A conversation about TAM

[rug]

June 17, 2012 at 5:31 pm
PZ Myers

A subset of Freethoughtbloggers and the Queen Skepchick got together on Google+ to discuss the recent contretemps. The people who participated were me, Al Stefanelli, Daniel Fincke, Greg Laden, Ian Cromwell, Jason Thibeault, Ophelia Benson, Rebecca Watson, and Stephanie Zvan.

Here’s how I introduced it:

The latest controversy to embroil freethoughtblogs is over the James Randi Educational Foundation’s big yearly meeting, The Amazing Meeting, or TAM for short. After DJ Grothe, the president of the JREF, announced his concern that, despite the fact that he’d done a fine job of making the roster of speakers well balanced, at roughly half and half men and women, the registration of women in the meeting was significantly down from last year. What to do?

Well, he could have asked big boosters of TAM, like Skepchick and Freethoughtblogs, to rally together and help get more women involved, as Skepchick has done every year. Instead, in a bizarre twist, he basically accused Rebecca Watson and a certain blog network, ours, of scaring women away with our horrible stories of sexual harassment. He also denied that sexual harassment had ever occurred, a story that has been steadily unraveling over the last few weeks.

Then, to make matters worse, a number of poorly informed people have been ranting that we, that is people like Rebecca Watson and Stephanie Zvan, want to “harm TAM” — another weird claim that ignores the history of our involvement with skeptical and atheist meetings.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/06/17/a-conversation-about-tam/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+freethoughtblogs%2Fpharyngula+%28FTB%3A+Pharyngula%29

#!

[struggle4progress]

1. Summary: 6 dudes and 3 dudettes discuss if there is sexism there

[daaron]

2. Gah! More evidence (as if we needed it) that -->

groups of people suck, and groups of Dudes suck moar. This is particularly disappointing, as I dig some Randi.org.

There's been an increasing focus on the demographic slant of movement atheism and skeptics - similar to the hand-wringing that goes on over Occupy's glaring white maleness. It's plain wrong to deny that it's a problem, as the Penisgate Dudes did at TAM, just as it was wrong when Anons defended the rampant homophobia, sexism and racism at 4chan - on full, ugly display surrounding the sexual assault charges against Assange. I've been thinking about this, having been a big geek before geek was chique, and here's as good a spot as any to spill my thoughts.

One would think the boys and men in movement atheism or at any given skeptic-con would show some curiosity about the problem, too. I think the issue would benefit from comparison to Anonymous, particularly it's origin on 4chan. Could it be (gasp!) that their nerdy "oldf*g" (4chan slang, click here for definition) self-images on /b/ are more important to Anons than actually winning the battles in which they like to think they are engaged? Could it be that they suffer (gasp!) from egotism?

In an appreciable number of individuals in both Anon and the skeptic movement, I think this is the case. Low self-esteem males who were bullied by boys and rejected by girls when growing up now prop their egos up with big brains, when they have them. Maybe those brains even win them some material success, and boost their already sensitive egos even more. Having gathered in clans of similarly-rejected and dejected misfits, it's fair to say that a lot of these boys lack social grace, altogether. One of my roomies at SUnMaRC picks boogers out of his nose while speaking authoritatively in public. OK? Zero self-awareness of what his body is doing at any given moment. Zero.

It's fair to say that these boys have a stunted, insular and often sheltered worldview. Naive and easily hurt, they can also be vindictive and vengeful - taking delight in exacting revenge on their perceived persecutors without getting caught. Now, consider that women are, with very few (but very notable) exceptions noobs in Anon. Hence, Rule #16 of the Internet. Historically and statistically, females are less likely than males to study STEM fields and more likely than males to attend church. A similar statistical bias also exists in regards to atheism and race - there is a disproportionate number of White atheists. The question is then whether or not statistically there is a disproportionate number of sexists, homophobes and racists among white male Anons, skeptics, atheists compared to the population of white males at large. In other words - how much of this perception is heuristic? Stereotyped?

Insert women into this new, Nerdy Old Boys' club. Now insert women accusing them of sexism, racism and homophobia - all of which is in fact prevalent. From their warped and already hair-trigger defensive POV, the emotional boys among nonbelieving brainiacs and hacktivists were completely uninteresting to 'girls' (as such boys almost universally call all women) until Anon happened to the Internet, reminding the world that our warped culture created yet another generation of misfit boys with big brains and bigger egos. Once again, geek was chique, and suddenly they are interesting, even, in their minds, sexy (cf, Julian Assange).

The problem is that the oldf*gs on /b/ channel aren't wearing White Hats. What do progressives do with a movement like that? We can't embrace it. It's way beyond toxic. It's not even funny, it's so bad. We'd like to embrace the good parts of Anon or skepticism - and to excise the rest - just like we wanted to do with Occupy. Instead, it seems like we pull these little movements apart limb-from-limb by glomming on and pulling in ten different directions at once. We make the mistake of trying to translate every subcultural movement into another counter-cultural revolution, when in reality they are ghettoized cries from the underclasses - making headlines, but little progress. We throw our support behind a movement, then discover that other people are involved - and you know what Sartre said about other people.

Long story short: groups ruin everything. Keep it secret. Keep it safe.

[cbayer]

4. Wow! This is scathing. Where is it from?

[daaron]

5. Heh. Personal experience, unfortunately.

I really got onto the booger-eating sexist, racist, gun-nut oldf*g roomie at SUnMaRC about how incongruous all this ignorance was in contrast to his brilliance with a chalkboard and a system of nonlinear differential equations. I only made progress on the gun-nut front, and managed to convince him that it was a good idea to keep his handgun locked up so his 3 yo wouldn't play with it while he was in class. That was all, though. He's still the same racist, sexist, homophobe - a great big, bearded emotionally stunted teenager. Needless to say, I won't have anything to do with him anymore.

Nothing drives me crazier than brilliant people uttering jaw-droppingly stupid shit.

[eqfan592]

24. He left his handgun out around his kids?

That's criminally stupid behavior, and that's coming from somebody most around here would call a "gun-nut."

And that's not even touching on the racism, homophobia, etc. Further proof that brilliance in one area does not equal brilliance in all.

[daaron]

25. Stupid behavior, maybe - sadly not criminal.

Might'a been 'under my pillow' or some such nonsense. Like kids never look under pillows or beds or in every single drawer. Then, if it IS locked up, it's not much use in the event of a home-invasion.

[dmallind]

6. What does that all actually mean without all the insider jargon?

Near as I can guess you seem to be saying that atheists groups and some old-school internet groups are analogous in that they are more likely to be sexist and racist because they are more likely, because of the demographics of the group, to be dominated by white males protecting their white male turf?

Don't get me wrong I am self-aware enough to never criticize anyone for excessive wordiness given my own similar proclivity. I just don't understand the inside-baseball words and reminescences themselves here.

[daaron]

11. More or less, yeah - I think you read it sorta right.

I don't mind the critique on my writing, either - I've long-since accepted my shortcomings as a writer, and opacity was always the biggie.

Personally, I'd summarize more along the lines of this: groups of people suck, and groups of emotionally-stunted boys are groups of people, so they suck, too.

Everything else was just reflecting on the suckiness qualities of the Anonymous group, as it seems to me that the same charge of sexism, racism and homophobia has lately been leveled against skeptics (as in the OP) and organized atheists - and that, moreover, all three groups have a similar demographic makeup and growth curve (slow up to sudden spurt). My thinking went along the lines of: maybe the suckiness of some of these groups has more to do with crappy group dynamics that I've witnessed in all-male nerd clusters, than with the ideals and goals that attract new blood. Skeptics more than atheists formed an in-group of sorts, until the last few years have propelled James Randi to fame - an in-group that values hard-nosed, insensitive braininess above all else.

So I think in the minds of some of the 'we were here first' nerds (predominantly male), the charge of sexism is met with a derisive, knee-jerk, "Where were you when...?" The question, "Why aren't there more female skeptics?" and "Why aren't there more female Anons?" are answered similarly by the apologists in both groups - with another question: "Why aren't there more female nerds?" Figure that last one out, and the other problems are likely to dissipate in time.

ETA: None of my criticism should be read as anything but academic. I'm a big Randi fan, approve heartily of about 1/3 of what Anon has done, and am considering joining a local atheist meetup if I can find one (never felt the need, before, but lately...) Let it not be said that Nones are unwilling to criticize our own.

[dmallind]

15. OK but I think it's even more basic, at least for atheists

Why are there not more women in organized atheism (forgetting that a lot of the leaders, including the first, have been women and still are)? First of all, because as all data on the subject show, women are more likely to be religious than men. It's like having a club for 300lb+ people and asking why it's dominated by men. Sure there are 300lb+ women, but nowhere near as many to pull from.

Yes, having been in atheist groups myself, albeit my disenchantment was for other reasons, I can agree that the "we were here first" applies quite well. To both sexes however. Googling Marie Castle and her group's activities and schism would be a great example for both.

Does atheism have a sexist problem? No not really. There are certainly sexist atheists, just as there are drunken physicists or racist priests or homophobic CEOs. But I have seen neither data nor sufficient evidence to suggest that sexism is even equally prevalent as compared to the general population, let alone more so. Given the political demographics of nonbelievers and my own experience in several groups all with women in leadership roles both formal and informal, my guess would be that while certainly not absent, it is less common than in most groups.

One guy propositioning a women in drunken boorishness only taints a group if that group is already reviled.

EDIT - Wasn't complaining about your writing style trust me. Nabokov himself writing about the doings of internet insider/techy groups would balk me - it's just an alien people whose language I don't understand.

[daaron]

18. Good stuff. I'm not qualified to comment on atheist groups -->

so I went for comparison to something aboot which I knew something. Glad I seemed to have hit the board; not surprised I didn't hit the bull's-eye. I poked about for a bit looking for a decent article describing the schism involving Marie Castle, but wasn't illuminated by what I found. Have you a link handy?

From my experience, which as I said hasn't been group-oriented, atheism isn't sexist at all. Most of the atheists I know personally are women. The rest are men. One of these women is an 'angry atheist' - even anti-theist, but the rest are more like 'disgusted atheist'. They're rather pluck their own eyes out than discuss religion or the lack thereof - they're just glad not have to think about it, anymore.

That's part of why I stressed that I think movement atheism is largely political in nature, and this political wing of non-belief is pushing back vocally against those who would erode the wall of separation. It should come as no surprise to anyone who realizes that we still have a long way to go on the race, gender and orientation fronts that there exist groups under the umbrella who aren't as enlightened on these issues as the groups that advocate for them. It's a mistake to expect every progressive group to be an umbrella organization advocating for every progressive issue. Even if - IF - say, TAM is a hotbed of sexual harassment (which multiple female TAM-goers have denied), rather than the locale of isolated incidents of sexual harassment (which only a few idiotic Dudes have denied), it would seem counterproductive to give up on forming alliances on the Left, and trying to educate the ignorant therein, especially when they already have one foot on the train.

[cbayer]

3. OMG! There was a great penisgate debate??

How did that slip by me?

[dmallind]

7. funny that the actions of individual believers never reflect on the belief

as you constantly leap in gleeful scolding on any suggestion that it might (even when the belief was the motivation, stated as such by the wrongdoer themself), but the actions of individual atheists somehow means "atheism" has a sexism problem (even though to my knowledge no sexist atheist has ever said the former stemmed from the latter).

Kinda...biased, eh?

[cbayer]

8. Could you repeat that? Probably me, but I'm having trouble dissecting it.

[dmallind]

13. Yes - why do individual actions of atheists reflect on all atheists but not the same for believers?

[cbayer]

14. I don't believe that statement to be true, so I still don't know what you are saying.

And in context, it makes even less sense as I was commenting on the "penisgate" controversy, with which I was not familiar. I don't think any of this reflects on all atheists and not sure where you got that idea.

Look, dmallind. Who I really am and how I am portrayed by some members of this site are starkly different. As a mod, there were lots of assumptions made about me that were wildly incorrect. That continues to be true now that I am not a mod.

But once labeled, it is very hard to shake, and I tire of trying to shake it. It's the nature of a witch hunt. If you have already decided someone is a witch, everything they do looks like witchcraft.

[dmallind]

21. I make up my own mind, and I find your pretence of fairness hollow in the extreme. nt

[cbayer]

23. Well, I am most sorry to hear that because I thought we had a chance

at a cordial relationship.

Perhaps I rode you too hard about your avatar? It would not be the first time I have crossed that kind of line.

[rug]

9. It was the debate that was great not the . . .

[cbayer]

10. Oh, never mind then.

[daaron]

12. ... Penis? It's OK. It's just a word. (Teasing!) ;) nt

[daaron]

16. More info and another perspective on this story -->

here ya go.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/06/18/victim-blaming-101/

[cbayer]

17. Thanks for this.

I was an active member in a leadership position in a very large, very male dominated association. It is a diffictul tightrope to walk. You have to ward off unwanted sexual advances while maintaining a sense of humor. Because of who I am, I was able to do this rather successfully, but I didn't like it and didn't always feel safe.

For many women, it is very difficult, if not impossible.

It seems to me that this group, like many others, needs to address these issues head on. That's neither surprising nor unique.

[daaron]

19. Ayup. I think it seems more surprising -->

when charges of sexual harassment are levied between secularists (such as the skeptics associated with TAM, JREF, et ali) in part because most skeptics are also atheists, and atheists often use the sexism seemingly inherent in most of the world's religions as a bludgeon. It seems extra hypocritical, but really it's just regular hypocritical. Unlike most religions, atheist-humanism starts out upholding the rights and dignity of everyone equally, without regard to (Insert The List Here). It doesn't have to find some way around traditions that decree the opposite. That is, it's not hypocritical for an Orthodox Jew or Fundamentalist Christian or Taliban Muslim to be a sexist pig deserving of a swift kick. But it is for a humanist, so we notice it.

But then, skeptics aren't all humanists. They aren't all anything, really - sort of a subculture and meme, maybe, that's just now being defined as we contribute to the meme of modern skepticism. Having lurked aplenty on randi.org, I can say with some certainty that these aren't just a crop of atheists. These are mostly Dudes who enjoy debunking woo-woo pseudoscience - bigfoot, UFOs, dripping Jesus feet, the like. In general they don't seem as worried about religion in hospitals, as homeopathic medicine. They hate junk science the way some anti-theists hate religion, but they're not really all that political about it. Certainly there's no coherent sense among skeptics of solidarity with progressive causes. Mostly it's dog-eat-dog knowitalls going toe-to-toe.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

20. Is it any surprise that men fuck up almost everything we touch?

After all, we've had thousands of years to fine-tune our fucking up skills.

Are there any modern female dictators? Or any in history?

[daaron]

22. Heheh. Here's a thread that might amuse you -->

http://sbutler.typepad.com/main/2004/08/female_dictator.html

They've asked the same question with rather telling results. Note the page's name is, "More boring site on the web: Female dictators."