For the most recent episode of The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe, Steve suggested we chat about the topic of sexism at The Amaz!ng Meeting and in the skeptical community in general, prompted by Carrie’s Skepchick post on the subject a few weeks ago. I was happy that my fellow SGU guys were interested in the subject, so we had Carrie come on and talk a bit.
The conversation went smoothly. Carrie and I laid out several points, among them:
- the majority of TAM attendees are white males
- all but one speaker was a white male
- a few speakers made comments that were upsetting to many women in attendance
We also covered the following in response to those points:
- the majority of the people at TAM are very friendly and accepting
- the JREF faces many challenges when booking speakers and is not purposely excluding women
- the speakers in question responded and said they had not meant to insult anyone
Our discussion was friendly and upbeat. We talked a little bit about the TV show The Big Bang Theory, though Carrie rightfully said she wanted to minimize that as a topic since whether or not it’s sexist isn’t as relevant as other topics. To sum up our viewpoints on it, Carrie had never seen the show, the guys really enjoy the show, and I’ve seen the first 13 episodes and found the sole lead female annoying and insulting. We agreed to disagree about whether it was a good show, and moved on to the more important issue of sexism amongst skeptics.
Carrie and I both took pains to declare that there is no overt, conscious effort to be sexist and exclude women, and that the main hurdle at this point is to eliminate unintended behaviors that might drive away women and minorities, and to focus more on promoting women and minorities who are gaining prominence. I learned later that a few important points were cut out of our interview for time, but the gist seemed to come through.
The responses I’ve received by email and through the SGU forum have been interesting, with a few people thanking us for having a frank discussion about an oft-ignored topic and some others offering more examples of ways they felt the skeptical community as a whole could be improved with greater focus on issues of sex and race. Some emails thanked us for the discussion and disagreed with a few points. And then, unfortunately, some other people responded with ZOMG FEMINAZIS! Basically, the latter group heard the same interview as something resembling this:
(Okay, not the abortion part.)
Some people wrote in suggesting that the topic wasn’t worthy of discussion, and that Carrie and I exaggerated the problems. Many of the responses showed that on the contrary, we underestimated the problem and were downright wrong to say that the only sexism in the community is unintentional. Here are some highlights from the mailbag:
From Mike in Orangevale, CA via email:
I was listening to the August 4th episode, and your guest was Carey from Skepchicks that was talking about the Big Bang Theory show.
Actually, Carrie was talking about sexism. She mentioned a few clips she had seen at TAM of the Big Bang Theory and then asked that we discuss more important topics.
Skipping ahead a bit (bolding mine):
I mean is it surprising that attractive girls might be steered toward a path that is less than academic as they go through middle and high school? I rarely see really attractive women that are also highly intelligent or geeky and i dont think its a result of some kind of discrimination.
WTF? First of all, who said that all or most geeky women are or should be “really attractive?” Who cares? The point of our discussion was that we should focus on helping women feel comfortable in the skeptical community, not that we should . . . I don’t even know what Mike is saying here, actually. Is he saying that it’s rare for an attractive person to be smart, and therefore a TV show shouldn’t have a smart attractive person on? Someone call the producers of Bones, House, Fringe, Dollhouse . . . ah, screw it. Here’s how Mike wraps it all up, bolding mine again:
And did i hear right that the attendance at TAM for women was 40%!, i mean what do you want? i don’t understand what your guest is talking about saying that subjects and events like TAM are oppressive to women when you have half the TAM audience women.
Yeah, bitches, what more do you want? You should totally be happy with being half the TAM audience! Which is now 40%! 40% is half, really, it is! Even though you pointed out that the actual percentage was closer to 30%. It’s still pretty much half! Look at this pie chart I made:
Oh, and yeah, we never said TAM is “oppressive to women.” But why get bogged down with the facts?
If you think that Mike is just a one-off, you’re wrong. Gary from Albuquerque wrote in to disagree with everything we ever said, including (bolding mine):
Carrie lamented the fact that there aren’t enough women in the skeptical movement. Actually, when you consider the total population, there aren’t enough PEOPLE in the skeptical movement. And to be honest, most women that I know are more like the blonde character in Big Bang, and along with many men, are too busy living their lives to be interested in science, skepticality, or even current events.
So, most women and many men just aren’t interested in what we’re selling, and that’s why mostly men are at the conferences and why all but one speaker at TAM were men. Because women just don’t like science, guys! Case closed. Oh, you wanted scientific evidence that shows women just don’t like science? Gary prefers to base his assumptions on the people he assumes he knows, thankyouverymuch.
Now let’s turn to the SGU forum for a few more disagreeing skeptics, like “BertrandBataille,” who writes:
Honestly? It just felt like you were whining about stuff that, at the end of the day, doesn’t really matter.
This is in response to our reporting of incidents that upset many women at the conference. Why do their feelings just not matter? Hey ladies, are you running to hang out with skeptics yet?
One of my favorites on the SGU forum is user “Hanes.” At first it was tough to pick out just one gem of awesome from the veritable Tiffany’s he has erected, but then he posted this (bolding mine):
Anyway, my point is: fuck you. Fuck you, because I can tell you every single male at that conference would have enjoyed their time just as much if not more if their gender had been in the minority. No group wants more women in skepticism more than men, and you claiming that there’s a quiet, insidious sexism at work only betrays some hidden persecution complex you harbor.
This was in response to me correcting him on a strawman argument he built, saying that I called Kari Byron the “best example of women in the media” and then posting a picture of her nearly naked in some attempt to show that Kari isn’t worthy of being considered an intelligent, wonderful person since she’s actually a filthy slut, or something? I’m not sure as his “arguments” make no sense. He, like too many listeners, apparently, seems stuck on the minor point that I don’t like his favorite TV show, and that I feel the first season of it does a disservice to women by making the lone female main character a complete idiot. For that, I have a “persecution complex.” Sure.
Forumite “KarenX” does an admirable job of pointing out Hanes’ inanities, including an enlightening exchange in which he maintains that of course he wants more women in the community. She asks why. His response? To fuck them, of course!
Why would I want more women at a skeptic meetup? Well, the reason is twofold. First is the obvious one, which you have undoubtably guessed already. I wish to meet more people of like mind and unlike gender, such that I may begin a life-partnership with one of them and perhaps one day create a young version of us, be it daughter or son.
I suppose I should have understood that when he said “fuck you” to me, he meant it as a romantic overture. Me and my silly girl brain!
But wait! There’s another reason he wants more ladies around, and not just because of their quivering ova just waiting to meet his skeptical seed!
As you have noticed, when men are left to their own devices, a “locker room” atmosphere tends to develop. Women are a moderating influence on this; men, in the presence of women, are less likely to say, “and she is hot” and more likely to engage in conversation on the ideas presented by the female in discussion. This may be in a subconscious attempt to not offend or impress the females present, but intentions are irrelivent for my purposes. I hate locker rooms. Most nerds do. Bring on the enlightening discussion; women are a great help at doing this.
Wow! So it turns out that after all that bluster, he actually agrees with what we said? That maybe, just maybe, a bunch of dudes all together in one place might unknowingly create an atmosphere that makes women feel unwelcome?
Oh, but when KarenX calls him on it, he clarifies that that’s not sexism. Calling that sexism would be “rediculous” [sic]. Darn. We were so close.
Later, Hanes goes on to call me a sexist due to the Skepchick/Skepdude calendars and the fact that I have flirted with people. I responded to encourage him and others to discuss that because I’m just as accountable as anyone, and I think there’s certainly a case to be made that I’ve done or said some sexist things in my time. I figure, if this is the way they learn how to examine behaviors with a feminist eye, then all the better.
Why is it that feminists are so often misrepresented as being too sensitive, when cases like this clearly show the opposite? Neither Carrie nor I ever told anyone “fuck you.” We never called anyone a sexist. We never lost our temper and we gave everyone the benefit of the doubt, assuming or accepting clarifications that an insult wasn’t intended.
If only the same could be said for those who took offense to our discussion.
So, I throw this all back to you in the Skepchick community. What did you think of the interview? Were Carrie and I off-base? Is the backlash obscuring legitimate critiques?
And yeah, the standards for posting here are a bit higher than on the SGU forum, so please try to avoid the Hanes-like approach to public discourse or else you may end up banninated.
Regarding the breakdown of % men and % women at TAM, what sort of data do we have from the various skeptical organizations, magazines, etc., regarding the breakdown in membership or subscribership. I mean, a 50/50 mix at TAM would better reflect the total makeup of society, but I suspect that the 70/30 split may come closer to the breakdown of the membership in skeptical organizations.
So, again – what sort of data do we have about the demographics of the skeptical movement, in general?
First off, I loved your discussion! The point to me is that when 30% (or whatever) of the attendees of a conference are female, the actual conference schedule should reflect that. It was clarified that that wasn’t intentional, but if no attention is brought to the discrepancy, how are we going to correct it? The more heads we have thinking about solving this, the more female and minority speakers will be added to the program list, and the better TAM will become for everyone!
And, since I have to comment on Big Bang Theory, this show has become my mother’s favorite. I originally hated it (and the first season is pretty bad) and accused her of thinking that’s how my friends acted (there are minor similarities between my male friends and the characters on the show). I do enjoy the show now, but mostly because a) Penny no longer seems all that shallow, for all that she is not a skepchick, and b) if you don’t assume the characters are meant to be representative of scientists, the show is actually really funny. I do regret that there’s only one strong female scientist on the show (who is pretty stereotypical, for all my mom says she’s really the smartest scientist on the show), but, like you said on the podcast, it’s just a show.
As for the guy who says he hasn’t seen a pretty skeptical girl, I want to know what rock he’s been living under.
Hello Baiskeptic,
In regard to the Big Bang Theory, my impression about the show is that all the characters are cliched stereotypes and that 100% of the humour is derived from this. It could have just as easily been called ‘Men are from Mars… etc’.
Having worked in science (mostly physics) I can definitely say that the men and women I have worked with are a lot funnier and interesting than anything tv could come up with!
Meepo!
I did listen to the interview. Was interesting, definitely. Some thoughts I had about it:
1. It did start off with a lot of the Big-Bang theory example from TAM 7, which may explain why in people’s memories, that was the main point. You did do a good job, I thought, getting away from that example, but it did dominate the first 5 minutes of the conversation.
2. Although the SGU guys did have a fair and good chance to put in their comments, it was a lot more of you and Carrie talking, more so than in a regular interview. This may have given the impression that you send-up in your comic. But a woman-led conversation makes sense in context.
Generally, whoever is the “expert” in that field is the one who leads as interviewer in the SGU interviews. Now, normally, that’s Steve. But in this case, Rebecca is the expert, being a woman, a skeptic and a skepchick.
Glad to hear that the interview did spark some useful dialogue. Feminism is like racism, in that it’s one of those conversations where emotions can run so high that people don’t always see clearly (see Gates V. Officer AI from a couple weeks ago).
Oh, also, love the comic! Hillarious. I would appreciate a footnote to know which SGU member is which, though. Don’t know what they look like, and those that I do I can’t really tell apart (except for Steve).
All men look the same, after all.
I’m not even a girl, but this quote makes me wet:
“I wish to meet more people of like mind and unlike gender, such that I may begin a life-partnership with one of them and perhaps one day create a young version of us, be it daughter or son.”
And by “wet”, of course, I mean “reach for the FBI tip line”.
Listening to the show on Sunday afternoon I couldn’t help but think that, while I didn’t catch the talk in question on Ustream, I don’t think that there’s any excuse to make any group in the minority feel uncomfortable.
If, instead of an attractive blonde on the BBT, it was a stereotypical African American male slinging ebonics and dressed like Tupac, I don’t think anyone, male or female, would make the argument that it is potentially offensive and would make members of that minority uncomfortable.
I’m not really sure what my point is, but I agree that having more women in skepticism is a good thing. The question I suppose that needs to be asked, and I think this is the most appropriate venue:
What do you, as women in skepticism, think we could do, as both women and men already in skepticism, to attract more females to the cause? What brought you into it, and what do you think would appeal to your friends who might consider themselves skeptical, but do feel uncomfortable in a group primarily composed of men?
The one issue I have is that while there is a lot of people bringing up this issue, I don’t see a lot of suggestions from people as to how to fix it.
I could be wrong, or simply not hearing the suggestions, but my own little Skeptics group here in Calgary also suffers from a lack of women active within the group. I genuinely would love to hear a woman’s opinion on various skeptical topics, some of which are particularly targeted towards women, which I will never and can never understand because I simply don’t have the same mindset as a female in the 21st century.
One thing to remember is that it might not matter to some people that 30-40% of the attendees were women. The only overt sexism I encountered at TAM was people assuming I wasn’t a skeptic because I was female and in the company of a man. There may very well be people who assume that most of that 40% are just being dragged there by their partners.
I have this rule that I came up with several years ago:
If several emotionally stable, intelligent people are offended by something I do or say, then I was probably doing or saying something offensive whether I intended it or not.
The fact that I had to come up with a test to see if I was being offensive should tell you something about me.
I haven’t had a chance to listen to that edition of the podcast yet and I didn’t attend TAM. With that said, I certainly don’t think you’re off-base. At least in part, this is a historical and cultural legacy. The originators of the modern skeptical movement were all males thus the skeptical movement has been a traditionally male-centric one. I also think our culture more often values a questioning attitude in males whereas females are encouraged to go along to get along.
So if we accept the premise that the skeptical movement is up against the same societal momentum in 2009 as, for example, business and politics were in the 1970s then I think a special effort should be made to be more inclusive or women and minorities at events like TAM and in general. Not to do so risks the skeptical movement becoming even more marginalized than it already is as the rest of society comes to view it as a historical anachronism.
I see the problem of female under-representation in the skeptical community to be an extension of the problem of under-representation in STEM fields – that is, the same early-life experiences that discourage girls and young women from pursuing STEM also discourage them from being outspoken in matters of critical thinking.
Unfortunately, the systematic sexism in our society often leaves men – even otherwise intelligent men – confused about the nature of sexism. It is very difficult for a privileged person to see their own privilege; so when others point out how that privilege has been used to oppress the outgroup, it can seem like so much whining.
I understand your rant, Rebecca, and you’re welcome to it. But now that you’ve ranted, perhaps you’d consider using skepchicks for a “Sexism 101” type series of posts? Such a thing would be interesting and useful to me, and may even reach a few people who sorely need the education.
Downloading podcast to listen now. Will perhaps have insightful commentary later.
Willing to say now that Mr. Life-Partnership sounds like he’s running about 11 on the Sleaze-o-Meter.
@autotroph: Upon re-reading my own comment, I realize that it implies that it is only early-life experience that causes the under-representation. I didn’t intend that implication, I’m well aware of systemic sexism in the field and other factors.
@gobleugirl:
Ha ha, I know which is which, but I thought I’d leave it up to the reader to interpret!
I have been listening to the back episodes of the SGU, and I’ve noted that sexism in science and skepticism has come up on many occassions. I don’t feel there is an effort to keep women and minorities out of the upper echelon of these fields, but differing socio-economic factors that limit what CAN be taken advantage of.
First and foremost, I think there is less of an interest in science and skepticism in women and minorities. I base this on-go to a middle-high school, and randomly poll students-what do you want to be when you grow up. I, personally think white males are more likely to say “sciencey” occupations. Women and minorities are more likely, IMHO, to say things which have, historically, been dominated by their respective group.
Additionally, there are other factors that influence how far someone can go in their chosen field. Continuing education takes money and time. Minorities often come from a background of lower economic background, meaning that they have to work harder, to maintain grants and scholorships, as if they lose that, funding becomes harder to find.
Women often different factors. As we’ve all noted, women are the ones who get pregnant. While it is possible for women to go to school and carry a child, it does cut into their time. After that, there’s the tending and rearing of the child. Women-even if the father is present and active, often (but not always) take care of the baby. This cuts into the time women often have to dedicate to their continuing education.
Finally, I think to ask “Why are there not more women and minorities in science and skepticism?” an unfair question without asking “Why are there not more straight, white males in cosmatology, nursing, and proffessional sports?”
These previously mentioned occupations are industries where straight, white males are not accurately represented, according to the relative population. However, there is no push to get more in, and there is no questioning why there are not more. So, my question back is….”Why?”
I’ve listened twice but I guess I wasn’t paying attention because I apparently missed a lot of stuff that the damned feminazies Carri and Rebecca were saying. MMM, feminazies, love those tight fighting little leather skirts and plunge front shirts. I’ve tried to watch Big-Bang, and How I met your mother, and house and bones and numb3rs. I want to support skeptical atheist tv but I don’t really enjoy them. I love Mythbusters, Food Detectives, Good Eats, Time Warp. I crush on Kari Byron. She is such a beautiful woman, and so smart. I am happy that the show didn’t hide her pregnancy. And as far as that go there are so many pretty and sexy women in the skeptical, science, atheist community. Dr. Pamela Gay, Jennifer Ouillete, leap to mind.
Guys, don’t be such bitter dorks. Join a gym, walk and jog until you get the weight under control. Lift some weights to get a little muscle tone. Buy some copies of GQ and pay attention. Try and dress well, keep your hair clean so it isn’t always a hanging there greasy and limp. Take a shower every day wether you need it or not. Buy some face wash. Learn the joys of anti-persperant. Use mouth wash and keep some mints or gum handy. Join a non-skeptic club so you can learn how to talk to non-skeptics politely. Maybe then the women won’t be so scary and you won’t have to attack them.
We need to be challenged on our assumptions constantly, and skeptics MAY just be susceptible to a touch of blindspot-itis. We think we’ve purged all our preconceptions and prejudices, and get very defensive when anyone suggests that we may have missed something.
Lack of women and people-other-than-white-males is a symptom of our poor outreach and general insularity. On the other hand, I’ve been very encouraged over the years by the increasing numbers of younger people in the skeptical movement. I don’t want to say that 10 years ago skeptics were generally cantankerous fuddy duddies shouting “get off my lawn,” but there. I said it.
We white males need to get out of our comfort zone and start bringing the message to more people, regardless of gender, color, number of heads, what have you – but it’s not easy. Just ask Neil Tyson, who has been thinking about this and trying to act on it for something like the past 20 years. It’s a constant struggle against allowing the group to simply self-select, which is just an excuse for not trying very hard and just welcoming whoever shows up. This is all well and good, but it does tend to produce groups of people who are all very much alike.
@autotroph:
Yes, your comment actually made me think that perhaps I should also at some point post the really great emails I got, one of which was from a working female scientist who took issue with the Hollywood panel at TAM, in which the panelists were asked about the lack of female scientists in the world and completely missed the major factors that discourage women in the upper echelons of academia.
Hey Rebecca – What is your impression of the male characters on Big Bang Theory? Do you find them annoying and insulting as well?
Because personally, I find them all annoying, insulting… and hilarious! I really don’t think they are picking on Penny, or on women, in their barefaced stereotyping.
thanks for having the conversation Rebecca, and Carrie, and thanks for sticking to your guns. These conversations always seem to go down the same paths (like the charming examples you cite) and it can get tiring so thank you for doing the hard work. without Skepchick I would feel MUCH less connected to skepticism as a community. I’d feel totally an outsider.
I think with the right kind of efforts TAM can get a ton of excellent speakers who are women/POC, looking forward to hearing about them next year.
I have to say, I found the negative reactions on the Forum to be baffling. It seemed way out of proportion to, well, anything. I couldn’t really find anything in the discussion I disagreed with.
In TAM’s defense, my partner, who’s a computer network architecture and security specialist, says she’d never been to a conference with such a high proportion of women before.
@Beleth:
Meh, a bit . . . I was put off by the easy stereotyping of the common nerd, which probably fed into the fact that I just really never liked the show. I got about one chuckle per episode, which wasn’t a good enough ratio to keep up the viewing after I finished the 1st season DVDs.
I see the point about them not purposely picking on women. I just saw a show where it’s smart nerds vs. idiot, and all the nerds are men and the idiot is a woman, and all the jokes play on that very easy stereotype. That bored me, and made me long for something a bit, well, smarter.
Maria, of course, comes with most of the same concerns as me but finds the show funny, so I suppose if I thought it was funnier I may have been able to put aside my annoyances as well.
I broke my personal ban on posting in wanky threads and wrote a post on page 16 of that forum thread and regret it now. Never get involved in a land war in Asia…
Anyway, I thought your discussion was really restrained and mild and I’m totally flabbergasted by some of the reactions on the forum.
@Rebecca:
“I should also at some point post the really great emails I got”
Yes yes yes! I already know what the sexist bozos are saying.
@Skepotter: Ha ha, okay. I’ll see about doing a follow-up post tomorrow.
BTW-one thing that irks me, and I want to phrase it in a way that doesn’t come off as I have an axe to grind-is the lack of intellegent gay male characters on tv. They are either drama queens, or comic relief. I’d like to see a strong lead or supporting character, who is intellegent, and who happens to be gay. But, I feel that is art, which imitates life, which imitates art.
Quite a good article for a pretty girl!
I’ll get my coat!