Why Aren't There More Women In Atheism?

[joreth]

Question:
Why aren't there more women involved in atheism & skepticism, and in particular, why don't they come to the conferences?

Answer:
Well, besides daycare and expense issues, many of us don't come because we feel we are often dismissed, judged for our looks first and brains second (if at all), ignored, talked over, condescended to, hit on, and there is an underlying attitude of sexism and misogyny, not to mention being outnumbered by so many men, even if they are being nice.  Sometimes, I even feel afraid for my own safety because my concerns are not taken seriously and my wishes to not be hit on are ignored.

Responses:

• "Smart women are hot."
• "Oh lighten up, you should be flattered that men want to hit on you!"
• "Consider yourself lucky that men hit on you! I wouldn't be upset if more women hit on me!"
• "Please, you're not pretty enough for anyone to hit on you or rape you, so relax."
• "You think you have problems? There are women in other countries who are being beaten and mutilated! You have no room to complain because of how good you have it here!"
• "Let's get some perspective on this. Men have problems too, y'know. We have to deal with you being afraid of us, and every so often, a man gets raped too."
• "The problem with women is that you're just too emotional. I understand that this is an emotional topic, but you're not discussing this in a rational manner. There's no evidence that any of this happens or that it's the reason why so many women stay away; you're just a single data point."
• "You used some words that I mistakenly attribute to man-hating feminazis because someone else told me that use of these words is anti-men. So I'm not even going to listen to your actual point because I don't like the words you used. Instead, I'm going to throw my own loaded terminology at you like 'feminist propaganda' and 'agenda' and 'reverse sexism' and then unironically complain about not getting your point across because I have a problem with the words you use."
• "You fucking bitch, I hope you get raped."
• "You're just an attention-whore."
• "*cough*dramaqueen*cough*"
• "Does getting all this attention from men get you wet? Because you seem like the kind of woman that does."
• "I'm totally going to cop a feel when I see you at the next convention.  What? It was just a joke!"
• "I'm going to drug you and rape you."

Several of these comments are direct quotes.  In fact, the most offensive ones are the direct quotes. So please do not tell me that I'm building straw men or overreacting. I have a right to be both afraid and angry at the way women are treated in this culture even though men can have bad things happen to them too and even though women in other countries have it worse.

Comments

[soopahgrover.livejournal.com]

This answer could go double for "Why aren't more women involved in politics?"

Why aren't there...

[ewen]

Sadly, it seems to be (much of) the answer to any variation on "Why aren't more women involved in FOO", at least for areas that attract "smart" people. The Open Source Software community (to pick an area I'm more familiar with) has been starting to recognise similar issues over the last couple of years (I think they've always been happening, but giving attention to it has reached critical mass recently). It made me sad to realise that for basically every tech-related conference I could think of in the last 5-10 years, something "bad" had happened (ranging from "inappropriate" to "icky" and on through "maybe we should call the police" to "the police were called" :-( ).

Which (as a man) is not a world I want to live in. But reality has been reminding me that it still appears to be the world we live in.

Ewen

[joreth]

I did see that parable and I loved it! In fact, it was the comments thread on that Blag Hag post that sparked this particular LJ entry. Several of the responses above are direct quotes that Rebecca Watson received for this whole mess, and a couple of them were paraphrases of comments that I received when I commented on Blag Hag.

The Dawkins thing is surprising, but is actually the least upsetting of all the responses I've seen so far. I can almost get the "why are you complaining, women have it far worse in other countries", especially if you understand what is meant by "privilege" (i.e. that parable).

I happen to agree with her, though, that I don't think he's a misogynist, that his sexism is a product of his privilege and not that he genuinely believes that women are inferior to men, and that I will not be boycotting his work just because he put his foot in his mouth so spectacularly in this case. I think he is a brilliant man who has done a lot to popularize atheism and science, who happened to step outside of his expertise and showed the entire world that he is not the Atheist Messiah Who Can Do No Wrong.

Thank you for posting the link, I hope the people who are reading my post come inside to see the comments and see that link.

[joreth]

I did see all the clammor from PZ about the "dictionary atheism" but I had not heard the explanation he was able to give to you. I'm glad to hear that cleared up, because what I saw seemed to be saying that "atheism is being opposed to god", which is not what it is AT ALL (and I happen to be one of those atheists who DO oppose the notion of god). I can see the rational behind PZ being annoyed with atheists who refuse to answer why they are atheist and only respond with "because I just don't". That's just not the impression he was giving. I'm a stickler for semantics, so the way he phrased his argument online just seemed to be grammatically and factually wrong even though my personal brand of atheism happens to be very similar to his.

I think one of the important lessons we can take away from the whole Dawkins/PZ/Phil Plait/Any Other Skeptic-Atheist problem is that the skeptic and atheist circles differ in a huge way from the theist communities in that we do not follow the Word Of Our Leaders. And that's a feature, IMO, not a bug. We say this all the time, with our citing of the Argument From Authority as one of the most common logical fallacies. Our "leaders" are people who have presented some ideas that stand on their own merits, and our "leaders" are still people who can also say some really stupid shit. Even rational skeptics and atheists have a tendency to idolize famous or important people, so this is a good reminder to stay focused on the claims or the arguments or the ideas and to not get too hung up on who is making them.

As to your question, my own personal experience is that this phenomenon is actually better at atheist cons vs. other types of conventions, however, being "better" makes it all the more important that we call out the little things when they happen - to make sure they never have a chance to grow into the big issues. But that statement should be qualified in two ways: 1) I have very little opportunity to actually go to specifically atheist or skeptical cons and 2) other types of cons are deliberately more sexualized in nature.

At D*C, I spend my time exclusively in the skeptics track, so although that is not an atheist convention, I see almost nothing of D*C EXCEPT the skeptic and atheist sub-con within it. And I see very little of this kind of behaviour in the hallways, meeting rooms, and parties that are dedicated to the skeptics track. That doesn't mean that it's not there, but I am very introverted, I am very strong-willed (and told that I'm intimidating in person), I am usually there with at least one of my boyfriends, and I'm often in some kind of sexy costume. So those might be some reasons why I don't see very much of this kind of blatant sexism at the D*C skeptics track, in spite of the fact that the attendees are made up of both skeptics and geeks - neither of which has a stellar reputation for being social graceful.

cont...

[joreth]

cont...


Other conventions, such as the rest of D*C, and the various sci-fi conventions I attend, have this sort of undercurrent of sexuality almost built into it. At sci-fi cons, women have the opportunity to dress sexy and indulge in choosing to sexualize themselves, which can be an empowering act when done willfully and deliberately. There's also the whole joke about con-sex and an "understanding" of going to cons with the intention to find sex partners just for the duration of the con. So it would be difficult for me to separate out the intentional sexualization that women are participating in, from the nonconsensual sexualizaiton that is being talked about in posts like mine.

The conventions I attend as an employee in my work as an entertainment tech have a mix of sexism and sexualized behaviour, depending on the specific convention, and the fact that I am there as an employee and not an attendee makes it hard to really tell what's going on. Some cons, by their very nature, are sexist, like the various religious conventions or the tent revivals. Promise Keepers is particularly sexist, but that's their whole schtic. Other, more neutral conventions, like insurance or tech conventions, have less obvious sexism built in, but there is a lot of sexualized activity. For instance, it's a fairly popular pastime for people to hookup with someone at a convention. I've always been a little shocked to see people at a conference with their coworkers and supervisors get falling-down drunk and make out under the spotlight towers. But people treat conferences like a vacation - it's an excuse to let loose and get a little out of control. The fact that their employers are also there with them doesn't matter because their employers are doing the exact same thing. Not being a member of that industry and only watching from the outside, it's hard for me to tell if it's sexist or if the women or uncomfortable, or if the women are getting just as much out of the permissible atmosphere as the men.

[petite-lambda.livejournal.com]

The most offensive ones were internet trolls, right? I mean, the "I'm going to rape you" and "I hope someone rapes you" ones. I'm just curious if someone actually said that face to face. Trolls have different mentality -- they try to think of the most offensive thing to say to any given person in any given moment, and say that.

[joreth]

Actually, I have heard these things in person. I can't speak for Rebecca, since I don't know which of her respondents she knows personally or not.

[joreth]

Different places. I've had people say these things to me at work, at nightclubs, walking down the street, at the mall, in front of a woman's clinic that performs abortions. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

It's the primary reason why, not only do I wear a switchblade on me at all times, but I don't hide that I do.

[joreth]

That's the problem - so many decent, respectful guys just *do not see* this kind of behaviour because they're guys. We have made so much progress in our society that it just boggles the mind to believe there are still people out there who behave like this. That's what makes it so frustrating to be told by people who have never and will never experience this sort of thing that we're being "too emotional" or to just get over it because it's "just words" or to hear that we shouldn't whine about men because they have it rough too.

I didn't even get into the worst of my stories, like having my arm popped out of my socket for rejecting a guy for a kiss, or being locked in a closet for a couple of hours as a way to "convince" me to make out with someone, or being duct taped to a support column and felt up.

Really, it's a fucking miracle I'm NOT a man-hating feminazi lesbian. People just do not want to believe that this stuff still happens, or that it only happens rarely and by obviously fucked up people, and it happens right here in the good ol' Land of the Free. These men were respected members of the community, athletes, students, people with jobs and even relationships. You couldn't tell from looking at them and many wouldn't believe me when I tried to tell people about it. Since the reaction was to either disbelieve me or try to figure out how I had "asked for it", eventually I stopped telling people about it. I became embarrassed that I was treated that way, as if it was my own fault.

Now that I say "bullshit, people need to know that this shit still happens", I talk about it, and what I get is "you're just being too emotional, you're just a single data point, this doesn't really happen". Y'know what? Yeah, I'm just a little bit emotional about people trying to rape me. That doesn't mean that I should be dismissed because I can't talk about gross injustice without feeling passionate about the subject.

[joreth]

THANK YOU

[petite-lambda.livejournal.com]

Oh holy fuck. Wow.

"you're just being too emotional, you're just a single data point, this doesn't really happen"

You're an amazingly kind person for not beating the crap out of someone who hears the above things and says that.

[petite-lambda.livejournal.com]

Unbelievable motherfuckers. Wow.