I’m not going to go too in depth recapping all the talks at TAM8 for three main reasons:
- Hemant already did a wonderful job liveblogging all of the talks, which you can find here, here, here, here, here, and here,
- I was livetweeting most of my reactions all day
- I lost my pen after the very first session so I didn’t take very good notes.Whoops.
But I do want to comment on women and feminism at TAM8, especially since this was a bit of an issue last year. Keep in mind this is just my experience from a single TAM, since it was my first time going. Even though I remember all the blog posts from last year, I can’t fairly compare it to past events.
The conference wasn’t perfect, mainly because skeptics don’t live in a little bubble sheltered from society. The good definitely outweighs the bad, but I still need to point out the bad. So, let’s get it out of the way.
Sexism
The one annoying thing I saw was the perpetuation of the Sexy vs. Smart binary in talks. The stereotype goes that women can sexy/attractive/beautiful and stupid/ditsy/unscientific, or they can be smart/witty/scientific and frumpy/plain/ugly. This myth annoys the hell out of me, especially because it’s so common. It simply is not true – you can be hot and smart, and you can be “plain” and stupid. I hate people assuming I’m an idiot because I like to talk about sex or wear a low cut shirt now and then. And I’m not even very feminine – I can’t even imagine how often “conventionally” attractive and feminine skeptics and scientists have to deal with this.
The main perpetrator was Michael Shermer, who included the following video in his talk:
Oh, gee, using hot airhead women as an example of people who aren’t critical thinkers! Uhhh…no. The only way this contributed to his talk was by making me uncomfortable. If that was his goal, he succeeded.
And while I fell in love with Harriet Hall, she did the same thing. [EDIT: Apparently my memory is faulty and this only occurred sometimes in her talk, and Barbara Drescher makes a good point as to why this is acceptable in McCarthy’s case] Whenever Sometimes she mentioned Jenny McCarthy in her talk as an example of someone saying something stupid (which Jenny McCarthy certainly does often), she would include a picture of her bending over in a bikini or some other scantily clad outfit. Why was this effective? Why not use a photo of Jenny McCarthy in a suit?
Because we’re programmed to go “Ha, look at that stupid bimbo!” or something along those lines. We associate beauty and sexuality in women with ignorance. It was used for cheap laughs, and the audience delivered. If we’re judging someone based on their intellectual merit, we shouldn’t be using irrelevant bikini photos as pot shots.
Attendees
I don’t have the exact numbers (maybe the JREF will release some info), but there were a lot of women at TAM this year. Still not an equal 50/50, but getting there – maybe 60/40. I definitely did not feel out of place.
Speakers
From a quick glance at the program, it seems like men definitely outnumber women. Not hugely so, which is an improvement, but it was still noticeable. Now, I don’t think you can necessarily blame TAM or even the skeptical movement for this. When sexism permeates society like it does, there are a whole host of reasons why you may not see women in as prominent roles. By the time you’ve reached the level of accomplishment to be invited to speak, a whole slew of other institutions and people have had the chance to drag women down, thus limiting the number of qualified women.
And according to a conversation Hemant had with Jeff Wagg, JREF does try:
Jeff Wagg of JREF points out that they’ve actively reached out to women. Last year, 8 women were invited to speak at TAM. 2 said yes. 1 of those women had to cancel. It’s not like they’re not trying.
Even though men outnumbered women, the ratio wasn’t that horrible. Still looks way better than most science departments I’ve seen.
The real interesting data comes out when you break the speakers down into categories. I’ve divided the various events into talks (solo speakers), panels and interviews, and extra workshops:
The ratio of men to women was 3.5:1 for talks, 2:1 for panels, and 1:1 for workshops. Why? Any answer I could give it purely speculative, so I’ll leave it for the discussion as to why you think this is. It is interesting to note that the less individual contribution required, the more equal the gender ratio.
I have to note that I absolutely loved all the female speakers, and that seriously is not me being biased. I’m not the type to like someone by default just because they have certain genitalia or chromosomes or hormones or whatever (side note: whoever told you sex was simple was wrong). Their talks were some of the best at TAM, so don’t let anyone tell you that women are being invited to speak just to fill some quota. Since people are always asking me for awesome female skeptics to follow, here’s their information:
- Pamela Gay, astronomer, blogs at Star Stryder, podcasts at Astronomy Cast
- Jennifer Michael Hecht, historian, poet, author of Doubt: A History, blogs at The Lion and the Honeycomb
- Carol Tavris, social psychologist, author of Mistakes Were Made (but not by ME)
- Harriet Hall, physician, “The SkepDoc“, blogs at Science-Based Medicine
- Heidi Anderson, coordinator for a rape crisis center, writer, blogs at Fat One In the Middle, podcasts at Parenting Beyond Belief
Content
One great thing about TAM was that it had not one, but two sessions explicitly devoted to exploring women’s issues. The first was Feminist Skepticism Workshop with Rebecca Watson and the Skepchicks. As you can imagine, I was really excited for this workshop. I think it did an excellent job at showing how feminism is compatible with skepticism, and how various skeptical issues affect women.
I also loved Vagina Craft Time. Here’s me with my angry felt vagina: 
And while that seems silly, it did serve a purpose. One, it was a nice intermission to all the serious information. Talking about rape and sexism for two hours can be taxing on anyone, so it was nice to have some light hearted humor injected in. Two, it forced the audience to form small groups. While we were in groups, we discussed a skeptical issue that was assigned to us and how it affected women. After craft time was over, everyone had to share what they discussed. Without this fun activity, it would have been very difficult to force people to participate.
I think, though, it may have been a little too silly at times. For example, after each major serious topic, Rebecca inserted silly cat photos to lighten the mood. I’m all for silliness, but random lolcats after seriously discussing rape just didn’t sit well with me. Make your serious point without undermining it, and then inject humor later. From the awkward half-laughter in the audience, I think others agreed with me. The lady sitting next to me even commented, “Great, who’s going to take feminists seriously now?” after the first lolcat. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but I agree that it was a bit in bad taste.
The other event at TAM was the Women in Skepticism Panel with Rebecca Watson, Carol Tavris, Jennifer Michael Hecht, Pamela Gay, Ginger Campbell, and Harriet Hall. It was an excellent discussion of what it’s like dealing with male dominated fields and sexism and a female skeptic. It was really nothing new to me since I’m familiar with the issues, but it would have been excellent for anyone in the audience who maybe hadn’t thought about this before.
Summary
Before I went, I admit I was a little nervous. I had been warned about the low number of women, some sexist jokes, and hordes of creepy stalker guys that would follow me around. Maybe it’s because I started with my guard up or maybe it’s because TAM is improving, but I really didn’t think it was that bad. At least, not any worse than any non-theist club meeting or biology conference I’ve been to (…which probably isn’t much of an endorsement after all, hmm). I’m definitely looking forward to going back in the future. And I’m sure with the way things are quickly improving and all the hard work the JREF is putting in, it’ll be even more awesome and comfortable for women next year.
But I’m just one woman. If you were at TAM, what did you think? Men are welcome to comment, but I’m especially interested in how other women felt. Were you comfortable? Did you run into any other incidents of sexism? Do you have any suggestions on how TAM could improve in the future?
Well, the lines to the bathroom imply that the ratio was even more skewed, since there never was one for the ladies, but always an insanely long one for the guys.There were some creepy people, but on both sides of the gender line I’d say. Certainly not an excessive number of creepy guys looking at my boobs, but then apparently I look 16.You left out David Javerbaum’s reply to my question about sexism at the Daily Show. The one where I got called an uppity chick :) There’s a perfect example of a woman comedian (Olivia Munn) being dismissed because she’s attractive and sexual.I think TAM would do well to have more women talking about things that aren’t just women’s issues. Not that all the women were talking about women’s issues, but many were. And to have more of the individual talks be women. Or to do more workshops, which seemed to be the best part of TAM for many people. And to have more humanities — skepticism shouldn’t only be about science.Also, if they could ask Michael Shermer to be less creepy and seemingly anti-lady, I’d appreciate it.
Jen lost her pen and couldn’t take notes. It must have been the only pen in Vegas. :P
I didn’t try too hard to replace it. I was too busy having fun =P
Ha, that was you that asked Javerbaum that? I was dying in the back. Even though I did hear women comment later on how *dare* he say that… Come on people, it was *mocking* sexism.I kind of liked the no lines in the bathroom. Definitely not used to that. Maybe we should keep the male/female ratio where it is ;)
I had a great time at my first TAM and it was really encouraging that there were so many amazing women in attendance and giving some of the best presentations there. I was even excited that Eugenie Scott had a little cameo appearance because she is one of my skeptical heroes.That said, there were definitely some creepers in attendance. I was really irritated by the asshole making inappropriate comments about Heidi Anderson’s cleavage while I was waiting for my turn to chat with her after the sexuality workshop.
It was me, it’s how I’ve gotten my new nickname “The Uppity Ginger” which may or may not become the title of an upcoming podcast.I know Josh Lieb, another exec prod on TDS, and I was really curious as to what it’d been like internally there, since I also work in TV and I’ve visited their set.In my section up front I did a “that’s me” with a fist pump, which got a good laugh and applause from the “locals”. I thought it was hysterical. Someone else asked me if I was insulted and I laughed at them. Right in their uppity face ;)
This is my 6th TAM event and 10th JREF event, if you count the cruises they’ve done. I’m the director of an energy-related business (more or less the oil/gas business) and a chemical engineer.Except for when I used to go to international quilting shows, TAM is a veritable chick-fest compared to every single other thing that I do. Most of my business-related activities, from conferences to serving on the national board of industry groups, to my co-workers, have 1-5% women – not much difference than I saw when I started two decades ago.I would *never* be nervous about ‘the low number of women attending’ since this is the one place I go that I actually find a lot of women.
1) Are there any pictures of Jenny McCarthy in a suit?2) “the less individual contribution required, the more equal the gender ratio”- this ratio applies to other things besides gender. I have noticed that the more individual contribution required when organizing a political/social action, the more hardcore your volunteers tend to be. Athletic events tend to be skewed toward the tall even when height isn’t a requirement, as in a bicycle event. Oddly, to me anyway, is that general acting classes tend toward the short. (Character actors, by their very nature run the gamut, but your general interest acting workshop has more short people.)Not saying anything about TAM8 or the male/female-ness therein, certainly not positing that “geek” is a male-favoring trait (certainly not positing such to a geneticist!) but there are some odd population skews IMHO for a variety of events/occupations.3) “angry felt vagina”; if it was angry, maybe you shouldn’t have felt it.
P.S. The LA County Fair video wasn’t about “using hot airhead women as an example of people who aren’t critical thinkers!” in my opinion, it was about using hot airhead women who didn’t know about agriculture. I don’t know what else went on in what’s his name’s presentation, but that commercial wasn’t particularly offensive to me.I grew up in Chicago, on a block that had one (1) tree on it. To me, animals lived in the zoo, meat came from the butcher, and you dug potatoes out of gravy. (Also, being of the Asian-persuasion, I held Chinese food as a normal diet, exotic foods were these things called “pot-roast” and “macaroni-and-cheese”. But that’s another story.)My point is that a lot of people in LA probably don’t know where wool comes from, never having been told. don’t think it’s their fault, and the vegans are correct in that those of us who eat meat should know where and from what it comes . And if I were advertising a county fair in LA, I would have made a male-cast commercial in addition to the one shown. Maybe something with a stereotypically male occupation, like a bunch of guys around a BBQ grill not knowing what part of a sheep “hamburger” comes from.
Being at a conference and having a felt vagina would make anyone angry, I should think. More later. O.o
Interesting assessment; seems sensible to me, although I wasn’t at TAM. Let me make one remark in support of Harriet Hall, though. It doesn’t sound 100% good to discredit McCarthy by showing sexy photos of her, but Hall’s point is almost certainly not “hot chick = stupid”. Rather, it’s “Jenny McCarthy is famous only because she was hot and posed nude and semi-nude – this is the ONLY reason she had any fame to capitalize on for the anti-vax stuff.” I would assume Hall feels it’s stupid for people to pay more attention to the Playboy model than to the MD with decades of medical experience. I can’t imagine Hall would object to paying attention to the Playboy model if that model was also an MD with decades of experience!
The world of business/technology/engineering is pretty male-dominated. I work in the micro-electronics industry cutting ceramics with laser. It’s pretty high-tec stuff. I will be the first to admit I am not an engineer, I was hired for my multi-lingual abilities (how stereotypically female). But the level of ignorance some people (men) assume I must have is astounding. Last year I did my first ever trade show and did it alone (I quite like jumping in at the deep end). The number of people who assumed I was just a booth-babe was very aggravating (or flattering I suppose). It didn’t help that I was 23, so the older gents tended to assume I was also too young to know what I was doing. On the plus side, all my booth neighbours (all middle-aged men about my father’s age) felt the need to look after me and insisted on feeding me biscuits and de-constructing my booth for me (not in a creepy way, in a fatherly way). I figure I may as well get some benefits from being a silly, little girl. I wonder if it’ll be any different this year?
I thought the beautiful=dumb stereotype had been shot down by:
Clearly I’m not getting a rounded picture of beliefs out there. Dang it.
For an example of fairly attractive bimbo, I would’ve shown pix of Sarah Palin in a suit. I think that would have gotten the point across more accurately and humorously.
Julie, I am fairly used to hearing about my cleavage, usually from myself. What I do find is that it is an interesting way to gauge people. People who are creepy see cleavage and a woman talking about sex as an invitation to sexual banter and/or contact. People who are just cool just see it as cleavage. Does that make sense?
I enjoyed this post, and hope that I get a chance to talk more with Jen one on one very soon. As someone who was not pro-boobquake, I am not sure what I thought she was going to be like, but when I met her I find her to be a bright, friendly, almost endearingly excited young woman. Certainly not the destructor of feminism :)I did not attend the workshop on Feminism, but had friends that did and actually left when the Angry Vagina Craft Time started. As a life long feminist, I am just not sure what that accomplished, and it was offensive to a few of us. However, people will always be offended at something, and I am not encouraging any kind of BANNING or anything like that.What I AM encouraging is that when women talk about feminism, sexuality, or anything, they understand that when you ONLY use humor, some of your points get lost. Feminism is not about making people less threatened by feminists. Feminism is about empowering women. All women. End of story. There is no need to apologize for feminism, and no need to dumb it down for the masses. As I repeated at TAM, I am also not interested in bringing feminism into skepticism. I am more interested in using skepticism to make feminism more scientifically strong.
That totally makes sense to me. Don’t get me wrong, you have some nice cleavage and there’s nothing wrong with noticing that. I was just frustrated that when presented with an intelligent, sex-positive woman with a lot of knowledge to share, the most notable thing to this guy was breasts.
I spent 22 years investigating child sex abuse and all other forms of child maltreatment. Humor is essential in my mind to deal with these issues at times. I was at the same workshop (and made the winning angry vagina!) and thought the insertion of humor was not over done at all. Also when humor is used in this setting it’s often a way for the speaker to manage their own feelings about the topic. None of those presenting at the workshop were professional, paid or trained speakers. They were enthusiastic lay persons asking their audience to think with them. My standards for this type of workshop is different from one put on my trained paid professional trainers. Also I’ve been to many trainings that included very disturbing topics and images and even the most experienced doctor, social worker or prosecutor will use some humor in a presentation about the most difficult topics. And yes sexism should be mocked and made fun of as well. Nothing bites like humor that’s full of truth or a really angry vagina!!.
And it seemed obvious to me that the angry vagina craft project was a humorous nod to the very feminist ‘Vagina Monologues’ where there is a rant called “My Angry Vagina”.
“The Uppity Ginger” – I’d subscribe to that if I knew nothing more than the name.
I have a penis, and I still found that video deeply offensive.
My own take: http://ashleyfmiller.wordpress…
I have a vagina, and I do not. The video was mocking *Los Angeles*, and as someone who has to live here, I laughed my ass off the first time I saw it. Come to the Melrose or the Sunset strip and you will see those exact young women, I promise you.
I did not even think about that.Still not funny and I hated The Vagina Monologues as well. Oh well.
It was my first TAM, I was bit giddy which made me more forgiving. If there was any rampant sexism going on, I missed it. (Although being female & from LA, I struggled against taking the County Fair video personally.)I had a few enjoyable moments with a creepster. He joked that any woman who had sex with him would be ruined for other men. I pointed out that he had made an extraordinary claim and asked for evidence. From there the conversation revolved around testing this claim. The creepster was not left out or specifically targeted and a good time was had by all.Other than that, it might have been an asexual gathering, which I found very comfortable.
I felt hit on a few times. But, was perfectly OK with that. We’re just animals, aren’t we. I heard a few guys mention how awesome it would be to meet a partner at TAM who appreciated the philosophy that was endemic there. I was one who walked out on the craft time because it was silly and had little to do with skepticism. I also think Boobquake was not a good idea. But, I think that much progress was made. I felt pretty damn good about the female representation, having been at a CFI conference in 2000 where you could count women 30 or under on one hand. So, Yay for progress.
At the risk of sounding like a creep: Are you gonna auction off your vagina?
Ha, I was actually wondering what the hell I should do with it.
The “booth babe” is an unfortunate stereotype. I noticed this the first time I was at a big trade show (Comdex 25 years ago). Attending as an engineer, I was looking from a technical perspective and didn’t need a sales talk. After an afternoon of looking, I found myself avoiding nicely dressed young females (they must be there to look good and take names) and avoiding any booth which only had Asians (most likely nobody spoke intelligible English). I didn’t start out with a conscious stereotype, it was a subconscious avoidance of non-technical sales pitches and constantly asking “what did you say?”.
Absolutely. As Jen said, it was also meant as a mechanism for breaking the crowd into groups. Speaking as a witness to the workshop planning session, no one expected the enthusiasm to AVCT. They thought maybe one or two groups would give a half-hearted attempt, and then move on to the real point of breaking everyone up.Anyone who thought the Skepchicks were seriously infantilizing women’s genitalia (or whatever the objection is) was either not paying attention, already had a chip on their shoulder and looking for a reason, or is part of the problem.But nothing worth doing will offend nobody, I guess.
You said “Whenever she mentioned Jenny McCarthy in her talk as an example of someone saying something stupid (which Jenny McCarthy certainly does often), she would include a picture of her bending over in a bikini or some other scantily clad outfit.”I just looked at my PowerPoint again to make sure I wasn’t remembering things wrong. I used exactly three pictures of Jenny in my presentation. Two were very conservative head shots in high-necked clothing; the other was a waist-up bikini shot which is typical of how Jenny has presented her image to the public. And she wasn’t bending over in that shot, either. My only point was that an actress who has capitalized on her appearance and her sexuality was speaking out on a scientific matter. You remembered more scantily clad photos than were actually there, and you totally hallucinated the bending-over. What does that say about your biases?
I should just add that I think Harriet Hall rocks.
I disagree with the assessment of Hall’s photograph of McCarthy as being sexist… McCarthy has willingly branded herself as such and I don’t think it’s inappropriate to include an image of how McCarthy publicly presents herself/her brand.Personally, as a woman, I did not feel uncomfortable at TAM due to my gender. I did, however, feel the conference was not welcoming overall and the accessibility at the hotel was horrible. I would severely discourage anyone with a disability (or those who care about the issues faced by individuals with disabilities) from patronizing the South Point Hotel and Casino.
I’ve edited my post so hopefully it’s more accurate, and sincerely apologize if I remembered things incorrectly. It wasn’t my goal to misrepresent your talk – that photo just stuck with me and I guess my memory chose to fixate on it.
I’d like to add my voice to that cheer.
Shelley, I’m surprised about the accessibility, but I shouldn’t be. Although Robert Lancaster (who is currently using a wheelchair) seemed to get around fine, I did run into him and his wife once and there was some difficulty with doors if I remember.But I wanted to note that if you felt uncomfortable at TAM8 because of your gender, there are a few women (including myself) who failed you. We have tried to hold events and to, in general, let women know that there *are* options which include a more mixed and inclusive crowd. It seems we have more work to do.
Do you actually have an argument, Christian, or are you just going to throw out ad hominems? “…nothing worth doing will offend nobody…”Really? I won’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t think I offended anyone last weekend, so I guess the work I put into my workshop and talk were worthless, right?
Christian, are you seriously saying to me that as a feminist who has worked in violence against women for 15 years, escorted at abortion clinics, donated time and money to feminist causes, and can actually explain the difference between second and third wave feminists, I have no place to complain about an activity that I feel plays into the “old school feminists are humorless” stereotype? Can I complain about the fact that they made Angry VULVAS instead of Angry Vaginas?I never said I wanted to ban it, and I never said they can’t do it. I said I did not understand it, and found it initially offensive. The more I look into it, I just find it highly irrelevant.
Maybe the reason you were warned about men is the very thing you’re confusing for sexism. How do you think men feel when you call them “creepy”? Do you ever think about men’s issues? How women vilify our entire gender every chance they get, and outright condemn every one of us every time some little thing happens and they didn’t appreciate it? Do you even know what sexism is? It’s the idea that one gender should rule the world and the other gender should be second-class citizens. Do you know ANY WOMEN out there who aren’t sexist? Trust me, you don’t. My first point: stop using that word you presumptuous ignoramus.My second point: sexy isn’t the same as slutty. Being a male, and you being female, I fully expect you to manipulate me one way or another. It’s gonna happen, and it’s all over your post. If you’re going to manipulate me with your body, then I can deal with that. If it’s with your mind, I can deal with that. If you’re going to double up the self-aggrandizements, you need to be prepared for some instantaneous dismissals, especially if you’re not that good at either one. Some women are, and some are just (sadly) trying too hard.My conclusion: THINK before you react. Women traditionally aren’t accepted into places that men do serious work, because women think their bitching is an important qualifying contribution and it’s not. That’s not sexism, that’s called men having standards, and last I checked, that’s perfectly fine when women are in charge. But somehow you think you can weasel yourselves into places where men with standards congregate, and then insult ALL of them to death by counting your numbers, calling us “creepy” and manipulating every single one of us. It’s not pretty. It’s DEFINITELY not intelligent. Maybe some men were delusional enough to think that skeptic societies would be a final bastion for genuine competence… now I’m starting to see how your presence there–you and your angry little vagina–will completely ruin it. Meanwhile I’m sure you won’t give a DAMN, you will go on with your delusions of DOUBLE PERFECTION and trying to vilify every single thing that you perceive not to inflate your ego more. Which basically includes every man and every single intellectual achievement in history (which inevitably and thanklessly came from a man).And you expect to be taken seriously.Talk about AMAZING.
Hmm. Well, it’s definitely not attractive for men to bitch and suggest that they are the only ones with “standards,” either. But since women do nothing but complain and weasel themselves into places they don’t belong, please do tell me what exactly you think women *should* be doing with their time and intellect.
LOL. This…this wasn’t real was it? I know I should just ignore the troll, but seriously “women think that their bitching is an important qualifying contribution”…it’s just too perfect.
It’s sad to see that some women suffer from such sexist complexes and they are willing to go as far as changing their own bodies to fit the sexy/smart pattern. As a medic for breast augmentation Columbus Ohio, I got to see many such cases and I’ve managed to convince many of them that this wasn’t the way to go but it seems that this complex is still very well implemented and sustained in our culture.
Heidi, you don’t need to post your resume every time anyone says something you disagree with. (I’m not actually sure what you’re disagreeing with, honestly.)And I wasn’t really saying anything to you at all. All I did was agree with Jacob that it was a tongue-in-cheek bit of self-deprecating humor — which I believe would have been obvious to anyone who attended and stayed for the whole thing.AVCT was also, as I said above, really meant to get people into groups more than it was to actually create felt vagina/vulvas/whatever. Again, this would have been obvious to anyone who was there for the duration.
Interesting. You seem to be using a different definition of the term “ad hominem” than the one I am familiar with. If you will point me to the ad hominem attack, I will happily clarify or apologize.
Wow, dude, you seem angry.
I’m sorry I did not see this response earlier. This is the first time I have commented on blag hag’s blog and while I thought I was subscribed to updates, I realized I did not “confirm” the subscription. I must not have phrased my original comment well. I had no issues at TAM due to my gender. 99% of my issues were due to the @#$% hotel. Does Robert Lancaster use a power chair or a manual one? The floor in the hotel was uneven and the carpet was not poorly and loosely installed. Even when I had someone pushing me it was difficult not to run into the wall. Our bathroom was horrendous, the hotel staff blatantly lied to me about the accessibility of their shuttles, and there were also a few other problems that would take some time to go into. Regardless, I did enjoy all the presentations at TAM and I know JREF did not intentionally choose an inaccessible hotel. The only reason I’m even saying something about the hotel is because I search online extensively before getting on the plane. Hopefully if another disabled individual is looking online, as I did, they will stumble upon these comments and choose to stay somewhere else.