What do you think about misogyny in the skeptical and athiest communities?

[Actionsquid]

I was recently reading this story:

Sexism in the skeptic community: I spoke out, then came the rape threats. - Slate Magazine

...as well as a number of forum/blog discussions regarding the problem of misogyny among gatherings (both "real world" and online) of those who identify as "skeptics" and/or atheists. I thought it would be interesting to ask:

-Do you identify as either/both of those terms?
-What are your experiences with misogyny with regard to being part of those groups or communities? Do you see it as a serious problem? Have you been on the receiving end of it? Or have you even found yourself perpetrating it?

 

[mike]

When does a debate become an argument

Once it does, ppl start to fling the insults, looks some of her opponents found the chink in her armour and are exploiting it.

Its a common enough dynamic, and it extends well beyond the parameters of her experience.

We've had our female prime minister calling the leader of the opposition a misogynist down here lately.

Its just one of a multitude of lines that can get crossed once a debate becomes heated.

 

[Randall]

I've got some real distaste for the hypocrisy that some of the self-proclaimed skeptics exhibit, but I don't paint whole groups with the same brush based on the behavior of select individuals. There could also be skeptics who are child molesters or serial killers, but that doesn't mean the entire skeptical community should have to bear those labels any more than the entire ufology community should be equated with Heaven's Gate or the Raelian Movement.

 

[williamjwhite]

As a happily married man, I'm all for misogyny. No, wait a minute, I think I'm a little confused here. Do I mean monogamy?

 

[Actionsquid]

I've got some real distaste for the hypocrisy that some of the self-proclaimed skeptics exhibit, but I don't paint whole groups with the same brush based on the behavior of select individuals. There could also be skeptics who are child molesters or serial killers, but that doesn't mean the entire skeptical community should have to bear those labels any more than the entire ufology community should be equated with Heaven's Gate or the Raelian Movement.

I don't think that, generally speaking, when someone says "misogyny in the skeptical community" they are talking about rare instances. The question I really wanted to ask was "is it widespread, systemic, and widely tolerated?"

And, yes, we could ask the same question about the "UFO community" too.

But really, the article just got me wondering what others who might have more experience than me in the "big S" skeptical community might have to say on it.

 

[Randall]

I don't think that, generally speaking, when someone says "misogyny in the skeptical community" they are talking about rare instances. The question I really wanted to ask was "is it widespread, systemic, and widely tolerated?"

And, yes, we could ask the same question about the "UFO community" too.

But really, the article just got me wondering what others who might have more experience than me in the "big S" skeptical community might have to say on it.

The point I was making is that the question "is it widespread, systemic, and widely tolerated?" is virtually the same as saying "should we paint the whole community with same brush?" If it's true, then perhaps we should, but like you, I tend to think that there are plenty of individuals in the skeptical community who aren't misogynists. There's probably a lot of mild sex stereotyping on both sides of the fence ( like anyplace else ), but I'm guessing that the truly offensive stuff probably isn't tolerated by the majority.

 

[Actionsquid]

The point I was making is that the question "is it widespread, systemic, and widely tolerated?" is virtually the same as saying "should we paint the whole community with same brush?"

Really? I doesn't seem that way to me.

I tend to think that there are plenty of individuals in the skeptical community who aren't misogynists.

I never asked if most [men] who identify as skeptics are misogynist, nor am I suggesting that, much less would I ever advance the idea that there were not "plenty of individuals in the skeptical community who aren't misogynists".

What I wondered was if others though it was common, and therefore a problem.

There's probably a lot of mild sex stereotyping on both sides of the fence ( like anyplace else ),

I'm sure. But the question of it being a problem with "organized" skeptics is a topic I've rarely heard brought here. As some posters here identify as skeptics, I though their perspective would be interesting. (did you read the piece I linked too, incidentally?)

 

[Burnt State]

Misogyny, like all our social hatreds is always around, no matter where you go. I think whenever settings are monocultural i.e. mostly white or mostly male you will get racism and sexism respectively. Sometimes these are micro-aggressions; sometimes you get your life threatened with violence. On this forum, be they skeptical or believer, there is little tolerance for outward shows of hatred. That doesn't mean it's a fully equitable space, but it's mostly polite.

I think as soon as you start having the talk about equity and inclusivity in environments where people are not educated within an anti-oppression framework you will start to see the typical backlash; folks start complaining about having to be 'politically correct' and suddenly you're surrounded by Rush Limbaugh's (or my father-in-law, same thing. take your pick). Some are happy to identify as feminist; others don't always share the same values. Sad days follow.

 

[Muadib]

I agree with Burnt State, I don't think misogyny is strictly a skeptical or atheist phenomenon, indeed a lot of our religions have their own brand of misogyny built into the mythology. Not outright hatred, but this idea that females should know their place or be subservient to the whims and desires of males to a degree, even to the degree that some of these people assume to be better able to judge what is right and wrong for a woman to do with her own body, based on their interpretation of ancient text. It's a fact that when you get an industry or group that is for the most part male dominated, that there will be those around the periphery who harbor misogynistic feelings, usually arising from their own feelings of inadequacy, be it sexual or otherwise. This is also rampant in certain fields like gaming, where the culture is largely male dominated and has been since its inception. It's unfortunate and I agree that it shouldn't be tolerated, it should be exposed and dealt with wherever possible.

 

[Randall]

Really? I doesn't seem that way to me.

Allow me to clarify. The expression "paint it ( whatever ) all with the same brush", is a rather informal colloquial generalization, so when I see someone talking about a specific trait ( misogyny ) in reference to an entire group ( the atheist or skeptical community ), although the intent may not have been to apply the trait to the whole group, it leaves room for clarification on that point, and my response was to get that process started. So my response has more to do with the way I process an issue than making any assumptions. Consequently we've narrowed down the issue to where it doesn't apply to those communities in a generalized way, but to a limited number of individuals. Does that help put my response in perspective?

I never asked if most [men] who identify as skeptics are misogynist, nor am I suggesting that, much less would I ever advance the idea that there were not "plenty of individuals in the skeptical community who aren't misogynists". What I wondered was if others though it was common, and therefore a problem.

I think we've got that in focus now. But we wouldn't have if we hadn't gone through this process. To answer the question, it seems that, as stated above, it seems to apply to a "limited number of individuals", and therefore I have doubts that it is commonplace. But then again, if the individuals responsible hold influential or high profile positions within those communities, it could affect the perception of how common it is, and if one person kept encountering examples, it could become that person's perception that the problem is larger than it is.

I'm sure. But the question of it being a problem with "organized" skeptics is a topic I've rarely heard brought here. As some posters here identify as skeptics, I though their perspective would be interesting. (did you read the piece I linked too, incidentally?)

Yes I read the article. It's been posted before. I have also done a lot of posting over on the JREF forum ( an organized skeptics forum ), and I do notice a distinct lack of obvious female participation. Perhaps there is more than is perceived because the participants have chosen not to share their stats. Would it be sexist of me to say it would be refreshing to see more female participation? My experience with the few females I've debated with is that the other skeptics are certainly quick to come to their defense. To be clear here, I mean to support them in opposition to my views on UFOs, not because I've pounced on them in any personal attack ( I don't do that ). However when a female comes into the forum and starts in with what they call "woo" ... they're given the same opinions as the guys, and if anything they [ the skeptics ] seem to go easier on them [ the females ] at first, and it's the female skeptics who are less reserved about taking a more critical or personal approach. Of course that's just my experience there.

Have I ever found myself "perpetrating it" ... a clear "No." If anything I'm a victim of old school stereotyping. Rather than not liking women, I like women more than men in general ( for no logical reason ), I have a major aversion to violence against women in general ( even though I've been the victim of "reverse" spousal abuse ), I tend to make an extra effort to hold the door and help little old ladies cross the street. I also don't find the words "hostess" or "actress" or other designations bearing a sexual identifier to be discriminatory. I think those who do are the ones with the real problem. I think they changed the word "stewardess" to "flight attendant" to help the males feel less embarrassed ( I hope that attitude doesn't bother anyone here ). Anyway, perhaps try the JREF. Lookup a few female posters and check the posts and replies. See how they're treated over there, and please post links to any examples if you find them!

 

[Actionsquid]

Allow me to clarify. The expression "paint it ( whatever ) all with the same brush", is a rather informal colloquial generalization, so when I see someone talking about a specific trait ( misogyny ) in reference to an entire group ( the atheist or skeptical community ), although the intent may not have been to apply the trait to the whole group ( as a generalization ), there is a literal inference that it does. This leaves room for clarification on that point, and my response was to get that process started. Consequently we've narrowed down the issue to where it doesn't apply to those communities in a generalized way, but to a limited number of individuals. Does that sound fair?

I think we've got that in focus now. But we wouldn't have if we hadn't gone through this process. To answer the question, it seems that, as stated above, it seems to apply to a "limited number of individuals", and therefore I have doubts that it is commonplace. But then again, if the individuals responsible hold influential or high profile positions within those communities, it could affect the perception of how common it is, and if one person kept encountering examples, it could become that person's perception that the problem is larger than it is.

Yes I read the article. It's been posted before. I have also done a lot of posting over on the JREF forum ( an organized skeptics forum ), and I do notice a distinct lack of obvious female participation. Perhaps there is more than is perceived because the participants have chosen not to share their stats. Would it be sexist of me to say it would be refreshing to see more female participation? My experience with the few females I've debated with is that the other skeptics are certainly quick to come to their defense. To be clear here, I mean to support them in opposition to my views on UFOs, not because I've pounced on them in any personal attack ( I don't do that ). However when a female comes into the forum and starts in with what they call "woo" ... they're given the same opinions as the guys, and if anything they [ the skeptics ] seem to go easier on them [ the females ] at first, and it's the female skeptics who are less reserved about taking a more critical or personal approach. Of course that's just my experience there.

I really appreciate the thoughtful answer. (and the other two above it as well) While I consider myself "skeptical" in the general sense, I don't really associate with any kind of designated skeptics groups. But Binnall of Americas recent interview with Sharon Hill (an interesting listen, BTW), the article above, and some other stuff I've read on blogs got my interest and so I wondered with some of the self-identifying "skeptics" here (or those who interact with them) have to say about the matter.

Misogyny, like all our social hatreds is always around, no matter where you go. I think whenever settings are monocultural i.e. mostly white or mostly male you will get racism and sexism respectively...

I think as soon as you start having the talk about equity and inclusivity in environments where people are not educated within an anti-oppression framework you will start to see the typical backlash; folks start complaining about having to be 'politically correct'

Perceptive, and some good food for thought.

 

[Jimi H.]

What a bizarre thread! It took me a while to understand what was going on, and who these sick raping sceptics were. Personally, I'm tired of machismo and I don't understand why rape etc is ever a laughing matter, so I was curious what this was about.

That said, there was little to her personal story, I kinda agree with Dawkins here, because it turns out her beef was that someone invited her for 'coffee' after an event!?:

'Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep"chick", and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn't lay a finger on her, but even so …'

I think that was sarcastic, and I can see why it was called for. Seriously, relax! And I might ask: How do you think it feels to a man when a woman looks at him like he's some sick rapist, when he makes a rather polite pass? It's not a nice experience, I think many men tried that, and it's very unpleasant. Maybe Skep'Chick' (yawn, who cares about her gender except herself?) is just not comfortable in such situations, maybe that's her problem?

 

[Actionsquid]

Maybe Skep'Chick' (yawn, who cares about her gender except herself?) ?

Do you say this same thing any time somebody refers to themselves as an "[x] guy" or a "[y] dude"? "Who cares about their gender...?"

I think that was sarcastic, and I can see why it was called for. Seriously, relax! And I might ask: How do you think it feels to a man when a woman looks at him like he's some sick rapist, when he makes a rather polite pass?

Maybe [she] is just not comfortable in such situations, maybe that's her problem?

I don't think that's really the main point. Let's lay it out, shall we:
-Watson makes a speaking appearance, mentions at length her issues with sexism in the community and how she is sometimes made to feel uncomfortable or unsafe because of her gender, continues to talk about this stuff into the early morning
-Immediately after talking about this, some random guy from the group hits on her in the elevator as she is going back to her room
-She makes an offhand "guys, don't do this" comment on Youtube
- "My YouTube page and many of my videos were flooded with rape “jokes,” threats, objectifying insults, and slurs. A few individuals sent me hundreds of messages, promising to never leave me alone. My Wikipedia page was vandalized. Graphic photos of dead bodies were posted to my Facebook page."

And she is the one who has a "problem"? Really?

 

[Jimi H.]

Any time you're using 'chick' you're pointing at gender, she surely knows that. In fact, I'd say that 'chick' (referring to chicken) is an odd choice for a female gender warrior. We have chick-lit etc., referring to particularly pink genres which exploit female stereo-types (all women want to do is go shopping etc). So, already there we have a problem, is she a feminist, or a 'chick'? I know Spice Girls were both, but that was also exploitation imo., and it didn't work.

Like I said, I don't understand why people send rape-threats or whatever, I don't know who does so, I hope it's young teens with unformed brains. I think she should literally report them to the police. I also think there's an unhealthy machismo in many societies, also in the US, where I think the wars made it worse than it was already.

That said, there's a certain type of young, slightly testing and self-absorbed feminist women which so grates on the nerves. I personally got fed up with the type at college. It's the type that would call herself a 'chick'.

 

[Actionsquid]

Any time you're using 'chick' you're pointing at gender, she surely knows that.
Like I said, I don't understand why people send rape-jokes or whatever, I don't know who does so, I hope it's young teens with unformed brains. I also think there's an unhealthy machismo in many societies, also in the US, where I think the wars made it worse there than it was already.
That said, there's a certain type of young, slightly testing and self-absorbed feminist women which so grates on the nerves. I personally got fed up with the type at college. Btw., it's the type that would call herself a 'chick'.

I still feel like you are missing both of my points, at least somewhat.

The first one is that "guy", "dude", etc also refer to gender and are also often appended to people's names. Do you object to that as well?

The second is that it doesn't matter if somebody thinks Watson is self-absorbed or grating. It also doesn't really matter what Dawkins thinks of her, or what she thinks of him. Those are all just people's personalities and opinions. Harassment, threats of rape or violence, etc are a WHOLE FUCKING OTHER KETTLE OF FISH. You don't get to do that to people because you find them annoying.

 

[Randall]

Any time you're using 'chick' you're pointing at gender, she surely knows that. In fact, I'd say that 'chick' (referring to chicken) is an odd choice for a female gender warrior. We have chick-lit etc., referring to particularly pink genres which exploit female stereo-types (all women want to do is go shopping etc). So, already there we have a problem, is she a feminist, or a 'chick'? I know Spice Girls were both, but that was also exploitation imo.

Like I said, I don't understand why people send rape-jokes or whatever, I don't know who does so, I hope it's young teens with unformed brains. I also think there's an unhealthy machismo in many societies, also in the US, where I think the wars made it worse there than it was already.
That said, there's a certain type of young, slightly testing and self-absorbed feminist women which so grates on the nerves. I personally got fed up with the type at college. Btw., it's the type that would call herself a 'chick'.

I don't doubt that there are so-called feminist radicals, sometimes called "FemiNazis" who hate men in general and have a reverse discriminatory attitude. I've met them and I've been a victim of both reverse discrimination and abuse at home, at work and in the legal system. I recently had a human rights complaint against my last employer dismissed. Although they acknowledged what had happened, they said that it would have had to have happened "more than once". What kind of rationale is that? It's like saying OK if you only steal once, or commit fraud once, so long as it's not a "pattern of behavior" it's OK. What do you think they would have done if I'd walked out of their store with an unpaid laptop? In contrast I've seen plenty of cases where when it was the female who did the complaining, action was almost instantaneous, and just the mere suggestion of discrimination has gotten people fired or forced them to resign. Hypocrisy abounds and accusations of discrimination seem to be a tactic for some who are seeking to advance their own agenda, rather than a genuine crie for justice. But I still don't think any of that that justifies the offhanded dismissal of any individual case, be they female or male, and I refuse to allow my bad experiences to justify any retaliation on women in general. If anything it's made me more sympathetic to the real victims. In the absence of conclusive evidence, every individual should have a right to be treated without prejudice.

 

[Jimi H.]

Basically, I can't posssibly imagine religious sceptics being more prone to sexualism that non-sceptics, though I have no data to back that up. Off-hand I'd think not, as religious societies are often very paternalistic, as in womens' voices aren't heard as much. But it's possible that non-religious people are more prone to seeing possible sexual encounters as innocent, as there's not a strict moral code. Instead, there are ethical codes off course, concerning consent etc.

 

[Jimi H.]

I still feel like you are missing both of my points, at least somewhat.



The first one is that "guy", "dude", etc also refer to gender and are also often appended to people's names. Do you object to that as well?

Is the equivalent of 'chick' guy/dude? I'd say girl/gal, or something like that.

What's the male equivalent of 'chick'?

A (very) quick google concerning the use of the word chick:

chick - definition of chick by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.: "Slang a girl or young woman, esp an attractive one"
Urban Dictionary: chick flick: "A film that indulges in the hopes and dreams of women and/or girls. A film that has a happy, fuzzy, ridiculously unrealistic ending."
Urban Dictionary: chick flick: .. a movie which displays a gross over-indulgence into, and exploration of, the workings of the female psyche and the accomanying emotional tendencies.

I'll not object to someone calling herself a 'chick', but hearing chick and feminist in the same line can be tough to take sometimes. Anyways, I was taught Kristeva..

Dawkins probably felt annoyed because of her focus in that report on the conference, where a pass in an elevator was the issue.

The second is that it doesn't matter if somebody thinks Watson is self-absorbed or grating. It also doesn't really matter what Dawkins thinks of her, or what she thinks of him. Those are all just people's personalities and opinions. Harassment, threats of rape or violence, etc are a WHOLE FUCKING OTHER KETTLE OF FISH. You don't get to do that to people because you find them annoying.

So we are not talking about that night when she was asked for 'coffee' alone in an elevator after wanting to go to bed? (I get why she would have gotten annoyed about it, if she didn't know the man, but let's keep some perspective vis-a-vis the accusations she's putting forth..)

We are talking about all the stupid/obnoxious youtube/blog posters? In that case, I think she should report it to Youtube etc. and perhaps even the police. No one deserves that, and it's an internet culture that should be stopped, if possible.

I'm more 'sceptical' of her accusations that 'sceptics' are sexists or in her implying that abuse and fondling take place at 'sceptic' conferences. Seriously, are guys regularly groping her at such events?! Who are these people? Are they people on the dance-floor at 3 a.m., sure it might happen if some guy thinks/feels something touchy-feely is appropriate.

Or are we talking nice family-gents at the lunch-line? What's really going at these 'sceptic' conferences?

 

[Actionsquid]

I'll not object to someone calling herself a 'chick', but hearing chick and feminist in the same line can be tough to take sometimes.

People have been taking slang terms with slight-to-very-offensive connotations, applicable to themselves, to "own" them, for a loooong time.

We are talking about all the stupid/obnoxious youtube/blog posters? In that case, I think she should report it to Youtube etc. and perhaps even the police. No one deserves that, and it's an internet culture that should be stopped, if possible.

Yeah, it's worthy of attention. I think labeling it as "an internet culture" might be a bit dismissive- these are flesh-and-blood people who think it's ok to threaten or imply the threat of violence people who have differing opinions or they find annoying.

I'm more 'sceptical' of her accusations that 'sceptics' are sexists or in her implying that abuse and fondling take place at 'sceptic' conferences. Seriously, are guys regularly groping her at such events?! Who are these people?

I don't think "abuse and fondling" is the standard that is required to make people feel excluded or uncomfortable in a community. However do you think she is lying about being "groped and fondled without consent" at conferences?

Also notable: She want to the conference and spoke at length about how she was made to feel uncomfortable when speaking at conferences, and then cannot even make it back to her room without being propositioned. I don't think she is the one with the problem.

Also, you said earlier:

Like I said, I don't understand why people send rape-threats or whatever, I don't know who does so, I hope it's young teens with unformed brains.

... but it's worth noting this:

I started checking out the social media profiles of the people sending me these messages, and learned that they were often adults who were active in the skeptic and atheist communities. They were reading the same blogs as I was and attending the same events. These were “my people,” and they were the worst.

This stuff is kinda why it seemed deserving of a thread...

 

[Jimi H.]

Do you think she's been groped and fondled without consent at 'sceptic' conferences?

Because that's important to answer if you're going to actually make a claim that 'chicks' get groped and fondled at 'sceptic' conferences.