A response to “female representation. Where the hell is it?” by The Rather Friendly Skeptic.
“…why is it only a few women are ever seen speaking at conferences and why do we never see a predominantly female line up at such conferences?”
They linked to my site! 
As Desiree Schell mentioned in the comments of that particular blog-post, the issue of women on the stage at (and in general) is something I’ve been investigating for a while.
In answering this question, my overall response is -
- Yes, there IS been a history of women-only conventions on paranormal research / skepticism. It may not be well known, as it mostly pre-dates the Internet.
- Yes, there IS a need for good research to be promoted and the ‘big names’ being balanced with people who deserve to have a go, as improvement and development happens with opportunity and encouragement.
- Finally, the overall goal should be quality and diversity over tokenism. There is no indication that a role-model on the stage MUST be of the same gender to make an impact. I also question if people think that they just need certain women because they’re a (as mentioned previously) ‘big name’ and whether the audience is left wondering about the young male skeptics who never had a chance - as nothing new gets presented?
The Student Of Anomalistic Beliefs
As I type this, I am at the University Thesis Collection room, surrounded by cupboards that hold proposals and theses, like the one I hope to finish. It takes me three different computers to find how to log on before I type this paragraph. It’s taken me from 7.30am to 3.30pm to get my job done before getting here. Straight after this, I’m heading into the city to attend the final Philosophy Cafe for the year before we revise and revitalise it to better suit teachers. At some point, I should have had lunch… but I didn’t.
After three hours, I have:
- my thesis draft on paranormal belief – but I left my helpful notepad on the kitchen table, rather than with me – so I can’t finish off the page I wanted to;
- annotated but not final-graded responses from my students on the topic of ‘feminism’, a passage response they did for an assignment;
- an overview of an exam, which I’m tweaking and handing in tomorrow;
- an assortment of worksheets that I need to file;
- the Year 9 overview for tomorrow’s class;
- a rather snuffly nose and
- I just discovered that I didn’t put this long-life carton of milk into the office fridge like I originally intended to this morning. Oops.
- did I mention my car is in for repairs? That wasn’t ectoplasm leaking out onto the driveway, apparently.
Never fear. I’ll have it all done by tonight. Or tomorrow. Oh, and that podcast episode, not much editing on that to be done, thankfully. Obviously, I’m stretched for time and resources.
The question is – where do we fit in the time for conferences and the like in between the average lifestyle of the modern woman, let alone on paranormal research?
Conferences and conventions have oddly figured quite highly for me this year, even though I thought I’d be focusing more on writing and teaching. I’m currently working out which hotel to stay at for one over in Sydney. I’m looking over the details of another one overseas.
Like many people, there’s sometimes months of waiting, to hear if you’re going to present at a conference at all, even after collecting several very flattering acknowledgments – and I reflect that there are factors that might prevent a co-presenter and myself from attending at all.
Factors That Influence Presenting At A Conference
Why should conventions care? They’re not in the business of caring, right? They’re after attendees who will be engaged by content, that the time, money and venue hire they sought was worth it – and that they’re getting the best that the convention could get. Otherwise – what if this ends up being the last they ever get to do? Egg-on-face happens to them as well!
I know how they feel. There’s family matters in general that I have to consider if I want to attend, even as a member of the audience. Economic considerations. There’s my new job, there’s my study, there’s knowing that there’s people who just won’t welcome the likes of me and that there’s little to no good reason for them feeling that way.
None of this conference-attending really helps pay my bills or even guarantees much kudos at the end of the day. It’s not as if this ranks even as highly as a TED presentation in the eyes of my colleagues or co-workers. That is, if they even know what TED is.
But I’m not factoring in women who both work and have a family in this kind of career – something that struck me as I read over the example of Catherine Deveny, and how she worked on balancing her job and being a mother (as well as being a must-read on The Age sacking). As I look over Ann-Maree Moodie’s column, ‘The Organisation’, in the most recent edition of Fast Thinking, I notice that she briefly touches on the intersection of motherhood and conference attending/presenting:
The decision to outsource child rearing is based on two key factors: affordability and emotional resilience. There’s no greater mind bender than hearing your precious little one call the live-in nanny ‘mummy’… but no matter what the century, the kids still need to be fed, bathed and helped with their homework. Most working parents do this willingly because they want to be there for their children, but as a result, a price is paid.
Where in this whirlwind of juggling career and family is there room for an intellectual life, the time to be innovative and invent? …if we replace the image of laying down a brush with closing down a computer, we have encapsulated the dilemma of a senior executive mother….while it still falls to women to carry much of the burden of responsibility for managing the home and family, how is she to find the uninterrupted time to think? …There is no simple answer, except to place the different parts of our lives in boxes, never to be opened at the same time.
Rarely, she points out, is a father expected to have the same day-in-day-out as a mother, juggling domestic chores and child-rearing in the same way as the mother. How does that, then, impact upon the opportunities to present at a conference?
Previous Investigations On The Topic And The 1991 ‘Women And Parapsychology’ Conference
I’ve written in general about factors that influence conference attendance for women, such as
- the impact of distance and travel – Winter Of Research And Retention, Gender, Sex And Science;
- the need for facilities for women who happen also to be mothers – something I found was considered at one convention I’ve regularly attended: Why Dragon*Con?
- what I’ve seen at conferences so far – ‘On Skeptic Conferences‘ and On Skeptic Conferences: Part Two and On Skeptic Conferences: Part Three.
Since I only know one female researcher, Dr Karen Stollznow, I emailed her this straight-forward question for her views on the topic: “Are there unique challenges that face female paranormal researchers, compared to men?”
She responded:
For me, there has been no ghostbusting glass ceiling as a girl. I don’t think I’ve ever been discriminated against in the course of my work. Perhaps there’s an assumption that most paranormal researchers are men, especially those in skepticism, but that’s more reflective of reality than bias.
There’s one interview that I’ve conducted with a paranormal researcher in recent times – Baxter of the Rocky Mountain Paranormal Society. He had a very sensitive tale to tell, in regards to the ethics of investigation, which you can hear on the Skeptic Zone podcast. It doesn’t just take women to tell the tale about how it can be challenging to go out into the community and deal with the fallout of belief in ghosts!
In addition, there is a documented history of women looking at their contribution to research in the paranormal – both as skeptically-minded people and as pro-paranormal and parapsychologists.
For example, I’ve mentioned previously on my blog about the 1991 International Conference ‘Women and Parapsychology’, held in Dublin, Ireland. This conference was devoted to women and gender issues in parapsychology. Some of the topics were feminist approaches to science, images of women as disorder and pathology, and gender differences in belief in the paranormal. The participants included Anjum Khilji, Beverly Rubik, Marilyn J. Schlitz, Jessica Utts, Rhea A. White, and Nancy L. Zingrone.
In her presentation “Women, Power, and the Paranormal: A Cultural Critique” Marilyn Schlitz, says, “Women, whether believers, practitioners, or psychical researchers, are part of an on-going process in which morality, personal relations, and research directions reflect and resist the socially constructed gender categories.” Similarly, Jessica Utts in “Past Reflections, Future Prospects” offers two thoughts, “we must be aware of how the expectations of those around us are influencing our behavior, our research ideas, and our modes of thinking …” and “we must learn to distinguish when it matters that we are women and when it does not.”
I have a copy of the book that features the transcripts of papers presented. A review of that book by Ethridge includes the summary:
“While men attended the conference, only women presented papers. Topics ranged from “The Relevance to Parapsychology of a Feminist Approach to Science” to “Behind the Veil: Muslim Women’s Contributions to Parapsychology” to “Are Women more Sheepish?: Gender Differences in Belief in the Paranormal.”
…Generally, the conference attendees agreed that the way women view the world does not necessarily mirror how scientists have studied the world, and parapsychology in particular. In almost every case, these women in parapsychology are asking that science recognize not only the established formulas of scientific research, but a more holistic approach that incorporates feeling and the observer as part of the experiment. [my emphasis]
…yes, don’t get me started on the claim that ‘science is by men, for men, and ignores the female mindset‘. I don’t think that’s an argument that will gain you much, but you can certainly draw upon the 1991 conference as an example of how there was certainly a lot of interesting and relevant content!
What To Do?
1) Do contact speakers for upcoming conferences you think would be good quality presenters – who also reflect diversity and range. 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 a Queensland conference and we had a presentation ‘okayed’, even though it wasn’t eventually chosen. It showed us the procedure that needed to be followed at the very least!
Remember, variety in presentations can also mean entertainers and workshop-running as well. Why shouldn’t they be valued too? The most recent SkeptiCamp in Atlanta even ran presentation-training opportunities ahead of time, so people could rehearse and run-through their presentations. Having access to training opportunities and building up experience so they do justice to their work – something that shouldn’t be overlooked, especially if they are women who feel that they will not be taken seriously by their peers!
2) Don’t think that it’s going to be easy to challenge a culture by challenging just 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 balance, et al! What a shocker! :p
There are elements that influence the running which we may not see – ask about them. Vary your approach from sending a petition – to even just 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. Use the power of your friends by talking to them about why it’d be good for all of you, and when they comment, encourage them to speak out.
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 conventions like the Amazing Meeting / signing up to present at SkeptiCamp / signing up for local conventions / looking at lecture opportunities that they take part in. 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! It goes on your CV! 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 year, 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?
6) Finally – don’t be discouraged!
Do your research into the convention, who is running it and the precedence of the kinds of diversity and range you’d like to have. You’re a part of what can make a convention great, so show that you’re working to make their job easier.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
!! Hope things are slightly less hectic now!
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 1 trackback }