Okay, this will probably be the way-too-long ’post for the day’ – I have been meaning to address a literacy issue, but I 
think I’ll wait until the weekend to get that done.
Those who are unfamiliar with the situation as it stands – read the earlier post ‘On Skeptic Conferences‘. Much of the following stems from a new Facebook Group called ‘Women for More Women at TAM8′
Of course, whenever there’s a new Facebook group on something that I think is cool, or a concept I support or seems interesting, I’ll sign up. Soon enough, you discover that you’re pushing nearly 200 groups and you never post to any of them. It’s like popping your signature on a vague cause that you think is fine and then you never think of it much again!
However, I’ve become a little more chatty that I usually am in the message board of ‘Women for More Women at TAM8′ – maybe to my eventual detriment, I don’t know. But since I’m not saying anything there that I wouldn’t say on my blog, I might as well transfer a few of my opinions over to here.
What I do know is that many of my personal experiences – having people ignore the issue of forum board security, seeing progress fall by the wayside, sexism and even efforts to silence questioning – all have contributed to what I now think is my distinct move away from being a skeptic.
So, what follows might be of use but I don’t know if I have much faith in the utility or application any more. It’s up in the air for me. Maybe you might find it useful?
What The Hell Does More (X) At A Conference Mean Anyway?
One of the points raised on the Facebook message-board was not unfamilar to me:
“…realizing how many jokes came at the expense of women’s bodies and gay men, and was blown away by the deafening silence when the guys were challenged about the lack of melanin diversity in the audience.”
That has actually been an issue since TAM1, when Maira Benjamin talked about racial diversity in her Sunday paper – The JREF Forum by Ms. Maira Benjamin. Maira is in the photo above, which is from the Bad Astronomy site, back in 2003.
Whilst it is difficult to ascertain whether there is a range of diversity (gender, sexual preference, cultural background, disability, socio-economic, et al) across conferences, we can firstly assume that it’s easy to see whether one touted ‘minority in skepticism’ - women presenting – is common across conferences.
You might think so… but I immediately found some issues with that!
What do we mean by ‘Women presenting‘? Because the first thing that hit me, was, what does it really mean to be a presenter?
Example number one:
UK SKEPTICS PARANORMAL CONFERENCE 2009 – Males presenting= 7; Females presenting= 3 – total 10.
So, thirty percent of the presenters are female, correct? Let’s compare that to
AUSTRALIAN SKEPTIC CONFERENCE 2008 (.pdf) – Males presenting = 8; Females presenting = 4 – total 12
So, again, about 30 (30.3) percent female. But hold it!
There are two presenters, Rob Morrison and Deane Hutton, who presented at the same time – they were doing one show. Do they count as ‘one man’? Or despite acting in unison for their presentation, should they be ‘two‘?
Don’t forget – the key-note speaker for the Australian Skeptic Conference of 2008 was Debra Pannizzon. Does that make her more significant than the male presenters?
Now look at the similar difficulties presented by the example of TAM6:
Nineteen people listed, with one female, totaling twenty. But remember, two podcasting women were on the stage at some point during the proceedings too. Dr Karen Stollznow was on the stage with Richard Saunders for some of his presentation. Did they count? What about the recently finished TAM7?
What are you going to count there? Your immediate response might be to say ‘there are twenty-nine people listed, with twenty-five males and four females’.
But did you count the additional male presenters on the Science-Based Medicine Conference? Does that 
count too as ‘a part of TAM7?’
What’s presenting? The ‘featured presenter’? Being a member of a panel? Being a member of a podcast? Being ‘after-show entertainment’? Does that negate intellectual quality? If you’re doing a show after the main events, like Julia Sweeney – are you really ‘waving the female minority flag’? Can we really equate (or even judge ‘quality’ in the same way) with:
UK Skeptics Paranormal Conference 2009 – Dr Karen Douglas presenting on “The social psychology of conspiracy beliefs” with;
TAM 5 – Julia Sweeny and Jill Sobule doing The Jill n’ Julia Show? (as featured in the photo, taken by Scott Hurst)
I haven’t even begun to point out – what about the Sunday Paper presenters at the Amazing Meetings? Some are women. Some aren’t.
This year, I had no idea whether the Amazing Meeting featured an all-women Sunday of paper presenters, because they did not put their names up on the site. So, that’s a factor you have to take into consideration. I’m taking all of these from the published, featured presenters on their respective sites. Some are yet to be held, too, so maybe some numbers could change in that regard. We don’t know if additional elements like after-shows or special workshops might alter the gender tally?
From my own perspective, Australian skeptical events have generally been much better represented in terms of women and recognising women’s accomplishments – women as ‘skeptic of the year’, etc. Yet we had Dr Karen Stollznow leave as the CEO/Editor of the magazine recently. I am not a member of the Australian Skeptics and I have found the whole situation extremely distressing.
I think there also must be more elements in play that contribute to a lack of diversity. That last point to me is a bigger issue than ‘women on the stage’. Quality on the stage regardless of who is what – respect for minorities in general should be status quo as it should be in wider society. Can we endorse this in different ways too?
Viability Will Win
Let’s face some harsh facts about any conference. If you’re taking the time to run one, you’ll be wanting to sell seats, get back the cost and be viable. A non-profit organisation still has to stay alive, whether they are putting themselves forward as an academic-heavy programme or a ‘hey, don’t you want to be like the Mythbusters? That’s what skeptics are, cool, huh?’
Therefore, raising the profile to capture the attention as ‘worthy’ requires things like rallying behind already established qualified people and up-and-comers, who reflect the sort of diversity out there; opportunities like SkeptiCamps tapping into people’s resources; other conferences like the NY Skeptics NECSS conference and Dragon*Con, as well as the UK, European, New Zealand and Australian conventions (and I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m missing other countries too!).
What To Do?
1) In my opinion, being ‘all about women’ (for example) has a limited audience appeal and runs the risk of being tokenistic.
I recall a podcasting panel that Soccergirl mentioned on her show, back in 2008 – Don’t Be That Guy: Advice From the Women of New Media – how a similar ‘how to behave / support women, the minority in podcasting’ ended up being more like an etiquette lesson for the ‘nerd guys’ and a rather comedic one at that. Was that really the original intention?
2) Couldn’t men (and many others) just walk out as it being ‘irrelevant’ to them? If it falls flat (too much joking, too much “let’s just have a girl party! The guys can watch!!’‘), future opportunities might not be made available.
3) Are all women assumed to be interested in ‘the same kind of things’? I have raised this before, when mentioning CSICOP’s Rational Feminist Alliance‘ of 1997, with a conference that ended up with:
‘…talks on disability politics, multiculturalism, creation/evolution politics, and others, which, while important, fascinating, and thoroughly enjoyed by conference participants, were far off from the stated purpose. Anyone looking specifically to discuss gender politics in science may have been, at the very least, a bit confused. _However, this did not seem to concern either participants or speakers. In fact, “complaints” were practically nonexistent.’ [my emphasis]
Therefore I suggest,
1) Do contact speakers for upcoming conferences you think would be good quality presenters – who do reflect diversity. Indicate your interest in them to organisers about them being a conference speaker, well ahead of time, so they can contact a conference about their availability and needs – perhaps write a summary of what topics they do and send it into conference organisers. I did this for the upcoming Queensland conference and we now have a presentation ‘okayed’. Remember, variety in presentations can also mean entertainers and workshop-running as well. Why shouldn’t they be valued too?
2) Don’t think that it’s going to be easy to challenge a culture by ‘attacking’ one conference or thinking it’s that easy. For example, for all you know, getting women onto the organisation of a conference will change absolutely nothing about the gender balance, et al! What a shocker! 
There are elements that influence the running which we may not see – ask about them. Vary your approach from sending a petition – to even voting with your feet and going elsewhere! Try out alternative conferences (like the ‘pop-culture conference’ Dragon*Con), with its own sort of diversity and more panel opportunities – and talk to conference representatives there (politely) about how such things are important to you and others.
3) Write a fair review of the conference and send it into a skeptic publication with some proactive suggestions. Contribute to raising the profiles of speakers so their qualifications are known to more than just the ‘inside crowd’ or the ‘popular kids’. If you have a problem with a presentation, write, email, say something to them, so it’s not just something you stew about!
No, it’s not always going to work – as I learned today from someone who got a short ‘thanks for writing and your opinon’ response to their effort to discuss why objectifying a woman on stage was considered ‘funny’ – but I consider it to be better than leaving it completely unchallenged.
4) Minorities should consider rallying to be Sunday paper presenters at an Amazing Meeting / signing up to present at SkeptiCamp / signing up for local conventions / looking at lecture opportunities that they can do. This can include (for example) women who are not usually speakers in the mainstream, have an issue that stems from their research and strengths – and therefore demonstrate competence in a topic. Just representing themselves is a great step! If people coordinate themselves, they can get in early and ‘tip the balance’ and get recognition for their achievements.
The practice is invaluable and it also reflects one’s own growing status in your community. Use it to branch out to other events – last Tuesday, for example, I ended up presenting at a local university’s Philosophy Symposium on belief, to ‘non-skeptics’.
5) This should also extend to local skeptic / humanist, et al. groups and initiatives. Go to ‘Skeptically Drinking’ sessions and present; Philosophy Cafes, Philosophy Clubs; branch out to Paranormalist events maybe? You could even consider reaching out to Humanist groups or even Science, Technology, Health and Education conferences as speakers.
Offer to survey people there on skeptical issues and use the opportunities given by social networking sites like Meetup.com that can survey those who don’t go to certain events and whether some of the ‘minority’ factors apply in their not going?
I’m certain I’ll think of more – but honestly, people can easily get things moving without ‘shooting for the moon’ of thinking that just one conference is going to always be ‘the be all and end all’. There may very well be hurdles to jump that we’re not aware of – funding may be short for presenters that we would like, some schedules might not match, a speaker might not want to be where another speaker is for a good reason.
As I said before – I’d like to see in general, good quality presenters, whose age, gender or sexual preference isn’t tokenistic, showing fresh, informed perspectives. People who haven’t been given an opportunity before for some reason or another. This would be balanced with the history and good lessons of the earlier generation who should be valued – because that paves the way for a next generation.
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
I guess my first question would be, are the numbers of women speaking at conferences proportional with the numbers of women active in skepticism. even at the grass-roots level?
This of course could be a chicken-and-egg thing but if the activists aren’t there, how do they gain the sort of experience required to preach to the choir?
And then, if the women that are actively skeptical abandon skepticism because it’s a boy’s club, does that help to solve the problem?
How many return to the conferences is another thing? I’m also interested in the age range – how do younger people know about cons? For example, there are more skeptics in this country going on about ‘wanting to go to TAM’ than ‘going to an Australian Skeptics conference’. It saddens me that only the possibility of USA presenters at the 2010 conference in Sydney is a big draw-card. :/ I have visions of people ‘only staying for that part’.
In regards to your second point, that’s why I’m suggesting alternative venues to get practice / network. It can’t be just one goal.
I’d be interested what ‘abandon skepticism’ means, too. Can one, really? Unless, I become a psychic-tarot-reader, maybe?
I wondered the same thing but it was in response to your line “all have contributed to what I now think is my distinct move away from being a skeptic”
I always find the “proportion of women” arguments interesting and I wonder whether the lack of women at the top is due to a lack at the bottom or whether it is that lack at the top that results in the lack at the bottom.
I’m sure you’re asking the same question but it seems to me that the question needs to be answered before a solution can be found – assuming it actually is a problem needing a solution. As a bloke, I can’t answer that.
The Karen episode (it’s the first time I’ve seen an explanation) is depressing to be sure. I love reading her stuff and felt she had lots to offer OzSkeps. But then, I don’t know anything about OzSkeps outside of Bowditch and Saunders. I’m sure it’s difficult to walk into a blokes’ club, if that’s what it is, but the sad reality is “cantankerous bearded bespectacled old men” aren’t likely to change anytime soon. I can assure that despite having neither beard nor spectacles. I don’t know what the “solution” is in such cases. Time seems like the only cure.
Theoretically, the internet should destroy the old problems of entering the boys’ club because anyone can publish a blog and no one can stop them and if they write interesting stuff, they’ll surely succeed. I assume.
To answer your question about Sunday papers, there were ZERO women. However, as with my first statement on the facebook group and in line with AndyD’s comment, I wonder how many women applied?
My only concerns here are:
- that the culture of the “skeptic community” does not condone a “white men’s club” attitude, which will surely alienate anyone who is not white or male.
- that the behavior of speakers (and attendees, for that matter) reflects sensitivity a diverse audience, whether that audience is factually diverse or not (they won’t come if they are not welcome).
- that making an issue out of gender differences does not result in greater differences.
It might be valuable for groups like JREF to track the diversity of the audience and examine the relationships among variables such as gender, likelihood of returning, scheduled speakers, etc.
@podblack:
I think there exists a trade-off in skepticism between the level of exposure you want to the general public through the Internet (ie. podcasts, websites etc.) and the amount of “serious skeptics” that you will generate through that medium. As you alluded, shows like SGU have fans that will go to conferences like TAM and the 2010 Aus Skeptics Con just to see them and no-one else. If you want to broaden the appeal of skepticism through things like podcasts that can gain a cult following, you have to be prepared to accept that some of your new audience will be simply “groupies”.
Now, the reasons *I* was going on about TAM7 on Twitter while it was on, and spending less time talking about the Brisskepticon09, was:
- partly that factor of “OMG, all my favourite people I listen to every week will be there.”
- but also the fact that I knew I wasn’t going to be able to go to TAM7 (obviously), yet I basically know I am going to go to Brisskepticon09. We always want what we know we can’t have.
I don’t much extra to offer in the realm of diversity within the skeptical demographics. I think there hasn’t been anything said that I wouldn’t have added. Getting more women/minority groups into the skeptical movement is a tough problem that needs to be worked on, I agree. But I’m probably not the best person to ask for advice, being a white, male teenager.
The long-term solution, I would guess, is to introduce skepticism way back in the education system. I assume girls are no longer considered weird for pursuing sciences so they will eventually filter into the system in greater numbers than currently.
My own very limited experience with teachers suggests that you’d first need to introduce skepticism or critical thinking, as a subject, into the teaching curriculum so that teachers understand it. Alternatively, we’d need a lot more Richard Saunders doing the rounds and demonstrating skepticism in fun and interesting ways. That’s something I’d have loved to have done but it’s a bit late for me to learn magic and other stuff that makes it interesting.
I often wonder if the powers-that-be in the ed-system would even support critical thinking anyway? Is it politically correct to teach people not to believe weird things? You’d know a lot more about the education system than I would PB.
How exactly does one become a member of Aus Skeptics. I subscribe to the mag, I thought that included membership. Come to think of it I have not heard anything about elections etc, board members.
I find the whole episode with Karen very distressing, disappointing.
One interesting statistic: 75% of individual respondents to this article are male…
Yes, I did a survey a while back, AndyD. Most readers of pretty much ANY skeptically-styled blog appear to be male, even those that are ‘about women skeptics’, it seems.
RE: joining the Aust Skeptics. The Young Aust Skeptics have a few members, I *think* on the Victorian committee. You’d have to ask them, maybe Skelliot? Otherwise, you’re just a subscriber to the magazine. You can certainly talk to Richard or Dr Rachael about it, they are Vice Presidents.
And agreed about Karen. I can’t talk about it really, it kind of upsets me too much. I’m going to leave the matter at that and not discuss it further. If people wish to discuss other things, fine.
I found it strange that you mentioned Karen’s departure from Australian Skeptics but failed to mention the equally important fact that she was actually chosen for the role in the first place, and not for lack of male competition.
Karen’s departure was more stressful on the inside than it was on the outside, and that is true for all concerned. It is a very disappointing outcome, but you’ll have to take my word that Karen’s gender had nothing to do with either her appointment or her departure. That such claims were made is a pity, and the SMH article is hardly a reliable source of information about what has happened.
On a more general note, it’s worth noting that women are under-represented in science, in business, in government, in technical professions, in executive positions, in virtually any profession that requires very long training (such as medical doctors) and in politics, and I could go on and on. Surely, no-one in their right mind thinks that ability has anything to do with it, yet it remains the case that such an imbalance is endemic even in the most liberal societies.
At TAM7 there was a very high proportion of IT professionals (I suspect that was true for previous TAM’s, but I wasn’t there so I’m not sure). Women are a small minority in IT, so perhaps that’s the reason for the imbalance at TAM. Perhaps women really are less skeptically inclined (on average) – there is evidence, for example, that women tend to read horoscopes more than men.
In my opinion, the problem is much larger than just TAM attendance or speakers, but I hope no woman will be asked to speak at TAM – or anywhere – based on anything but merit. What the world would benefit from is addressing the basic gaps that are ultimately reflected at TAM (though to a much lesser extent than in many other places).
I have just had a very distressing series of emails – the situation as I see it:
1) should have been dealt with at their end with the foreknowledge of the people they represent;
2) should not have been attempting to drag me into their ‘he says / she says’.
Since the topic has ALREADY been profiled, as in my link, on the Young Australian Skeptics site, I find it confounding that they should choose my site as their ‘battle ground’, knowing that it would only reopen wounds. Take it elsewhere.
Back on topic.
This is something that has BUGGED me for ages and a few other people too!
1) They already do.
2) It’s already in the system – people outside of education just don’t seem to see it!!
3) Michael McRae presented at the Adelaide conference about it. I’ll ask him about his slides.
You must log in to post a comment.