and maybe if other factors were addressed to satisfaction, Skepchicks problem need not be addressed at all.

O.k. - that's a fair point. You are right. If the number of women that are made to feel uncomfortable is very small, then solving that problem will not address too much the larger problem of overwhelming dearth of females at these events. I interpret that as Skepchick being "wrong" because she's plainly offering the discomfort of women as a predominant reason for their failure to attend. However, your statement is, I admit, correct.

Maybe some women don't attend because they already have lives filled with interesting activities and are just not interested?

Of course - but that's not a problem to be solved. Again - those claiming that women being made (by men) to feel uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic events is a major reason for the very low attendance numbers. There is no intimation that the discomfort issue is a minor problem. The opposite - Skepchick asserts that to get women to attend in greater numbers, we have to solve this problem of men making women uncomfortable in atheist events.

That would be another example of a factor that likely has no fix.

Sure - and most men who don't attend likely don't because of lives filled with intereresting activities and a lack of interest.

And, I will point out - go to the OP which you resoundingly ridiculed - where I wrote that I thought one of the main reason why women - or the main reason, IMO - that women did not attend in large numbers is because they lack interest in the subject matter. You lambasted me and ridiculed me for saying exactly what you just said. Lovely.

[Ronja]

if childcare access is the issue, then that is solved one way - by finding a way to provide more child care. But if being made, at atheist/skeptic events specifically, to feel uncomfortable, then the solution would be something else. Wouldn't it?

Coito, are you now suggesting that the availability of childcare in connection to atheist/skeptic/etc events would not influence if women feel more comfortable (better) about attending? In other word, are you suggesting that arrangements that through their existence acknowledge that women (and parents in general) are a part of the atheist/skeptic/etc community would have no effect on how comfortable women (and parents in general) feel about attending?

[Coito ergo sum]

Since I have never been to one, what happens at these events?

There are speakers and people sit in the audience and listen, and then there is mingling, and people usually have booths or tables set up hawking books and other wares.

What is talked about?

Depends on the conference. Videos are available on youtube.

They might simply be boring.

to most people, they would be insanely boring. That's the point I have been making. Most people are not interested in these things. I only added that in my view, fewer women than men are interested in these things. That should not be any more controversial than fewer men than women are interested in high-heeled shoes, or fewer women than men like professional American Football. It just appears to be the way it is - the demographic.

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

When I was involved in a leadership fashion, I wanted the numbers to be equal because I find groups where the numbers of men to women are more equal to be more interesting and fun. I didn't want to be have a guys club where I meet a bunch of geeky, egghead men - I like having women involved. It also becomes more social when men and women are together in groups. Also, for the health of these kinds of organizations, having more equal numbers is conducive to getting people to come back. If you market a group as "Hey! Come join our group! We have a bunch of men talking about the latest thoughts on religion, atheism, agnosticism, etc." I think you'll get fewer men and women wanting to attend regularly. If, however, you can show that you have a very nice mixed group, where people can actually socialize while also discussing the serious issues, I think the total membership base increases.

I also noticed that women who showed up and were the only woman out of 10 or with one other woman in a group of 20, tended not to participate much, and tended not to return. Maybe women feel out of place if they are in such low numbers - I wouldn't be surprised if men felt out of place if alone in a room full of women in a club or group. I would caution about calling that "being made to feel uncomfortable," though.

[Coito ergo sum]

if childcare access is the issue, then that is solved one way - by finding a way to provide more child care. But if being made, at atheist/skeptic events specifically, to feel uncomfortable, then the solution would be something else. Wouldn't it?

Coito, are you now suggesting that the availability of childcare in connection to atheist/skeptic/etc events would not influence if women feel comfortable (good) about attending?

I'm not sure your defining "made to feel uncomfortable," the same way I am. I don't interpret anything that Skepchick and others have been saying about women being made to feel uncomfortable to refer to the general good feeling about attending. I mean - men might well feel "good" about attending if they can bring their kids their too. That's not about whether someone is being "made to feel uncomfortable."

Are you suggesting that women are "made to feel uncomfortable" because not enough free child care services are provided on site?

In other word, are you suggesting that arrangements that through their existence acknowledge that women (and parents in general) are a part of the atheist/skeptic/etc community would have no effect on how comfortable women (and parents in general) feel about attending?

I think that's a completely different issue than someone being "made to feel uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic events."

Are you honestly suggesting that the reason women are "made to feel uncomfortable" is about the provision of childcare? That the lack of childcare is what "makes women feel uncomfortable?"

My interpretation of women being made to feel uncomfortable was that something was happening, something was going on, at atheist/skeptic events that make women feel uncomfortable.

[Ronja]

Coito, reading the above^^: are you still sticking to the strict interpretation of the "made to feel uncomfortable" wording: that someone must be doing something on purpose, and that and precisely that (and nothing else) is the problem that you want to address?

[Coito ergo sum]

I just think Skepchick is wrong when she says that women are generally made to feel uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic conventions. I don't see any evidence for it.

I think she overemphasized it as a reason.

Well, we certainly agree 100% there.

I agree with Gallstones...

.....that men sometimes make women feel uncomfortable, but I don't see it as being worse at atheist/skeptic conventions, so I don't see it as explaining why women don't go there, as opposed to elsewhere (a point Seabass made).

Men make some women feel uncomfortable in some situations; women make some men feel uncomfortable in some situations, and so it has been for millenia (no I'm not going to substantiate that). There are many situations and an atheist event would not be unique in character such that the male majority who attend would be changed by it into horny, slavering, ogling boobs.

And, therefore, it would not explain why women's attendance at atheist/skeptic events is so disproportionately low.

Sure as I am here causing Coito to get all emotional with my snark and my ways,

there are additional reasons for the low attendance of women at atheist/skeptic events and their ilk.

Nobody could possibly argue otherwise. Obviously, if not discomfort, the disproportionately low attendance of women at these events must be for "additional reasons."

[MiM]

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

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

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

Ronja seems to have missed/forgot, that our freethinkers group has also arranged a couple of "family gatherings" in the last months. We haven't attended, so I don't know any details, but as far as I understand the idea has been to meet at family friendly premise, where the adults can talk and socialise, while the kids get to play with each other.