Topic: Sexism in the Skeptic Movement?

[rebecca]

Rebecca:
It is remarkable that so many of you have taken this personally. Absolutely remarkable. Carrie and I went out of our way to point out that the audience at TAM was friendly and accepting and in no way sexist. We listed the problems that many women saw at TAM and suggested that we look at these as a community in the hopes of attracting more women. I'm really amazed that a few of you took that as a direct accusation of skepticism against you. That is simply not supported by what we said and I'm sorry you so drastically misunderstood what we were saying.

This isn't about me. I never meant to make it so. It's about the things you and Carrie said and the baseless nature of it. That so many are offended by your remarks is understandable. You have not clarified anything.

Because I've been shown nothing that needs clarifying. All I've seen are strawmen arguments, such as this one that suggests Carrie and I accused the entire community of bigotry. We did not. We talked about specific examples, and suggested that many people may make sexist comments without even realizing it. You've seem to have taken offense to statements that we never made.

[BertrandBataille]

Because I've been shown nothing that needs clarifying. All I've seen are strawmen arguments, such as this one that suggests Carrie and I accused the entire community of bigotry. We did not. We talked about specific examples, and suggested that many people may make sexist comments without even realizing it. You've seem to have taken offense to statements that we never made.

I didn't take it personally, nor did I interpret what you said as being a condemnation of the entire community. Honestly? It just felt like you were whining about stuff that, at the end of the day, doesn't really matter. Leave the "Help! I'm being oppressed!" Christ-complex stuff to the Christians.

Sorry; I just realized that what I wrote might come off as quite...rude. Still, if you wipe away the polemics, I stand by my point.

[Citizen Skeptic]

My wife's mother told her to find a nerd with a briefcase. She found me. And they lived happily ever after.

I agree with the general sentiment here. As a nerd, an engineer, and general science nut, it wasn't until I hid my nerdiness that I got anywhere with women. Sexism? What about nerdism? 

[spacemonkey]

Rebecca, if you are amazed so many people have been offended, then maybe, just maybe, it's because you actually said offensive things. Some of the things you said hinted at the fact that male skeptics should be more aware of what they do because they have sexist attitudes. Like many others, I find this accusation to be baseless and the complete opposite of my experiencies and knowledge of the skeptical movement. That's why I'm offended.

[Belgarath]

Rebecca:
It is remarkable that so many of you have taken this personally. Absolutely remarkable. Carrie and I went out of our way to point out that the audience at TAM was friendly and accepting and in no way sexist. We listed the problems that many women saw at TAM and suggested that we look at these as a community in the hopes of attracting more women. I'm really amazed that a few of you took that as a direct accusation of skepticism against you. That is simply not supported by what we said and I'm sorry you so drastically misunderstood what we were saying.

This isn't about me. I never meant to make it so. It's about the things you and Carrie said and the baseless nature of it. That so many are offended by your remarks is understandable. You have not clarified anything.

Because I've been shown nothing that needs clarifying. All I've seen are strawmen arguments, such as this one that suggests Carrie and I accused the entire community of bigotry. We did not. We talked about specific examples, and suggested that many people may make sexist comments without even realizing it. You've seem to have taken offense to statements that we never made.

Then please clarify your statement in the podcast:

Dr N: Do you think that you were held back in any way or do you think it was more of the unconscious sort of stereotyping sexism that you see?

Rebecca: That's an interesting way to put things.  Would you feel held back if someone constantly told you that you needed to be smart and pretty and nice all the time.  You know, it's not this thing where, you know, we're not going to read your blog because you're a woman or you're not allowed to do such and such because you're a woman.  It's a much quieter and more insidious kind of sexism.  You can respond to it by shrinking and going away or by standing up and being a bitch.  I feel that the more we point it out the better off we'll be.

Regardless of what you meant by that, the impression that was given was that lots of skeptics are sexist in an insidious and quiet way.  After all, if we're talking about one single sexist jerk at the skeptics convention, why do we need to talk about that at all?

Since then, you have clarified that you don't think it is pervasive, and I accept your explanation, but this is akin to Bill Prady clarifying his statements.  If he clarified and you accepted it, then why do we need to even discuss it?

[Lukas]

Hanes:
With guys, if we're talking about, say a movie (lets use Transformers as just a recent example), it would be very rare to have that conversation without someone commenting about how boneable (in either more or less crude terms) the lead female in the movie is.  I try to avoid this to some extent, but obviously I'm guilty along with the rest of my gender.  Is this something we should be apologising for?

Hanes, I LOVE your spirit. I understand your frustration and am with you on point. Brother, don't EVER apologize for being a man.

See, this kind of teenage boy attitude thing keeps me from attending skeptical conventions and similar things, and I am a male and a skeptical scientist (well, mathematician) myself. First of all, I'd never watch Transformers, my movie preferences go more towards van Trier, Bergman, Tarkovsky, Jarmusch, and such. Second, I don't even remember when I had the last conversation about the "boneability" of some lead actress. It's not that I would never think about it, but seriously, grow up... I've watched the Big Bang Theory a couple of times, and found it mildly amusing, but I am really not that much into this kind of nerd culture (though I have to admit I still like Monty Python and Terry Gilliam...)

Maybe I am prejudiced, I have never been to TAM or any of the other conventions, so I don't know how nerdy it would be, but could it be that this perception keeps other people like me away from these meetings?

[rebecca]

Rebecca:
It is remarkable that so many of you have taken this personally. Absolutely remarkable. Carrie and I went out of our way to point out that the audience at TAM was friendly and accepting and in no way sexist. We listed the problems that many women saw at TAM and suggested that we look at these as a community in the hopes of attracting more women. I'm really amazed that a few of you took that as a direct accusation of skepticism against you. That is simply not supported by what we said and I'm sorry you so drastically misunderstood what we were saying.

This isn't about me. I never meant to make it so. It's about the things you and Carrie said and the baseless nature of it. That so many are offended by your remarks is understandable. You have not clarified anything.

Because I've been shown nothing that needs clarifying. All I've seen are strawmen arguments, such as this one that suggests Carrie and I accused the entire community of bigotry. We did not. We talked about specific examples, and suggested that many people may make sexist comments without even realizing it. You've seem to have taken offense to statements that we never made.

Then please clarify your statement in the podcast:

Dr N: Do you think that you were held back in any way or do you think it was more of the unconscious sort of stereotyping sexism that you see?

Rebecca: That's an interesting way to put things.  Would you feel held back if someone constantly told you that you needed to be smart and pretty and nice all the time.  You know, it's not this thing where, you know, we're not going to read your blog because you're a woman or you're not allowed to do such and such because you're a woman.  It's a much quieter and more insidious kind of sexism.  You can respond to it by shrinking and going away or by standing up and being a bitch.  I feel that the more we point it out the better off we'll be.

Regardless of what you meant by that, the impression that was given was that lots of skeptics are sexist in an insidious and quiet way.  After all, if we're talking about one single sexist jerk at the skeptics convention, why do we need to talk about that at all?

Since then, you have clarified that you don't think it is pervasive, and I accept your explanation, but this is akin to Bill Prady clarifying his statements.  If he clarified and you accepted it, then why do we need to even discuss it?

When speaking of a quiet and insidious kind of sexism, I refer to the sexism that people do not even realize they are exhibiting because it is reinforced as "okay" behavior and not corrected, even by those who are hurt by it. An example is a person showing slides of famous scientists and deeming a woman too ugly to show, and therefore showing a sexier woman instead. That comment can feel like a fun joke to the speaker and to many people who do not even notice those who are hurt. It is insidious because it is quiet, and because it sneaks by our filters. That is why we need to discuss it—to encourage everyone to consider their actions in the context of whether or not they may be damaging.

[BertrandBataille]

When speaking of a quiet and insidious kind of sexism, I refer to the sexism that people do not even realize they are exhibiting because it is reinforced as "okay" behavior and not corrected, even by those who are hurt by it. An example is a person showing slides of famous scientists and deeming a woman too ugly to show, and therefore showing a sexier woman instead. That comment can feel like a fun joke to the speaker and to many people who do not even notice those who are hurt. It is insidious because it is quiet, and because it sneaks by our filters. That is why we need to discuss it—to encourage everyone to consider their actions in the context of whether or not they may be damaging.

Soooo...are we supposed to walk on eggshells, then? Maybe it's just you who gets offended. Different things offend different people. If a woman commented on how "ugly" a male scientist was, I wouldn't give it a second thought. "BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME!" you might say. Well, maybe it's not. But if it's not, then you can't expect men to empathize with you, since men and women aren't offended by the same shit. Personally, I think it's all subjective anyway. You think you're a victim, then you're a victim. You think you're a human being of equal worth to other human beings, then you're...that.

You of all people should know that perspective doesn't change the facts. And what you're criticizing is another person's perspective -- from your own perspective.

Think about that. Yeah.

[rebecca]

When speaking of a quiet and insidious kind of sexism, I refer to the sexism that people do not even realize they are exhibiting because it is reinforced as "okay" behavior and not corrected, even by those who are hurt by it. An example is a person showing slides of famous scientists and deeming a woman too ugly to show, and therefore showing a sexier woman instead. That comment can feel like a fun joke to the speaker and to many people who do not even notice those who are hurt. It is insidious because it is quiet, and because it sneaks by our filters. That is why we need to discuss it—to encourage everyone to consider their actions in the context of whether or not they may be damaging.

Soooo...are we supposed to walk on eggshells, then? Maybe it's just you who gets offended. Different things offend different people. If a woman commented on how "ugly" a male scientist was, I wouldn't give it a second thought. "BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME!" you might say. Well, maybe it's not. But if it's not, then you can't expect men to empathize with you, since men and women aren't offended by the same shit. Personally, I think it's all subjective anyway. You think you're a victim, then you're a victim. You think you're a human being of equal worth to other human beings, then you're...that.

This is commonly known as the "spectrum fallacy," something we've been over before on the podcast. The idea is that because there is no clear dividing line between things that are okay and things that are not okay, anything is okay. Nope, sorry.

Most people are capable of making strides toward understanding the position of another person or group of people. That is why it is important to point out when actions or statements are hurtful, so that we can learn to be more compassionate and more accepting of others, including women and minorities.

[leonet]

My (anecdotal) experience has been that the skeptical movement is, if anything, less sexist than the majority of informal social pursuits in the modern western world.  But I do think that there is a systemic sexism in society that is a valid issue for scientific examination.  But I don't think that we will get anywhere by accusing one another of sexism; the word is too inflammatory and suggests intent.

[spacemonkey]

Dr. N: Do you think there is any lingering sexism within skepticism itself?

Carrie: I think there definetly is, you know, like we were saying, it's kind of on the way out, but, I really tend to think of the "woman in skepticism" problem as a social problem more than an intelectual problem or a "how do we communicate better?" problem. I think it has everything to do with how people have historically joined the movement and as internet and podcasts and different things like that create these online communities i just think we´re gonna see more and more women come in.

Dr. Novella had stated previously that people from TAM were "going out of their way" to incorporate more women into the event. So why does Carrie think "there definetly is lingering sexism within skepticism itself"? Is she basing this on Bill Prady's speech?

I, like many here think there is definetly no sexism within skepticism. At least it's below "average". Men like myself and others do go out of our way to get women interested in skepticism and science.

I think it has everything to do with how people have historically joined the movement

What does she mean by this? Have "white males" historically tried to make it difficult for women to get into skepticism? I seriously doubt that.



Rebecca said that TAM was full of "white males" and that is not representative of the skeptical movement. ¿How does she know this? Even if this were true (which i think it probably is), is this due to racism or is it simply because more white males sign up?

[MisterMarc]

An example is a person showing slides of famous scientists and deeming a woman too ugly to show, and therefore showing a sexier woman instead. That comment can feel like a fun joke to the speaker and to many people who do not even notice those who are hurt. It is insidious because it is quiet, and because it sneaks by our filters. That is why we need to discuss it—to encourage everyone to consider their actions in the context of whether or not they may be damaging.

Did this occur at TAM? I'm confused.

[SnarlPatrick]

An example is a person showing slides of famous scientists and deeming a woman too ugly to show, and therefore showing a sexier woman instead.

Yeah, I'd be astounded if that actually happened. Is that a real example?

And if it is, wouldn't that be "looksism" rather than sexism?

[BertrandBataille]

This is commonly known as the "spectrum fallacy," something we've been over before on the podcast. The idea is that because there is no clear dividing line between things that are okay and things that are not okay, anything is okay. Nope, sorry.

Most people are capable of making strides toward understanding the position of another person or group of people. That is why it is important to point out when actions or statements are hurtful, so that we can learn to be more compassionate and more accepting of others, including women and minorities.

I never said "anything goes." That's ri-goddamn-diculous. What I was trying to get across (apparently unsuccessfully) is this: pick your battles. It's exhausting to go about your life crying "foul!" at every little thing. It's only my opinion, but I think there are a lot of things way more immediate and pressing than perceived sexism at a skeptic's conference (poverty, female genital mutilation, religious fundamentalism, gay rights -- to name a few).

[Citizen Skeptic]

Rebecca said that TAM was full of "white males" and that is not representative of the skeptical movement. ¿How does she know this? Even if this were true (which i think it probably is), is this due to racism or is it simply because more white males sign up?

I didn't go because I had to work at the last minute. If there is any group of people that I feel comfortable with as a minority it is skeptics. But then on the other hand, I don't feel uncomfortable around anyone unless they are ass hats.