From Decficio Mens: Women in Skepticism: Breakdown of the data.
(Do note, they write – ‘I know that this is NOT a scientific study, nor a statistically sound sample, nor anything like that. Still, I believe that the data in response to the question asked can be quite illuminating.‘)
This is a small section from the full blog-post, which breaks down comments from the PZ Myers of Pharyngula thread called The Woman Problem,:
First category is reasons for women’s lack of involvement [in skepticism] and suggestions for improvement.
From a total of 569 instances counted and coded:
- 103 (18.10%) dealt with sexism (included: mentioning sexism as a problem, experiences of sexism online and offline, solutions offered to the sexism problem; excluding “women should” or “you should” comments);
- 81 (14.25%) dealt with the confrontational image of skeptics and women’s socialization to be less confrontational (included: perceived and experienced confrontational view as problematic, anxiety regarding said image mention as a problem, socialization of women to be less argumentative and confronting as problematic, questions whether this perception is accurate; excluded “women should” or “you should” comments);
… If one should groups 2, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 under the broad heading of group 1 (sexism as a problem that needs to be addressed), the total of group 1 rises to 360 out of 569 instances, or 63.27%.
It is clear that sexism as a problem that needs to be addressed on various levels is the overwhelming reason why women are feeling marginalized. Colour me unsurprised, Holmes.
Check out the full blog-post at Women in Skepticism: Breakdown of the data.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
“5. 61 (10.72%) dealt with unwelcome sexual advances (included: being hit on, being sexually harassed, anxiety and anticipation regarding sexual harassment)”
Includes, “perception that since most of the average women in skepticism belong to a group that promotes being sexy, that they aren’t considered sexy enough to be included in this group?”
Also – what about, in the section on community that even within the female quotient of the skeptical community that there are cliques? And in groups that don’t appear to be as regimented as in the male dominated skeptics groups. As in – most of the time at skeptic conventions – and part of this is just the ratio of male to female, I’m talking to men. Firstly, because there are more men to talk to, but also because the few women are in their own groups and not communicating outside of their clique.
I rarely go out for drinks at TAM but the last time I did, it was with a bunch of guys. The one time I was in a restaurant where there was another group of TAM attendees coming in, who were 90% women – I was not invited to sit with them, but it still illustrates the problem within the community where women are in attendance.
Can I mention though – I do not have this problem at some other conventions like Dragon*Con? In fact I think maybe more women, or at least equal women go to panel discussions – when the men are out people watching, or at the large draw events with celebrities and not as into the discussion side of the conference. I’d be interested to note that at TAM actually. What is the percentage of attendees during the non keynote lectures of women, versus men. Also – the male vs female attendance of the after hours events. Betcha there are more women at the lectures than certain after hours events.
You must log in to post a comment.