Women at Atheist/Skeptic Events - Uncomfortable?

[Atheist-Lite]

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

Welcome to the nihilistic underground?

[Gallstones]

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

Welcome to the nihilistic underground?

Ha! I finally got in. Yay.

Are there hats or T-shirts? I'd like a T-shirt.

[Atheist-Lite]

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

Welcome to the nihilistic underground?

Ha! I finally got in. Yay.

Are there hats or T-shirts? I'd like a T-shirt.

The higher up the ranks you ascend the less you know, the more you know.

http://counterorder.com/

[Ronja]

I do think coito comparing a irrelavant link to my manifestly relavant one indicates a clear lack of insight...

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.

Possibly being wrong is hardly so dangerous that you need to behave in a purposely insulting manner (posting a completely irrelevant link), if you do not get exactly the kind of response that you would most prefer. Just saying.


This exchange also gave me an idea for an interlude (a shortish and somewhat controlled derail) to this thread:

Proposition to test how close to a common understanding about that SciAm link those who are interested in testing it came, if Crumple and Cormac are willing:

• * Cormac and Crumple give their OK or denial to the procedure below, in this thread
  * If both gave an OK, each interested person sends a PM to Cormac (who should not have any bias or other motive for twisting the results, AFAIU). The content of the PM shall be 1) A short explanation of why and how the SciAm article (link repeated below) is relevant to this discussion and 2) quotes: 1-3 not-too-long quotes of the most relevant / interesting parts of the article, in relation to this discussion
  * After a suitable time (one week should be enough, or?) Cormac posts an ANONYMIZED compilation of the PM's he got, in this thread

Here's the link: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/pri ... of-sexism/

And BTW I do not believe that there is one correct answer to "Why the link is relevant?" - I would just be fascinated to see how different people see that article in relation to this discussion.

Crumple, Cormac, what do you think? And is anyone else game?

[Seabass]

I don't "get it" either.

From what I can gather, the general consensus among female participants in this thread is that the dearth of women at atheist events is due to fears of sexual assault, objectification, staring, and other forms of unwanted male attention.

If this were true, wouldn't you have to expect a lack of women at all public gatherings? Yet there are plenty of public gatherings at which you can find a healthy male/female ratio: nightclubs, plays, operas, karaoke bars, concerts, zoos, theme parks, etc. From this, I'd have to conclude that lack of female attendance at atheist gatherings has more to do with lack of interest than discomfort.

Am I missing something? What makes atheist gatherings so much more discomforting than other kinds of public gatherings?

[hadespussercats]

I don't "get it" either.

From what I can gather, the general consensus among female participants in this thread is that the dearth of women at atheist events is due to fears of sexual assault, objectification, staring, and other forms of unwanted male attention.

If this were true, wouldn't you have to expect a lack of women at all public gatherings? Yet there are plenty of public gatherings at which you can find a healthy male/female ratio: nightclubs, plays, operas, karaoke bars, concerts, zoos, theme parks, etc. From this, I'd have to conclude that lack of female attendance at atheist gatherings has more to do with lack of interest than discomfort.

Am I missing something? What makes atheist gatherings so much more discomforting than other kinds of public gatherings?

You're just not accounting for the impact of proportions-- one woman in a sea of fifty men, for example. Picture the reverse-- say you were invited to a bridal shower, or some other event widely understood to attract a largely feminine crowd, engaged in activities that, rightly or wrongly, are seen as the province of women.

Do you think you might feel uncomfortable? Out of place? Scrutinized?

If so-- you understand the case in point.

[Gallstones]

I don't "get it" either.

From what I can gather, the general consensus among female participants in this thread is that the dearth of women at atheist events is due to fears of sexual assault, objectification, staring, and other forms of unwanted male attention.

If this were true, wouldn't you have to expect a lack of women at all public gatherings? Yet there are plenty of public gatherings at which you can find a healthy male/female ratio: nightclubs, plays, operas, karaoke bars, concerts, zoos, theme parks, etc. From this, I'd have to conclude that lack of female attendance at atheist gatherings has more to do with lack of interest than discomfort.

Am I missing something? What makes atheist gatherings so much more discomforting than other kinds of public gatherings?

I have said more than once, that I would not be discomforted and that I would have no problem attending an atheist/skeptics event alone. I don't get why that's not being got.

Who here has said they would be too uncomfortable to go and that the reason for the discomfort is fear of sexual harassment?

[Atheist-Lite]

I don't mind - my own opinion is likely to rambling since I'm not a trained debater unlike others here. That is to be understood.

[Gallstones]

I don't mind - my own opinion is likely to rambling since I'm not a trained debater unlike others here. That is to be understood.

Like, for instance....what the hell are you talking about?


Imagining Coito walking into a room full of people like you and me.
I wonder if he would be uncomfortable?

[Ronja]

What makes atheist gatherings so much more discomforting than other kinds of public gatherings?

That question is assbackwards, IMO - just as assbackwards as Coito's using "Assertion 1: ..." taken out of its context.

If I may use an analogy here, posing the question / framing the problem in such ways is like asking "Why does this branch cause the tree to grow that way?". Then, when others try to explain that a) the effect most likely is more from the tree towards the branch (though undoubtedly there is some biofeedback from the branch towards the whole tree, too) and b) more importantly, the tree is part of a forest, which influences the growth of all trees there and the forest is further influenced by the varying soil types and the river that runs in the valley and the form of the valley (due to how the winds typically blow) and the forest fire that raged 30 years ago, the person making the original query gets angry and claims that others are being mean (or incompetent) and don't want to (or are not able to) answer the original question.

I sincerely hope that analogy makes sense, because I cannot ATM think of a more concrete way of explaining why I think this discussion is frustrating.

What I'm trying to get at with that analogy: any form of human group behavior (e.g. why there are so markedly more men than women at atheist events) is, by its nature, a multi-variable, complex system with several paths of feedback, which interact with each other somewhat chaotically, though not necessarily without identifiable trends and patterns. Trying to isolate just one aspect / question and analyze / answer it separately from the whole system cannot lead to meaningful answers that actually strengthen our understanding of the phenomenon or its parts.

And as always, the above is is IMO - I cannot predict or vouch for anyone else's views or opinions.

[Seabass]

I don't "get it" either.

From what I can gather, the general consensus among female participants in this thread is that the dearth of women at atheist events is due to fears of sexual assault, objectification, staring, and other forms of unwanted male attention.

If this were true, wouldn't you have to expect a lack of women at all public gatherings? Yet there are plenty of public gatherings at which you can find a healthy male/female ratio: nightclubs, plays, operas, karaoke bars, concerts, zoos, theme parks, etc. From this, I'd have to conclude that lack of female attendance at atheist gatherings has more to do with lack of interest than discomfort.

Am I missing something? What makes atheist gatherings so much more discomforting than other kinds of public gatherings?

You're just not accounting for the impact of proportions-- one woman in a sea of fifty men, for example. Picture the reverse-- say you were invited to a bridal shower, or some other event widely understood to attract a largely feminine crowd, engaged in activities that, rightly or wrongly, are seen as the province of women.

Do you think you might feel uncomfortable? Out of place? Scrutinized?

If so-- you understand the case in point.

Not uncomfortable. Bored, more likely.

[Ronja]

Oh, and for the record: I have been to local atheist events, and seen that at least some women get not-entirely-welcome extra attention (including myself, though I cut it short with a few evasive maneuvers), especially when some men have had a certain amount of alcohol. I'm pretty experiences and don't scare easily, though, and anyway most of the people at these events rock, so I'm going to go again, when timetables etc. allow.

[hadespussercats]

I don't "get it" either.

From what I can gather, the general consensus among female participants in this thread is that the dearth of women at atheist events is due to fears of sexual assault, objectification, staring, and other forms of unwanted male attention.

If this were true, wouldn't you have to expect a lack of women at all public gatherings? Yet there are plenty of public gatherings at which you can find a healthy male/female ratio: nightclubs, plays, operas, karaoke bars, concerts, zoos, theme parks, etc. From this, I'd have to conclude that lack of female attendance at atheist gatherings has more to do with lack of interest than discomfort.

Am I missing something? What makes atheist gatherings so much more discomforting than other kinds of public gatherings?

You're just not accounting for the impact of proportions-- one woman in a sea of fifty men, for example. Picture the reverse-- say you were invited to a bridal shower, or some other event widely understood to attract a largely feminine crowd, engaged in activities that, rightly or wrongly, are seen as the province of women.

Do you think you might feel uncomfortable? Out of place? Scrutinized?

If so-- you understand the case in point.

Not uncomfortable. Bored, more likely.

Ding Ding Ding! Another reason a woman might not choose to attend an atheist conference.

But you see what I'm getting at, don't you?

What if I made the example a baby shower? A bachelorette party? (And picture this latter with drunken women you might not find attractive, who are all grabbing at you-- not that this is necessarily the case at an atheist conference, but is the sort of environment Skepchick seems to be concerned with-- i.e.- the situation in the OP.)

[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....

Assumption number one--that I would be uncomfortable.

Never made that assumption.

I have clearly said I would not.

It's not about you in particular. I've said that before too.

I can't speak for anyone else though and it is unproductive for me to speculate on any one else's behalf.

Then why bother commenting at all? This is about women in general at atheist/skeptic events. Skepchick made a statement of general applicability about women. I'm analyzing that. It's not about Gallstones.

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

Your communication skills are what's pitiful.

Poor you, being picked on.

I don't feel like I'm being picked on. I feel like you're more interested in ad hominem and bullshit rants then discussing the issue.

You might try not being so condescending. It would amuse us me less.

You are in no position to talk.

[Gallstones]

Holyfuckingchrist.