Want more women actively participating in the skeptical movement? Keep these suggestions in mind:
50. Learn what sexual objectification means (and doesn’t mean).
49. Let splinter groups splinter.
48. Doth not protest too much.
47. Identify the fringe.
46. Understand that consent is temporary.
45. Sexism in Skepticism, or: Learn to stop worrying and embrace the impending schism.
44. Consider how your speaker’s reputation affects your reputation.
43. Misconception: Women can’t take a joke.
42. Women do not have the right to not be offended.
I am only one person with ideas, and I would love to hear what other people have thought of or are doing. If you have other suggestions for how to increase the number of women who are active participants, please leave them in the comments here or make them via Twitter: @_KarenX. Thank you for visiting!
This page has the following sub pages.
I went from being “Yes, it’s wrong to comment, even favorably, on the appearance of a female speaker at a TAM,” (like, what, 2 years ago?), to “Rebecca was justifiably creeped out,” to “Rebecca was unfairly vilified, even for calling out (or just plain misrepresenting) the unpopular female blogger who disagreed with her on Elevatorgate,” to being disgusted by the subsequent actions of the Skepchicks:
–Lying about a Twitter user’s obvious joke tweet, to make it out as a clear threat
–Trying to have him fired
–Trying to have him banned from TAM
–Selective outrage over OTHERS who made joke tweets at the original person’s expense (because apparently it’s only WHO you threaten, not the threat/joke/whatever)
–Taking someone’s suggestion of “Hey, maybe don’t feed the trolls” as a “Blame the victim” mentality (that’s lunacy — it may not be an effective strategy, but inflating to blaming the victim is classic reductio ad absurdum).
At this point, the Skepchicks remind me of the mean kangaroo mother from “Horton Hears a Who” (the non-book version), who, corrupted with power gives up the high ground (because it’s actually quite reasonable to operate from the starting position that there are NOT microscopic people living on the flower) after tasting being “right” for a time.
There are plenty of female Skeptics on Twitter who think the Skepchick cabal have gone overboard in their policing of what you can/can’t say, and what makes you sexist/insensitive vs. just plain “not getting it.” I watched with disgust their lunacy unfold over the week or so leading to TAM.
So I guess this is all to say, “If you want more women in Skepticism,” maybe female Skeptics need a Sistah Souljah moment with them re their own intellectual (or actual) dishonesty?
Sorry for all this. I was in the mood to rant.
I should point out that I REMAIN squarely in the school of thought that you (1) don’t comment on appearance if you’re introducing a woman for her intellect, etc., (2) RW was justified, and (3) the blogger could basically have called her out right there in the conference. But I should add (4) – you shouldn’t lie or engage in intellectual dishonesty, because your “cause is just.”
You should probably take up your issues with the Skepchicks with the actual Skepchicks. I am not affiliated with them.
I will add to my list of future topics to not consider the actions of a subset of women representative of all women.
I have voiced my displeasure about what they have done, and are doing, already. I was raising it here to lay a foundation about whether there was a Sistah Souljah moment needed. Sort of an “Only Nixon can go to China” thing. These complaints coming from men don’t matter, because they fall on deaf ears, based on the speaker’s sex.
And obviously I’m not stupid enough to think that the actions of a subset of women to be representative of all women. Rather, I think that the subset, which purports to carry the banner for feminism, if unchallenged, would rightly give observers the thought that silence is tacit assent.
Tai Fung
“These complaints coming from men don’t matter, because they fall on deaf ears, based on the speaker’s sex.”
Or it could possibly be that unsubstantiated allegations fall on deaf ears because they are unsubstantiated.
If you have a problem with what one individual did, perhaps you might consider taking it up with that individual instead of trying to get women to carry your water.
Tai, I honestly have no background on the situation you described about the Skepchicks and the Twitter joke threat, and I don’t know what the joke threat was. And then if they tried to get him fired or banned from an event, that’s a pretty common occurrence, isn’t it? A small group of people mounts a protest about an episode, and tries to get larger organizations to take action. People pull this all the time, for all sorts of reasons (consumers are always lobbying against retailers and television executives, for example). If the threat jokester wasn’t fired and wasn’t banned, it’s because the people who control the employment and the event didn’t care. If the threat jokester was fired or banned, then your beef is with the employer or the event organizer who caved to a demand you perceive as unreasonable.
I also don’t really know what a “Sistah Souljah” moment would look like or what that is supposed to mean. If women are finding that achieving their goals is being hampered by the behavior of a fringe group, they’ll probably take up their concerns with the fringe group. And I am hesitant to label as “intellectually dishonest” a group of women whose tolerance for threats seems lower than average. Maybe you mean something else. Like I said, I have knowledge of the events only as you describe them.
@ thebewilderness:
It is more than one person. It is a group of people. And I have seen them dismiss attempts by men to raise defenses based precisely on men being, well, male. Moreover, these comments are easily identifiable and viewable on various blogs or social media outlets. I just didn’t include little footnotes because I’m not writing a law review article.
Oh, and thanks for the attempted ad hom attack about me expecting women to “carry water.” I take your pathetic attempt as evidence that I’ve struck a nerve, and am onto something. I have voiced my complaints about them in numerous places (which I’ve already written, but your overlooking of my prior comment just tells me you have an agenda, vs. having an objective view). Like I said, my experience and observation tells me that they simply identify dissenting MALES as “not getting it,” and dismiss them.
@Karen
The “Sistah Soulja” moment was harkening back to Clinton, but that’s not important, I was just trying for an example. I’m not sure exactly what it would look like either.
Anyway, overall, I think this has all taught me a lot. I’m gone, carry on and have fun!
“I take your pathetic attempt as evidence that I’ve struck a nerve, and am onto something”
Translation: I’m a troll.