Is harassment and misogyny really a problem in atheism? In the last year or so, we've heard about...
- Alleged sexual harassment at conventions
- Men being terrified to show interest at conventions
- Women being terrified to attend conventions
- Loads of YouTube drama about harassment
- Misogyny in atheism
Last night, I had the pleasure of having Greta Christina live in studio to talk about this, and Ashley Paramore called in to help out with the discussion. As always, Shayrah Akers was in studio as well and had some very good insight.
First, let's dispell a few myths, because that's what we do best.
Greta and Ashley both confirmed that men should feel perfectly comfortable in respectfully talking to, flirting with, and even "asking out" a woman at an atheist gathering. Greta even said it was encouraged, because the idea of meeting like-minded people and hooking up, and starting relationships is a beautiful thing.
What's important, is the approach.
I understand that can be a difficult thing--because we never know what might offend someone. In fact, as I pointed out after the mics went off last night, the concept behind "Elevator Gate" was that Rebecca felt "creeped out" and somewhat "trapped" because after giving a talk on not being hit on at conventions, and saying that she was tired and done for the night, a man approached her alone in an eleveator and asked her to go back to a hotel room for coffee.
My point was - she felt "trapped" in the elevator, but I'm guessing he felt "safe" and didn't consider how she may have taken it. What I mean by that is, the man likely waited until he was in the elevator with her, because he didn't want to risk public rejection. This is the same reason many men will not approach a woman when she's with a group of friends. The only thing worse than being told 'no,' is being laughed at by a group.
I'm not justifying his actions, I'm just trying to offer a logical explanation, that it's very likely, that the appearance of "creepy" came from his internal fear of being blasted. - Ironic, eh?
Was he out of line? Only 2 people on this planet know exactly what was said, the tone it was spoken in, and the energy in elevator. And I'm betting there are 2 interpretations for this incident. Wrong or right, I think we can all learn from it, and be a little more careful.
Now, for Michael Shermer, who dropped this pile of misogy-vomit on us when asked why women don't seem to be as involved in the skeptical community... "It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it, you know, it’s more of a guy thing."
Strangely enough - he's now defending those words instead of apologizing.
So for all those that think this concept of misogyny in atheism is conjured up by self-pity victims; you're wrong. It exists, and we have to acknowledge it's existence to resolve it.
Another myth in this whole debacle, is that the concept of the "Harassment Policy" stemmed from "Elevator Gate." This isn't true.
As Greta mentioned on the show, the harassment policy came after an onslaught of complaints of actual harassment and groping at a few conventions. It then raised the questions "Why don't we have harassment policies like other major professional events?" And so it started being implemented.
A few people, who want to pretend like this has never been a problem, ever, in the history of time, are rejecting the idea of the Harassment Policy. I've seen some outrageous arguments against it, like "why not say 'no murdering' at conventions? If it's already illegal, what's the point?"
That's a stretch - and I think the people making this strawman, know exactly what they're doing.
Greta had a wonderful point. She thinks people should feel more comfortable in flirting or showing interest in a member of the opposite sex when a harassment policy is in place; because when everyone is on the same page, it relieves some of the stress that harassment might happen. If we've all agreed to it, and we're all there, we all know the rules.
My concern, is that this topic has been so widely talked about, that many women who have never even been to conventions, are now terrified to go, because they think attending an atheist convention means they will be fondled or raped.
That's not the case.
Understand that those of us who cover these stories, and blog on these topics, are members of the media, and we talk about what's popular at the time.
So just because a topic is covered on 18 podcasts, 2 television shows, and 56 blogs, it doesn't mean it actually happened 76 times. While the issues do exist, and can be problematic, it's not an epidemic that should keep you from being active in this movement, or meeting someone special in the process.
Misogyny is to atheism, as a plane crash is to the airline industry. When a single bad seed is let into the fleet, and goes down in a fiery crash, it hurts hundreds of people, effects thousands of lives, and becomes injected into millions of conversations for months on end; but it was still just a single bad seed.
So, atheism has a few wobbly Cessnas out there, and we'd like to reign them in, because people are becoming afraid to fly. Let's understand that in order to make a difference in this movement, we need to gather, we need to protest, and we need to meet other like-minded people. Let's not let the few wobbly Cessnas (like Michael Shermer) ruin it for everyone.
The point is, women, you are safe at conferences. Men, you are safe to be honest about your interest and intentions at conferences. But please understand, if both sides can have a professional, and respectful approach to one another, this issue will go away - and we won't continue to have internal dissension that starts to look like a religious schism.
We are better than this. Let's act like it.
12 comments:
Hi David,
Good post, I pretty much entirely agree.
What upsets me is it seems that many people absolutely refuse to acknowledge that misogyny might exist or that some women might have reason to feel uncomfortable. I've even seen this from some women! - ("I'm OK with it, therefore it's not a problem for anyone")
I really think it comes down to a lack of understanding, and I think it's great seeing resources such as Skepchick and Godless Bitches trying to educate in this regard.
Godless Bitches in particular has taught me a lot personally and really changed my attitude over the past couple of years.
I agree that this is not an epidemic and I like to think that the movement as a whole is quite open minded and welcoming. But people really need to acknowledge that there is a problem - it's not being made up for attention. And once these people can acknowledge that, while they don't need to be a part of the solution, they can get out of the way of people that are trying to provide a solution.
Youtube videos such as "Why 'Feminism' is poisoning atheism" do not help.
This is very disheartening for several reasons.
First, the issue regarding harassment policies is a red herring that has drawn everyone’s attention away from the real issue of whether there is a pervasive culture of sexism in the secular community. Harassing another person does not necessarily make you a sexist; it simply shows that you don’t know how to behave in a social situation. It is very frustrating to see these two issues being constantly intertwined.
Second, Greta Christina discussed “unconscious bias” following one of Shayrah’s comments. This was a complete distortion of the studies that Shayrah mentioned regarding black and white dolls. These studies were used as an example of the effects of de jure discrimination, not merely a perceived or “unconscious” bias. The studies were presented to the U.S. Supreme Court as evidence that racial segregation was harmful to black children, and which culminated in the Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The fact that young black girls overwhelmingly chose the white dolls as “prettier” was used as evidence that racially segregated schools caused black children to believe that they were inferior to whites. I am very confused as to how this equates to the alleged sexism at issue.
Further, the attack on Michael Shermer was outrageous. According to Greta Christina, Shermer “doubled down” on his comments rather than apologizing. Instead of taking her word for it, I decided to look it up for myself. I was surprised by what I found:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=shermer_33_2
Was his “guy thing” comment a poor choice of words? Sure. But are we supposed to ignore the fact that, while clarifying what he meant by the comment, he also heaped praise upon Greta Christina, the very person who has now made it her mission to defame him? I can find nothing in his explanation to indicate that he lacks respect for women or their abilities, nor can I see how he “doubled down” on such feelings.
In addition, assuming that the secular movement really is lacking in women leadership (which I don’t believe to be true), I will try to use a different scenario to demonstrate the absurdity of declaring sexism to be the cause:
There haven’t been many Jewish professional boxers. I suppose there are three possible explanations for this: You could argue that (1) Jews aren’t very good at boxing, (2) there is a pervasive culture of Anti-Semitism within professional boxing which prevents Jews from becoming boxers, or (3) maybe Jews just aren’t interested in becoming boxers.
Of these three explanations, only the first one would indicate a prejudicial view. The second, however, is just a conspiracy theory, and it is equally absurd in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
A so-called affirmative action policy is in itself a policy of sexism. It is the equivalent of a policy requiring a wheelchair ramp leading to the stage – it acknowledges a handicap. It declares women to be weaker, less capable, and in need of special treatment in order to succeed. Each of us should measure our successes and failures by our individual merits, not our gender.
Finally, as a skeptic, I am refusing to cry wolf on this sexism issue until I see the evidence. Until then, it's just another conspiracy theory.
I’m sure that I will now be branded as a bigot for voicing my opinion. So be it. It just saddens me to see my favorite atheist podcast taking the low road on this issue.
- The Fourth Listener
Completely agree with Mike.
We addressed this and Shermer's comments in the live video above. - Greta discusses it directly.
Why would you let Greta get away with so many lies about Michael Shermer? She, and Dogma Debate, owe him an apology for purposely claiming he said things that he certainly did not say. He never even came close to insinuating, as claimed in describing how he should apologize for making factual statements about the men/women percentages in the movement, that women can't "be leaders" or be "good public speakers." God Damn! Why would you do this to him?
At our first local skeptics meeting, there was only one woman. There was no time for the club to become anti-woman or put them off in any way; this was the very first meeting. The next meeting we had three women come, but they were still outnumbered 12 to 3, and two of the women described themselves as religious or spiritual, where only 1/4 to 1/5 of the men did so.
How should he have answered the question from Cara? Should he have lied and said, "Oh, I'm sure the split is perfectly even, but most women don't come to our events because they feel threatened or unwelcome"? Don't put up with or support these silly witch hunts. It really brings down the show.
One problem and one possible answer to a minor question in the article. The problem: the Misogyny is to atheism as airplane crashes are to the airline industry thing. Not so much - the airline industry is all about planes, and plane crashes only happen in aviation. There have been no plane crashes in the mining, forestry, or auto industries, because plane crashes are unique to aviation.
Misogyny is now and has always been a societal issue, and while I know you weren't suggesting it is unique to secularism, that is what your argument technically suggests.
Now the answer - why don't guys approach a girl who is with a group of her friends, or why are we usually reluctant to do so... In my experience, and the experience of millions of other men, approaching a bunch of 'girlfriends' out as a group, and singling one of the women out to chat - and possibly flirt - with, almost invariably ends with one, several, or all of the other girls cutting you to pieces verbally and mocking everything you say until you walk off, tail between your legs, to cry alone and feel like the least appealing man who ever lived.
This isn't a criticism of the women's behavior - they are having fun and don't want some random douchebag dividing their friend's attention and trying to steal her away. There is a woman-power thing going on, and it is about them having fun with each other. A man none of them have ever met trying to worm his way into the group and chat up one of their gang can only appear to be an intruder.
There is also the tendency for same-sex groups of friends hanging out to complain about their relationships, the other sex in general, and let off steam. This goes for men, too: "Dude, my girlfriend is SO annoying - she's always telling me I have to wear pants and not use my beer belly as a plate. I'm like 'When I'm in my own house, I don't have to put on airs and pretend to be some nerdy Victorian gentleman who DOESN'T walk around in stained underpants all weekend and eat pizza off his t-shirt and pee in the kitchen sink' Women are such buzzkills - they always get all pissed off just because you stick your butt in their face and fart while they're sitting on the couch talking to their mom on the phone."
So women in a group - young women, at least - are usually doing their version of this, and their attitude is "Men suck, lets just hang out together and not deal with their caveman bullshit tonight!".
And so, when a guy approaches a group of girlfriends, unless he has a group of guy friends roughly equal in size to the group of women, he is almost always doomed. The girls he doesn't focus on absolutely tear him apart, laugh at everything he says - except his jokes - and totally emasculate and ridicule him until he gives up. At best he might get a phone number, but he will be starting off at a disadvantage when he does call her, because she's seen him get stomped, and so have her friends.
On the elevator thing, I don't know what was said or how much personal space he gave her, so I can't comment on this particular incident. I can only say hypothetically, approaching a woman in an elevator isn't NECESSARILY creepy or inappropriate. The guy should stand as far from her as possible, keep the talk light and silly, and absolutely NOT ask her to come to his hotel room that night. "Would you like to get some coffee some time?" is perfectly acceptable - IF he respects her and keeps in mind the awkwardness of their surroundings, and uses the right words and body language. But "Would you like to come to my room for coffee right now?" is almost NEVER going to be not creepy in that situation.
Shayrah Akers?! Why on earth does she feel entitled to butt in on any discussion of harassment policies when she herself, in a comment section of a Thunderf00t video, was arguing against them?
Mind you, this was in between her interjecting sexual comments about herself to anyone she perceived as male.
She also name dropped people like Greta and Sam Singleton and claimed that this made her more important than the person trying to reason with her about the reason why harassment policies are a good idea overall.
Honestly, she is self-aggrandizing and trite. We do not need another Kelly O'Connor train wreck.
"Shayrah Akers?! Why on earth does she feel entitled to butt in on any discussion of harassment policies when she herself, in a comment section of a Thunderf00t video, was arguing against them?"
I recall that comment section in which I was discussing harassment policies. I never claimed that we shouldn't have harassment policies, I made the claim that it doesn't actually tackle the problem in society when it comes to sexism. It is not a magic bullet.
What is stated in the harassment policies is also part of the rule of law we have in this country and yet we still have problems in this area.
The main problem I have is that many people in this movement believe that atheists ought to have a certain stance when it comes to race, sex, etc. The truth is, there are plenty of atheists that think we should segregate people based on race or that women are inferior. This is not a majority but they exist. Having a policy does not necessarily tackle this problem. Even having laws on the books against these ideas does not tackle this problem. This is something that has its roots in society.
"Mind you, this was in between her interjecting sexual comments about herself to anyone she perceived as male."
What you are referring to is me being okay with people hitting on me. I do not think there is anything wrong with showing your interest in a person nor do I think it is tied in with sexism. We actually discuss this issue with Greta in the episode of Dogma Debate right before our live appearance. David rightfully point out that hitting on people and finding love at these conferences should not be lumped in with harassment and Greta agreed.
We don't want this to escalate to a point where everyone fears even interacting with one another. We don't want to jump to the conclusion that all flirtations and interactions are negative.
The question that needs to be asked is, "Are my flirtations and interactions unwanted?" If they are, we should stop. And it is perfectly fine for others to point out that those actions are unwanted and should stop.
"She also name dropped people like Greta and Sam Singleton and claimed that this made her more important than the person trying to reason with her about the reason why harassment policies are a good idea overall."
I simply pointed out that we would have them on our show and would be discussing the North Texas Convention and harassment policies. I did not imply nor say that that made me "more important".
"Honestly, she is self-aggrandizing and trite. We do not need another Kelly O'Connor train wreck."
I have no idea who Kelly O'Connor is. All I know is that sexism is a societal problem that WILL be at conventions whether we have a harassment policy or not. The only way to solve these problems is to educate and call people out who we think are not respecting boundaries.
Also, as was pointed out in the episode before the live show, I think talking about harassment as much as we do, can send a message that this happens to people all the time and that conventions are a scary place for women to attend. I want to take away that stigma because I want to see more women at the conventions.
My advice to you, anonymous, is to listen to the show previous to this one. The live show was not even supposed to talk about Shermer, but we wanted to give Greta a chance to discuss her views after she read his blog referring to her.
As far as a harassment policy goes, what happens to offenders? Do they lose their atheist cards?
It's up to every atheist to call anyone out who is harassing women or men atheists. The very foundation of our movement is objectivity and truth and is inconsistent with bigotry. I'm prepared to do that but I want to be sure that I'm not accusing someone falsely of abusive and possibly illegal behavior. Perhaps we should confront the accused ask them for their side of the story as a first action?
One way this could be done is for someone to set up a facebook page for listing the urls of any harassing comment appearing on any site. Then each of us could have the option of viewing and responding to that comment. That way we would keep our responses restricted to the actual instances of harassment.
Post a Comment