Firstly, I’d like to thank both PZ Myers and ‘SkeptiFem’ for inspiring what I think I’ll present upon at a conference next year. I think I have something to say on this topic, which is clearly of interest to people.
I’ve written about women and skeptics before (in fact, Feministing even responded to that post). I’ve written about women and supernatural beliefs before (enough that the list scrolls for quite some time!). Once again, like the email sent to a correspondent about a presentation at TAM7, where a woman was regrettably called ‘not easy on the eye‘… the subject appears to be unfinished.
What seems to be the assumption in a Pharyngula blogpost today is that atheism and skepticism is the same thing. Am I wrong in saying that he is incorrect?
What is being put forward by ‘SkeptiFem’, the author of a post that is labeled by PZ Myers as about ‘criticism of sexism in the skeptical community‘ (PZ’s words), is that it is about the supposed overlap, which makes certain atheist-based groups appear to not behave pro-skeptically and certainly not in a pro-female fashion.
But I would say that you can’t say that skepticism and atheism is the same thing. I was not really surprised that Maher won an ‘atheist’ award, because it wasn’t an obviously ’skeptic’ award. Not that it really makes the situation much better, since I do agree that Maher has some rather anti-science attitudes which should be of concern to anyone. Which leads me to wonder what is the real issue for both groups to tackle? Can they really do it together, when it is arguable that atheism does not have to overlap with the concerns that skeptics have?
SkeptiFem: Including (Hitchens) without criticism alienates and discourages women and people of color from joining up. I know I feel pretty damn alone when people I agree passionately with about things like science and critical thinking continue to dismiss feminism. The pressure that is being put on Maher recently for the medical science issues actually fucking existing when no one seemed to really even speak up about the sexism is really really disappointing.
…When someone does try to share the perspective of being a person of color or a woman in skeptic communities the majority of people in the groups I have encountered dismiss their viewpoint on extremely typical grounds.
(Short aside – I have addressed the issue of Christopher Hitchens and his views on women and comedy, in case you were wondering…)
Okay, maybe SkeptiFem hasn’t looked around beyond some of the forum boards that she has mentioned in her post, perhaps. It seems more odd to me, however, that Pharyngula hasn’t done much ‘looking around’ either. I would have thought that he would have known something of the history of women contributing to skepticism – a summary of such presenters and earlier commentaries are readily found – I even presented on the topic of ‘On Sex, Smarts and Where The SkepGrrls At: An Investigation into Gender Differences and Belief In Weird Things‘ at the Australian Skeptics conference in Adelaide last year.
There has been an episode of the radio show Skeptically Speaking on Gender and Skepticism, which went into depth the response of a Facebook group about promoting women in skepticism. I’ve written at length in the past (She’s Already Got Science – Women, Skepticism And The Need For More Research) and in response to the ‘Women for More Women at TAM8‘ Facebook group (‘On Skeptic Conferences‘ and On Skeptic Conferences – Part Two).
So, I’m going to raise that point which seems (to me alone perhaps?) to be a contradiction in the Pharyngula blogpost. In addition, when PZ writes “I don’t think the leaders of the atheist movement are consciously anti-feminist at all” – that’s certainly able to be supported, since PZ Myers, is going be presenting at this conference in Australia next year, for a start.
Which makes me wonder why he seemed to overlook it? When he writes ‘The problem isn’t dismissal. It’s casual disregard‘… did he notice the line-up?
The Rise of Atheism 2010 Global Atheist Convention – women presenting: Taslima Nasrin, Catherine Deveny, Sue-Ann Post, Lyn Allison, Leslie Cannold, Maggie Millar, Jano Caro, Kylie Sturgess and Tanya Levin. There is a panel of women on the Saturday – chaired by Maggie Millar featuring Lyn Allison, Tanya Levin, Leslie Cannold and Jane Caro.
Maybe it’s a matter of PZ not attending conferences like Dragon*Con (written about in Why Dragon*Con?), which has grown in numbers and certainly has more women presenting across both the Skeptic and Science tracks there. But there is no ‘atheist’ track – and the atheists who did attend presented on the Skeptic track. I can’t say if there would have been a difference if there was an atheist track, however. So, getting more data, as always, is important.
Overall, I have found it a little confusing how PZ Myers seemed to think that skepticism and atheism were the same thing. I hope that more people indeed start looking beyond a few popular-male-dominated-commentary sites. Which wouldn’t be a bad thing in general.
![[Valid RSS]](http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/9879/validrsscf0.png "Validate my RSS feed")
{ 21 comments }
Now my sample size of both skeptic and atheists events is small (certainly smaller than yours) but there is a disproportionate number of men at them. NECSS especially I’d look around the event in between panels and saw so few women. So I think because of we get lost among the throng of men so that people like PZ and other men overlook us when we’re not directly in front of them. It’s not intentional and I think that makes it more grating than if it was.
As for confusing atheism and skepticism, the communities overlap so much that it’s easy to lump them together. It’s something you shouldn’t do and PZ should know better but I understand how it happens, I’ve done it myself.
Skepticism and atheism are not the same – PZ Myers is wrong if he thinks that this is the case.
Atheism is a subset of skepticism, but one does not have to be a skeptic, by any reasonable definition of the word, to be an atheist – Bill Maher is the perfect example.
The problem comes about because to be a skeptic you need to continuously apply critical thinking to every appropriate aspect of your life, while to be an atheist all you need to do is not believe that a deity exists.
I would (personally) argue that to be a “true” skeptic (a highly-contentious term) you must also be a rational atheist (someone who has arrived at atheism through rational inquiry, not emotional arguments like “God hates me” eg. like certain emos) or at the very least a true deist (you believe in a completely supernatural deity, so much so that it doesn’t interact with the Universe in any way).
Oh, and nice work on the, er, main point of the post. I got a little sidetracked, but don’t worry, I read it.
Actually, more succinctly, I’m not sure he did overlook it. He was talking about atheists. The way I see it, you have two options:
- You insist that atheist and skeptic are different. Fine, then you can’t really call him out for talking about atheists any more than you could do for him not talking about clowns – different topic entirely.
- You accept that there is a significant overlap. In which case it’s purely a case of “which word do you prefer?” About the only consensus there is that very few seem to like the word “bright”.
I prefer atheist myself; most atheists are also skeptics, and if you’re neither then it’s a fair bet you understand what an atheist is better than what a skeptic is (this is the “less time wasted explaining myself to the general public” excuse 
).
But he used (and I quote):
“‘criticism of sexism in the skeptical community‘ ” – which you say ‘he’s talking about atheism’ to.
Again – is he talking about atheism or skepticism? Because they seem to be using interchangably in what he’s saying and somewhat in what SkeptiFem is saying…
As for ’significant overlap’, I’d be interested in seeing how many at the upcoming Atheist conference supported Maher as fellow anti-vaxers, et al. One of the last Perth Skeptics lectures I attended was a presentation by… a conspiracy theorist. They certainly weren’t a skeptic, but they were an atheist.
To the vast majority of atheists the words are interchangeable. I see no particular benefit from a crusade to attempt to change this – as I pointed out before that’s already been tried (and failed) with the Bright movement.
If they are not the same thing, then would you say rationalised atheism is a subset, or result, of scepticism?
I say rationalised because it should be clear that “I just don’t believe in gods” is not necessarily a sceptical position. I know people who don’t believe in any god or organised religion but think John Edward can speak to the dead. Atheist, perhaps, but not sceptical. But can a sceptic also be theistic? If so, then how is a sceptic defined?
But I don’t read Myers’ article as if he assumes every atheist is a sceptic or every sceptic an atheist. He appears, for the most part to be looking at the so-called leaders – himself, Dawkins, Hitchens and Maher (and it’s pretty obvious Maher’s sceptical qualifications are in serious doubt).
Actually PB, I’m not sure I’m sure what you’re asking
Are you concerned that Myers asked others to supply a list of names? I’m not sure if you’re with him, against him, confused by him or what? I’m going to read the whole thing again and see whether I missed something.
If the real question is “are male sceptics and atheists generally sexist?” then I’d say we reflect the wider community. That would be a “yes”. As a middle-aged white male I can’t offer a solution as I’m part of the problem but I think I suggested once before that the internet offers the perfect opportunity for any woman to make it big by being informative and entertaining – and prolific.
Thanks for the excellent post (as usual), and the mention!
Without getting into the skepticism vs atheism debate, I want to comment on the fact that Skeptically Speaking received more “off the record” email about the Gender and Skepticism episode than any other.
The responses to the show contained a few “maybe don’t make a big deal of it, things are getting better” letters, the vast majority were from females and males looking for tangible solutions to an issue they had already acknowledged as potentially detrimental to the skeptical community. But very few people wanted their emails used on air. This is a sensitive subject for many skeptics. But the only way to develop solutions is to engage in open dialogue.
I’m glad this got a mention on Pharyngula. It makes it a wee bit harder to casually dismiss.
Andy D: “Are you concerned that Myers asked others to supply a list of names? I’m not sure if you’re with him, against him, confused by him or what? I’m going to read the whole thing again and see whether I missed something.”
I’ll try addressing that here!
- “He appears, for the most part to be looking at the so-called leaders – himself, Dawkins, Hitchens and Maher (and it’s pretty obvious Maher’s sceptical qualifications are in serious doubt).” - so, I ponder, is he initially defining Maher as a skeptic then? Which is what he seemed to be doing?
Overall, I’d say confused, Andy. He’s appearing at conferences where there are indeed, examples of women and minority groups who are atheists. Some are also skeptics. One big convention coming up, has an entire panel featuring women, which I guess I thought he would have mentioned? Is he really finding it difficult to immediately know of these people off the top of his head, or is he just encouraging people to start listing?
RE: Desiree – Without getting into the skepticism vs atheism debate, I want to comment on the fact that Skeptically Speaking received more “off the record” email about the Gender and Skepticism episode than any other.
About the same time the episode was aired? I was someone who considered themselves ’stalked’ by a male who sent abusive and malicious emails (interpreting my online actions to suit their bullying agenda) to a senior member of my podcast, breaching my privacy (as has been done in the past by friends of theirs) – and THEN claimed that they were acting righteously by bbc-ing emails of mine to manipulate fellow skeptics, in order to better further their own career in skepticism – yes, I can understand why ‘off the record’ does happen!
The best thing about it all? That person thinks that they support women in skepticism with that kind of behavior. :p They are the last person who should be seen as friendly to the cause. Thankfully, their actions which they then openly displayed to others on a group-thread only demonstrated what I view as their own self-absorbed illness and destructive ego far better than any complaint I could ever have made about them.
So he’s a bit stuck here – either he throws the question open so others can present candidates for “best female skeptics/atheists” or he dismisses the original concerns by showing that females are well represented and appreciated already?
For all his bile and bluster, Myers strikes me as one of the most feminist of the “leading” bloggers.
I don’t think people know what to do with Maher at the moment. After all, it was only a few weeks ago that Orac was carpeting Myers and Dawkins for completely failing to acknowledge Maher’s anti-vax credentials. Should we be surprised people have let other “failings” slip under the radar too? Perhaps if some of the leading female bloggers had gone on a fortnight’s daily rants against Maher’s sexisim (as Orac did on anti-vax) people would have commented on that sooner too? I don’t know since I have to confess yours is the main female blog I read since the others I’m familiar with are either too sparse or just don’t interest me.
I will say though that I tend not to feel great support for rants against comedy that exploits (most) stereotypes. Maher’s sexist comments appear to have been attempts at humour while his anti-vax comments are not. Whether individuals find his humour funny is a separate issue but perhaps this explains the differing responses.
Holy crap. No one was abusive to me. Just vaguely disapproving. I’m sorry. This issue really does bring out the worst in some people.
Actually, around that time I received several emails specifically mentioning your writing as something I needed to read.
(When I began drafting this Comment, no other Comments had been submitted. Now, back at my computer in the wee small hours, 9 Comments are ahead. I’ll leave my Comment cast as though it addresses Podblack’s Blog Entry only, and apologise if I differ, or agree, without acknowledgment of same.)
In my humble opinion, skepticism and atheism are different entities, though it’s unlikely that they are mutually exclusive. It may be considered that there is overlap between the two groups, but it cannot, I think, be said that they are the same thing.
It might be an interesting discussion as to whether a skeptic can be an atheist, because if a skeptic doubts the theist/deist position, might they not also doubt the atheist position? That proposition, I think, goes to the heart of how atheism is defined.
“So he’s a bit stuck here – either he throws the question open so others can present candidates for “best female skeptics/atheists” or he dismisses the original concerns by showing that females are well represented and appreciated already?”
No – but I’d be interested in knowing if such a prominent blogger does potentially alienate non-atheist skeptics? Is it coming from the assumption that the list will be limited? That’s why I write about deist skeptics and the like. I don’t see many people doing that.
“Perhaps if some of the leading female bloggers had gone on a fortnight’s daily rants against Maher’s sexisim (as Orac did on anti-vax) people would have commented on that sooner too?”
I should point out that I’m not very familiar with Maher’s work (he’s not on TV in Australia?) – so whether or not he’s completely anti-science, et al, is something I’d have to look into a great deal more beyond a few very informative blog-posts on the likes of Feministing (for example: Bill Maher: “The surprise is that someone hasn’t choked this bitch sooner.”) or another pro-skeptic blog, Pandagon (example: Anti-Science Watch: Jenny McCarthy has her own show) and Greta’s blog (example: Why Accommodationism Won’t Work, Or, Nobody Expects the Spanish Inquisition – one of the most interesting summations of what she saw about similar situations that I read).
How many on ScienceBlogs did discuss it? There’s quite a few women featured there, who I do read – the Scientiae blog-carnival features several. At the time, I recall being so busy that I could only post a few ‘unsurprised’ comments on Twitter and thought that Greta’s blog (more traffic, more atheist-centered) would be more likely to deal with it better. I should also point out, that when it comes to anti-vaxers, I usually focus more on local issues, such as the AVN in Australia, although I do give some support to the Stop Jenny site. After experiencing meeting a conspiracy-theorist, I guess I thought that it wasn’t unusual for an atheist not to be a skeptic and that I would have the chance to ask Richard Dawkins in person next year for the Skeptic Zone about it.
Desiree – maybe what will come of this is that maybe more people will talk, because being silenced by others or ourselves due to fear (which I did experience) is absolutely an issue.
Great piece.
I hope I didn’t miss something in the comments as I only had time to skim, but I have 2 cents to contribute (not much more at the moment).
First, I do think he confused skepticism and atheism, but I think it was as unintentional as overlooking feminist issues. Most of us must constantly remind ourselves that these things exist independently of one another. The clarification that one can come to atheism rationally or by other means is important, and it is the point I was trying to make in my last blog post (about Bill Maher). I am also unsure if atheism is a rational conclusion or a judgment, either, but that’s a subject for another time.
I read PZ’s statement about “overlooking” it as more of an admission that the issue is overlooked, not the women themselves, and some of the discussion here seems a little muddled on that point.
I often fail to notice sexism for many reasons. That doesn’t mean that I don’t recognize it when I see it. However, the skeptical community is a mostly socially-liberal one, as reason tends to dictate, and we become complacent about our own inner workings. It is obvious that many of us (myself included) need to be reminded occasionally that the problem still exists (and is not trivial) and it still exists in skepticism, atheism, science, and academics – I’m learning this one first-hand.
Sexism can be subtle. It is cultural, ubiquitous, and slippery. Add arrogance, ignorance, self-serving biases, and all other means by which humans twist subjective truths, and you have a controversy with the power to make fast enemies.
In defense of my own lack of action on the subject, I feel that it deserves a strong foundation that I am not able to give it at the moment – not because the arguments are not solid, but because I am not in a strong position to give them, for several reasons. I would love to spend more time on the subject. I do not usually keep my opinions to myself and do not plan to start now. However, I am careful about how actively I stir that pot because the skeptical community is not hierarchical; it’s a web. Each of us is on our own and we rely on the support of others to achieve our goals. I can post the most brilliant analyses and commentary on the planet on my blog, but that effort is wasted if nobody reads them.
So, I’ll continue to bark comments from the peanut gallery and find ways to support the efforts of those more vocal (Des, Kylie) until I feel I can devote the time and have the strength to make a statement sure to produce more enemies. I won’t hide under a rock or deny my opinions just because I do not seek a forum for them.
Oh, Hemant Mehta has linked to two posts – ‘How Should Atheist Bloggers Treat Religious Readers?’
When I read that post by PZ it would seem I interpreted it in a very different way to the way you did.
His switching between Atheism & Skepticism I took to be little more than him meaning the situation he was talking about is one that exists in both the atheist and skeptic circles in similar ways. He was just being encompassing, rather than implying that atheism is the same as skepticism. In fact I would never have made such a link from his article if you had not pointed it out. I had to go back and read it again as I was going through your post just to see where you were coming from.
I also never got the impression he was saying feminism was not supported at all, but rather that sexism does not seem to garner the same level of response. Using his example, when Maher got an award for “atheism and science”, an award which by its name suggests it is for both atheism AND skepticism rather than atheism or skepticism, both communities seemed to go in to a rage and reach for the pitchforks. When people pointed out Bill Prady’s sexism, the reaction from the sceptical community was little more than “Hey, you’re right, but … meh”.
As to whether atheism is the same as skepticism, as I said last night on twitter I see atheism as just being one aspect of skepticism (if that atheism is brought about in the correct way and not by conspiracy theories such as those promoted by Acharya S). To say an atheist is a skeptic is to say a person who is not a 911 truther is a skeptic. Skepticism is about the whole. Following logic, evidence and most importantly the science in all areas. Us being mere mortals though means we do have limits on how much we can do at any one time. All areas is more than we can handle which is why it is often said every single skeptic (myself excluded) has their golden calf.
Sorry if this is kind of misses the point but I would have thought the two to be very closely linked. Certainly no one expects an atheist to be anything but skeptical and vice versa. From the outside this may very well appear to be an academic level type discussion.
With regards to feminism and skepticality the saddest thing about it is that there is enough of an issue to discuss. It makes you wonder about the amount of clear thinking that is being applied to other areas if people are allowing their own prejudices or ideas to colour their thinking.
Thanks for writing PodBlack. ALways a pleasure to read.
I think it is clear that while atheism is a common stance for a skeptic to take, one can reach a decision to be atheist irrationally, and therefore antheism and skepticism are not one in the same.
Sexism as mentioned above can be ver yslippery. The article that had the biggest influence on me re: sexism can be found here.
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html
I suggest all read it, especially those who doubt the subtlety of how we accept aspects of our everyday lives as being non-sexist. (And sorry if I’ve liked to this already. I try and spread this article far and wide).
As for Maher, I must admit I find it disappointing that so many people (including prominent skeptical bloggers and podcasters) seem to be playing the man, not the ball, with him. He clearly has some irrational ideas regarding vaccination. Pont them out and debate him on those points. He may well have some sound rational ideas about other topics. Why does he have to be labelled as “not a tru skeptic” or “a true skeptic” or anything else for that matter? I thought skepticism was about the process, not the person.
Finally, the term “a true skeptic”. Bleah.
“I thought skepticism was about the process, not the person.”
It is, and I don’t believe that anyone has been unfair in that regard. Maher has been attacked for his irrational arguments, not his sense of humor or fashion sense. There comes a point at which it becomes obvious that one’s “rational views” are not rational at all, but the product of some other process – when the person voicing them shows no ability to overcome belief biases and reason.
Very few of us are “true skeptics” although we all like to think we are. True skepticism requires that we have no sacred cows, something difficult to evaluate in one’s self. However, we tend to assume that a conclusion consistent with a rational one is always arrived at rationally, then assume that the person who arrived at it is rational by extension. If we believe that person rational, we will see all of their conclusions as rational and are less likely to evaluate them for ourselves. It’s a slippery slope of double standards that follows and these discussions are attempts to avoid that.
Maher has no points about vaccinations. His arguments are as silly as Ray Comfort’s about ID. His responses to reason have been more of the same. It appears that he is a sexist as well. I, for one, will not blow that off just because he entertains me sometimes when he makes fun of religion. It’s not acceptable.
Bill Maher is no different than Oprah, Jenny McCarthy, Suzanne Summers, and the Discovery Institute bozos like Behe. I am quite sure one could find some opinion that each holds which seems reasonable. Maybe we could all agree that peanut butter should be applied to toast before jelly. That doesn’t mean we should leave them alone when they spread dangerous lies and promote/perpetuate socially destructive attitudes.
I have to admit I’m surprised there don’t seem to be more female atheists/skeptics around. The Sky daddies hate women, and restrict our behavior and health care, so you’d think more women would be atheists. So either there’s bunches of masochists in the church pews or they’re all just keeping really quiet.
There are women atheists. Lots of us. But we’re not liked. Most atheist chicks are the hard-core feminists who come from extreme poverty, who couldn’t afford a ticket to grad school.
The “new atheist” movement has made it plain to us that anyone who is underprivileged doesn’t count. Women are not seen as human enough to matter in the skeptic/atheist community.
Feminists are naturally atheists. Because feminism and Abrahamic monotheism are at logger-heads. But feminists and other social justice freedom fighters are not welcome in the skeptic/atheist community.
Over-privileged rich white males with PhD’s don’t want us to have a seat at the table. They don’t want to have to think about things that matter to women — most whom are poor. Atheism’s overwhelming membership has a rich white male face.
And rich white males don’t want to have to think about how their advantages due to unearned privilege came at the expense of poor women who are denied equal civil and human rights, and who are not getting opportunities for educations, and who are not welcome in the science fields, and who are not seen as human enough to count. Anyone without a PhD in the “hard sciences” isn’t “rational enough” or “worthy” of having their voices heard in atheism.
They don’ t want to use their privileges to make life suck just a little bit less for poor women. who are real people as opposed to esoteric abstract concepts that can be reserved for some comfy armchair discussion.
In sum, the “makers and shakers”, the prominent affluent white males in ANY movement or group have never desired to make life suck just a little bit less for poor women (about 90% of us). Everything is always all about them, never about us.
At the end of the day, what does it really matter to poor women who cannot get birth control, who are denied the abortion that they need, (never mind a university education and a chance for a good job) and who are cold, hungry, and poor if we’re no better off whether it’s rich white atheist males or rich white Christian males dictating policies that still keep us disenfranchised and disempowered?
Comments on this entry are closed.