One more for the road
I woke up early, so I have a little time to mutter things before I hit the road.
I’ll mutter about Sharon Rupp’s interview of wonderful me. I got a chance to name-check some atheist women:
She is part of that cadre of professional atheists that includes best-selling authors Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, and a host of lesser known writers, none of whom seems to be a woman.”Oh there are women: Polly Toynbee, Katha Pollitt, Greta Christina…” Benson protests, noting that even the humanist-secularist-atheist crowd is subject to that old problem of blindness when it comes to women’s accomplishments. “I’ve asked conference organizers why there are no women speaking and some say it didn’t occur to them, others say they don’t know any.”
Actually I haven’t asked conference organizers, because I haven’t had the opportunity to ask them things, because they don’t organize me. Actually it was PZ who asked them, who asks them every time he speaks at one – “Will you please wake up and ask some women already?” And they tell him, “Uh……we couldn’t think of any.” And he smites his brow.
So props to Vancouver CFI, eh, they thought of one.
What Should Replace Religion:
Professor Daniel Dennett, Philosopher and Gina Menzies, Theologian were on RTE 1 with Pat Kenny. They are speaking at UCC, Cork.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: One more for the road http://dlvr.it/FHkT8 […]
I understand that Greta is going on a speaking tour of Ohio and Indiana within the near future.
Things aren’t yet where they need to be regarding the representation of women (and ethnic minorities) in atheist organizations and gatherings, but it sure seems to me that the trend is in the right direction.
FWIW these are 2 speakers CFI Calgary are hosting soon:
http://www.cficanada.ca/calgary/events/judy_j._johnson_phd_whats_so_wrong_with_being_absolutely_right/
http://www.cficanada.ca/calgary/events/greta_christina_atheism_sexuality/
I’m a bit conflicted about this topic. The atheist/skeptic events I attend run about 10-20% women, so, at our smaller gatherings, I am often the only female, or one of just 2 or 3. (Which, in itself is not a problem – as an electrical engineer, and computer geek I have become accustomed to often being the only woman in the room.) And it was disturbing to note the demographics of those attending at a psychic fair I recently observed – it was almost all women, with a few bored-looking men who appeared to be accompanying their partners. However, I also want to challenge the assumption that women are necessarily more representative of women, purely on the basis of their gender.
I read in the article that your critics call you “shrill, strident, unreasonable, unnuanced and unfair”. I call that speaking your mind and making your point firmly. Good for you!
I was very pleased to note at TAM Australia this year, that it was made up of ~40% women (in my estimate). This is better than the representation we have at home in NZ at any rationalist/aesthetic/skeptic gathering. Whatever Mr Randi and his team of capable staff are doing, they are doing it right.
Only 11% or so to go before we have proper representation from the better looking sex!
I suspect the whole Web2.0 phenomenon that is based around communication and communities has something to do with it. Blogs, twitter and easy access to high quality essays and articles, have possibly made the whole subject more appealing to those who don’t have the nerdy stamina and stomach to wade though dry philosophy books and argue with borishly logical(?) blokes in cold draughty society halls.
I’d like to know what others think on this subject.
Rhys:
I think the Internet is the greatest thing that’s ever happened to organized atheism. We aren’t actually that small a minority; we’re just spread around somewhat thinly. Every online tool that facilitates social networking is a huge help for every member of a widely-dispersed minority like us. Then, my guess is that it’s people who, for any one of many reasons, find it difficult to participate in ordinary meatspace gatherings who benefit most significantly from online community connections.
Not to mention that there are now millions of atheists traipsing around the Web, leaving forbidden fruits from the Tree of Knowledge where unsuspecting and innocent (in the less positive sense of that word) believers can find them. As C.S. Lewis wrote:
…Except that Lewis had it exactly backward, the smug jackass: it’s religion that requires one to maintain a studious ignorance of the world around him or her. And atheists on the ‘Net are slowly making that rather difficult.
quoth Rhys:
At the risk of being told that it was just a joke, and I should lighten up, my serious question is: Why are we working towards having more women participating in the atheist/skeptic community? So Rhys can have a better visual experience attending these events?
(Not that there is anything wrong with people liking to look at women :), but is “we want you women here because you are pretty” the message you are actually trying to get across ?)
I did not occur to me that I was giving the impression that I wanted more woman for the “eye candy” that is plainly ridiculous.
I think the rewards of understanding our place in the universe are huge. Any organizations that clarify and enrich our thinking like the groups are valuable both to the attendees and for the outreach they do.
Why would anyone want half of the worlds population to miss out on this?
R
I also failed to point out the obvious fact that if women aren’t attending these things, we are missing out on their contributions as well. This makes the societies and other groups intellectually poorer in my opinion. I guess this gets back to the original topic of Ophelia’s post.
OK, I appreciate that you did not intend any offence. But the comment, however well-intentioned, does come across as rather condescending
Agreed, and kudos to the organizations who are able to do this. (At CFI Ottawa’s biweekly Sunday morning “Unsermon” today, we had 5 women out of a dozen people, so there’s hope for us yet….)
And that’s part of the problem – that it didn’t occur to you. When the topic is how to get more women recognized/invited to speaking events, and someone’s first contribution is to characterize them as “the better-looking sex,” you can hear 10,000 women sighing and face-palming. This is exactly what women don’t want – to be seen or described as sexual objects when the context is serious discourse.
I believe that you didn’t mean badly and were being jocular, but you really do need to think about this.
I am sorry for offence caused.
Rhys – I appreciate that, but it’s not about “the offense caused.” I’m more interested in pointing out why what you said was offensive, and asking you to think about it. I’m not trying to be nasty, or call you a bad guy (it’s obvious you’re not!). But I am inviting you to reflect on how even though the best-intentioned of us can fall unwittingly into the traps of de facto sexism, etc.
Imagine that the topic of conversation were:
1. Inviting more black people to get involved with atheist conferences. Imagine someone saying, “Only 11 percent more to go before we have proper representation of the more rhythmic race!”
2. Or, if the topic were increasing gay male participation, imagine someone saying, “Only 11 percent more to go before we have proper representation of the boys who know how to accessorize!”
In either of those cases, it should be easy to see how obnoxious such a comment would be.
That’s not to say that I’d freak out at number 2 — at least not always. But that’s because I have a camaraderie with people here; I know them. I know that Ophelia, Eric, Ben, Marie-Therese, Russell, and many others are sympatico. But that good feeling isn’t automatic, and until or unless you’re sure that you’ve established who you are in the audience you’re talking to, don’t be surprised when they find such comments extremely boorish.
I was surprised, but upon reflection of the subsequent comments, I certainly won’t be in the future!
I don’t know if you meant that to be sarcastic, but it seemed that way. I’m really not trying to be unfriendly; I was hoping for some genuine communication because you seem to be someone of good will and intentions.
Ok, this is getting absurd.
No, that was not meant to be sarcastic. I’m obviously am not a good communicator.
I’ll not be posting in this thread again.
Oh, don’t flounce, honestly – that’s bullshit. People here (at least me) are giving you honest feedback, and assuming you’re a commenter of good will. Grow up.
Leaving the whole gender issue aside for the moment: I don’t understand this “professional atheist” description sometimes applied to our prominent advocates. AFAIK, most of them make their living at something else: academics, journalists, scientists, literary critics, tinkers and tailors for all I know. Don’t know what you do for a paycheck Ophelia and it’s none of our business, but it’s a safe bet that Butterflies and Wheels and your books don’t pay many bills, right?
(Not casting aspersions on your books – just the reality that writing ain’t exactly the road to riches unless you hit it big. Doubt that Fashionable Nonsense will make it on Oprah’s list anytime soon!)
Quite right, bcoppola. B&W is an expense rather than a source of income. On the other hand someone does occasionally pay me a little bit to write something or say something, so I’m a Professional Atheist in that sense. (I don’t do anything at all for a real, normal, recognizable paycheck; I do several things for bits of paychecks and eke out a tiny living.)
I thought it was a cabal …
I would totally go to an all female atheist/skeptic hosted convention. Just saying.
I’m not sure that the gender of the speakers should even be considered. or counted.
jay – all very well, but if there really is a huge gender imbalance (and there is)…then why should gender not be considered?
Ironically, I’ve just sent a message to the Women’s Studies list replying to a set of messages talking about gender imbalance at Wikipedia, full of talk about the “masculinist” language of the Net and so on. I think that’s silly, for the obvious reasons: contributors to Wikipedia are volunteers. But speakers at conferences are not (though they can request to be invited, campaign to be invited, etc).
If there are external barriers to equality, then I think that should be considered. If particular groups are abnormally under-represented, I think that should be considered.
I had just looked at that article about Wikipedia and was amazed (well, not so amazed, it happens all the time) at the hand wringing. A classic example of ideology taking priority over rationality with a barrage of excuses. Here you have as gender neutral an opportunity as can be imagined, people posting in private, without facing any significant imposed sexual discrimination, and still the number are disproportionate.
Funny that. we’re mammals. Where ideology runs against natural selection. There are (overall) gender differences in temperament in virtually all mammalian species. Not by accident, but by from the very different strategies that the sexes need to pursue to optimize their genetic success. Aggression pays off statistically for males in ways that can be counter productive for females. The reason males are more driven to post long diatribes on Wikipedia is not much different from the reason young men have higher auto insurance rates.
This has nothing to do with legal or social equality. This has more to do with the very different (and very valid) ways that human behaviors evolved and optimized over our history.
You can’t possibly know that it has nothing to do with legal or social equality. It’s also a bit brisk to decide that the way human behaviors have evolved is optimal or that they are “very valid.”
quoth jay:
There are a variety of explanations for gender imbalances in the areas in which they occur. Some of them are a result of legal and/or social restrictions; some are based on natural inclinations. I have a hard time coming up with a good reason for *any* gender based legal or social restrictions (but I’m sure others have a much better imagination than I do). But once we have removed these restrictions, I don’t think it is reasonable to necessarily expect equal gender representation in all areas of human endeavour. The problem is, how do we figure out the difference between an imposed imbalance and one that is the result of natural inclination.
Can’t a given gender imbalance be due to both natural inclination & social restrictions?
Eg: male humans are on average larger & stronger than females. I don’t think there is any doubt that this is partly a matter of inate biological differences.
However, this often gets exagerated by cultural factors discouraging physical activity by females, like an attitude of it being unfemine to engage in sports or female clothing that restricts movement. Burkas are the most extreme case of the latter that I know of. Elimating these cultural attitudes would be a good thing since it would increase health.
In the case of mental diffences which may or may not have an ‘inate’ component, it would still often be good to encourage more female participation.
No I can’t assume it has nothing to do with access or equality, and maybe if it were 55/45 that might be a credible explanation.
The problem with that premise is that it is pretty hard to explain a 85/15 number. And you can’t just ‘push the explanation back’ by saying it’s the culture or religion that makes males more assertive. Why did culture predominantly evolve that way, why did religion predominantly evolve that way? Why didn’t these institutions evolve the other way in at least a significant number of times?
And besides, who told our animal relatives to behave this way as well?
Genetic studies have shown that we have far more female ancestors than males (i.e. only a portion of males managed to get access to females and contribute to the next generation). Of these, those genetics are dominated by aggressive, powerful ones who managed multiple matings (genetic success for males is almost linearly related to number of matings). This explains the relative recklessness of young males. At puberty they tend to lose fear of personal injury, just as, in our mammal relatives, it became to challenge the existing power structure. Of course many did not survive those challenges (or get to breed), but those who did were the most successfully aggressive. It also may explain why males who achieve middle age are more cautious, having achieved that status, they had more to gain genetically by parlaying their resources into mating opportunities.
Females need a different strategy. Number of matings does little good for her beyond a relatively small number, and successfully getting an opportunity to mate is not particularly a problem. Her problem is keeping herself alive to raise multiple young, keeping the young healthy to maturity. Wasting time on acquiring power and resources simply means less viable offspring in the long run, not a good strategy.
Genghis Khan conquered a big chunk of the world and had several hundred offspring. A woman who spent the first few decades of her adult life conquering the world would have very few if any offspring to contribute to the genetic pool.
There was a quote from “Dangerous Book for Boys”, I don’t have the exact words but essentially advice to boys trying to impress girls: “girls are not impressed by your D&D magic skills”. This sums it up perfectly, priorities are very different.
jay……….you’re not the only person in the universe who has read some ev psych. You’re also not the only person in the universe who thinks it translates to what we should do now.
Reproductive strategy is not the last word in what human beings should do in the complicated world we live in. If you just equate all activity other than seduction and parturition with testosterone, that consigns women to the world of cowish stupidity for eternity. No thank you. Human beings are allowed to ignore their own hormonal promptings.
The implication of this statement is that there is something wrong (or at least abnormal) about the girls who *are* impressed with the D&D magic skillz (or worse – the girls who *have* the D&D magic skills themselves). My dear (recently departed) great-aunt once expressed her disappointment that her granddaughter was taking a Masters in engineering. An engineer myself, I said I thought that was terrific, and asked what the problem was. “She’s such a pretty girl” was the response (I don’t suppose she even realized the insult).
Of course humans are animals, and we are products of our biology. But, as Ophelia says, there’s more to life than making babies. There are clearly measurable gender differences *between the averages* for just about any metric one cares to measure. But the individual differences within each gender are greater than the differences between the averages. So the point is that it is at best useless and at worst harmful to use gender as a sorting mechanism.