PZ recently made a post advertising the Southern California Secular Humanist Conference. While the poster was funny, I was a little disappointed in the list of names, and simply commented:
2/15 speakers are women? :|
Do I think that the event coordinators are sexist masterminds, purposefully plotting to exclude anyone with a preponderance of X chromosomes? Of course not. But I do think organizers need to be aware of these gender gaps. Some may be caused by subconscious sexism, but many are caused by a seemingly inescapable cycle:
- Women aren’t invited to speak at conferences…
- So no one knows what good women speakers there are…
- So when people go to plan conferences, all of the good speakers they think of are male.
Etc, etc, etc. One way to escape this cycle is to simply be aware of the problem, and work toward more equal representation. I’m not asking for 50% women exactly, but 13% is bordering on statistically significant from the expected distribution.
It’s a big PR problem, too. You know how people keep asking where the atheist women are, or claim that atheism is a club for Old White Men? It’s because they see events like this.
So how do you NOT respond to my concerns? Like the following commenter. I point them out because this type of thinking is way too common. Let me reply line by line:
Jennifurret, do you think the organizers are being sexist?
Not consciously or malevolently. Though the rest of your comment? That kind of is.
Should they seek out more women to speak?
Uh, yes. Already explained earlier in this post.
Do you have a list of such speakers you could give them?
I know you’re trying to pompously assert that it’s my duty as an Owner of Ladybits to solve this problem, and assuming that I’ve done nothing to help. But actually, yes, I do happen to have a giant list of awesome female atheists that is linked to repeatedly. Event organizers can feel free to consult it!
If you feel there need to be more women at such conferences, then by all means, go to such conferences. Get involved, write articles, get invited. I’d do it except I’m not qualified to be a woman, so you have to.
First of all, even if I was just some random commenter, this is annoying as hell. Obviously there are no qualified women to chose from already, so I should go and do the work to be at the same level as these deserving men. Thankfully this person proves my point (and makes them look like a total jackass) because I’m:
- Involved. Board member of the Secular Student Alliance, popular atheist blogger, founder and former president of an atheist group.
- Writing articles. Not just here, not just my popular piece on atheism at Ms. Blog, but actually published in an atheist book.
- Getting invited. I currently have 7 upcoming speaking events, 4 of which are at conferences. I have a couple more that are potentially being worked out, one of them at a major conference.
This post isn’t to just tell this person to go shove it. It’s to illustrate how ludicrous and common this sort of thinking is. “Obviously women are underrepresented because they deserve it” is not only unhelpful, but an outright lie.
As an owner of LadyBits – I approved of this post. :) Oh – and I’m atheist too! I approve twice as much now. ;)
It’s interesting how the original commenter, in his own ignorance, made a complete fool out of himself by trying to make a fool out of someone else.
I read that response to your comment on Pharyngula and had to laugh. Talk about barking up the wrong tree. But there’s one more thing to point out, which is that if you’re organizing a secular humanist conference big enough to get some of the names on that flier, then if you need a list to figure out what women might be good speakers for such an event you are either sexist or an idiot.
I think the key URRRGH point for me is actually the assumption that men can not help with this. Actually, they can. /headdesk
I’m a girl and I know how to speak – they should invite me!It makes me sad that women are both so underrepresented and treated with such scorn when they point it out.
As skeptics, we should all be aware of how easy it is to fool ourselves. I simply don’t see a reason to blame someone for implying malevolence in not inviting more female speakers. There is no anti-woman force at work in the skeptic/atheist movement aside from the inactive response to the lack of diversity.Sadly, that’s all it takes to have a problem.
I could have guessed those kind of responses from pharyngula commentors. Seen it too many times, they immediately jump into defcon 4 at the slightest perceived infraction. Not all commentors and not completely unjustified, with the stupidity that is spewed by creationists and other woo there, but still.
Congratulations. You just discovered that 9/10 Pharyngula posters are retarded.
Do we know how many women they contacted/invited? I’m bothered by the lack of diversity, but don’t want to assume that we know where the problem is…At the risk of appearing sexist, I’ve addressed this issue a few times (with regard to not only women, but ‘something other than white men’) and I’m still baffled. There are a lot of things to consider and many of the discussions seem to barely scratch the surface.There’s the issue of ‘drawing power’ (it’s hardly the organizers fault if the most in-demand speakers fall into one category or another) – but that’s not a huge issue because you don’t need to have only high demand speakers, you need to have a range of speakers. One aspect of conventions like this should be to introduce people to some of the less-well-known speakers, because it’s a critical step in showing that we’re not just a one-dimensional group marching lock-step behind a few white-male speakers. It also gives us the staying power of building the next wave of top-tier speakers.There’s the issue of this being a self-perpetuating-problem, through no direct fault of anyone. Fewer women attend, fewer women are offered or accept speaking slots..contributing to the cycle. We definitely need to take actions that get us closer to ‘critical mass’ on this issue…so that the disparity normalizes.There’s also the issue that seems to be a sticking point on discussions about this – what percentage of a particular group could we ever likely expect to attend? As the president of an atheist organization, we’ve tried a number of things (including a special women’s-only night) but increasing attendance just doesn’t seem to happen with any sort of identifiable regularity. Is it possible that there simply is a disproportionate interest in participating in events like this?The last point I’ll make is this…and I’ve tried to make this before, with little success. As a heterosexual, middle-aged, white male who has had his consciousness continually raised to be sensitive toward mis-steps on these issues – I’m often reluctant to try to solve problems like this directly. Attempts to do so have been labeled condescending or insulting. (“What made you think this was an issue that YOU needed to fix?”) If you go out of your way to be especially welcoming or supportive of people in categories of low participation, you risk coming across as condescending, patronizing, or fake – even with the best intentions. I’ve generally opted to treat everyone equally…but that doesn’t always help.That tends to discourage some efforts even for those of us who would desperately like to eliminate the problem and reach a point where we simply don’t given any more consideration to the sex or ethnicity of a speaker or attendee than we would their hair color or shoe size.I’m with Jen on this issue and as someone who will be contributing to the organization of the 2012 Texas Freethought Convention, I’ll be doing what I can to ensure that we don’t see this problem there. (Incidentally, the 2010 TFC had a much more diverse speaker list than other conventions I’ve been to: 4 of 11 speakers, not counting panel discussions and entertainment, which takes it to 5 of 14. )Incidentally, we’ve been addressing a similar issue. Texas has a very high Hispanic population but the Hispanic participation in atheist/skeptic events (as speakers and attendees) is virtually non-existent. There are people trying to solve this disparity…and the “it’s not your problem to solve” and “nothing you can do will change this” issues have been significant snags.
Matt, you have hit the nail on the head and I am sure a lot of that is from experience. It is a complicated issue and not one easily solved. I have no ideas that I can think of to help but to keep inviting female speakers and ask female atheists what would make them want to come to more functions.
So one person makes a stupid comment and so 9/10s of Pharyngula posters are retarded? And BeamStalk expected this response? Sorry, the commenter isn’t a regular, the regulars have set him straight quite well, which is what typically happens.
it’s like a nonstop lulz machine.
I’ve been on the speaker committee for a computer science conference at my school, and let me tell you, it’s difficult to get women speakers in some fields. We actually made a concerted effort to find more women to speak at our conference this past year, and percentage-wise we got more no responses from the women than the men. I can’t say what the organizers of this conference were dealing with, but I imagine there are some parallels with CS and atheist/skeptic conferences. There is an unfortunate disparity in male/female ratios in both fields, and while I’m not sure on qualified speakers in the atheist/skeptic community, in the CS field, there are fewer female speakers. What makes this troublesome, as well, some of the women that we got no responses from were the better speakers on our invite list. *sigh* The frustrations of setting up a conference. Glad I’m not doing that again.
Ok I’ll say it–were his comments really that bad? I’ll admit that I’m not particularly well versed in the nuances of feminism, but nothing really jumped off the screen as outrageous. He asked some fair questions and ended with a reasonable statement. You are a prominent female atheist. But I don’t think you can expect anyone in an online forum to know that. I hope that you sincerely answered his questions and offered a nice counterpoint.
If you visit the website, there are 3 female speakers – Kirkhart, Patterson, and Ardiente. Since this is a change from the flyer, is it possible they are not finished with the preparations? Perhaps we should ask what role the various speakers have (panels, individual lectures, etc.)
You failed to consider the possibility that you weren’t invited to speak because you are smelly. :)(re: Jen’s newspaper interview post, before anyone gets mad.)
You guys have pretty much said it all….lots of good thoughts, and well expressed points of view……I think this is where GOD probably comes into the equation…I’m sure that there is a reason, that most of us could never divine, (but that some might try to explain if pressed) for the supreme one to have placed his/her almighty hand into this situation, and only allow two women to speak…case closed.
Sometimes when hackles get raised, people become defensive, then make seemingly sharp retorts…Delving into the whys and wherefores of such an undertaking, in this case, created a great discussion that in the long run will make things better, and help create a more level playing field for all involved…My kudos to the free thinkers on this site who usually demonstrate as good of exchange of ideas, without getting irate (crazy-pissed off), as I’ve seen…
Heh. Other people who know who you are are reaming the guy in the Pharyngula thread for you, Jen.
I’ve seen this kind of thinking here in Sweden as well. Though we don’t have any skeptic conferences like you have over there in US. It’s the same thing in politics where only 3 out of 9 party leaders in the Riksdagen (the parliament more or less) are women, and I know and know of many well-spoken, active women. Thankfully the over all quotas in the Riksdag is better; about 45% women, but it decreased since last year, much because the conservatives won this year, again, and that 6% of Swedens population are complete morons and voted for a racist, nazist, christian-values toting, anti-feminist party.I don’t look forward to the next four years. This ship is sinking.
The problem here is implicit sexism (or as Jen says – subconscious). As a woman, though I have met a handful of brilliant female atheists, skeptics and humanists – online and off – there is this undercurrent of sexism that is really hard to stomach – and many (not all) arguments I hear against such a thing is uncomfortably similar to what women get from fundamentalist, evangelical christianity. … Mainly – quit your whining – it’s not our fault – I’m not a woman so it doesn’t really bother me – why don’t you do something about it – don’t get hysterical – you’re seeing things that aren’t there – things aren’t as bad you claim – it’s just the way things are. As for the PZ site – I’ve steered clear of that site for so many reasons as an atheist… some of which may, or may not relate to the discussion at hand.So Bravo, Jen – for pointing this out – whether it is explicit or implicit sexism – we ALL need to talk about this. I see many former fundamentalist/evangelical women who are becoming more and more vocal – and those that have lived through the explicit sexism on a daily basis will likely be willing to speak up as atheists and humanists… hopefully. I have my first talk in the spring – outside of the Former Fundie support group I organize- and as someone who briefly taught Speech – I look forward to the opportunity to get up there and teach, speak and encourage discussion. And yes – we’ve discussed this problem of implicit sexism within the Former Fundamentalist group – and the best Theory we can come up with , so far, is that too many ex-Christians have not left behind the patriarchal baloney though they have left behind the illogical-belief baloney. That said, the first man I’ve met who identifies as a feminist is also the first former fundamentalist I met face-to-face. I remain very hopeful. Many young men and women who are leaving the fold are very sensitive to the sexism taken for granted in the secular world… I expect this problem as we discuss it now will slowly fade as the young deconverted refuse to ignore the sexism that hobbled their mothers, fathers and siblings.
Unfortunately I’m stuck with borrowing or renting, but I approve also. ^.^
They really should invite you!
I thought about leaving a comment over there on PZ’s blog but as I read through the comments, I became quite beside myself at the continual references to ‘savage penguins’ and their implied existence next to ‘hungry polar bears’. I can only hope it was all tongue in cheek and everyone on that blog post knows penguins do not live in the arctic. I understand hyperbole, but it is late and a common public misconception parroted on a science blog kinda has caused a logic breach in my mind. Then again, maybe the postcard over my computer is true, one by one the penguins are stealing my sanity away.
“which is what typically happens. “No. What typically happens is, as soon as a trend in the comments emerges, there is a pile-on onto any opposing view, with the “discussion” quickly turning into a “who can some up with the wittiest slap-down” contest.It’s like watching a love-struck teen boy trying to impress his love interest… so utterly, utterly cringe-worthy.
I declare 2011 as the year of the female atheist.
Fixed it for you.I too wish the threads weren’t so fucking *cliquey*
I think the problem lies very deep: most of the loud asshole population consists of men.
Is it terrible that all I got from this on my first readthrough was, “Jennifurret? As in the evolved form of Sentret from Pokemon G/S? ….AWESOME.”You responded to them beautifully though, and I’d be interested to see how they react to your logic.
Welcome to the internet. Stay away from the coffee and donuts. And everything else.
I don’t think that Jen was in any way implying malevolence, just passivity? Unless that was what you meant, of course.
Greta Christina’s been talking about these issues for a while. She’s done some excellent talks on what the atheist movement can learn from the LGBT movement- the two share some very similar characteristics as well as issues. Here’s links to video and text of one of her talks, if you’re interested. Sorry about the long links, I’m not sure if I can html it up in comments here!http://gretachristina.typepad….
Hope there’s something in there that might be useful to you, and good luck!
The penguins/polar bears were very much tongue in cheek. PZ was joking about being homebound, sans wife, with only beer to console him, due to a Minnesota blizzard.
Yes, that is where my nickname comes from, hahaha
I’m an ardent PokeNerd so this pleases me greatly. <3
I don’t quite agree with you Jen. I think conferences should make attempts to make sure that about 50% of the speakers are women. There is absolutely no excuse not to (baring the possibility that most of those women invited couldn’t make it, which is doubtful).Besides your list, looked at my RSS feed and produced this list of woman who I’d love to hear speak at a sketpcial/atheists/humanist conference:Any of the SkepchicksYouAmanda MarcotteGretta ChristinaMaria MyrbackHaley StevensDebbie GoddardI’d say that about 40% of my non-institution feeds are from female run blogs. And there are plenty more out there, as you have said time and time again. The organizers of these events need to make much more of an effort to more get woman speakers on their programs. Jay Walkerjwalker1960@gmail.comhttp://freethinkingfordummies….
That’s true. I tend to enjoy Pharyngula, but despise the mob mentality that sees dissenters hounded out. I’m all for hard hitting debate and mockery, but group think, even if one is on the side of the angels :-) is scary.