Skepchick vs. Dawkins

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by troutman

My interest in this debate is not so much about whether Watson or Dawkins is right. Why are there so few women in the scientific/skeptic/atheist communities? Is it because of any real or perceived sexisim? Are the male members of these communities more socially inept than other men?

You mean you actually don't see the answer to that question staring you in the face? There are many skeptical and atheist women. But when the community is marked by asshats and ######bags like Dawkins and Hitchens, with their intentionally aggressive and angry message, why is there a question?

Until the community is run and identified by less self-aggrandizing, belligerent individuals, you'll have difficulty growing your ranks with any individual other than young males who look at that aggression as inspiring. Too bad Carl Sagan is dead. I didn't particularly agree with him on everything, but at least he made his point of view palatable.

I find it funny. Many people blame the church for the people who run it.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by troutman

My interest in this debate is not so much about whether Watson or Dawkins is right. Why are there so few women in the scientific/skeptic/atheist communities? Is it because of any real or perceived sexisim? Are the male members of these communities more socially inept than other men?

I've had some great talks with the founder of Iceland's humanist group, she's born in NYC and has been around this movement for decades, before it was cool

This shows up in polls all the time, women are more likely to be religious, more likely to believe in ghosts, alternative medicine, etc.. Its frustrating because this movement has to appeal better to the fairer sex, and its slowly happening as she said that way more women are involved today than 10 years ago.

In our group in Iceland of our membership about 35% are women, which is probably quite high in comparison to other countries, but Iceland has a long standing tradition of very strong women being very active politically and in social movements.

I'm sure social scientists, psychologists and eventually neuro-scientists can fill us in on why women are so different when it comes to this stuff, I think its mostly to do with the fact we come from different planets, men from mars, women from venus.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Knalus

You mean you actually don't see the answer to that question staring you in the face? There are many skeptical and atheist women. But when the community is marked by asshats and ######bags like Dawkins and Hitchens, with their intentionally aggressive and angry message, why is there a question?

Dawkins is far from aggressive and angry, he's quite mild mannered and he's very much to the point when he discusses religion. To many he's great, some people obviously don't like him, I can certainly see why he's not everyones cup of tea. Hitchens is a fierce debater and can be extremely funny. He's definitely one of my favorites in the movement, but again I can see why some would not like his approach; I think this all stems from religions long standing rule of being above criticism, which is no longer the case in many countries (thankfully.)

Until the community is run and identified by less self-aggrandizing, belligerent individuals, you'll have difficulty growing your ranks with any individual other than young males who look at that aggression as inspiring. Too bad Carl Sagan is dead. I didn't particularly agree with him on everything, but at least he made his point of view palatable.

I'm not sure how much you know about the movement, Hitchens and Dawkins are big in the movement, but are by no means representative of all of it. Neil deGrasse Tyson (agnostic), James Randi (the cute dwarf), Sam Harris (the atheist spirtualist), Bill Nye the science guy, Hehma Menta (the friendly atheist), Adam/Jamie (the mythbusters), Penn & Teller (duh), Lawrence Krauss (physicist), and mr nice bear Daniel Dennett (philosopher,) are just the tip of the iceberg, I've left out a lot I'm sure of the movements key players.

Thats to name a few, mind you the media loves to focus on Dawkins, Hitchens because media is all about ratings and those guys give sound bites that attract viewers. Within the actual humanist, atheist, skeptical, rationalists movements those guys while stars are far from being leaders or even the most respected. But I get that people who aren't active in this movement won't know this, I just thought I'd point this out for you outsiders.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Thor

Dawkins is far from aggressive and angry

Skepchick and the thousands of e-mails against him recently would refute that statement. This whole discussion came about because he was agressive in his arrogant dismissal of another person's concerns.

[Thor]

Actually most people here agree with him, and yeah it was arrogant but also totally correct.

Like I said, he's not everyone's cup of tea, but he's also not in charge of the movement, just one of many voices in a sea of people leading the charge; its just the media and theists that typically prop him up because he's never subtle in his opinions when it comes to religion and his passion, the attack on his life long profession, evolutionary biology.

[troutman]

Codes of Conduct: A Brief History of Civility, Inclusivity, Sexism and Skepticism

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticle...sm_and_skeptic

A 1996 article by DeeAnne Wymer on “Why Are There So Few Female Skeptics?” suggested why women may not be so eager to involve themselves in skepticism. It noted, “Family and work demands leave women with little time for any outside activities; sexism among male members creates an unpleasant atmosphere for women; groups seldom focus on topics of interest to women; skeptics are generally recruited from the sciences, fields with fewer women.”

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/rebecc..._and_feminism/

[jammies]

Skepticism is inherently aggressive and argumentative. You are directly challenging the beliefs of other people and of society at large by embracing it. Therefore, wondering why many proponents of this viewpoint are also aggressive and argumentative, and wishing that they weren't, is foolish.