Women at Atheist/Skeptic Events - Uncomfortable?

[Coito ergo sum]

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?

Not to me. I don't mind at all if the bus take a long time to get there. I just prefer to talk about the issue, and there is nothing wrong with trying to clarify people's arguments that don't make sense at first blush. All I've tried to do is go a little deeper in their reasoning to facilitate a clear understanding of their position. The problem appears to be that some of the arguments/positions taken by some folks here don't stand up to scrutiny, so when the arguments/positions are probed in more detail, people react as we have seen them react - by having fits.

[Coito ergo sum]

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

Coito, I think you are trying to make this an objective concern.

I was just trying to explore your position on this a little deeper.

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

That's what the thread is about. Do you agree with the statement? If so, why? If women are "made" to feel uncomfortable, how is that?

Is it because of the rape statistics?

It's not. It is subjective and each individual is going to have something different--and personal--to say about it.

That's fine. But, even if you, Gallstones, says, "I'm a woman and I am not made to feel uncomfortable at atheist events" is it really beyond your ability to grasp that this has nothing much to do with the question of whether there are still more men that women at skeptic and atheist events and part of it is because women are made to feel uncomfortable. Do YOU really not "get" that distinction? Really?

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.

Nobody is suggesting there is one inarguable definitive answer, or only one possible answer. But, it does seem that "the question" that you are answering is not the one posed in the OP. That's fine, but I just want to be clear about what you're saying. You seem to be saying that women will have lots of different views on sexual assault, rape, gender relations, discrimination, sexism, etc., because they all have lots of different experiences, personal experiences, in that regard. Sure - I get that. But, surely you get that what I'm talking about is Skepchick's assertion that there are still more men that women at skeptic and atheist events and part of it is because women are made to feel uncomfortable, and that there may be individuals who can provide answers like, "Yes, I agree with Skepchick and I think a lot of women are made uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic conventions because [insert reasons here]." With all due respect, saying - "I wouldn't be uncomfortable, and I've been really pissed off at asshole guys who hit on me and don't take no for an answer and get all pissy and threatening about it" doesn't exactly go to the issue, now does it?

There are aspects of this topic you are never going to understand. And that will affect communication on it.

Please: what is it that you think this topic is?

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.

I'm not sure that it is, actually. You wouldn't be uncomfortable there, you say. Well, I think that most women are perfectly capable of going to atheist/skeptic meetings, just like you could, and not be rendered "uncomfortable" there under normal circumstances.

You haven't expressed an opinion as to whether Skepchick is correct, and you've said it wouldn't be productive of you to do so, because you can't speak for other people. Good. I certainly will respect that - but, it also means that there ends your contribution to the SPECIFIC ISSUE raised in the OP. I can certainly respect and understand your personal feelings about experiences that happened to you in particular, though, for what that's worth, and I have not now, nor have I ever, tried to tell you how you should feel or think about that.

[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.

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.)

But there's a big difference between discomfort/fear/nervousness and boredom. I avoid baby showers not because of the high female:male ratio, but because I find baby showers to be boring. If someone were to invite me to a baby shower with assurance that this particular baby shower would have a good male to female ratio, I would still be disinclined to attend.

[Gallstones]

Frustration has peaked.
Apathy is rising.

[Gallstones]

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

[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?

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?

Well, that was one of Watson's assertions, and and it was sort of a general impression I got from reading this thread. Perhaps you're not part of the consensus that I'm perceiving.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Oh, you have a problem with being insulting? Could have fooled me...

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

That wouldn't adequately test the issue. The SciAm article was posted in response to a specific post of mine. It was not evident to me why. So, all I did was politely ask the guy to explain why he posted it in response to my post. I didn't realize, Ronja, that doing that was somehow so rude that you now have to spend days lecturing me on it. Note - I only posted the arbitrary foxnews link after he sarcastically responded to my polite inquiry. Did you even notice that? Or, you just don't care, because you feel like jumping down my throat? Everyone can be rude as fuck to me - but, if I say anything back - even relatively tamely posting an arbitrary link (to illustrate why I was asking him to explain why he posted his link in response to me) is now somehow a breach of etiquette? Come the fuck on...

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.

This discussion, or my specific post for which the link was offered as a response.

And, again - I repeat - all I wanted to know was why Crumple posted the link. A short explanation - "I thought the link demonstrated X, Y or Z" would have sufficed. Instead, I got a sarcastic answer, and then diagnosed with autism. And, you think I'm the one whose been rude on this thread? Are you kidding?

[Coito ergo sum]

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?

[Ronja]

Coito, you really are not getting Gallstones' point: not one woman here can speak for women in general. Each of us can report about what she has experienced and observed, what other women have told, and about the research she has stumbled across. Each of us can also create analogies and speculate based on the things she knows (as can be seen in this thread). However, AFAIK not one Rat (male or female) is an experienced researcher regarding the topic "How women view atheist/skeptic/science events - why women attend or don't attend?" You cannot realistically expect "general" answers of us as a group or as individuals, and it does not look nice or smart if you act surprised or disappointed when your expectation proves to have been unrealistic.

If you really want general / generalizable answers, you have to study what research there is.

[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?

Well, that was one of Watson's assertions, and and it was sort of a general impression I got from reading this thread. Perhaps you're not part of the consensus that I'm perceiving.

Watson speaks only for herself.
Does she believe what she says--I don't know. It isn't unreasonable to assume she does.
Who does she speak for? I don't know, they'd have to come out and state their agreement with her.
How many would that be? I don't know.
I expect it would be a smaller minority than the alleged minority who are actually discomforted about alleged behavior at these specific events.

I think it is pretty clear that I form my own opinions about things, and that I am not in the alleged Watson consensus.

So, who here do you think is then?
Can we establish that?

[Seabass]

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.

Sure, I agree that the real reasons for low female attendance to certain social gatherings are complex. In fact, that's exactly why I have a problem with Watson's assertion that low female attendance at atheist events has something to do with fear of harassment. Woman still manage to get out to other types of social gatherings despite those kinds of fears.

[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.

[Gallstones]

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.

[Gallstones]

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?

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

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

I quoted it, but I didn't take it out of context. I quoted it and linked to the entire blog post. The full context was there. And, this "you've taken it out of context" assertion is easily solvable - put it in context. Go ahead.

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.

Sooooo.... women are made to feel uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic events? By men? How?

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.

Yes! Is one of the reason or influences in the equation that women are made to feel uncomfortable at atheist/skeptic events? If so, how? Is it the mere presence of men? How are they "made" to feel uncomfortable at atheist skeptic events.

Maybe the answer is - they aren't really "made" to feel uncomfortable at atheist skeptic events in the sense that the men there are doing or saying something in particular that makes women uncomfortable, it's just society as a whole which has such a complex array of influences that women are just naturally uncomfortable at some public gatherings, including atheist/skeptic gatherings. One might then see the next question, as Seabass did, to be "well...what about the atheist/skeptic gatherings is special and makes women uncomfortable there? Is it the mere population disparity men-to-women?" But, at least there, we're getting somewhere.

And, is it possible that as a result of our culture, one of the influences is that a lot more men than women are interested in the topics, discussions and debates at these conventions, just as more men than women are into Avalon Hill war gaming conventions? Is that really not a possible influence?