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!
@Rebecca:
That’s interesting for its bias. I enjoyed the show at first, but quickly tired of it, so this isn’t a defense of the show by any means – but the show I saw was not “smart nerds v. idiots” but rather “socially inept nerds v. suave and attractive people”.
I never got the message that the show’s female lead was stupid – only not a nerd. And I tired greatly of the stereotype that all “nerdy” people are are socially inept men pining after “normal” women whom the men will never understand. As Randall Munroe put it, “I happen to like nerdy girls.” :-)
That, and the stereotype that anyone who isn’t a nerd isn’t intelligent.
Some people get really defensive when their privilege is pointed out. Like you and Carrie pointed out in the interview/discussion, you can call someone’s comments, actions, or statements sexist without saying the person themselves is sexist. Our culture is just so ingrained that many people may make a joke without really thinking about it.
While listening to the podcast and reading here I kept thinking of the series “Feminism 101” over at Shakesville. There are some good posts that I think could be adapted here, if you were to go with a suggestion about having some “Sexism 101” as @autotroph suggested. Two that fits this discussion cover the belief that sexism is a matter of opinion, and that feminists look for stuff to get mad about.
Thanks for discussing this topic.
I’ve avoided the forums, as there is a subset of the populace there that jump on any opportunity to attack Rebecca as a proxy for all the women in their life ever, but I can imagine it’s appalling.
40% female attendance at TAM is certainly heading in the right direction and should be celebrated. At the same time the discussion must be had as to what are the next steps to increase that and to increase representation on the panels and as speakers.
I see a lot of guys get very defensive when the dominance of white men in field X gets discussed. If multiple groups* over many years are all raising the same complaint then wouldn’t the scientific mindset say “gee, maybe we should investigate that rather than yelling at the people pointing out the problem.”?
*women, minorities, gays
@infinitemonkey:
Totally! GLAAD recently published a list of the best and worst networks for showing gay characters or issues:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/27/hbo-glaads-top-network-fo_n_245249.html
However, I’m not sure they took into consideration how those characters were portrayed.
@polomint38: You are so lucky that made me laugh or you’d be totally banninated by now.
Oh my gawd! I just realized that as a Teen Skepchick I have mod powers on comments on Skepchick! Hee hee hee censorship…
Anyway.
Regardless of sex, what about your day to day life keeps you so busy that you can’t find half an hour to read a newspaper? And what is so fascinating about a nine to five job (or whatever) that you don’t want to make time to find out what the hell’s going on around you?
And with regard to sex, how does the female daily routine take up more time than the male daily routine?
Why is it that feminists are so often misrepresented as being too sensitive
As others have mentioned, the problem with sexism and racism is that while there’s not much overt sexism like “Hanes”, there’s still a lot of subtle sexism which may be worse in some ways because people don’t even realize they’re thinking those things. Even though skeptics try to be rational, sometimes they become so arrogant about their rationality that they are offended if someone suggests that they might be influenced by biases that they are unaware of. So when someone points out genuine covert sexism, it might seem like they are just being over-sensitive. If the rational skeptic didn’t already notice the inherent sexism, then they think it must not exist and the other person is making stuff up.
@autotroph:
You pretty much hit every point I wanted to make.
@infinitemonkey:
Yes, I completely agree. They are always just token characters.
Nice podcast. It didn’t seem to focus too strongly on the TV show. I suppose people who actually watch The Big Bang Theory and enjoy it (I’ve seen exactly one clip) would focus on that.
Good comment from Carrie about the idea some people seem to imply that there is one and only one good way to be a woman in skepticism.
@infinitemonkey: Oh oh oh! The new series of Stargate’s going to have a lesbian character who’s strong and intelligent! Or so I’ve been told.
As a TAM attendee, who brought along his beautiful wife, I have a couple comments to make about women at TAM and in the skeptics movement in general.
As men, we never grow up and need constant reminders to elevate our discourse. It would be great if other guys could fulfill this need, generally it requires a woman. (probably only half joking there) Any group with a preponderance of men can probably benefit from a female presence more in accord with the population.
My wife is a big fan of “The Big Bang Theory”. Like many, she was disappointed in the portrayal of Penny in early episodes. Now, Penny, is the equal of any of the guys in her worldly competence and smarts. She just doesn’t have the science/engineering education of the guys.
My wife’s experience at TAM was nothing short of exceptional. The only time she expressed feminine indignation was during the airing of Brian Dunning’s video of the “Truth Hurts” video. She thought THAT was overtly sexist and demeaning to women.
I think it is important to discuss the demographics of any group created with the intention of moving public discourse and opinion.
Nobody guessed that the noise thing was a bottlenose dolphin? “Dolphin” was my first guess before the clip had even stopped playing! I suppose I should have listened last week. Then I could’ve been famous.
The new one sounds like Clint Eastwood. . . .
I’ve only seen the first season of Big Bang Theory. What I’ve seen, I like quite a lot. I don’t see Penny as stupid. To me, she represents the “one sane person in the asylum”, much like Bob Hartley or Edmund Blackadder. John Cleese once said that watching someone be crazy is funny but watching someone watch someone be crazy is much funnier.
I was going to comment that I’d like to see more of Sara Gilbert’s character, since she seems to be marginally more “normal” than the other geek characters. I went to look up the character name (Leslie Winkle) on Wikipedia and found that she “was promoted to main cast during the second season, but demoted again once the writers realized they could not produce quality material for her for every episode”. Something tells me this says more about the writers than the character.
And that may be the real problem here. For the writers and very probably a lot of the general public, the “female intellectual” is still this near-mythical creature that only a few brave adventurers have encountered in the wild. I suspect a lot of people would actually fail to recognize one when they happen to run across one, which probably leads to confusion for both parties. I also suspect that this is the root cause behind Bill Prady’s unfortunate “pretty eyes” comment and also the range of reactions to it.
@Elles:
Makeup, hair, shoes.
@Blake Stacey: It is, its from his latest movie Gran Torino.
I thought the piece on SGU conflated two topics that shouldn’t have been: 1)Was Bill Prady’s talk sexist (and point to an overall sexist trend) and 2) are women fairly represented as speakers and attendees.
1) Bill Prady has been done to death. No rehash from me. 2) I remember making a suggestion in the original thread (which gathered no comment) and Steve made the same suggestion during the podcast (which gathered no comment) which amounts to essentially: “If you don’t like it, fix it.” TAM is run mostly (entirely?) by volunteers. Anyone can volunteer. Any one can nominate a speaker. If half as much energy were applied to stacking the list of invited speakers as is being spent bemoaning the gender discrepancy the problem would be well on the way to being remedied.
One quick tangent, all the discussion about the Big Bang Theory has focused on Kelly Cuoco’s character, but she’s not the only female in the show. Doesn’t Sara Gilbert’s recurring role serve to show smart women at least as positive a light as the male characters get?
Disclaimer: Female. Did go to TAM.
Just listened to the interview this morning on the bus.
I both agree and disagree.
First, to get the Bill Prady thing out of the way:
This, I disagree with you on. Personally, what I got out of the woman in the bar scenario he threw out was actually an admonishment to people to stop being jerks, because a woman would probably rather hear a compliment than a condescending lecture about why what she believes in is crap. I think that’s pretty fair to say. I didn’t share your negative impression of that particular comment at all. In fact, I rather liked hearing a guy come out and remind the men that women don’t want to be lectured and don’t want to be talked down to.
Now, regarding the clips of the show, yeah, those I was pretty :/ about. I’m very tired of the believer in a show always being female. I’m pretty tired of there not being female nerds on display.
Now, on to the actual meat of the interview and comments that you posted:
I was also struck by how white and male the speakers at TAM ended up being. Now, hearing Steve’s explanation that POC and women were invited and couldn’t make it did make me feel better. I’ve been involved in staffing conventions before, and the sad fact is that sometimes, scheduling just doesn’t work out. But I also think that probably if you’re in the market for speakers, there are more white dudes than there are POC/women, which means that you’re just more likely to get white dudes because there’s more to choose from. The solution for that is putting more effort into elevating POC/women, because I’d certainly hope we’re contributing as much – our contributions just may not be getting as much acknowledgment/fame for many of the reasons you mentioned, which makes us less likely to get speaking gig offers.
And gawd, “men want there to be more women because men want to get laid” makes me barf. Yes, that’s certainly a way to get the women to want to hang out in larger numbers. Make sure that we know we’re around to be fuckmuppets, not because we have anything to contribute. Gag.
I don’t really have much else to say on the topic of making women feel more welcome at TAM or in the skeptical movement in general. I’ve honestly never felt in the least unwelcome; it could just be because the Denver group is really awesome.
However, I’m not going to claim that there isn’t a problem, since if we weren’t still having sexist issues, you wouldn’t have gotten those absolutely winning e-mails. Though I am wondering how much of it we can address in the context of the small society of skeptics, when I would bet that a lot of it flows from the broadly based sexism of society in general. Obviously if nothing else, people get offended and incredibly bitchy when they think they’re somehow enlightened (“I’m a skeptic!”) and it’s pointed out that they can still be subject to the far-reaching influence of the patriarchy.
Sorry to be so meandering. I’m having a hard time organizing my thoughts on this.
@icepick: I wasn’t at TAM (boo!) – what was wrong with Brian Dunning’s video? I’m curious because I usually really like Skeptoid, though I don’t always agree with him.
@katsudon: I’d like to personally thank you for introducing me to the term “fuckmuppets.” It is both disturbing and hilarious and will be in my lexicon from now on.
I haven’t had a chance to listen to the podcast, but I did attend both TAM6 and TAM7.
For the most part, I didn’t have any problems with the men there. Most were polite and intelligent and seemed genuinely interested in what I had to say.
However, there is clearly a sub-set of men at TAM that show up to pickup skeptical chicks…and that makes me feel like I’m in a meat market and makes me uncomfortable. Even though most of the men I spoke to there were nice…I was worried I might step on a landmine. I would think to myself, “Will this guy think I’m hitting on him just because I’m talking to him or is he normal?”.
The next thing that bugged me was actually very subtle and I don’t think there was any intentional malice, but when guys acted surprised that I was smart…it really bugged me. Yeah, I like being thought of as smart, but I hate it when someone is surprised that I’m smart…then again…that isn’t a TAM thing. I run into the “ZOMG YOU’RE SMART???!!!111!!!” thing a lot. Really, it shouldn’t be surprising that a woman isn’t stupid.
Finally, the sexism in the “Truth Hurts” video bugged me as well.
There undoubtedly should be more women and minorities in the audience of skeptical meetings as well as on stage but I came away from the most recent SGU interview with the understanding that some women feel that there may be an underlying sexism in the skeptical community and I am not sure I agree with that. Coming from a white male I realized that I may being over looking subtleties that others may pick up. I have began to talk to some women about the subject and have found that there is mixed feelings regarding this. Rebecca, about what percentage of e-mails have you received from women who don’t necessarily feel that there are these sexist attitudes within skepticism? If this indeed is a problem within the skeptics movement it is troubling.
@Rebecca “@katsudon: I’d like to personally thank you for introducing me to the term ‘fuckmuppets.’ It is both disturbing and hilarious and will be in my lexicon from now on.”
It’s fun to say, but it seems a bit redundant to me. Though I am in a polyamorous relationship with Statler and Waldorf.
Good show; great rant. My one criticism of the show was that I think Carrie and the Rogues could have actually gone further in the discussion. I read her original article and the furor that ensued, and I thought it was great. The podcast interview seemed like a much watered-down version. I guess it’s harder when you’re all on the same side of the argument, but perhaps you could have commented on some of the dissenting opinions you’d encountered.
I was raised to believe that feminists were “the enemy” (i.e.: strident, angry bitches). It’s not that equality isn’t a goal to which folks pay lip-service; it’s that feminists are regarded humourless, overly-sensitive, and easily-offended. I think it was my atheism that actually opened my eyes: living in a culture where the majority of people believe something which you find to be rather offensive, and assume that you do as well; experiencing that constant, low-level irritation of having that worldview forced upon you, you begin to appreciate how frustrated and annoyed other minorities must feel. And while it’s easy to spot the overt discrimination, unless you’re the one on the receiving end, it’s often difficult to see the more subtle stuff until it’s pointed out to you. That, for me, was the value of some of the blog posts (including Carrie’s) that came out of TAM. I think most guys in the sceptical movement want to be inclusive; sometimes we just need a little help with recognizing when we aren’t.
@davew:
First, the speakers for TAM are selected by the JREF staff, not volunteers. They do accept suggestions, which is why we compiled a list of 50 or so potential female speakers. When it comes to a JREF event, it is up to the JREF to decide whether or not to focus on the subjects of sex and race.
As for “if you don’t like it, fix it,” we’ve offered speaker suggestions, highlighted issues, and even organized our own conference full of awesome female speakers. Are you really implying that we’re not doing enough for your tastes?
@KristinMH:
Truth Hurts was actually mostly well done and would have been fine if not for the female host.
1) There was a male and female host and the male was clearly the smarter of the two.
2) The woman was dressed in tight fitting clothes and there was a gratuitous shot of her sitting in a bikini in a hot tub.
Basically, it was pretty obvious that the purpose of the woman was to serve as eye candy and attract male viewers.
I really enjoyed the interview and I think you and Carrie did a great job. In fact, I think some more of your arguments could have been brought up. In the end, it seemed to me that you were acknowledging that there are still societal problems with women interested in science and this tends to influence the people in skepticism.
I am amazed at these e-mails, as if we women are somehow responsible for keeping the locker room mentality at bay. Ugh, how repulsive. I don’t want to be in any room with those men.
But anyway, it was a good interview and a welcome topic discussion.
@Steve:
Wow, that’s a really interesting find. I agree, it does say more about the writers . . . when her character showed up I thought, “Oh! Finally!” and was disappointed to realize she was just an occasional guest.
This blog post managed to focus on two things from the SGU forum: the one guy who was really mad and said some not so nice things, and the one girl who completely agreed. 16 pages of discussion, and all you come up with is confirmation bias? What about all the posts that do a really good job of criticizing your position without resorting to Ad Homs. Why not ignore obvioustroll and do something more productive, like start a discussion about the totally legit criticisms ainstead of just posting something that is obviously meant to reinforce your already held view in a forum populated by ‘friendlies’?
I am a girl, was at TAM, and didn’t notice any sexism, and did not get offended. Not only that, but I don’t agree that anything that has been happening is a matter of sexism, but one of a need to diversify demographics. Working to create a bigger rift with this ‘us women’ and ‘them men’ attitude by calling ‘sexism’ at every misplaced comment does not help.
Of course men are going to try to pick up women at TAM. They already know you are smart, and they don’t have to worry about you asking for their sign. Picking up someone in a place like that gets rid of 90% of the issues with dating, namely figuring out if the other person holds the same basic belief system about the world that you do.
@Elles: That’s actually part of my beef. There have been a few shows where and intelligent and intergral part of the team is lesbian, but, with the exception of Will from Will and Grace, there have not been strong gay male characters outside of independant films-do a search on “Hell Bent”-a gay slasher flick, and the studio that produced it.
@sowellfan: Sorry, this is way late. You asked about demographics….they’re pretty tough to come by for the skeptical community as a whole, since we’re so spread out and there is no True Skeptic (except that one we kicked out months ago). The JREF does do surveys at TAM now, and the percentage of women has been steadily rising. I could be mistaken, but I believe the most recent was around 34% women? I’ll have to doublecheck.
Even Skepchick was only hitting around 40% the last time we had a survey, though that was over a year ago. We should have another soon, I think.
@autotroph:
Bang. On. I think the word “sexism” sticks in people’s craw. “Certainly *I* am not sexist! I am an intelligent progressive person. Harumph.” There are many factors involved here that are more complex than personal individual “sexism” as it’s typically interpreted. If people are spending time getting defensive, then we have to waste time we could be using to fix the situation.
Also, I’d like if very much if people would not act like women are important to skepticism because of how we balance out the men, but rather because of what we can contribute. Thanks to the forum members for explicitly demonstrating that there is still sexism in skepticism.
@infinitemonkey: Not entirely true re: getting men etc into certain fields. My field is mostly women and we actively seek out new ways in which we can make the atmosphere more welcome to men. I can’t say that’s true for every profession, but it’s certainly not true that no one is concerned about other types of gender/sex/race/etc inequalities.
@Rebecca: I think the emails that brought up other points (and/or had praise) would be an interesting read. I like hearing multiple points of view, and to be able to point to them when I’m having this discussion with others — often other people say things way better than I can.
@catgirl: It’s the same way in which religious people think atheists are being “too sensitive”. Everyone’s happy if we keep quiet. Once we make noise, we’re the histrionic troublemakers.
@Steve: Leslie Winkle is actually the character I have the biggest problem with because, @davew, no she doesn’t. She is practically a robot. So then the contrast between her and the other female character is smart/beautiful/normal and genius/plain/weird. It’s grating.
@KristinMH:
The Truth Hurts video offended some people, but even more clearly dickish, imho, was when Brian Dunning was doing his presentation on the stage, and he replaced the photo of a female Russian cosmonaut with a photo of a more attractive woman, because the female cosmonaut was too ugly.
@Rebecca: Nobody’s really addressed the question I posed in comment #1 about the demographics of the skeptical movement overall. You made a significant point with your pie chart in the article, that seemed to indicate that you thought that women were under-represented at TAM, compared to their numbers in skepticism as a whole – but maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.
@Gabrielbrawley: my wife gets ready for a night out in about the same time I do, including “hair, makeup, shoes”.
A proper shave takes about as much time as makeup, and shoes take about the same time. Her hair is long, and so takes longer to put up than I take to style mine… but her dress goes on a lot faster than a proper suit.
For daily work, I have to dress, while she can be casual – and she gets ready faster than I do as a result.
I suggest that if the woman in your life takes significantly longer than you to get ready, she’s either very slow, or she’s simply doing a better job of getting ready than you are.
@karyn:
I highlighted the most egregious because that is what I’ve been bombarded with. I think it shows that there is a point to discussing sexism in the community.
The bulk of the posts on the forum were absurd strawmen of our position. If there was a valid point among them that I didn’t respond to on the forum, I wasn’t able to sort through the bile to find it.
Edited to add: And btw, I did quote one other forum member who thought the issue just wasn’t worth discussing.
@Rebecca – thanks for the response. Regarding Comment #59, “Oh – never mind. /Emily Latilla”
@Rebecca (reply #51)
If the guest list is basically thought up by JREF staff, I wonder if there’s any way to give a little more input. Sometimes there seems to be a sort of partitioning effect to who people tend to think of as potential speakers for events like this. Like a woman or POC might be more likely to think of female or POC speakers, because we tend to gravitate toward them more in an effort to find people like ourselves.
We could also try a sort of surgical strike for next year. There are the questionnaires that we can turn in, and unless I’m remembering wrong, there’s always a question regarding who we’d like to see at TAM in the future. We could come up with a list of awesome female/POC speakers and just get all the skepchicks to put that down.
@infinitemonkey:
I agree. I think that producers assume that the homophobic public will be more accepting of lesbians (because that’s hawt) than of gay men (because of the anal sex). They may or may not be right on this assumption, but I think that’s what it basically boils down to. Some people even have trouble equating lesbianism with male homosexuality, and for some reason, that’s who tv caters too. Unfortunately because of this attitude, having strong lesbian characters may have limited success in opening up the opportunity for better gay male characters.
@autotroph: I was being a smart ass I didn’t really mean it.
I thought the convo was ok, a bit awkward at times, but I am glad it’s being talked about. I am also glad everyone was rational and down to earth about the topic instead of being extreme.
I also want to note how awesome it is that there is no comment beneath Rebecca’s response. We all fancy ourselves above sensationalist trolls, but deep down it’s nice to have someone that jumps right in with the cussing and the crude.
@Gabrielbrawley: Oh. I failed to pick up your sarcasm, sorry.
I was not at TAM nor do I watch the big bang theory, so I’m really commenting as an outsider/white male. I just wanted to say that I would also like to see more women speakers and attendees (and not just as “sex muppets”). I do believe that most would agree with me, I just think that alot of white males don’t think about diversity. While I know Rebecca has probably gotten some vicious email, I thank her for the discussion, as well as that great comic strip. “let’s get abortions” could be a tshit
*shrug* I think a lot of it has to do with the individuals themselves.
My parents raised me to believe I could be whatever I wanted – as long as I did what was expected of me. Gender shouldn’t have anything to do with it.
I take that attitude with me. When someone comments on “what’s a pretty girl doing in a profession like this?” (or something similar), I just shrug and tell them I like science and I’m excellent at what I do and move on.
There will always be people who want to define you by your gender. You can’t let them. But raising a ruckus over it just makes it worse – by getting enraged over sexism or appearances of sexism, you look like a “feminazi”.
Unless it’s really blatant (I’ve been pinned against more than one wall in my time), I’ve found that just accepting the statement in a bored manner and getting on with kicking ass and taking names is far more effective at getting you where you want to go. Because in my experience, the people making the gender-based statements are the ones who will try and get a rise out of you. And once they make you show red, you can’t get rid of that rep. (Says the girl with the REALLY horrible temper – I almost hit a guy on one field site, but I was smart enough to walk away – and another guy hit him for me later because of his assholery :D )
Now I’m not saying you should accept the behaviour. Work on some withering come-backs – I’ve personally made some grown men cry with an arched eyebrow and calm observation. Just act like you have the right to be there and that you don’t particularly care whether or not they think you’re “girly” – it’s amazing how far it takes you.
Also – quite honestly – the worst bosses I’ve ever had were women. I’m not saying all my male bosses were shining paragons of virtue and my female bosses were vindictive harpies. But the bosses most notable for trying to steal my ideas or stab me in the back? Yeah, women. The bosses who have done the most to mentor me and see I got my recognition and fair pay? Yeah, men.
Really, it boils down to the individuals you work with. If they are smart and secure and you do what you’re supposed to do and do it well, most could give a crap at the end of the day. If they are small enough to be threatened by anyone smarter than themselves – male or female – there really is crap-all you can do about it. Some people just suck.
@Rebecca & @Steve:
< writer hat=”on” >
If they struggling so much to write material for a female character, they could have written her exactly the way they’d write a man. If that’s what you gotta do to get words down on the page, that’s what you do. Legend has it that the script for Alien was originally written so that each character could be played by either a male or a female actor.
If the writer has to think, “OK, this character is a dude” in order to crank out lines for an intelligent, competent individual, that’s unfortunate. However, by the time the script is revised, the director has chosen to emphasize this or that, and the character is actually played by a woman, the end result will be a stronger work, and everybody wins.
@Rebecca: That’s actually an interesting point, because as I recall you’re a fan of The IT Crowd (as am I), which has a similar dynamic of the girl who knows nothing about computers to the point of believing that the Internet resides in a black box that’s not connected to anything versus a couple of socially inept nerds who make jokes at the expense of her lack of nerdiness (see: Internet in a box). I’m curious why you like the one show but find the other unbearable.
Having never seen The Big Bang Theory, I can at least venture to explain why The IT Crowd doesn’t bother me. The latter seems particularly egalitarian in the sense of having pretty much everybody act like a complete idiot more or less all the time. For that matter, the only person on the show consistently portrayed as being actually stupid is Matt Berry as the womanising buffoon who inherits the company the other characters work for. The others aren’t portrayed as dumb, just either ignorant of computers or incompetent in social situations or whatever. In particular, to the extent that Jen fails, it’s not because she’s dumb so much as she digs herself into deep holes by lying or misrepresenting herself — a personality flaw quite separate from general intelligence.
@Kimbo Jones: Interesting. I perceive that character completely differently. To me, she seems smart, reserved, pragmatic, confident and sarcastic. I tend to like that sort of person.
@Rebecca: “As for “if you don’t like it, fix it,†we’ve offered speaker suggestions, highlighted issues, and even organized our own conference full of awesome female speakers. Are you really implying that we’re not doing enough for your tastes?”
I’m saying that during the SGU podcast I didn’t hear any of this. Am I wrong? At 54:20 Steve talked about trying to recruit more women to speak at TAM, but Carrie pulled the conversation back to generalities about “women in skepticism.” Discussing problems without discussing solutions may be cathartic, but it is not productive. (Yes compulsive problem-solving is stereotypically male. I’m okay with that.)
@infinitemonkey: What about Captain Jack from Torchwood? Ok, he’s bi, not gay, but that’s pretty unusual too.
@davew: I’m guessing it was cut for time, unfortunately. I did go into detail about the list of dozens of female speakers Skepchick compiled last year.
@Rebecca: so people asking you too clarify your point is bile? There were 5 posts out of 248 that you could have taken offense to in that thread. The rest was a discussion on criticisms of ‘sexism in the skeptical movement’. It seems to me that you are reading criticism of your ideas and a request to refine them as a personal attack on you. It is the same reason so many people are offended by ‘you calling them sexists’ when you think that’s not what you said at all. The things you have done to encourage more women to join the skeptical movement are commendable, but please don’t use derogatory language, or point to the derogatory behaviors of someone else in a public forum and expect that sort of behavior to resolve the problem. Ignore the assholes, address the criticism and give thanks for the praise. You will accomplish a lot more that way.
@Blake Stacey: Interesting point. I’ve done that before, written a short story and at the last minute swapped the genders of two main characters. It actually made the plot work better.
@Steve: Perhaps I’m continuing to react to my initial impression of her. I suppose she too grew a little bit into more of a person as her character progressed. I’m thinking of things like her “courtship” with Leonard and that sort of thing. She just seemed a bit inhuman. It was annoying to me that finally there was a female scientist and 1) she was barely on and 2) she was heartless. For the record I do like the show, as much as sitcoms can be liked, and I watch it regularly — if that helps to put things in context.
@Joshua: True, I love the IT Crowd. There are a number of differences, and perhaps the most important is the fact that I find it funny. However, the two “nerds” on the IT Crowd are IT guys, not scientists, and the one girl isn’t dumb, she just knows nothing about technology. She’s usually shown to be much smarter than both of the guys put together.
Regardless, I find that IT Crowd is sharp and doesn’t go for the easy jokes and stereotypes, as opposed to BBT.
@autotroph: It’s cool, hard to convey tone on the internets and there are some crazy, crazy people out there.
@karyn: I’m not sure how or why you counted which of the posts on the forum I was supposed to take offense at. Your point about people being “offended by ‘you calling them sexists’ when you think that’s not what you said at all” is apt: I explained very clearly, both on the podcast and on the forum, that we were not calling anyone sexist. This was ignored in favor of piling on. I can not continue to explain what has already been so clearly explained.
@JHGRedekop: I’ve read up on torchwood, as I’m not familar with it, and, so far, its only american presence in on BBC America, so, I’m not really sure if I can count it.
If I’m soundling like a cynic dismissing valid points apriori, please, let me know.
@Rebecca: I hope you don’t feel like I’ve hijacked your post to beat my own GLBT drum.
The only concern I had with the talk was this:
Both yourself and Carrie took great pains to explain that you’re not calling anyone sexist. Alright. And also that some of the problems you noticed aren’t the result of anyone’s actions, just coincidents or accidents (such as the gender makeup of TAM speakers). But then proceeded to call the situation sexist.
Now, the problem here is that I disagree that a situation can be sexist. People are sexist or not sexist. Situations are just situations. So really what you’re saying when you say it’s sexist, is that someone in charge of TAM (the men in charge?) are sexist.
Now, I know that’s not what you mean. But it does look like you’re saying that. I think think that’s why so many men are going on the defensive about it.
Has anyone else noticed the parallels between how women are treated in a predominantly masculine environment and how atheists are treated in a predominantly Christian one?
The dialog goes the same way. “You have been allowed to play in the sandbox. Isn’t that what you wanted? That’s fair enough, right? What? Equality and mutual respect? We let you in and now you want special treatment?!! Christ on a cracker, you people are so full of rage!”
@Steve:
I have to admit, I’ve assigned sexes to characters for some pretty silly reasons. For example, midway through an earlier revision of my science-fiction novel, I wanted to bring in an old flame of one of my protagonists. Another character has been in the early stages of pursuing this protagonist, so this seemed like an excellent recipe for a deliciously awkward situation. Now, how could I ramp the awkward up to eleven? Of course: make the protagonist and the old flame the same sex, and have the new love interest find the old flame teh hawt.
Like I said, it was a pretty silly idea. But my one-and-only customer comment on Amazon.com is a five-star review, so I think I’ve scientifically proven that it was the right thing to do! :-)
@Rebecca: “I’m guessing it was cut for time, unfortunately. I did go into detail about the list of dozens of female speakers Skepchick compiled last year.”
Then I apologize. I’m glad I was only a miscommunication.
@daoist:
Why can’t a situation be sexist?
@blake stacey
because configurations of the universe aren’t moral agents.
@daoist:
Interesting! I disagree entirely. I think it’s a failure to be so intent on labeling a person, when it’s the person’s actions that can and should be criticized. I feel the same about skepticism, in that it is very difficult to define or label someone as “a skeptic,” but it is much easier and more beneficial to identify (and reward!) skeptical behavior.
Labeling someone as a sexist doesn’t really tell us anything, but pointing to specific actions and situations that can develop gives us an idea of what has gone wrong and how we can right it.
@daoist:
Philosophically speaking, human beings ourselves are only configurations of matter in the universe. And the configurations we find ourselves in have their impact on the way we act, our ability to fulfill our desires and our attempts to maximize our perceived moral goods.
People can get excluded from participation without deliberate intent. If the people being excluded are women, it’s still sexism. If those excluded are GLBT, then it might be heteronormative (or mononormative) without being consciously homophobic. In any event, it’s still a problem to be fixed.
“Labeling someone as a sexist doesn’t really tell us anything, but pointing to specific actions and situations that can develop gives us an idea of what has gone wrong and how we can right it.”
I agree wholeheartedly. Another example of it is that when you label things you make light of the differences.
If both “failing to find enough female speakers” and “calling your secretary toots and pinching her ass” are sexist, then we lose the shades of gray between the two. We all know the former example is more sexist than the latter, but now that they’re both stamped with “sexist”, it’s not really clear that they’re different at all.
So if the phrase of the day is “TAM is sexist”, what does that conjure in the mind? Men chasing around hooters girls? Worse?
I’m trying to bring a perspective on why some would be defensive about the S-word being applied to accidents or coincidences. Of course care needs to be taken to ensure that all viewpoints are present and everyone is respected. But tossing a label like sexism onto honest mistakes really sours the punch.
@Rebecca:
Makes sense to me. It’s much easier to find a single good work than a completely exemplary person. Decent folks can screw up and get in the way of a cause they try to support, while people we wouldn’t care to hang with socially can do socially beneficial things (film at 11).
@blake – If you try to take that tack with the argument, then we’ve simply got bigger fish to fry. Err, not fry. basically, if you’re saying we should apply moral considerations to the world as a whole, then we all should be busy trying to stop all the animals from murdering one another. :)
@daoist:
This is why the gods invented adjectives: unintentionally sexist, mildly or disquietingly so, et cetera.
@daoist: Groups can behave in ways that none of the individuals within the group intend. While none of the attendants of TAM were being sexist (though Brian Dunning’s bit with the cosmonaut photo bugged me as well), the combination of the low-level internalized sexism that still exists in the sciences (and it does, though it’s better than it used to be) and the history of the skeptic movement (which was, back when Randi & others started it, a boy’s club) have resulted in TAM’s attendance and programming being skewed towards white males. Nobody set out to do that — and, in fact, people have been working to correct it — so it’s nobody’s *fault*, it’s just the end result of the evolution of the skeptic movement.
Ok, I can’t comment or read much at this time because I’m out of town, but Rebecca, you NEED to watch the second season of that show. Her character gets much more drawn out.
The problem was that, when they first wrote her into the show, the creators had a VERY different idea for her — until they met the actress, and they knew that’s not how they wanted to go. But they didn’t really know how to fit her in on the first season — they just knew they loved her.
By the second season, she finally starts to come into her own as a character.
I am really sensitive to sexism on tv, but I really love this show. They way they treat Leonard’s and Penny’s relationship in the second season is great, and Penny as a character really grows.
The first season was the shakiest. She is not a dumb character, not in the least.
@Bookitty: Yup see my comment above. I agree. Whether or not there was sexism at TAM, that reaction is not conducive to rational discussion.
@daoist: I think that’s exactly why the people on the forums are flipping out. “People are either sexist or not sexist. You said that Statement X was sexist; ergo, you said that Speaker X is sexist.” (And, for a lot of people there, “ergo, you just called me a sexist because I wasn’t offended by Statement X.”)
I think it’s a bit of a false dichotomy, though. If someone makes a statement that some others find inconsiderate, does that make him or her an inconsiderate person? Not necessarily. Why does it suddenly become a problem to substitute the word “sexist” for “inconsiderate?” Most of us, no matter how hard we try, have subtle biases that have been gently pumped into us by our enviroment since birth. Sometimes these biases, like gender stereotypes, break through to the surface when we’re not paying attention. Is that really such a controversial thing to say?
@daoist:
Um, no. I don’t see how the position I advocate is “apply[ing] moral considerations to the world as a whole”; only that those parts of the world which do affect us deserve to be considered when we’re making our moral/ethical judgements and assigning labels accordingly.
Also, Leonard briefly dates a woman on the show who is a doctor. A nerd. And far from socially inept. She’s also gorgeous, but not stick thin.
And of course it happens in the 2nd season :)
To be honest, I think we women are some of the problem.
Growing up, I got a lot of flack for expressing skeptical opinions (which may have been less than…hmm… as carefully worded as they are now). For some reason, we women are expected to be more sensitive and inclusive then men. We’re supposed to be the caring, “open to new ideas” ones, which is also supposed to preclude skeptical ideas.
I think this social pressure from other women tends to reduce the number of female skeptics out there. Any time I felt pressured to be less of a skeptic, it was by other women–that I should attend church, believe in alternative medicine, or otherwise drink the kool-aid. Hell, my brother and I have more or less identical views, yet my mother is concerned that I’ll be the one that won’t have children.
Maybe part of it is a lack of good female skeptical role-models out there in popular culture (I’d love to see a female House). But to be honest, it’s been female pressure, not male pressure, that makes me feel uncomfortable to be a female skeptic.
@blake – even calling the sexism unintentional still states that someone is sexist, they just don’t intend to be. You’re still calling someone sexist. If that’s an accurate label, great. If not, then we’re back to the problem again.
@marilove: Oh yeah I totally forgot about her. Yes, she was a good character.
@blake – how about this. There’s an earthquake in downtown LA, and, through sheer force of coincidence, 99 women are killed and no men. Is that earthquake sexist? If so, why? If not, why not? It only killed women!
Now, how about a gunman walking around the streets of LA. Suppose he shoots 99 women and no men. Is that gunman sexist? If so, why? If not, why not? He only killed women!
My guess is that you will see the two situations in different moral lights; the acts of the person are able to be morally praise/blameworthy, but the actions of the universe (e.g. a nonmoral agent) aren’t praise/blameworthy.
And that’s my point.
@JHGRedekop:
I agree.
@maralenenok:
Which is the sort of logical fallacy we as skeptics should be shooting down, right? False dichotomy, fallacy of composition, etc.
Here at Skepchick everyone seems to assume that should we live in a society that does not discriminate at all and of course has no stereotypes there would be exactly as many women at a skeptical meeting as men. And of course there would be as many women in STEM as men. Why do you use this assumption? I mean there are no natural laws that would prescribe equal preferences and abilities for men and women. No one would expect women to be as tall as men. So, shouldn’t you examine the possibility that women for example are biologically more conformist than men and as a consequence less likely to be skeptical? I don’t know, but I certainly don’t think it can be discarded without consideration.
Of course there can be other reasons for the disparity: have you considered that women might be more religious. According to the GSS survey 55.3% of males and 70.7% of females answered they “know god existsâ€.
What I really do not like is that you can hardly investigate such questions. It is considered a thoughtcrime to suggest biological differences. As one could see in the case of Larry Summers.
I have a much less relevant question. Why do you think any nongovernmental assembly, organization or group should really care about the feelings of minorities or women or whomever. I mean, when I attend a skeptical gathering I will not respect the feelings of religious people, and I think it should be this way. Even though in my country ca. 50% of people believe in god, and much less are religious, so they are indeed a minority. Sometimes you make fun of people who believe in ghosts, healing crystals… I am sure some might feel uncomfortable, but hey, who cares! As far as I can tell at skeptical gatherings no one cares really about the feelings of anyone. So I do find it strange to expect such thing at all, though as I said I do not live in the US, so you might have different manners there.
@maralenenok:
I think that’s quite possibly true.
@Marilove! I love you but you’re fighting a losing battle. I tried to watch it! I tried! I have only so many minutes of TV time a week.
@daoist:
What about the acts of groups of people?
@daoist:
First, I don’t think your two scenarios are directly comparable. An earthquake which kills only members of some particular group does so by chance, and could have done otherwise, had the Poisson distribution fallen out differently; if the gunman fired randomly into a crowd of 50% women and sheer luck was the only reason that no men died, the gunman would be no more sexist than the earthquake.
(As long as we’re inventing hypothetical situations, what if an earthquake struck an urban area populated wholly by poor people of a certain ethnic background? And what if more people died in that region than in one of higher socioeconomic standing, because none of the civic authorities cared to build ghetto housing which met the earthquake code? In that situation, it would still be relevant to discuss the earthquake in the context of racism and/or classism.)
Second, the earthquake story isn’t comparable to the situation of TAM. When it comes to choosing a speaker list for a meeting, we’re talking about the collective behaviour of human beings. It’s not like a thunderstorm delayed the flight which had the other female speakers on it, and we’re arguing over whether the thunderstorm was sexist.
@rebecca – Sure you can blame groups of people. Are TAM organizers sexist? Attendees? I don’t think it’s quite fair to paint with that broad of a brush, especially with the weight of the S-word label.
Isn’t it enough to simply point out problems and agree that we can do better without trying to nail down which bad names we can call people? Many of whom consider themselves feminists? It seems unnecessarily black and white to me. The language brings up connotations of Us. vs. Them, and nobody wants to be the “them”, especially if we think we’re the “us”.
@Nador:
Because the evidence gathered to date does not support the contrary hypothesis.
It’s not “thoughtcrime.” It’s being a dick who is not familiar with the sociological and psychological data.
@Rebecca: Oh, not every show is for everyone!
I just hope that people give it and Penny a chance. She’s really not meant to be a dumb character.
And I really just love how they deal with Leonard and Penny. It’s not like “Friends” and any other “they like each other…no they don’t…yes they do!” story line. I dunno, it’s just sweet.
For the record, I can’t STAND Two and a Half Men. UGh!
@daoist:
Yeah, nobody wants to be “them.” Nobody wants be told they need a root canal or to get a bad grade on a maths test, either, but sometimes the bad news has to be told before any good can come of it.
So we’re back to calling the nonsexists sexist?
I finally just gave in and wrote a blog post about this. So I’m just going to be doing the ultimate in ego stroking and cutting and pasting from my own blog post. :P
* * *
So, was there sexism? I don’t know. I don’t think people were being sexist; I certainly didn’t meet anyone who was. But individuals being sexist jerks isn’t the same as a general situation being influenced by subtle or ingrained sexism, which was really the point, I think.
What the question comes down to is simply this: are women being excluded somehow, for whatever reason? Skepticism started out male dominated, and is still fairly male dominated, though women are making inroads. So, are we fighting [hard enough] to be inclusive? Are their factors at work that will still leave women feeling like this is an unwelcoming sausage fest? I think that’s the sort of sexism that was being discussed in the podcast. And I think those are questions that should definitely be aired and considered, whatever the answer turns out to be. In general, society is still quite sexist in many ways, and that may still have it’s subtle influences on skeptical society. If so, then we should know the how and why. If not, then we should make sure we’re not prematurely patting ourselves on the back.
I think that’s definitely a good thing to investigate and a good discussion to have, particularly since many of the men of the skeptical movement have stated that they want to see women more involved. (Or have less proactively bemoaned the fact that women “just aren’t interested in science/skepticism” without examining why.)
One thing that’s really struck me in the discussion is how hostile some people are being about it. There’s a distinct flavor of “I’m a skeptic, I’m enlightened, how dare you say I’m sexist” coming from some people. First of, no one has accused anyone else of being sexist. But second off, that umbrage is indicative of something else I think skeptics need to take a good hard look at. There’s a level of arrogance that can come with labeling oneself as a skeptic. You get to be cooler than those silly believers who buy nonsense. I think that arrogance is showing up here as well, in a rather ugly way. People consider themselves to be enlightened individuals, and are going on the attack because they think it’s been suggested that they may not be.
I think the people who are getting nasty need to take a long look at themselves. If you’re an enlightened skeptic, the way to prove that is not to attack someone that disagrees with you, or has an opinion you don’t like. It’s to be the “better man” and rationally discuss.
“How dare you call me a sexist, you reverse-discriminating feminazi!!!!”
versus:
“I disagree. This is why.”
@daoist: “Isn’t it enough to simply point out problems and agree that we can do better without trying to nail down which bad names we can call people?”
Um yeah, and next we’ll try to have an argument without any words. This is a semantic argument. You’re seriously going to oppose this discussion because of the WAY people are having it? You’re going to hinder a discussion on basic human decency because you don’t agree with the words people are using? That seems really trivial. And people have already explained that, despite the connotations that come with the word “sexist”, it doesn’t always refer to purposeful individual conscious misogyny — so it’s not even necessarily used as a pejorative.
“Using contemporary data from the U.S. and other nations, we address 3 questions: Do gender differences in mathematics performance exist in the general population? Do gender differences exist among the mathematically talented? Do females exist who possess profound mathematical talent? In regard to the first question, contemporary data indicate that girls in the U.S. have reached parity with boys in mathematics performance, a pattern that is found in some other nations as well. Focusing on the second question, studies find more males than females scoring above the 95th or 99th percentile, but this gender gap has significantly narrowed over time in the U.S. and is not found among some ethnic groups and in some nations. Furthermore, data from several studies indicate that greater male variability with respect to mathematics is not ubiquitous. Rather, its presence correlates with several measures of gender inequality. Thus, it is largely an artifact of changeable sociocultural factors, not immutable, innate biological differences between the sexes. Responding to the third question, we document the existence of females who possess profound mathematical talent. Finally, we review mounting evidence that both the magnitude of mean math gender differences and the frequency of identification of gifted and profoundly gifted females significantly correlate with sociocultural factors, including measures of gender equality across nations.”
J. S. Hyde and J. Mertz (2009). “Gender, culture, and mathematics performance” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences vol. 106. no. 22.
@daoist:
“So we’re back to calling the nonsexists sexist?”
Um, no. No more than we’re calling the people who do poorly on a quiz or two “bad at mathematics.”
@maralenenok: Yes, but somethings are sexist, no matter how you look at it, and even if one person is not offended. Just because someone is offended doesn’t mean suddenly something isn’t sexist. That’s not how it works.
But just because something that is said is sexist, doesn’t mean that the person is necessarily sexist. It just may be a matter of not understanding, or making the connection.
Here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Ti-gkJiXc
This is a great video. It’s about racism, but I think it could be relevent to just about anything, including sexist.
“That sounded sexist conversation.”
“The most important thing you have got to do is remember the difference between what they DID conversation and what they ARE conversation.”
@daoist:
But that, in a way, is exactly what I’m saying. Labeling an action as “sexist” rather than a person allows us to move beyond “us vs. them” and onto the idea that we all screw up, so let’s stop doing that.
@blake stacey by “um no” do you mean “yes?” It sounds like that’s what you’re saying.
Regardless, it doesn’t appear it was the intention of Rebecca and Carrie to call people sexist. If that’s their message, they were off-message. If the message is that there was indeed sexism, then alright, but you don’t get to have it both ways. If you’re fine labeling people go for it.
And sometimes, yes, someone is sexist. Period. Just because they are awesome people does not mean they can’t be sexist. Are they a lost cause? No.
But I REALLY REALLY hate this, “Well…we can’t call them sexist! We can’t say that is sexism!”
Why, so we don’t hurt their feelings? That’s not going to get us anywhere.
@kimbo jones
“Um yeah, and next we’ll try to have an argument without any words. This is a semantic argument. You’re seriously going to oppose this discussion because of the WAY people are having it?”
Where have I opposed any discussion?
You’re going to hinder a discussion on basic human decency because you don’t agree with the words people are using? That seems really trivial.”
If it’s so trivial, then don’t call your allies sexist. Please?
” And people have already explained that, despite the connotations that come with the word “sexistâ€, it doesn’t always refer to purposeful individual conscious misogyny — so it’s not even necessarily used as a pejorative.”
The word, in our culture, carries a weighty dose of bad connotation. You simply can’t use it in a non-pejorative sense. Sure, you can intend it to be non-pejorative, but you’ll have to accept that your audience is almost never going to understand your message if you use words in nonstandard ways.
@daoist: You seem to be under the impression that no one is ever sexist and we should never, ever, ever call them sexist.
That makes no sense whatsoever. YES PEOPLE ARE SEXIST, even people at TAM. If you think otherwise, you’re really naive.
HOWEVER, trying to determine who is sexist isn’t going to get us anywhere.
Instead, you concentrate on the words and actions and work on educating people on why those words and actions are sexist, rather than focusing on the individual people.
@daoist:
I meant what I said. A person who believes in equality for the sexes can fuck up and do something which impedes our progression to that equality. In my understanding of the terms, the fuck-up could be called “sexist,” but not the person.
I will eventually label a person, if I see a consistent history of label-worthy actions on their part. None of the TAM organizers fit that description, in my opinion.
@daoist: “The word, in our culture, carries a weighty dose of bad connotation.”
Wanna know why it carries a weighty dose of bad connotation? BECAUSE SEXISM IS FUCKING BAD AND FUCKING WRONG.
I mean no fucking shit sherlock.
And we can’t just ignore it. Is that what you’re expecting us to do? Ignore sexism and sexist people because it’s “bad”?
@Rebecca – I agree that your goals are good. I share them.
However,
“But that, in a way, is exactly what I’m saying. Labeling an action as “sexist†rather than a person allows us to move beyond “us vs. them†and onto the idea that we all screw up, so let’s stop doing that.”
Actions don’t exist in a vacuum. People do them. If you do murdery things, people might think you are a murderer. If you do sexist things, people might think you’re a sexist.
Instead of “Hey that thing you did was sexist”, how about “Hey you fucked up”? No need to bring the S-word into it at all. And we can still fix things.
@Blake Stacey: You and Rebecca have been saying this over and over and over again, but doaist is not getting it because they have a problem with the word “sexism” and the word “sexist”.
Please, doaist, what should we call it instead? Puppies and rainbows so that people don’t get offended that what they said might be sexist?
There is NOTHING WRONG with saying, “Hey, Frank! What you said is sexist, and here is why….”
You’re basically telling us not to say that, and essentially telling us to take this discussion completely off the table.
@marilove – Hey we’re all on the same side here.
I’m trying to explain why people might be defensive about being called sexist when they aren’t, especially when everyone on both sides agree that the people in question aren’t sexist.
And yes, I know that decent people have a strong reaction to words like “sexist.” That’s why I use them. If someone I respect makes a speech and throws in a joke which has disturbing implications, I claim the freedom to say, “Knowing what you’ve written about gender politics, your remark about Barbie dolls [or whatever] was rather incongruous, and almost sexist in undertone.”
I use words which have meaning so people will know I care.
@daoist: “Instead of “Hey that thing you did was sexistâ€, how about “Hey you fucked upâ€? No need to bring the S-word into it at all. And we can still fix things.”
Okay, this is fucking ridiculous, sorry to say.
And your anology doesn’t work. A murderer who murders is a …murderer. The intentions are clear: They murdered someone.
Someone who says something sexist isn’t necessarily sexist. The intentions aren’t clear: Did they just not make the connection? Are they just not aware of the context of what they said? Are they just lacking the knowledge?
I’m sorry, but if you can’t aknowledge that what someone said was sexist, THEN YOU CANNOT TALK ABOUT IT.
“Well…why is it fucked up? Why is that wrong?”
“Um, well, I can’t actually say why it’s wrong…because it might hurt your feelings. So never mind.”
That works in what way, exactly?
@daoist: No. It’s “These people likely aren’t sexist.”
@daoist:
The reason why we use the word “sexist” is because it has a particular meaning that relates directly to what we are talking about. Dancing around and calling it “the S-word” is, to me, treating adults like children who can’t handle the real world. “Sexism” is an important word in our vocabulary and we needn’t lose it.
I understand (I think) what you’re saying: that people will be less likely to overreact if we avoid saying the word “sexism.” However, I think that it is an important word that should be maintained, and the solution to overreaction is not to stop using the word but to continue using it where appropriate and explaining what it does and does not mean.
And yes, every time I open my mouth, I run the risk of being misinterpreted or taken out of context. What else is new — fire is hot and scissors have edges?
@daoist: situations don’t occur in a vacuum but rather are the result of actions of people (restricting ourselves to social situations, let’s not get all metaphysical now). The aggregate of decisions, actions, attitudes, and statements that on an individual basis are completely inoffensive and unbiased can result in a situation that can be fairly labeled as sexist (or racist, or ageist, or homophobic, or any other label). I understand that that was one of the points the skepchicks were making: not saying ‘person x is sexist’ but rather that the accumulation of small things resulted in an event that had at some points the characteristic of being sexist or tending towards sexism.
And just as someone who is not racist is entirely capable of saying or doing something racist, so can someone who is not sexist say or do something that is sexist. Dunning’s photo swap is I think a better example than Prady’s statements as it is directly objectifying women and in fact saying “this woman’s accomplishments as a scientist are not as valuable as the fact that this other woman is pretty”. I don’t believe that’s what he intended to say, nor do I have any reason to think that he’s sexist. But what he did certainly was.
As Rebecca notes, we are all fallible. It’s part of being human. What I take away from the episode is “Here is how women often feel when interacting with other scientists and skeptics and we’d like to work together with the men to make everyone, men and women, feel more at ease.”
I am not one to throw the PC label around at all, but daoist? Stop being so fucking PC.
If something is sexist, I’m going to say it. I am going to be clear in WHY it is sexist. I’m going to give a definition of sexist and sexism, and explain exactly why what was said was sexist.
That is the ONLY WAY someone is going to understand. Telling them only that it is “bad” does not work. You need to tell them why. You need to give the social and historical context. They won’t understand if you just say, “It’s bad mmm’k?”
@marilove – Again, please, we’re on the same team.
I’m almost certain you’re not sexist. But if you said something which gives that impression, I wouldn’t sound the alarm bells. I might say something like “Hey, you said/did X, that could give some the impression that you’re sexist. I know you’re not, so instead of saying/doing X, why not Y”
I think that gets the message across better than inadvertently alienating and shaming your friends.
@daoist: No, I meant the semantic argument is trivial. And distracting. So stop. Please? (See, I can be condescending too.) If you’re spending time policing vocabulary rather than participating, then you sort of are hindering discussion. Also, I didn’t call anyone sexist, I said there was sexism present. And even if I did, who cares? Maybe they were. If I call out sexism where I see it, what is the problem with that?
Re: pejoratives – what I was trying to say is that you seem to be personally insulted by the word. Well if we’re talking about sex issues, the word sexist is probably going to come up. It’s a bit silly to derail the conversation into talking about whether a certain word is “okay” rather than talking about the issues at hand.
@marilove: I understand and appreciate the passion but please watch your tone and try to stay civil.
@daoist: No one is sounding alarm bells. We’re all trying to have a conversation and you seem “alarmed” by the word “sexist” for some reason. Your example is exactly what people are doing. If people feel alienated and shamed because of their own hang-ups on a particular word, and that allows them to completely overlook an important human rights issue in favour of getting huffy, that’s their problem and that’s silly.
@daoist:
I bet if I stood at the microphone during a TAM Q&A session and told someone, “Hey, you fucked up,” I’d have people jumping over my language like jackrabbits. Oh-oh-oh, the blogger said a naughty word. Why oh why couldn’t he just have said the joke about the Barbie dolls was sexist, without bringing profanity into it? This is a serious academic conference, after all!
Also, daoist, you keep saying that sure, things can be sexist…but we can’t talk about it!
Explain to me how we are to explain to someone what they said or did was sexist, without bringing up the word sexist? How can we teach them if we can’t talk about it? How can we teach them about the history of opression surrounding women? How can we teach them about modern sexism? How can we explain that Charlie on Two and a Half Men is a sexist pig without explaining WHY he is a sexist pig?
Would you say the same thing about racism? If I said a racist joke, would you not tell me what I said was racist? Or is it only sexism that you’re concerned about? Because if so, that’s mighty uncool.
@daoist: ““Hey, you said/did X, that could give some the impression that you’re sexist. I know you’re not, so instead of saying/doing X, why not Y—
Okay, see, this is why you’re not making sense. You say this, but before you said this:
“Instead of “Hey that thing you did was sexistâ€, how about “Hey you fucked upâ€? No need to bring the S-word into it at all. And we can still fix things.”
Perhps this is a reason why people aren’t understand you: You aren’t making any sense.
So should we say the s-word, or not?
@Rebecca: Sorry, I’m just frustrated because daoist keeps saying contradicting things.
Unfortunately, anytime anyone talks about being offended they risk being called a “feminazi”, “race baiter” or “pc thug” or something like that.
It’s unfortunately because there are valid issues worth discussing.
Back in the Observe & Report thread I disagreed with the way many posters were characterizing “the scene” and I still think the film was unfairly attacked by people who didn’t see it. But I still believe it’s worthwhile to discuss the film’s message about rape / men and women / society etc…
I’m on board with reaching out more to women (and minorites I guess, though that seems like kind of a nonsequiter) but I also thought some of the reactions to whatisnames key note speech were off the rails. It was a pretty innocuous joke.
There is a big schism between the female feminist community and the male feminist community.
When talking about problems, it’s very easy to slip into an us vs. them vocabulary, and it’s frighteningly easy to alienate your allies if you lump them (however accidentally) into the “them” group.
Rebecca and Carrie didn’t want to call skepdudes sexist. They didn’t want to call TAM organizers or attendees sexist. I’m not saying they did. I’m saying they could give that impression.
There’s going to be two groups of people who do the “hey what gives?” to this sort of topic. There’s sexists, and people who think they’re not sexists, but are being accused of such.
The lathery “OMFG FEMINAZIS RAH RAH!” folks are probably sexists. The “hey I don’t think we did anything wrong” people might be sexists, they might be feminist guys who feel like they’re against the wall.
I’m not saying you can’t talk about it with whatever language you want. I’m trying to explain why your message may not be getting across as you desire.
@marilove: Just to clarify, since I clearly didn’t get my points across very well, the stuff in the quotation marks in the first paragraph of my comment? I don’t agree with it. I’m in the Sexism Occurred camp, for the record (as far as I can judge, since I wasn’t there – I’m an SGU listener, mainly).
I was trying to clarify the semantic points people were making, but obviously not very capably. Oh well.
@daoist: Also, I think it’s much better to say, “What you said is sexist, and this is why…” as opposed to saying, “What you said gives people the impression that your sexist.” See, now you’re calling someone sexist (even if indirectly), while we just want to aknowledge what they SAID is sexist.
That is a huge difference and what we have been trying to explain to you all along.
@maralenenok: Gotcha. :)
@marilove – there’s a difference between calling someone sexist and telling them their actions might give that impression. Sorry that I was unclear.
@marilove: And you can’t say “This is bad because…” without saying “These words are sexist, and this is why…. This is the historical and social contexts of why what you SAID was sexist… This is why women (and men) feel what you SAID was sexist…”
This is how the conversation should go. And again, you cannot talk about sexism without, well, talking about sexism, and that includes the words sexist, and sexism.
@daoist:…
…
But that’s what we’ve been explaining the entire time, and you keep saying, “Don’t say sexist! BAD WORD BAD!”
That’s…exactly what you keep saying.
And now…you’re changing your tune.
Perhaps this is why people aren’t understanding you?
@marilove – Right, and when you’re talking about it, if you’re calling your feminist allies sexist, it’s not going to be as productive.
@daoist: I understand your concern in “offending” people, but my point is – the vocabulary should not overshadow an important issue. Feminine equity is important and something as trivial as semantics shouldn’t distract from that. Especially long after people explained what they meant. It’s silly to go “I agree that this is a problem, but harumph – don’t use THOSE words or I’m not playing.”
@daoist: Also I think you’re still off base with “your actions give the impression that YOU could be sexist.”
As we keep saying, it’s still better to say, “Youre WORDS are sexist and here is why…”
Concentrate what was SAID rather than concentrate on the person.
@daoist:
When did anyone call anyone sexist?
“Your words are sexist, and here is why…”
is not calling someone sexist. NO ONE was calling anyone sexist.
You, however, are the one who keeps saying, “your words could give the impression that you are sexist” which is NOT far off from “you are sexist”.
I really don’t understand what you’re trying to explain, here, because you keep contradicting yourself.
(Sorry if this has already been discusses: it’s a looooong thread of comments).
I wonder what the skepchicks think of the following personal observation:
Most women I meet are just not skeptical, even many of them who work in science. It is my experience that a lot of women believe in woo, and readily accept it as part of life. As I said, it is a personal observation, and I might be wrong. But I doubt it. Acupuncture, herbal remedies, ghosts… I practically never hear any of my fellow male students and colleagues say anything positive about these sort of things, but plenty of women from the same circles.
Could this be a reason why women are underrepresented in stead of claiming that we men are subconsciously sexist?
@Kimbo Jones: Also, I find it kind of interesting that it’s not okay to offend someone who said something sexist, but those of us who might be offended by the sexism? Yeah, we’re the ones that have to tread lightly!
That, in itself, is not cool.
Since we are talking about groups that are underrepresented in the skeptic community, I’d like to bring mention a group that I don’t think has gotten a mention yet (I did not have time to read all the posts). That group is people with kids. Let’s face it TAM is not family friendly. I understand that this may be because the majority of skeptics choose not to have children. But there are many of us that would like to be able to raise our kids as skeptics and have the support more support from skeptic community. After all, we will need to replenish the skeptic population at some point.
Not sure what the solution is, and I don’t want this to sound whiny…just wanted to point it out.
Also, addressing families might be a good way to get more women. Just a thought.
Wait….what was it we were accusing of being sexist again?
@daoist:
This is a legitimate point, and another reason to make an effort to label the statement and not the person, so that the reasonable ones among the “I don’t think we did anything wrong” camp can recognize what’s awry.
@kimbo Jones – I agree that vocabulary shouldn’t overshadow the issue.
But often the vocabulary is the issue.
Just as it’s offensive to call the receptionist toots, it’s offensive to call a feminist sexist.
@DNAmom: Good point. I was seriously considering TAM this year, but it came the same week as a conference my wife was attending and I wouldn’t saddle my MIL with the kids for that long. Kids are the future of skepticism.
Otays, this is a big thread already, and kudos to Rebecca for keeping such close tabs on it.
@ Daoist, @Marilove, @Kimbo, @Rebecca et. all…I think I can chime in a little bit on this sub-discussion:
What I seem to not be noticing in the ensuing discussion (glad I don’t have to use the word ‘melee’) is a distinction between the skeptic community/TAM (which I was not at) being male- centric and male-normative.
I think the case that organized skepticism and TAM (which I was not at…have I mentioned that yet?) to be male centric is a difficult one to make. The male-chauvinists are the exception, and are frequently exposed as such (thanks to a certain blogging community that I frequent). I’ve heard of some particularly egregious words/actions made by particularly big-name skeptics, and either they were called out for varying degrees of douchebaggery, or they came out and explained themselves before the firing squad. This is a good system.
I tend to think of organized skepticism as Male-(and white)normative. It was founded mainly by white men, and white men in skepticism have a different set of obstacles (and testicles!) from these other identities. In a male-normative world, (oh, and by the way, we ALL live in a male-normative world), women are not oppressed in the strictest sense of the word, but women do have to fight a little harder to be taken seriously, and to be treated like regular, fully-functional (hot!) beings of intellect. This is not, in the truest, most goddamned academic sense of the word, ‘sexism’.
If it were sexism,(male-centric) then the dialogue goes this way: “You’re a woman, therefore, you need to prove yourself to me and my penis’d brethren”. The dialogue would be conscious, and intentional.
Since it’s male-normative, the dialogue goes the other way: “I’m a woman trying to get around a bunch of men, and whether they realize it or not, women feel alienated in varying degrees”
So to re-iterate, sexism in this case is based on the presumption that the skeptic community is male-centric. However, the skeptic community is male-normative.
This is not to forgive the people who actually DID act like sexist douche-tards, nor to pretend they don’t exist. But they are the minority, and I’m glad Rebecca, Carrie and most of the commenters have acted as they did.
@marilove – several times in the podcast Carrie explained that there was sexism at TAM. Even after disclaiming that she didn’t want to call people sexist, it sounded like she’d go right on to call people sexist.
Since I’m sure that’s not her message nor Rebecca’s, I posted the initial reply way up there explaining my concern.
I don’t have a transcript in front of me, sorry.
@Dax:
I think it’s important not to confuse the specific type of woo with the general inclination for credulity. Cultural factors might preferentially expose women to some kinds of woo — those directly related to child-raising, for example — while men get their own flavours of irrationality, and both get to partake in yet other forms (creationism, for example). Of course, we should have better numbers on how prevalent different woo-forms are for men and for women, as anecdotal observations are likely to be skewed by all sorts of sampling bias.
So yes…the vocabulary is very important here, but if that’s going to be the argument, it is VITALLY important that we all know the lexicon.
@daoist: “Even after disclaiming that she didn’t want to call people sexist, it sounded like she’d go right on to call people sexist.”
So you’re concerned about people labeling things that other people say, but have no problem talking about what you thought she might say but never did?
@DNAmom:
Hosting a conference in a city other than Las Vegas would be a promising beginning for a family-friendly event. It’s boring enough for someone who just doesn’t enjoy smoking, drinking or gambling; I’d hate to think of what it must be like for someone who isn’t legally allowed.
Hands-on “build your own UFO!” or “learn to be a psychic!” events might also be more attractive for the younger crowd. Hell, I’m balding and walk with a cane, and sitting in lectures all day still doesn’t appeal to me.
@revmatty – I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Can you rephrase it? My point with that post was that it sounded to me like Carrie (and to a lesser extent Rebecca) was using contradictory language. She’d say her intent was not to call people sexist, then go on to call people sexist.
Again, I don’t have a transcript. Nor is the SGU episode still on my mp3 player, or I’d type it out.
I thought it was a great and in many ways almost too careful discussion. I felt Rebecca had to be almost PC herself, so careful not to hurt the guys feelings. We get it isn’t some attempt on the part of JREF to keep women out, but the attempt should be make to get women in. In a way, diversity is something that takes effort. It takes a concious decision to do. I grew up in the 60’s and I learned that doing nothing ensures nothing changes. I remember when women weren’t firefighters, weren’t police officers, weren’t doctors (the woman doctor on “Petticoat Junction” was a shocker!)…and all you have to do to give me or my daughters the whillies is turn on that “18 Kids and Counting” where we can watch all the little girls (and eternally pregnant mom) wearing skirts and taking care of babies.
My non sexy ugly geeky daughters are ofcourse proof that going into science and video gaming makes you butt ugly and unpopular with the boys. I recently had someone on the JREF chat tell me that he had been turned down for a job at Gamestop. I commented that my daughter worked at Gamestop. He commented “I bet she got that job because she has BOOBS”. I was “whoa, usually you are a normal skeptic guy.” He could not believe that my daughter had MORE gaming knowledge than he did. He just assumed that since she is a teenage girl she got the job with her looks. I couldn’t believe it in this day and age! She kicks ass on several Halo teams and I dont’ know what else. She belongs to a lot of all girl gamer teams because sadly once she opens her mouth and the guys find out she’s a GIRL (they have no clue what she looks like) it’s all hitting her up for a date.
The point is that assumptions about women need to be updated. They are gamers, they do attend MIT (and oddly somehow manage to date and even marry), they do enjoy sports AND science (yes …geeks can be athletic!) and maybe even dressing up nice for dinner….
Are guys going to have to watch what they say a tad more with more women around… hey probably.
A good rule of thumb, if you wouldn’t say it about blacks…dont’ say it about women. Goes for gays also. Like the guy with the photograph of the Russian woman. When he said “if you think this photograph is ugly….” he should have thought “if you think this photograph of a black person is ugly…”. If he wouldnt’ say that… don’t make the woman joke.
To play Trudeau’s advocate here-
I think masculinism and feminism are two sides of the same coin. We each see the inequalities that we’re handed, but when it comes to the other side, its kinda like-“Well, that’s the way the cards are delt”.
@daoist: You say that “she didn’t want to call people sexist, it sounded like she’d go right on to call people sexist.” Which, as I parse it means that she did not in fact call people sexist but that you thought that she was going to.
I understand you’re not directly quoting what was said, but the way you phrased it contradicts what appears to be your point: that she did in fact call them sexist.
@Blake Stacey:
As I said, it is a personal observation and biases certainly play a role (me being male, for instance)… but it might still be an interesting scientific pursuit.
I can only speak for the field that I’m in, but in medicine there is an interesting phenomenon: med-school classes are now half female and the same is true for residencies. As you continue up the academic medicine ladder, however, the percentage of females in any given position gets smaller and smaller (even when controlling for the fact that there were fewer females enrolled in medical school years ago). Even within my specialty OB/GYN, which boasts a large percentage of females, I see the disparity. In our largely female department the heads of the department, the residency and the student director are all male. I am not familiar with studies in other science fields, but I have heard similar complaints from non-medicine science colleagues.
I think this speaks to one of Rebecca’s initial points- that although there was decent female attendance at TAM, there was a disproportionate showing of “authority figures”. If women are attending skeptical conferences and receiving graduate level scientific training, it would appear that the desire and innate ability to be skeptical/scientific exists. It’s the promotion from within the community that’s lacking.
@Dax:
Oh, most certainly so.
(Nice avatar, by the way.)
@Some Canadian Skeptic: right on. What you said. And I’ve only seen one commenter actually say something rude. Everything else seems to be a disagreement over semantics.
@revmatty – Sorry, I used the phrase “sounded like” which I think gave you the wrong idea. We’re on the same page now.
@daoist: Who’s doing that though? I haven’t said anything of the kind and I’m pretty sure you can’t read my mind (you can’t, can you? that’d be weird). I’m thinking of a woman who blogged about what is appropriate for “skeptical women” to wear, about the response to the response to (not a typo) Prady’s comments, about the sometimes scorn women get for daring to notice when they aren’t being treated equitably no matter how (un)intentional, etc.
Women who bring up sexism are often treated like they should lighten up and not be so abrasive. Screw that. Using a common vernacular to discuss an issue is completely reasonable. And the issue is – what are we doing to make women feel unwelcome, or what are we not doing to make women feel welcome?
One of the things for me was treating me like I was a foreign entity. I went to TAM and although I interpreted Prady’s comments differently (an unfunny joke), I did experience some sexism in that people were surprised I was there, that I was the one that got my husband into skepticism, that I wasn’t into woo, etc.
It’s not that they were necessarily trying to be sexist, but they were making assumptions based on negative female stereotypes that still apparently permeate even the skeptical community. I would still call that sexism. There are kinds of sexism. Just like there are kinds of racism. You can be a racist without burning a cross on someone’s lawn.
If that interview was “friendly and upbeat,” I would hate to hear Rebecca when she’s depressed.
It was just complaint after complaint full of ideological propositions that had no place on a science show.
@Blake Stacey: Agreed.
In my own anecdotal evidence there’s at least some pockets of woo in stereotypically male-centric areas too. To name a couple, protein powder and oil/fuel additives.
Every bodybuilder has a certain protein powder with ridiculous woowoo claims that he swears up and down works great.
Similarly, every shadetree mechanic has some sort of miracle oil/fuel additive/whatever he swears makes his car run like a dream (with no evidence whatsoever).
There’s also sports superstitions like not changing one’s underwear when his team is winning, now that I think of it.
I bet there’s more if we brainstorm.
@kimbo jones – Sorry, I’m at a bit of a disadvantage here. I wasn’t at TAM. Also I’m not sure which of my posts you’re replying to, I made several recently. I’m not trying to be condescending here, in reply to a post you made a bit ago. Sorry if you felt I was.
@Kimbo Jones: “You can be a racist without burning a cross on someone’s lawn.”
Well said.
@daoist: If you click on your name in my comment, it will link you to the comment I’m replying to.
@Kimbo Jones
Women who bring up sexism on a science podcast are clearly obsessed with the topic.
Even worse was that it was quite clearly a case of “sexism hunting” i.e. trying to find thing that could be twisted and interpreted in a sexist way.
@daoist:
Technical note: click the arrow in the upper right-hand corner of the comment to wish you wish to reply in order to create a hyperlink to that comment. For example, @Kimbo Jones in #182 referred to @daoist at #165.
@karyn:
Well, semantics are an important thing, too. That’s why there’s an entire discipline called “semantics” ;)
People are getting really angry because of the varying misuses of the word ‘sexism’, and are unfamiliar with the verbal territory. That’s fine, it happens at a blog like this with people form an intellectually diverse group clash with one another. Sexism is a reallllllly loaded word (which is why I used so many L’s just there), and we need to understand the lexicon before we start throwing barbs out there.
@Blake Stacey: Hey that’s neat as hell. Thanks.
@Kimbo Jones: My assertion was that Carrie’s comments in the SGU interview give the impression that she is calling the TAM organizers sexist (despite her explaining that she, in fact, does not consider them sexist.)
@Jessika wrote:
Some time later, @rationalbeing complained:
Ah, life is amusing sometimes.
@rationalbeing: Why shouldn’t women be concerned with something that affects them so deeply and may interfere with their feeling of belonging in a particular group — especially one that prides itself on progressiveness?
@rationalbeing:
Umm……say what????? Are you being ironic? I hope so. Because that was a horrible thing to say.
@daoist: Well maybe that’s the problem, we’re all talking about different things.
@Blake Stacey: Ha ha, yes! I thought the same as I approved rationalbeing’s comment and chuckled.
@Kimbo Jones: That could very well be true. message board discussions are somewhat messy, and blog replies moreso.
@daoist:
Glad to be of help. It’s a convenient feature, but it sure wasn’t obvious to me how to use it! (-:
@Kimbo Jones:
Furthermore, as one author put it,
The status of women in “the community of scientists, with its mores and its social and economic structure” is a perfectly cromulent subject for a “science” podcast.
@rationalbeing As a podcaster myself, I often receive emails from people like yourself who get all bent out of shape about non-science topics being discussed. And my show is labeled as “comedy”!
SGU is a skeptical podcast. As such, many different topics may be discussed on the show, with the connective thread being that all of them have to do with the practical or philosophical application of critical thinking skills. In that it’s a position based on ignorance of objective reality, sexism falls under the same category as homeopathy, astrology, and feng shui.
Skeptics have a broad range of interests, and discussion of a particular topic–even topics outside of what you want to hear–doesn’t equate to obsession.
If you don’t want to hear about it, you don’t have to download your free podcast.
Pointing out that a American comedy sitcom uses sterotypes is like complaining that cheese has milk.
And taking Bill Prady’s comments so out of context and then distorting them the way she did was clearly sexism hunting.
And when someone watches big bang theory and all they can think of is the stereotypes, is pretty obsessed with the issue.
@Blake Stacey:
I beg to differ. It seems that the difference is quite robust.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math2.htm
Griffe also mentions some possible problems of Hyde’s analysis.
A German study of their school system found that boys outperformed girls at maths despite being systematically disadvantaged (though only slightly).
http://www.aktionsrat-bildung.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/Geschlechterdifferenzen_im_Bildungssystem__Jahresgutachten_2009.pdf
At page 106 you can find the results for different schools. If you happen to be able to read German you can also find the competence measured by an independent test (pisa), and the given grades, which shows, that girls are indeed given a preferential treatment. (page 102-103, by the way in the German system the best grade is 1)
@rationalbeing: People talking about things that are important to them using contextual examples is obsession now? I’ll have to update my dictionary.
@rationalbeing:
So, because something bad is omnipresent, we can’t complain about it?
It’s up to you to show that Carrie did take Bill Prady’s comments “so out of context”; since Prady himself issued a clarification, it certainly sounds likely that (a) a whole lot of people took his remark “out of context” or (b) his original statement just wasn’t all that clear.
Yes. One blog post and five minutes of conversation count as “obsession.”
You are setting up a straw man. I never argued that “Feminists look for things to get angry about.”
But Carrie as an individual did.
Feminist allies have been mentioned repeatedly. I’d like to add that it’s not productive to treat your skeptical allies as if their concerns are invalid because they are about problems you don’t have. How does that create an open, welcoming community, inviting to the women you’d like to see attending these events? Which is, I think, the point of a lot of these discussions about sexism & skepticism.
Bill Prady’s “clarification” was obvious to anyone that took the comments in the context of the speech, or anyone that even knew the title of his address.
@rationalbeing
It’s a science *and* skepticism podcast. And maybe you haven’t been listening as long as I have, but the skepticism portion extends to skeptical culture. Women are a part of that c