Men Behaving Badly at Atheist Conferences

I’ve just gotten back from the Women in Secularism conference, which was made almost entirely of awesome, and was one of the best conferences I’ve been to. I’ll soon post a recap of the conference highlights.

But right now, I want to point you to some posts about one of the main topics of conversation at the con: the discussion, started by Jen McCreight on one of her panels, about some male speakers behaving badly towards women at conferences, and the fact that women who attend these cons regularly have an informal network warning each other away from these guys… since, for assorted reasons, women don’t feel safe talking about this publicly and naming names.

Stephanie Zvan at Almost Diamonds has two excellent posts up right now about the issue, summing up the main problems and proposing/ discussing solutions. She says most of what I want to say, so I’m just going to point you there:

Zero Intolerance
Making It Safer in the Meantime

Skatje Myers, guest posting on Pharyngula, also has a good post discussing this (near the end of the post):

Women in Secularism conference: a summary, part 1

And at WWJTD?, JT Eberhard has a related post, on a separate but not entirely unconnected issue: how conferences can be made comfortable and safe for women, free of the persistent unwanted sexual advances that are all too common… while still being welcoming to flirting and hooking up for people of all genders who want to do that:

Flirting, sex, and lines: removing skeeze from the movement

It’s a somewhat separate issue from the one Jen raised at the conference — because of the power imbalance, “skeezy behavior on the part of some speakers/ organizers/ other leaders” and “skeezy behavior on the part of some conference attendees” are very different issues — but they’re not totally unrelated, and talk about one is almost certain to raise talk about the other. So go to Almost Diamonds and Pharyngula to talk about how to deal with predatory male speakers in an environment where women don’t feel safe naming names… and go to WWJTD? to talk about boundaries and social cues in flirting, physicality, and hooking up.

Men Behaving Badly at Atheist Conferences
{advertisement}

"Feminists have made sex workers' work so much more difficult": A Guest Post from Sarah van Brussel

“One thing I kept hearing over and over again was how feminists have made sex workers’ work so much more difficult.”

The following is a guest post from Sarah van Brussel.

*

I’m a regular reader of your blog and a big fan of your work. I’m a feminist and an atheist and I really appreciate what you contribute to both movements. I’m not much of a commenter, but after reading your post giving the floor to sex workers, I wanted to say thank you and share the context in which I read your post.

I work at a international women’s fund called Mama Cash, a fund with a long history of funding sex worker led organisations. To say I was horrified by Taslima Nasreen’s post about sex work would be an understatement. Your post came at a particularly poignant time for me. I just attended the AWID (Association for Women’s Rights in Development) Forum in Istanbul, Turkey.

During the conference I had the opportunity to talk to sex worker activists who work on human rights issues from all over the world. One thing I kept hearing over and over again was how feminists have made sex workers’ work so much more difficult. I usually wear my ‘feminist badge’ with pride, but this shocked and shamed me. An activists from the Turkish organisation Kadin Kapisi said that when she became a sex worker activist she expected to be fighting with fundamentalists, traditionalists, bigots and other conservative people, but instead she spends most of her time fighting feminists and socialists. An activist from the English Collective of Prostitutes said it even more succinctly: “we live in fear of raids and ‘rescue'”. The experience of speaking directly with sex workers has made me even more determined to be the best ally I can be.

I know these activists women and men as incredibly passionate, smart and above all brave people, and it fills me with rage when people like Taslima Nasreen dismiss them as victims and deny them their agency.

One of the highlights of the AWID Forum for me was the launch of the first fund led by and for sex workers, the Red Umbrella Fund (Mama Cash is administratively hosting the Fund). The mission of this new fund is to “strengthen and ensure the sustainability of the sex worker rights movement by catalyzing new funding specifically for sex worker-led organisations and national, regional and global networks.”

The Fund was launched in the presence of at least 40 sex worker activists from all over the world, and it was a truly joyous occasion. Many veterans of the sex worker rights movement never expected to see this moment and they are thrilled to finally have a say in the kind funding that is available to them. The Fund embraces a philosophy of “nothing for us without us” and commits itself to putting sex workers at the heart of the Fund’s governance and of programs.

Sex worker rights organisations have a lot of trouble accessing funding, particularly if they don’t focus on rescuing sex workers. And a lot of the money that is available is donor driven, meaning driven by a donor’s agenda that doesn’t necessarily match their own priorities and needs. General support and capacity building grants are even more scarce. I hope the Red Umbrella Fund will make a difference and will help improve the sustainability of the movement.

So, thank you for your posts — all of them really, but especially this one. It couldn’t have come at a better time for me.

PS: If you’re interested you can read more about the Red Umbrella Fund here.

*

And now, Greta again.

I want to pull out this excerpt, and call special attention to it.

During the conference I had the opportunity to talk to sex worker activists who work on human rights issues from all over the world. One thing I kept hearing over and over again was how feminists have made sex workers’ work so much more difficult. I usually wear my ‘feminist badge’ with pride, but this shocked and shamed me. An activists from the Turkish organisation Kadin Kapisi said that when she became a sex worker activist she expected to be fighting with fundamentalists, traditionalists, bigots and other conservative people, but instead she spends most of her time fighting feminists and socialists. An activist from the English Collective of Prostitutes said it even more succinctly: “we live in fear of raids and ‘rescue'”.

I want every anti- sex- work feminist to read this.

I want every anti- sex- work feminist who thinks they’re “helping” sex workers to read this.

And I then want them to ask themselves: What kind of feminist “helps” other women without listening to what kind of help they actually want? What kind of feminist “helps” other women by treating them as if they aren’t capable of deciding for themselves what’s best for them? What kind of feminist “helps” other women in ways that those women actually find harmful?

"Feminists have made sex workers' work so much more difficult": A Guest Post from Sarah van Brussel

Discount Student Rates for "Women in Secularism" Conference Still Available!


Discount student rates for the “Women in Secularism” conference, happening in Washington D.C. May 18-20, are still available — at the low low price of $25! There’s a limited number of student tickets, though, so if you’re a student and you want to get in on this deal, I encourage you to act fast.

All the speakers at the event will be women — but the conference is open to anybody, of any gender. The speaker list is pretty freaking incredible. In addition to the obvious awesomeness of MEEEE, there’s going to be Susan Jacoby, Wafa Sultan, Annie Laurie Gaylor, Rebecca Watson, Jennifer McCreight, Ophelia Benson, Sikivu Hutchinson, Jennifer Michael Hecht, Debbie Goddard, Lauren Becker, Jamila Bey, Elisabeth Cornwell, Margaret Downey, Bernice Sandler, and Melody Hensley.

Given the role religion has played in the repression of women, they would seem to be natural allies, and, indeed, many feminists have been outspoken and influential secularists. However, the relationship between secularism and women’s issues remains largely unexamined. Sponsored by the Center for Inquiry, this historic conference will discuss and celebrate the many contributions women have made to the secular movement, while critically examining both the successes and failures of secularism in addressing women’s concerns.

Daycare services will be provided for any registered conference participants who needs them. (You do have to register and tell them you want daycare, no later than May 1.) There’ll be smart, thought-provoking talks and panels — plus plenty of time for fun hanging-out. The conference is Crystal City Marriott at Reagan National Airport, which is on the Metro line, and hotel discounts are available. Hope to see you there!

Discount Student Rates for "Women in Secularism" Conference Still Available!

Sex Work and a Catch-22

When I was writing yesterday’s post, asking current and former sex workers to talk about their experiences in the industry and describing my own, I stumbled across an interesting Catch-22… one that I realized makes it harder to talk about my experiences in the industry. This particular Catch-22 has to do with my motivations for getting into sex work: did I do it out of economic necessity, or for personal and sexual pleasure, or for some combination of the two?

The Catch-22 is this: If I say that I became a nude dancer primarily for the money, then I feed into the stereotype of sex workers as victims. I feed into the stereotype that nobody really wants to do sex work, that sex work is always horribly unpleasant at best and abusive or exploitative at worst, and that there is no reason anyone would ever do it other than coercion or desperation.

But if I say that I became a nude dancer primarily for reasons other than money, I get targeted as a dilettante. My experiences in the business gets dismissed as trivial or fake, not the “real” experience of “real,” in-the-trenches sex workers. It’s basically a No True Scotsman fallacy. If you got into the business for any reason other than economic pressure, and/or if you enjoy working as a sex worker, then you’re not a “real” sex worker — since nobody could possibly enjoy anything about working as a sex worker. And if I didn’t feel great economic pressure to get into the business, and felt like I had other choices, then speaking about my own experiences is somehow seen as diminishing the experiences of people who did get into the business out of necessity.

Plus, of course, if I say that sexual pleasure was my primary motivation for getting into the industry, or even a significant part of it, I get dismissed as a slut.

The reality, for me, is that economic pressure and sexual pleasure were both motivating factors. Like I wrote yesterday: For reasons of sexual curiosity and pleasure, I was already interested in working as a nude dancer, and was already seriously considering trying it out. But I didn’t actually do it until I was hit with a biggish debt that I had to pay off. I don’t know if I would have gone through with it if it hadn’t been for that debt. And I don’t know if I would have stuck with it for more than a few weeks. And I know this is true for at least some other sex workers as well. Economic pressure was a factor — just like it is for most jobs, that’s what makes them jobs and not hobbies — but the sex itself was also a factor. If they/we hadn’t had a certain openness and adventuress-ness about sex, many of us wouldn’t have even considered sex work as a solution to our financial problems. As Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden said in her comment on yesterday’s post, “Although I made my choice within constraints, I definitely made a choice.”

But there’s no way to talk about either of these motivations without coming across as either a desperate victim or a selfish, trifling slut.

Realizing this immediately made me think of Natalie Reed’s excellent post on Catches-22, and how every marginalized group has one or more Catches-22 working against them, one or more ways in which nothing they can possibly do will be right. Women are either sluts or prudes; bimbos or ball-busters. Black people are either lazy criminals or “trying to act white.” Trans people are either caricatures of gender stereotypes, or aren’t feminine/ masculine enough and aren’t “really” trans. Atheists are either a hive mind/ echo chamber or are succumbing to divisive rifts and schisms. Poor people are either leeching off the system or “taking our jobs.” Etc. Reed argues — correctly, I think — that these sorts of no-win situations are a hallmark of discrimination, “the most direct and immediately recognizable way of knowing that a given group has been predetermined to be in the wrong regardless of what they do.”

And I would argue that the particulars of any given Catch-22 can reveal a lot about the nature of the marginalization. The “lazy criminal/acting white” Catch-22, for instance, shows that “lazy criminal” is considered the default for black people. The “slut/prude” Catch-22 for women marginalizes any sort of female sexual agency: we get slammed for saying “Yes” to sex to often, and for saying “No” to sex too often, and basically for taking our sexuality into our own hands. Etc.

So back to the topic at hand; This particular Catch-22, I think, serves largely to make sex workers invisible, to make it easy to ignore sex workers and dismiss what we say about our own experience. The myth that nobody would ever do sex work unless they had to is a neat little self-fulfilling circle. “All sex workers are forced into it, either literally or out of economic necessity… and if you didn’t get into it out of economic necessity, you don’t count as a real sex worker, and we can ignore and dismiss your experience… because all sex workers are forced into it, either literally or out of economic necessity.” And, of course, if economic pressure is a factor in getting into the work, then you either don’t have the intelligence or discipline to find another line of work, or you’re a poor helpless victim who needs to be rescued. And again, your experiences can therefore be ignored or dismissed.

Sigh.

Sex Work and a Catch-22

Sex Workers – An Invitation to Tell Your Stories

If you work, or have ever worked, in the sex industry — as a prostitute, a stripper, a pro dominant, a pro submissive, a phone sex worker, a porn actor or model, or any other area of the industry — what was your experience?

IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT COMMENTS: The comment policy for this post is different from my usual one. It’s at the end of the post. Pay careful attention to it. Violators will have their comment disemvoweled, and may even be banned.

As regular readers of this blog know, my fellow blogger in the Freethought Blogs, Taslima Nasreen, wrote a post a few weeks ago positing that all prostitution is always patriarchal oppression, always sexual exploitation, always sexual violence, that women are always forced into it, that it is never a vocation choice, that it is always human rights abuse, that all of it harms women.. I wrote a post in response, saying that I understood that there were often terrible abuses in the sex industry and that many prostitutes are forced into the work, and that of course I fervently opposed this — but also saying that there are many sex workers who freely choose the work, and like it, and do not find it abusive or exploitative.

Nasreen and I had a private email conversation about this. I’m not at liberty to disclose her side of that conversation. But I will tell you that I asked her, repeatedly, to put up a post on her blog asking sex workers what their actual experience was working in the sex industry — so she could hear for herself the tremendous variety of experiences that prostitutes and other sex workers have, and so she could take those experiences into account when she considers the questions of how abuses in the industry should be handled.

As of this writing, she has yet to do this.

So I’m going to do it myself.

If you work, or have worked, in the sex industry — as a prostitute, a stripper, a pro dominant, a pro submissive, a phone sex worker, a porn actor or model, or any other area of the industry… what was your experience?

This query is for women, men, and trans people who don’t identify as one gender or the other. Please feel free to answer any or all of the following questions, as well as any others:

Why did you get into the sex industry?

Did you freely choose this work? Were you in any way forced or coerced into it? Were you pressured into it by economic or other pressure?

Why did you go into the particular line(s) of sex work that you did?

What, if anything, did/do you like about the work?

What, if anything, did/do you not like about the work?

On the whole, did/do you like the work, dislike it, or feel neutral about it?

What are your feelings about your customers?

Have your feelings about the work changed with time? If you no longer work in the sex industry, did your feelings about the work change after you left it?

If you still work in the sex industry, do you feel free to leave it? If you no longer work in the sex industry, did you feel free to leave it? If not, what restraints did/do you have?

Is there anything else you want people to know about your experience of sex work?

I’ll start things off, with my own answers.

Continue reading “Sex Workers – An Invitation to Tell Your Stories”

Sex Workers – An Invitation to Tell Your Stories

Prostitution Is Not Sex Slavery

Dammit to hell. I really, really didn’t want my first reply to something by Taslima Nasreen to be an argument. I have tremendous respect for the woman and her work, and I would have loved for my first piece on her work to be gushing and adoring.

But I can’t let this go by without opposition.

Nasreen has written a post titled “Sex Slavery must be abolished.” Hard to argue with. Except that throughout the piece, she equates all forms of prostitution with sexual slavery. She says prostitution is always patriarchal oppression, always sexual exploitation, always sexual violence, that women are always forced into it, that it is never a vocation choice, that it is always human rights abuse, that all of it harms women.

Now. It’s certainly the case that prostitution is sometimes sexual slavery, patriarchal oppression, violent, not freely chosen, abusive, and harmful. In fact, if Nasreen wanted to claim that it often is all these things, I probably wouldn’t argue with that. It’s hard to get accurate statistics on how widespread the abusive versions of prostitution are compared to the non-abusive versions — it’s illegal, and it’s a charged issue, so it’s hard to get accurate, non-biased data about it. But I won’t deny that the abusive and exploitative versions of prostitute are a serious problem around the world. And of course, I stand in passionate opposition to abusive and exploitative sexual slavery. Of course I am eager to find solutions that reduce these harms as much as is humanly possible, and if possible that eliminate them entirely.

My problem is with the idea that, because prostitution is sometimes or often abusive and exploitative, it therefore always is — and that it is by its very nature.

My problem is this: What do you say to women — and men, there are plenty of male prostitutes — who say that this is not their experience?

What do you say to the women and men who currently work as prostitutes, or who once worked as prostitutes, who say that they freely chose the work, and are happy with that choice? Continue reading “Prostitution Is Not Sex Slavery”

Prostitution Is Not Sex Slavery

Fashion Friday: Atheist T-Shirts in Women's Styles

Today in Fashion Friday, we have a double treat — a post about fashion, AND a post about inclusivity in the atheist movement! All in one!

So I got this email the other day, from the organizers of Skepticon, asking for help promoting their advance T-shirt sales (help I duly provided). I took a look at the site, hoping that I wouldn’t see what I knew I probably was going to see, hoping that this time it would be different. And there it was.

No women’s T-shirts.

This drives me up a tree. I have a drawer full of atheist conference T-shirts that I pretty much never wear, because they’re men’s t-shirts and they look like crap on me. And now it looks like I’m going to have another one.

Sigh.

Before I start my rant, I’m going to be very clear right up front: I think Skepticon is an amazing event, one of the most inspiring and fun gatherings we have. And the Skepticon organizers are awesome. They’re doing something really difficult — putting on a major, national-level conference, one of the largest atheist/ skeptical events in the calendar — and they’re doing it for free. They’re also doing something I (a) think is hugely important and (b) personally hate doing and totally suck at — on-the-ground, in-the-flesh event and community organizing — and my hat is off to them. Ditto the other conference organizers, the other organizations, the other local groups, the other student groups, who have this same T-shirt problem.

And I’m also going to be clear right up front: This isn’t just about Skepticon, or even mostly about Skepticon. Skepticon happened to be the event I was looking at when the straw broke my camel’s back. But LOTS of other conferences, organizations, local groups, student groups, do this exact same thing. Just last month, at the American Atheists convention, while they did have women’s shirts for sale, the free goodie-bag T-shirts were all men’s shirts. And I’ve seen it again and again and again. This isn’t about Skepticon. This is about every atheist conference, organization, local group, student group — and there are a LOT of them — that sells or gives away T-shirts… and only does it in men’s styles.

Folks — this is not okay.

When you only have t-shirts in men’s styles, it is a nearly perfect symbol of the attitude that the atheist movement is for men.

When you only have t-shirts in men’s styles, it is a nearly perfect symbol of the attitude that this should be a “one size fits all” movement, and that this size should be the size it already is: a size that comfortably fits men, and that women have to awkwardly fit ourselves into as best we can.

If you think this is only my issue — think again. I sometimes give talks on diversity in the atheist movement, and when I do I often mention the T-shirt issue — and it almost always gets a HUGE round of applause from the women in the audience. And don’t tell me that the T-shirts are “unisex.” “Unisex” T-shirts means “men’s T-shirts that we’re trying to pawn off on women.” “Unisex” T-shirts is just giving a different name to the problem, and pretending it’s a solution.

I understand that there are economic issues here: when printing T-shirts in bulk, it’s more expensive to print them in more than one style. There are ways around that — the assorted “print on demand” sources, like Cafe Press and Zazzle — but there are reasons why that doesn’t always work. So here’s a thought: If you can only afford to print T-shirts in one style… why not make it a women’s style? Men can wear women’s T-shirts, too, and some men even prefer them (just as some women are fine with men’s T-shirts, and even prefer them). And sure, a lot of men don’t much like women’s T-shirts and don’t think they look good in them — just like lots of women don’t much like men’s T-shirts and don’t think we look good in them. Why should it always be women who get the suck end of that stick?

And even as I type those words, I can feel the discomfort and resistance radiating out from the Internet. “Men, wearing women’s T-shirts? EWWWW! That’s weird! It makes sense for women to wear men’s clothes sometimes — but it’d be totally bizarre for men to wear women’s clothes!”

And I want to ask: Why is that?

Why does it make sense for “male” to be the default that women fit themselves into — but it’s weird for “female” to be the default that men fit themselves into?

Why is it that if women complain about only being offered men’s T-shirts, we’ll almost certainly be seen as vain and shallow and trivial for caring so much about our looks… but if men complained about only being offered women’s T-shirts, it’d almost certainly be seen as an entirely reasonably objection to an unacceptable imposition?

And why do we find androgyny more acceptable in women than in men? Why do we think it’s reasonable and even attractive for women to look like men, and to aspire to look like men… but we think it’s weird and demeaning and laughable for men to look like women, or to aspire to look like women? Why do we think it makes perfect sense for women to be more masculine, but we think it’s absurd for men to be more feminine? Why do we think it makes perfect sense for masculinity to be not only the default, but the ideal, to which both women and men should aspire?

Never mind. I think I answered my own question.

I realize this is a small thing, a first-world problem if I ever heard one. But sexism isn’t just about the big things, wage discrimination and domestic violence and so on. It’s the summation of lots of little things, the barrage of slights and insults and degradations and casual dismissals we deal with every day. (Watch “Mad Men” sometime to get an idea of what I’m talking about.) This is one of them. It gets up my nose — and based on my experiences mentioning it in my talks, it gets up a lot of other women’s noses as well.

So if you want to tell women, “Sure, you can come to this event, but this is basically a boy’s club and you’ll just have to fit yourselves in as best you can,” then keep on only having men’s T-shirts. But if you want to tell women, “You’re welcome here! You’re every bit as much a part of this movement as any man!”, having women’s t-shirts is a great way to do it.

Please, please, please — Skepticon, American Atheists, every other conference and organization and local group and student group — find a way.

Fashion Friday: Atheist T-Shirts in Women's Styles

What I May Do With My Naked Body: A Reply to Azar Majedi About the #NudePhotoRevolutionaries Calendar

April is the first month of the #NudePhotoRevolutionaries Calendar, created by Maryam Namazie in homage to Egyptian atheist, student and blogger Aliaa Magda Elmahdy who posted a nude photo of herself on her blog. Not surprisingly, the calendar has come under attack — not just from Islamicist theocrats, but from some feminists, including Azar Majedi. Namazie has written her response to Majedi (UPDATE: LINK CORRECTED). Here is mine.

Dear Azar Majedi,

I want to be sure I understand you correctly. It seems that you’re saying that there is no way a woman can choose to display pictures of her naked body, and offer those pictures for money, without it being commodification, and therefore being Bad.

Even if the images are being made available for free as well as for sale, and anyone who’s uncomfortable with the idea of paying to see naked women (or who simply doesn’t want to) has access to them. Even if the tremendous variety of ages and races and body types in the calendar are in direct defiance of the typical expectations for female bodies, and are being displayed and celebrated on their own terms rather than for male pleasure and consumption. Even if the money is being gathered, not for personal profit, but to raise money for feminist causes that all the participants collectively care about. Even if the women being photographed are donating the images of their naked bodies, and are not in any way being economically pressured to do so. Even if the project is being done with the full endorsement and support of the woman it’s honoring.

If there were ever a situation in which selling naked pictures of one’s self should be considered acceptable, I’d think it would be this one. But according to you, even this situation is unacceptable. It’s still commodification, and therefore, it’s still Bad.

Yeah. See, here’s the problem with that. (Some nude images below the jump, including a nude image of me.) Continue reading “What I May Do With My Naked Body: A Reply to Azar Majedi About the #NudePhotoRevolutionaries Calendar”

What I May Do With My Naked Body: A Reply to Azar Majedi About the #NudePhotoRevolutionaries Calendar

Women in Secularism Conference – With Me And Other Awesome Women!

So if you were at the Reason Rally and are all pumped-up and thinking, “What other awesome atheist events can I go to now?” — or if you missed the Reason Rally and are thinking, “Damn, I hate that I had to miss that, what other awesome atheist events can I go to now?” — start making plans now for the Women in Secularism conference! Washington, D.C., May 18-20. All the speakers at the event will be women — but the conference is open to anybody, of any gender.

Given the role religion has played in the repression of women, they would seem to be natural allies, and, indeed, many feminists have been outspoken and influential secularists. However, the relationship between secularism and women’s issues remains largely unexamined. Sponsored by the Center for Inquiry, this historic conference will discuss and celebrate the many contributions women have made to the secular movement, while critically examining both the successes and failures of secularism in addressing women’s concerns.

The speaker list is pretty freaking incredible. In addition to the obvious awesomeness of MEEEE, there’s going to be Susan Jacoby, Wafa Sultan, Annie Laurie Gaylor, Rebecca Watson, Jennifer McCreight, Ophelia Benson, Sikivu Hutchinson, Jennifer Michael Hecht, Debbie Goddard, Lauren Becker, Jamila Bey, Elisabeth Cornwell, Margaret Downey, Bernice Sandler, and Melody Hensley. Daycare services will be provided for any registered conference participants who needs them. There’ll be smart, thought-provoking talks and panels — plus plenty of time for fun hanging-out. The conference is Crystal City Marriott at Reagan National Airport, which is on the Metro line, and hotel discounts are available.

It promises to be a barn-burner. Come check it out!

Women in Secularism Conference – With Me And Other Awesome Women!

The Reason Rally, and Why It's Good to Keep Hammering On About Diversity

There’s no way I can do just one Reason Rally report. It was something of a life-changing event, it was almost certainly a history-changing event, and I’m probably going to keep bringing ideas I got from it into my writing for some time.

So here’s the Reason Rally Idea For Today.

Those of us who keep hammering on about diversity in the atheist movement?

We need to keep doing it.

Why?

IT’S WORKING.

There was wonderful diversity at the Reason Rally. It wasn’t ideal; it wasn’t a perfect or even close reflection of the demographics of America or the world. (I don’t think it was, anyway: I was kind of in a distracted, blissed-out haze all day, and I wasn’t out there with a clipboard ticking off demographic boxes.) But I saw lots of women there, and lots of people of color, and lots and lots and lots of young people. As if it were the most natural thing in the world. As if it were obvious that this would be the face of atheism.

This is significantly different from the demographics we were seeing at big atheist events, even a few years ago. It’s so different, I have to assume that our conscious efforts to make ourselves more diverse have been paying off. Continue reading “The Reason Rally, and Why It's Good to Keep Hammering On About Diversity”

The Reason Rally, and Why It's Good to Keep Hammering On About Diversity