Women at Atheist/Skeptic Events - Uncomfortable?

[Gallstones]

Coito, it seems to me that you are trying to make all women responsible for what one has said. Like we have to explain for her. I don't even know her.

[Coito ergo sum]

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

Here? I don't think anyone has committed to that position.

I refer you back to the OP: Skepchick, Rebecca Watson said, there are still more men that women at skeptic and atheist events and part of it is because women are made to feel uncomfortable." So, if the vast majority of women are actually, in reality, not uncomfortable at these events, then the answer to my question in the OP is simple: Skepchick is wrong, and women are not generally made to feel uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic events.

She's "right" as far as she is concerned, her personal POV, herself.
Doesn't it just begin and end there?

I wouldn't think so. If it did, then there would be precious few threads on the philosophy, art, politics, science, and the rest of the serious discussion topics. And, each one would involve no discussion. Everyone would just be "right" as far as he or she is concerned, her personal POV, herself. All threads would begin and end there.

But, the reality is - her claim is one of fact - she can be wrong about it.

Anyone not sharing Watson's opinion wouldn't commit to it. Strange choice of words.

What are you upset about now?

Nobody would commit to being "uncomfortable" at atheist/skeptic events. In this context "commit" means - adopt or take that position - to align oneself. What in the wrong is "strange" about that? Ah, forget it....I can see you'll just pick a fight on anything....

[Gallstones]

I'm not upset.

This might be a good time to point out that you are ascribing emotions to my posts that I am simply not feeling. An example of you assuming something. It might also be that this has happened more than once and only contributes to the frustration and communication failures.

Again, I must

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, it seems to me that you are trying to make all women responsible for what one has said. Like we have to explain for her. I don't even know her.

Responsible? Not at all. No women are responsible for what anyone else says.

Skepchick made an assertion, and she made the assertion on a wider blog post which I linked, so one can see why and where she made the assertion. One either agrees with it or not. If you don't, then fine. You don't. I don't. I'm not making you "responsible" for what she said.

You don't have to explain anything, o.k.? I don't care if you opine here or not. And, it makes not one bit of difference whether or not you "know" her any more than it matters that you know some Christian creationist making an assertion but can take issue with that. Why do you have to know the person? The assertion is made - it stands or falls - you either agree with it, or you don't.

Christ on a bicycle....

[hadespussercats]

I find baby showers and most "female" events boring.

Yeah, they can be.

To get back to Seabass's comment on this, though--
Maybe the difference, Seabass, is that you don't ever feel physically or sexually intimidated around women.

I don't know your background, but I'll take a shot in the dark, here--
What if you were invited to a Bears' Night Out?
Some convention of big, burly gay men?
Can you picture feeling uncomfortable?

To make the parallel more clear, keep in mind that none of the bears might even find you attractive. They might not feel like, in talking to you over drinks or whatever, that anything they're saying might make you uncomfortable, or seem like a come-on. But could you picture maybe feeling extra-sensitive to that possibility?

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm not upset.

This might be a good time to point out that you are ascribing emotions to my posts that I am simply not feeling. An example of you assuming something. It might also be that this has happened more than once and only contributes to the frustration and communication failures.

Your posts come across as if you're upset. If not, only you can know that, and I'll certainly take your word for it. You have no trouble making similar "assumptions" about my posts.

[Coito ergo sum]

I
Again, I must

Believe me, double face palms coming your way quite often.... I am fascinated by the fact that you actually seem to believe that you make rational sense. Fascinating.

[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.

I understand that perfectly.

However, I wouldn't blame the women at the bridal shower for "making" me uncomfortable because they are engaging in normal behavior. And, if I then made the statement that "there are still more women that men at bridal shower events and part of it is because men are made to feel uncomfortable." If I said that, I guarantee that women would be outraged by being accused en masse of making men uncomfortable, and being asked to change normal, unobtrusive, lawful behaviors in order to make men more welcomed at bridal showers.

You see - that's the conundrum here - or part of it - that's why I have been asking if women would explain exactly how they are "made" to feel uncomfortable. Because to me, if it's mere male presence that is "making" a woman feel uncomfortable, there is little that I would think ought to be done about it. If, however, there is some thing happening or something being done that has the direct and proximate result of causing women to feel so uncomfortable that they won't even show up to a place where they otherwise want to go, I would certainly want to look long and hard at being part of the solution in fixing that.

See?

Yes, I see.

I wonder, though-- does "made to feel uncomfortable" necessarily mean that men are trying to make women feel uncomfortable? I think it's possible to interpret that phrase in a more passive-voiced way-- i.e.- This situation made me feel uncomfortable, even though no one there was consciously trying to make me feel that way.

But, it's possible that the term was used in the latter sense, an active making someone uncomfortable. Men might do this unwittingly-- there doesn't need to be nefarious intent involved for someone to make someone else feel uncomfortable.

But many women in this thread, and many women in cited articles, have tried to explain specific ways men in these situations might, wittingly or unwittingly, make a woman feel uncomfortable, and have explained how to try to avoid making that happen. It seems that your reaction to these suggestions is to write them off as unreasonable. Which you can do. But then, it's difficult to believe you mean what you say when you say: "I would certainly want to look long and hard at being part of the solution in fixing that."

[Gallstones]

"Opine"?

Even your terminology is condescending. And you complain that you are being bashed. (your words BTW).

[Coito ergo sum]

I seriously don't understand how the comments of two people--Watson and Dawkins--have become the phenomenon it has.
I think the importance ascribed to this has been way overblown and may have more to do with something not said than what has been said.

Perhaps.

I think it became very popular because when Watson called what most men, and a lot of women, seem to think are rather benign, if perhaps inappropriate or ill-timed, comments, "sexual objectification" and "misogyny." Ultimately, it means that any pick-up line that a woman doesn't welcome at the moment turns the man into a misogynist and an objectifier (since every woman, and not just Watson, claims the right to draw their line wherever they want - it's an elevator at 4am for Watson, for another woman, it might be the same thing said to her sitting at a bar).

So, when she claimed it was sexual objectification and misogyny, Dawkins went off on her, pointing out that this really wasn't a big deal and wasn't objectification or misogyny, and that real objectification and misogyny takes place in places where women can't drive or dress themselves the way they want.

When Dawkins chimed in, then it became a big deal, because a big dog was ranting about it. And, then PZ, another big dog, chimed in, and then everyone took sides. So, now we have an ongoing saga.

I personally became fascinated by the content of Skepchick's posts and comments on this topic, because I was genuinely shocked that someone could hold the views she holds, I find them so unsupportable in reason and logic that I find it almost impossible to believe that someone of above-average intelligence could hold them. So, I've been looking into Skepchick's educational background - can't find anything on the web. She doesn't have a detailed bio anywhere that I can find. I have a sneaking suspicion she's just not that bright or educated, and just has learned to be a fairly entertaining speaker able to parrot other people's stuff.

IMHO.

[Gallstones]

I'm not upset.

This might be a good time to point out that you are ascribing emotions to my posts that I am simply not feeling. An example of you assuming something. It might also be that this has happened more than once and only contributes to the frustration and communication failures.

Your posts come across as if you're upset. If not, only you can know that, and I'll certainly take your word for it. You have no trouble making similar "assumptions" about my posts.

You are reading "upset" in what I posted. That is you--you are doing that. That is an assumption.
Even if I am ever upset, so what? BFD.

[Coito ergo sum]

"Opine"?

Even your terminology is condescending. And you complain that you are being bashed. (your words BTW).

Opine is condescending? Seriously?

A person rendering an opinion "opines." What else should I say?

I guess pardon my vocabulary...jeez....

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm not upset.

This might be a good time to point out that you are ascribing emotions to my posts that I am simply not feeling. An example of you assuming something. It might also be that this has happened more than once and only contributes to the frustration and communication failures.

Your posts come across as if you're upset. If not, only you can know that, and I'll certainly take your word for it. You have no trouble making similar "assumptions" about my posts.

You are reading "upset" in what I posted. That is you--you are doing that. That is an assumption.
Even if I am ever upset, so what? BFD.

Let it go...

I told you that's how your posts came across. You've said you're not upset, and I accepted your word on it.

[Gallstones]

I
Again, I must

Believe me, double face palms coming your way quite often.... I am fascinated by the fact that you actually seem to believe that you make rational sense. Fascinating.

Interesting, because I can't make heads or tails about what your point is either.

I am not fascinated, more agog that you don't recognize your own lack of logic and your own hipocrisy.

[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.

I understand that perfectly.

However, I wouldn't blame the women at the bridal shower for "making" me uncomfortable because they are engaging in normal behavior. And, if I then made the statement that "there are still more women that men at bridal shower events and part of it is because men are made to feel uncomfortable." If I said that, I guarantee that women would be outraged by being accused en masse of making men uncomfortable, and being asked to change normal, unobtrusive, lawful behaviors in order to make men more welcomed at bridal showers.

You see - that's the conundrum here - or part of it - that's why I have been asking if women would explain exactly how they are "made" to feel uncomfortable. Because to me, if it's mere male presence that is "making" a woman feel uncomfortable, there is little that I would think ought to be done about it. If, however, there is some thing happening or something being done that has the direct and proximate result of causing women to feel so uncomfortable that they won't even show up to a place where they otherwise want to go, I would certainly want to look long and hard at being part of the solution in fixing that.

See?

Another thought re- the bridal party analogy-- co-ed bridal showers are in fact becoming more common ( someone even threw one for J and me, back in the day.) And there is in fact some effort made, generally, to make the shower more appealing for men-- less of the "let's make wedding dresses out of toilet paper!" or "let's predict how many babies you'll have!" types of games (Yuck!), more co-ed gifts like kitchen gadgets and barware, more cocktails, that sort of thing.

People who want to host events the participants will enjoy-- whether bridal showers or skeptic conferences-- tend to be more successful when they care about the attendants enjoying themselves, and tailor their planning accordingly, with a minimum of outrage.