Women? What? What are they?
I’ve been wondering about something, and thinking I was the only one who was wondering, and then just now I did a bit of googling and found that I was not the only one who was wondering. Our friend Parrhesia wondered about it last July and then our other friend Salty Current also wondered and went on wondering (scroll down if you’re interested). Wondering what?
Why there are so many men on the speakers’ list at the Atheist Alliance International and so few women.
Yes quite: why is that? Seventeen men and four women – why is that?
Because there are no atheist women, of course.
No, perhaps it’s not that. Because……uhhhhhhh…they forgot?
Who knows. But it’s irritating. And it’s especially irritating to me, this time, because there are several people there that I’m friendly with and would like to meet. But I wasn’t invited. I don’t, offhand, looking at the entire list, see why not. And this business of just…..uhhhhhhh…forgetting, is doubly or triply annoying, because it makes it seem as if it just doesn’t make any difference what you do, you’re always going to be forgotten and ignored and sidelined and overlooked and passed over merely because things have always been run by men so they keep inviting men to things because it seems natural and they just can’t quite manage to remember that oh hey gee what do you know we could have asked some women.
But at least I’m not the only one wondering about it. Some people on that thread even suggested me among the women who might have been asked. Oi, Atheist Boys’ Alliance: wake up! Ask some women next time! Duh.
“Oi, Atheist Boys’ Alliance: wake up! Ask some women next time! Duh.”
I think you’ve made a mathematical error here. 4 out of 21 is not 0%. Yes, I agree that they should probably be making more of an effort here but that doesn’t really explain how or why you just vanished the four women who are speaking.
sigh
Ask some there means ask more. It’s colloquial. The ‘Oi’ is colloquial too.
Hurrah for pedantry! And missing the point!!
There may be, ahem, some other aspects as to how this happened this year … but the actual numbers are even worse than Ophelia says: it’s 23 men to 4 women by my count.
Blimey.
Yes they need to sort that out.
In view of your book (Jeremy’s too of course), this would have been an excellent time for someone like you, Ophelia. This was mentioned recently here on Notes and Comment, or in a link, how atheism has disregarded the women, especially women of colour, who are the mainstays of Southern religion (in the US). It’s a disproportion which shouldn’t carry over so easily from faith-based groups to atheist-humanist ones. Very disheartening, and very wrong. I’ve sent AAIC 09 a message about my disapproval.
Looking at the lineup of speakers, the woman who expressed concern about the marginalisation of women of colour by atheism is one of the speakers. (I think.) That doesn’t deal with the imbalance, but it at least includes someone who has expressed this concern. Perhaps she will take note of it in her talk.
I’ve also noticed PZ’s disapproval of the award for Bill Maher, who, while anti-religious, is also unfortunately pro a lot of fake ‘alternative medicine.’ Strange bedfellows.
I think there needs to be more attention paid to both the racial and gender disparities in the atheist movement. Most atheists are white males.
I don’t think it’s because these atheists are sexist or racist, though. It’s more likely a sociological byproduct. Religion appeals more to those who are disenfranchised in society, and that usually means women and minorities. Statistically, women are much more likely to be religious than men, and racial minorities are much more likely to be religious than white people.
If I’m right, that means that there would have to be special efforts to make atheism more appealing and accessible to women and minorities. Of course, inviting more women and minorities to speak at atheist events would be a good start!
It’s sad, but sensitivity to one issue does not guarantee sensitivity towards other issues. Thus, atheists who are extremely aware of the problems that religion entails may be completely blind to sexism.
“Most atheists are white males.”
Do we know that? Are we sure it doesn’t just look that way, precisely because women are simply ignored and not invited to things? That’s sure the case with the lineup for this Atheist Boys’ Alliance. (I didn’t know it was 23 to 4 – I checked the woman-count but lazily took someone’s word for the man-count.)
I wonder what the other aspects were, that Russell alluded to.
I don’t particularly think it’s “because these atheists are sexist or racist” either – and I didn’t say I did. But I do think whoever did the selecting must be remarkably dense and unthinking. That’s what I mean about doubly or triply annoying – if even atheist men can’t wake up long enough to remember that women can think too – what’s the use?
As I pointed out in a response to a comment on Blackford’s blog, the “majority white” thing is really to be expected in the Anglican countries, seeing as all those countries are majority white. I expect the situation is different in, say, India where most atheists are probably Indian, or China where most atheists are likely Chinese.
As Ophelia points out, I don’t think it’s so much that there aren’t woman atheists as that they don’t get as much camera time as some of the male atheists.
Surely you should be speaking because of your book? Or are they putting Jeremy on?
Ah I see Jeremy’s not there either. I bet they confine their denunciations to the Christian right and steer clear of the Islamic right. Dawkins has always had a prudent bourgeois desire to save his own skin and hardly ever mentions it. I shall denounce them all in Standpoint.
Well I suppose the book is why I thought it might have crossed their minds if they hadn’t been sound asleep. Denounce them all, Nick!
I don’t think there’s any conspiracy either – see my comment just above. But I do think they’re dense. Being dense is in a way even worse, because it’s so hard to do anything about it – apart from yelling ‘wake up!’
“Hurrah for pedantry! And missing the point!!”
I was not missing the point. I was taking issue with the way it was being presented.
Eric I am w/you on the Bill Maher thing. It’s odd to “reward” his putative atheist inclinations while overlooking his horribly dangerous blatting about quack-medicine. That alone made me wonder about the Atheist Boys Club.
Furthermore while I am in a smiting mood, where in the HELL is the publisher of DGHW in this? Ever heard of marketing? I publish w/a small extremely niche press on a tiny exceedingly niche topic (80 yr old deaf signers of Mexican Sign Language anyone?) and my publisher markets the poop out of my stuff. Getting their authors on the radar screens of likely organizations is a way to generate profit! Hmph. Expect a rain of toads very soon.
But as I said, you were wrong about the way it was being presented. It was a manner of speaking – as, if you found a large bowl with two peanuts in it on a bar, you might say dryly or ironically or irritably, ‘Hey give us some nuts willya.’ The idea is not that there are zero nuts, the idea is that the quantity of nuts is woefully inadequate. I think in context that was reasonably clear. I think at least it was obvious that I was not “vanishing” the four women.
For those who are still reading this thread, I’d like to put out for the record that we had more women who turned us down from speaking at the AAI convention than those who accepted:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Taslima Nasrin (scheduling conflict)
Barbara Forrest
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey
Congresswoman Barbara Lee
NOAA Director Jane Lubchenco
Katha Pollitt
Susan Jacoby
Jennifer Michael Hecht
Carol Travis
Sarah Vowel
You’ll have to ask them why they didn’t wish to participate.
-Stuart B
Lots of people are still reading it, it’s a young thread!
Good that you asked several women, Stuart. But since some declined – you could have asked more again, in order to get more actually on the program. Just a thought.
By the way, my 12:56 comment was addressed to CW, not to Claire!
Stuart, why on earth did you not ask the author of the most controversial atheist book of the year?
Thanks for clarifying. I was sure you knew that I am never wrong.
The “other aspects” were things I conveyed to Ophelia in a private email. Sorry, guys, but it’s background about how I came to be on the program that I feel is essentially private, but as Ophelia now knows it puts this in a slightly different perspective. (There may be still be some sexist bias; I’m not denying that.)
My fault for mentioning the “other aspects” – I hadn’t checked my email yet!
I’ll add my voice to the ask Ophelia campaign proposed by Nick C. above. Is it too late to ask her?
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/2009/09/olivia-benson-and-atheist-alliance.html
(My lo-tech version of a trackback :)).
Thanks SC! And thanks for fixing the name, too. Don’t feel bad: the Indpendent did the same thing on Joan Smith’s review of ‘Does God’ etc! Olivia’s the detective. I do not look like her.
Sorry, guys, but it’s background about how I came to be on the program that I feel is essentially private, but as Ophelia now knows it puts this in a slightly different perspective. (There may be still be some sexist bias; I’m not denying that.)
Do tell.
I don’t think there’s any conspiracy, conscious or not, to skew the speaker roster toward white men. I read a lot of atheist web sites, and the simple fact is that, for whatever reason, white men seem to be heavily predominant among the set that constitutes outspoken atheists.
That said, not inviting you to speak was obviously a bad decision. And there’s one other very prominent atheist woman I think should have been invited. Cristina (ZOMGitsCriss) deserves a slot in their schedule.
Thanks Russell – that’s enlightening. (Wait – where are you?! You should be dangling somewhere over the Pacific now, surely. Well no doubt you’re at the airport.) I must say it didn’t even occur to me to attempt to offer myself, and I also don’t think I was aware of the conference until a couple of months ago – so I’ve been cluless as well as passive. Wull – um – so men who organize conferences should tell me when there’s a conference and they should beg me to be on the program. Then everything would work out.
:- )
Salty you mad impetuous fool you put your email in again! It’s not required!
Someone I’d love to see at one of these conferences is Rebecca Goldstein. I’ve got her book on Godel waiting for me on my desk for when I finally finish writing my thesis.
On all levels, something affecting this might be that atheism (especially that angry strident New Atheism) is seen as hyper-logical and unfeeling and aggressive and therefore ‘male.’
Religion, especially in Christian societies, has been seen as female in a lot of contexts: *not* as something that women control, because of course they don’t, but as something that women must and should participate in. Piety is a stronger social requirement for women than for men in a lot of religious circles. Because of this, I’d hazard a guess that many people see religion personified by the “church ladies” who run bake sales and do other church stuff. Ergo, it’s feminine. Also, to the extent that religion is seen as soothing emotional/spiritual needs, it will be seen as feminine, because of course rugged manly men don’t have such needs.
Sorry! I’m a madcap fool!
[edit – by request]
Gah. Don’t drink and post.
Apologies to Russell Blackford for responding with such hostility. I would like to see some evidence for “The people who are lower down on the card (not Dawkins, etc) may well be the people who positively lobbied over a period of time to get gigs at this conference, sent pitches for talks, generally went through hoops at their own initiative” as a general proposition, though. If that’s the case, this needs to be dealt with differently. We had a discussion about a related issue on Pharyngula recently and Richard Dawkins mentioned that his organization is developing an atheist speakers bureau/media contact list. I think that will do a lot of good.
If this is the case, it’s a real problem. We want global representation, including people who can’t afford to pay their own way to such an event. If speakers have to cover the expense themselves, you’re going to get a white-male-heavy list.
OB:
Another issue the speakers bureau could address.
Yeh hey Salty, Russell is one of the good guys!
I know! :/ I somehow managed to respond angrily to his comment and even quote from it without really reading it (again – CWI). I was even preparing a longer rant, which I’m glad I didn’t complete. It’s especially strange given that I read his blog. Once more, my sincere apologies for that bizarre response.
I would just like to add to add another voice saying: idiots…
Next time, at least, invite Ophelia B. I can’t make it to LA myself this year. But get that right next time, I might make more of an effort.
(I mean, hell, besides which, I’ve heard RD. He’s good, don’t get me wrong… But been there, y’know?)
I am surprised that women would think atheist men would not be sexist.
In general men are sexist because it benefits them. Religion or rationality is the means to justify it.