Topic: Feminism in the Scientific Field and Scepticism Movement

[Oh Henry]

OK, I'll put my chin out - the only diversity that matters is of opinion/thought/knowledge/ideas - all things that are gender/race/whatever neutral.

I don't think that's true at all.  You're telling me that someone's identity and experience as a male or female, or as a Native American or African American, etc, brings no special perspective to the marketplace of ideas?

[Citizen Skeptic]

OK, I'll put my chin out - the only diversity that matters is of opinion/thought/knowledge/ideas - all things that are gender/race/whatever neutral.

I don't think that's true at all.  You're telling me that someone's identity and experience as a male or female, or as a Native American or African American, etc, brings no special perspective to the marketplace of ideas?

Maybe a better way of saying it is that I don't care about your gender/race/whatever brings to the party unless it is relevant to the idea. I don't care about the Cuban perspective on evolution anymore than the femenist perspective on cosmology.

[Cowtown Cody]

Word.  And Like Citizen Skeptic said, the diversity that's really important is diversity of ideas.  However, because different races, genders and ethnicities have such divergent experiences with the world, it's not such a bad proxy for a diversity of ideas.  You know you're getting people who did not come to the problem from the same direction as you.

When it comes specifically to women in skepticism, I think trying to get more of them in the door has a lot of value because women seem to me to be targeted by a lot more pseudoscience than men, as well as universally being more oppressed by religious laws than men.  More products, cures, and bullcrap arguments governing their behavior are directed at them.  This sketch comes immediately to mind:

Women Sort Yourself Out - That Mitchell and Webb Look

And the more women who get interested in skepticism, the more effectively they can fight the pseudoscience that's being pointed at women in general.  And the more they can do that, the more powerful our society is against pseudoscience.  So like seaotter, I see their current under-representation in the skeptic community as a huge opportunity to build a better society.

[Haricots]

I wasn't being sarcastic. Studies have show diversity can trump IQ and even specialized knowledge.

Comparing diversity and IQ in general terms like that doesn't make any sense. There is no natural way to weigh IQ and diversity (Assuming you could quantify diversity satisfyingly in the first place.) when comparing the importance of them.
How many IQ points above average do you compare to adding a Hispanic woman to a group? 6.7? 12?

I googled for a study that matched your description and found "Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups", that study didn't really show any benefit from diversity itself but rather that the"social sensitivity", something women tends to have more of than men, is the single most important factor found to predict a groups general ability to solve the tasks in this study.
They didn't find a golden ratio of men and women that worked best, so the take away message would be that men suck at working in groups.

I'm generally not that fond arguments along these lines..
Basing the desirability of women in skepticism on what would in principle be an empirical question seems really unattractive.
I think that a more reasonable way to look at it than the desirability of women in skepticism would be the desirability of skepticism in women. Would it be a good thing if more women were skeptical?

[Shibboleth]

It is a well known fact that facial hair directly correlates to the scientific might of a scientist. The greatest testament as to whether women are good at science is the fact that women know this for years but have been unable to create a chemical that allows them to grow facial hair. The closest they came to solving the puzzle of facial hair was in the 80's. They tested their drug on Africans and it was a success until it quickly morphed into a new disease that we now call "HIV". Originality "HIV" stood for "Hair Inducing Vaccine". Today we lament the creation of the vaccine because it unleashed one of the worst plights upon humanity. You guessed it. Women scientists are responsible for Bono becoming an annoying douche.

[ting-bu-dong]

First, it is not facial hair that grants scientists their power, it's hair in general.

Second. Truth, critical thinking and an appreciation for the need to have an accurate understanding of the facts underpinning human endeavour should not correlate with factors like age, sex, race or nationality. When it does, the cause is not necessarily the fault of skeptics, but we should make sure that we are not putting up any obstacles for those who would want to participate in what we do. Creating the appearance that skepticism and skeptical events are 'male activities' is one of those obstacles. That should be the primary reason for increasing diversity.

[Citizen Skeptic]

It is a well known fact that facial hair directly correlates to the scientific might of a scientist.

I've gone from a very straight silicon valley exec look to long hair and bearded. It has been kind of an interesting personal social experiment. I get noticeably different reactions from people than when I was clean shaven and had short hair. Mostly for the better.

[341gerbig]

This seems relevant:

CFI's Women in Secularism Conference | The Intersection of Non-theism and Feminism

[Karyn]

This seems relevant too, but only because I don't really want to start a new thread about these things.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/im-not-your-wife-a-new-study-points-to-a-hidden-form-of-sexism/258057/

[Cowtown Cody]

That's an interesting study.  And I don't exactly know how I'm supposed to respond to it, because now my position looks every bit as paternalistic as that article complains about.  So maybe I need to rethink this whole business in the interest of not being preconsciously sexist.

It leaves me with the fairly strong notion that the only defensible position men have on the subject of sexism is to work hard to make sure they aren't creating any additional barriers, and then to just stop trying to help and let women work that part out.

[pandamonium]

That's an interesting study.  And I don't exactly know how I'm supposed to respond to it, because now my position looks every bit as paternalistic as that article complains about.  So maybe I need to rethink this whole business in the interest of not being preconsciously sexist.

It leaves me with the fairly strong notion that the only defensible position men have on the subject of sexism is to work hard to make sure they aren't creating any additional barriers, and then to just stop trying to help and let women work that part out.

Nononono, men are the ones that need to grant us our rights, you silly goose. How are we supposed to know what's a right if men aren't telling us? /sarcasm

I'll have to read that article when I'm not drinking--I can't quite parse some of the more complicated sentences. Thanks for posting it, Karyn.

[Oh Henry]

Another relevant article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2012/may/24/why-women-leave-academia?fb=optOut

Its a look at Chemistry PhD students in the UK.  Many women feel deterred from academic careers before entering one, in part, because they are told that they will face some gender-related impediments along the road.  As a PhD candidate myself (male, US), I have to believe that most PhD candidates (3 year students and beyond) will have seen the sausage works that is academic life, and there shouldn't be too many surprises.  But I do understand that many PhD students hope that their lives will get better/easier when they become the professor, and when they are finally told, "No, it doesn't get much easier," the reaction can be a disheartened, "fuuuuuuuuck."

I wonder, though, if this same mechanism is also deterring young women (at least here in the US) from declaring science majors and taking science classes.  Women expect some level of discrimination in science fields, so they just keep their distance.

[Oh Henry]

OK, I'll put my chin out - the only diversity that matters is of opinion/thought/knowledge/ideas - all things that are gender/race/whatever neutral.

I don't think that's true at all.  You're telling me that someone's identity and experience as a male or female, or as a Native American or African American, etc, brings no special perspective to the marketplace of ideas?

Maybe a better way of saying it is that I don't care about your gender/race/whatever brings to the party unless it is relevant to the idea. I don't care about the Cuban perspective on evolution anymore than the femenist perspective on cosmology.

Alright - I can buy that.  I would agree that when it comes to empirical facts and objective reality, post-modernism comes crashing to the ground. 

[Cowtown Cody]

That's an interesting study.  And I don't exactly know how I'm supposed to respond to it, because now my position looks every bit as paternalistic as that article complains about.  So maybe I need to rethink this whole business in the interest of not being preconsciously sexist.

It leaves me with the fairly strong notion that the only defensible position men have on the subject of sexism is to work hard to make sure they aren't creating any additional barriers, and then to just stop trying to help and let women work that part out.

Nononono, men are the ones that need to grant us our rights, you silly goose. How are we supposed to know what's a right if men aren't telling us? /sarcasm

Well right.  And apparently it's my subconscious paternalism, not any impulse in favor of equality that I'm actually espousing.  Apparently, in my own closeted-yet-still-awful way, I'm just being the protective kind of controlling.  And I'm not joking about that.  After reading that article, that's exactly what my position looks like now.

Guh.  Is it actually possible for me to be an honest, equality-desiring male feminist, or do my preconscious biases doom me to being a closeted misogynist whenever I try?

[Karyn]

That's an interesting study.  And I don't exactly know how I'm supposed to respond to it, because now my position looks every bit as paternalistic as that article complains about.  So maybe I need to rethink this whole business in the interest of not being preconsciously sexist.

It leaves me with the fairly strong notion that the only defensible position men have on the subject of sexism is to work hard to make sure they aren't creating any additional barriers, and then to just stop trying to help and let women work that part out.

Nononono, men are the ones that need to grant us our rights, you silly goose. How are we supposed to know what's a right if men aren't telling us? /sarcasm

Well right.  And apparently it's my subconscious paternalism, not any impulse in favor of equality that I'm actually espousing.  Apparently, in my own closeted-yet-still-awful way, I'm just being the protective kind of controlling.  And I'm not joking about that.  After reading that article, that's exactly what my position looks like now.

Guh.  Is it actually possible for me to be an honest, equality-desiring male feminist, or do my preconscious biases doom me to being a closeted misogynist whenever I try?

It's these sorts of thoughts that make me what to say screw it and become a nihilist.

Seriously, the vast majority of people behave mostly just fine with the occasional asshole moment.  It would be great if you could make your personality more efficient, more optimized, more synergistic, but we all know what a pile of crap that is.  I'm guessing you're doing just fine.  Especially since you aren't old and hairy, like Beleth.