You’re just needling Markuze now, aren’t ya? 

Nice. I’d love to go but know it isn’t in the cards.

It’s always been my sense that feminism, skepticism, and atheism are a natural fit.  Woo-based feminism that engages in wishful thinking about a non-existent matriarchal past and non-existent goddesses has never appealed to me.  I think feminism is strongest when it’s feet are planted firmly on the ground.

Which is one of the reasons I read this site.

“In fact, there’s a tendency to treat geeks and women as mutually exclusive categories[.]”

I think part of it is because “not being attractive to the opposite sex” has cemented as such an important part of the geek origin story.  (Geeks are always heterosexual.)  The origin story goes like this:  a geek dedicates time to geeky pursuits, which makes him unattractive, which gives him even more time to dedicate to those pursuits, which makes him even more unattractive, etc.  I think it’s hard to have a woman geek by the same definition for a number of reasons:

(1) Women are not considered attractive or unattractive for their personality; they’re judged to a much greater extent by looks as opposed to smarts, and their being or not being able to attract a man will be attributed to their looks first and their geekiness second.

(2) Men are supposed to be sexually aggressive, while women are supposed to passively wait to be asked out.  Part of the humor of a geek is that the geek is not performing masculinity well enough because he’s pursing his other interests instead of seeking to have sex with women.  Women aren’t required to perform masculinity, and in fact aren’t supposed to like sex, so the “geek” label doesn’t apply because “geek” basically means “female” in this respect.

(3) Men who call themselves geeks resent women calling themselves geeks because the shared grievance of “women not having sex with us” is such an important part of what defines them as a group.  Men are told women’s bodies belong to them.  By not sleeping with geeks, women are breaking the promise made to them by hundreds of thousands of beer commercials and Woody Allen movies.

I think the “male geek” stereotype is going to be especially hard to kick because it’s self-deprecating.  (“Why should you even want to be considered a geek?”)  As you pointed out, geek is cool now, but an important part of being a geek (much like being a republican) is feeling like the world is out to get you.

Ugh, this is a long comment…I hope I’m not verging into mansplaining territory, your post just got me thinking.

“You’re just needling Markuze now, aren’t ya?”

...or somebody else.

Amanda, you should know better.  Rule number one is don’t tease the panther...

I grew up in Springfield, and it is definitely lonely for the atheists and skeptics.  But in defense of my hometown, it’s also not a place where people have high expectations and many people are genuinely nice.  So, if you go to this, don’t think that you’re walking into a battlefield.  I can honestly say that I got a solid education in Springfield from the public schools, and everything was included—the civil rights movement, evolution, accurate views of the civil war. 

Try the cashew chicken, it’s a Springfield original, and the people love it.  (You might hate it).  Some good places are Peking House on east Sunshine Street and Yen Ching in Ozark. 

Springfield is a place that is in someways at war with itself.  It’s one of those places that professes great piety, but also has the highest rate of DWIs in the state.  It has the national headquarters of the Assemblies of God, but there are billboards advertising porn shops to truck drivers.  They want to revitalize the downtown, but pass laws prohibiting people younger than 21 from going into places that make money on alcohol sales. 

For me, although I did not fit in, it was a good place to grow up.  And a good place to get out of.  Play nice, if you go.

I think that any discussion of science must also include the limitations of science.  As a scientist who is a bit on the creative side, I’ve done a fair amount of thinking about where these limits and boundaries lay.

First of all, science is dependent on information.  Certain human questions proceed from a lack of information, and science really can’t do much for somebody wondering “why did she have to die and not me”, etc.

Secondly, science is dependent on hypotheses, and hypotheses are dependent on human thinking, creativity, and pattern recognition ... not to mention the influence of social forces like Teh Patriarchy.  The best data in the world will not be informative if somebody can’t put forth an appropriate testable hypothesis, and the best data won’t often be collected without some apriori inkling about an association.

Then there is the “not a PLAUSIBLE finding or hypothesis” trap that leads to many of the “science hurts women” issues and other failings.  What we believe to be plausible is often a factor of what we either scientifically know or, you know, what we “just know”.  Danger zone!  Thus we get people who STILL argue that there is not a possible way that all of the data on heart disease and pollution could be real because you breathe air pollution.  Yes, that’s right - and many people were early skeptics of that reality because it didn’t make sense at the time.  The data is overwhelming and physiologic mechanisms have since been discovered, but, in the mid 1980s, many people were sure it was just implausible.  I have recently seen another example where partriarchy interferes with good sense via the “implausibility trap”: women with large benign uterine tumors typically feel quite fatigued - yet medical sites say that the fatigue is not related to their particular condition because it is “implausible” despite nearly every internet support forum being loaded with women reporting this problem. 

Just because somebody has no explanation for a strong association it does not make it implausible.  It just means we have more to learn, or we need to do more to demonstrate “implausible”.

As the mom of a college age woman who is a total geek I say amen to all this. I also want to point out that real geeks can be difficult to sleep with when young because they are often a bit, um, slow to mature emotionally, and they tend to be both picky and to not suffer fools gladly;OK, OK, if this is not you, I understand. OTOH, when I’m around my daughter’s crowd, they are totally hilarious and fascinating to talk to. She found her tribe!

Any gal-geek gamers here, I want to point out this “Rosie the Retrogamer” shirt that has my daughter in ecstasy: http://shirt.woot.com/friends.aspx?k=14258  No connection, just thot it was appropriate for a feminist/geek crowd.

Religion and patriarchy are definitely regressive powers that currently exert immense control to hold women down to ‘traditional’ roles. I saw no alternative but to be an atheist for many years, and it was a comfortable fit.

However, I have found that personal spiritual beliefs, unencumbered by religion and all its dogmatic strictures, are a comfortable fit with feminism and science, both of which are non-negotiable for me, since I’m reality based. I would have scoffed at spiritual beliefs when I was young, but again, when they are private, and not held as part of a group, they are not subject to abuse and power-plays. They are really no one else’s business, any more than anyone’s right to be atheist, IMHO. Of course, those with power in religious organizations abhor both atheists and those who don’t ‘belong’ to an organization. Sort of like the Borg—their attitude is that you WILL be assimilated. And they will never give up until they are forced to or people stop listening.

I think this all points to one of the big problems with any sort of identity politics, left OR right: NIH syndrome. Science, because of its self-correcting nature, is *the* single best way to find the truth of anything in the real world, but sometimes it produces results people aren’t comfortable with. This manifests in two ways—denialism (anti-vaxers, global warming denialism, etc) and attempts to use pseudoscience to exclude people seen as lesser (“The Bell Curve” being one of the most transparent examples). When it gets really extreme, you get things like Maoism (and Mao’s even nastier descendants, Pol Pot and Kim Il-Sung) and the Taliban—anything that doesn’t fit the ideology of the political group in power is not just ridiculed but persecuted and/or destroyed.

On a vaguely related note, I’m sitting here watching a British cooking show and I recently reviewed an otherwise excellent rural-Irish cookbook, and I’ve come to the distressing conclusion that the British culinary world loves them some woo. A good number of their cookbook authors (the most egregious is “Bread Matters” by Andrew Whitley) go all-in on the “all natural” thing, to the point of luddism. Even as a foodie I can’t escape identity politics…

(I should have said “British Isles”...)

weeeelll… I never actually planned on ever going to Missourah… but this looks fun; I shall think about it

It’s always been my sense that feminism, skepticism, and atheism are a natural fit.  Woo-based feminism that engages in wishful thinking about a non-existent matriarchal past and non-existent goddesses has never appealed to me.  I think feminism is strongest when it’s feet are planted firmly on the ground.

seconded

Ugh, this is a long comment…I hope I’m not verging into mansplaining territory, your post just got me thinking.

no worries, you’re miles away from mansplaining. That was actually a pretty good explanation, I think. It neatly explains the invisible female geek phenomenon

I also think that part of the reason you female geeks are “invisible” is that geeks are by definition really focused on one pursuit (physics, computers, etc), where women are not given as much latitude to be so focused. Women are socialized to listen to other people’s interests rather than emote on their own hobbies. It is like the post Amanda had awhile ago about why women are more likely to be readers: they are expected to keep their interests hidden.

Amanda, couldn’t you have submitted a picture where you’re smiling?  You look so darned serious!

Wow, 3 women presenters to 11 men.  You weren’t exaggerating about the need to get women (publically?) involved in skepticism.

also want to point out that real geeks can be difficult ...they tend to be both picky and to not suffer fools gladly;OK, OK, if this is not you, I understand.

Sounds like the vast majority of my urban public magnet high school classmates to a T…..and they not only let their less “perfect” classmates know that…but even their teachers.  One favorite pasttime of the most ardent science and math nerds in that school was to pounce on the math/science teacher who made a mistake in solving a demonstration problem or bringing in science journal articles proving that the “current theories” being taught by said teacher is actually outdated…sometimes by as much as 10-20 years. 

That factor was also be a factor in why so many classmates with 4.0+ GPAs from undergrad institutions like MIT, Cornell, or Carnegie Mellon in STEM fields like engineering or CS were still unemployed 3 years after the dotcom bust…...those attitudes were such that it could understandably turn anyone off to them….

I also think that part of the reason you female geeks are “invisible” is that geeks are by definition really focused on one pursuit (physics, computers, etc),

I’d extend that to being focused on one pursuit to the practical expense of anything and everything else.  I see such attitudes among nearly all of my engineering/CS major friends and colleagues where they can spend literally days talking or “doing” engineering/CS related tasks like testing out an alternative operating system, trying to write drivers for incompatible hardware devices, writing a “better” compiler program, etc while forgetting to eat, take a shower, or socialize with their friends and family members…..especially if they happen to be those who do not share their scientific passions and/or do not share it to their obsessive degree.  Anyone who does not share their interest would find their one-track type conversations to be quite narrow and even boring after a while. 

Another turnoff for most non-geeks and more sociable nerds/geeks is the fact they tend to regard anything/anyone outside of their exalted immediate specialty as “inferior” and “stupid”.....especially if it is non-science fields in the social sciences and humanities. 

Ironic considering most IME gravitated toward STEM fields, in part, to avoid having to read hundreds or even thousand of pages per week reading assignments and write “long” papers of more than 3-5 pages.  Then again, I’ve met quite a few lazy entitled Ivy grad students* in the social sciences and humanities(Mostly M.A. students) who also complain about having to read 300 pages a week and writing 1 10-20 page research paper for each course….and they’re in grad school for crying out loud!!

* None of them had outstanding commitments such as working part/full-time jobs, families, or even relationships as they came from upper/upper-middle class backgrounds and in most cases…their families or companies defrayed their educational expenses.  Moreover, the workload they’re complaining about would be standard/low for an introductory to intermediate social science/humanities course at my undergraduate institution.

Female geeks do exist, but the amount of personal/social sacrifice necessary to pursue, shall we say, “geek studies” to its fullest extent is a barrier when men can get away with ignoring other aspects of their lives, whereas women are expected to “please others” and be sociable, prioritize personal relationships, etc.

Also, the financial rewards aren’t great, so there are paths of lesser resistance that allow you to achieve similar compensation without the above-mentioned social consequences people will drop on you.

What I find is that female geeks who stay in the game tend to be genuinely smart—ie, the ones for whom pursuing the fields has tangible professional and financial rewards—while male geeks are more all over the qualifications/intelligence spectrum: With fewer barriers put up against them, they tend to pursue geeky obsessions whether or not its the optimal or most professionally rewarding path to take under their personal circumstances: and in any case, the definition of geekery is the pursuit of some with a level of obsession that will appear pointless to the outside world but it considered of utmost importance to the geek and his/her cohorts. It’s why “nerd” tends to be STEM-specific, but “geek” exists across fields (you can be a theater geek).

I always thought of “intuition” was just the unconscious mind noticing a pattern the conscious brain hasn’t. So a person might feel compelled to act for reasons she can’t easily explain. Nothing magical or woo about it. Which is why it always annoyed me when someone used magical or woo terms to explain their experiences with “intuition”.  It seems personal harrowing stories about driving cars or raising kids often have woo or magical intuition as part of the story.

But I like Spinster Aunt’s comprehensive and fact based argument. Obviously it’s a reality science based argument where as my belief came from, um, I have no idea. So time to re-examine.

ugg sorry about the verb tenses. Someone needs to get a third grade grammar text book. Then never blaspheme again.

concepts like “intuition” were invented by the patriarchy to other women.

Weirdly, this pattern has reversed in pop-culture: the sexy female scientist is hobbled by facts and concrete probabilities, while the masculine man she’s paired with succeeds by looking past all that distracting thinking in order to act on a “hunch.”

The embracing of woo within feminism is just a wider symptom of anti-intellectual attitudes. People don’t embrace woo because they’re feminists or out to strike back at the scientific patriarchy: it’s because anti-intellectual attitudes are pervasive and attractive.

...wishful thinking about a non-existent matriarchal past…

Christ, I hate that mentality.  I swear the entirety of thought that goes into those arguments is something like: patriarchy is bad, opposite of bad is good, opposite of patriarchy is matriarchy, therefore, matriarchies are utopian. 

Fuck no.  Learn to logic.

Funny, but as an actual scientist I find that “intuition” is a great hypothesis generator.  Not an end in itself, or proof of concept, but certainly and excellent way to generate a wide array of concepts to narrow down and investigate more rigorously.

I always thought of “intuition” was just the unconscious mind noticing a pattern the conscious brain hasn’t.

A good example is how the German chemist Kekulé visualized the structure of the benzene ring from a dream:

The new understanding of benzene, and hence of all aromatic compounds, proved to be so important for both pure and applied chemistry after 1865 that in 1890 the German Chemical Society organized an elaborate appreciation in Kekulé‘s honor, celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of his first benzene paper. Here Kekulé spoke of the creation of the theory. He said that he had discovered the ring shape of the benzene molecule after having a reverie or day-dream of a snake seizing its own tail (this is a common symbol in many ancient cultures known as the Ouroboros). This vision, he said, came to him after years of studying the nature of carbon-carbon bonds. It is curious that a similar humorous depiction of benzene had appeared in 1886 in the Berichte der Durstigen Chemischen Gesellschaft (Journal of the Thirsty Chemical Society), a parody of the Berichte der Deutschen Chemischen Gesellschaft, only the parody had monkeys seizing each other in a circle, rather than snakes as in Kekulé‘s anecdote.[7]  Some historians have suggested that the parody was a lampoon of the snake anecdote, possibly already well-known through oral transmission even if it had not yet appeared in print.[8]  Others have speculated that Kekulé‘s story in 1890 was a re-parody of the monkey spoof, and was a mere invention rather than a recollection of an event in his life. Kekulé‘s 1890 speech[9]  in which these anecdotes appeared has been translated into English.[10]  If one takes the anecdote as the memory of a real event, circumstances mentioned in the story suggest that it must have happened early in 1862.[11]  The other anecdote he told in 1890, of a vision of dancing atoms and molecules that led to his theory of structure, happened (he said) while he was riding on the upper deck of a horse-drawn omnibus in London. If true, this probably occurred in the late summer of 1855.[12]

The Twitter feed was getting restless about this, and then he actually had the temerity to say that a guy who is trying to win a woman over should never talk about science or skepticism, because women find that stuff boring.

This always makes me laugh. I know so many geek/geek and non-geek/geek couples where one person’s tendency to start rambling about chemistry, physics, engineering or other science geek interests while on a date was entertaining/mentally stimulating/physically arousing to the other person.

Weirdly, this pattern has reversed in pop-culture: the sexy female scientist is hobbled by facts and concrete probabilities, while the masculine man she’s paired with succeeds by looking past all that distracting thinking in order to act on a “hunch.”

That’s what makes patriarchy so much fun:  the exact same process has a different value based on whether the person doing the process is male or female.  So a woman who intuitively senses that a creepy guy is creepy gets ridiculed for not giving him a chance, but a guy who goes with his gut feeling that someone is not telling him the truth is a hero who doesn’t let other people’s opinions interfere with what he knows is correct.

I think that intuition as a process gets unfairly devalued because it’s been tied into “women’s intuition.”  As Dark Avenger and Ms Kate said, intuition can be an important part of the scientific process as you look at all of the pieces of evidence and try to figure out how they fit together. 

Of course, it can also impede the scientific process, as when people look at the evidence and reject what they see because the evidence is showing something that they “know” can’t be correct because it goes against what they believe to be true.

I understand the woo in intuition to come from tying possession of such with concurrent possession of ladyparts.  Which ties into the double standard mentioned above, where with a guy it’s a hunch (rational deduction), whereas with a woman it’s just her ovaries talking to her.

I’ve been lurking here for about a year, but this post finally compelled me to comment.  This discussion really hits at a lot of the frustrations I deal with in the geek and atheist communities.  As a young feminist atheist woman working as a video game artist I often find myself struggling to navigate a community that, more often than not, refuses to acknowledge my existence.

I also have a very difficult time reconciling some of the things I am asked to do at work with my budding feminist awareness.  Sometimes I feel like the things I am asked to draw simply feed into and reinforce a gaming culture (and a larger geek culture) that is hostile towards women, and it’s easy to despair, but at other times I feel that my very presence in the industry is a slow step towards positive change.

Anyway, I’m very happy that I’ve been able find places like Pandagon that provide a space for frank discussion about these issues.  I spend so much time arguing with all of the geek guys that I find myself constantly surrounded by that I find it incredibly refreshing to be able to come here and read the words of like-minded individuals.

So, if you go to this, don’t think that you’re walking into a battlefield.

I certainly don’t think I was saying that I thought that, but if that was the impression you get, I’m well aware that walking into a meeting of like-minded people tends not to be a battlefield. 

Another factor is that geekiness has a not inconsiderable overlap with mild cases of Autism Spectrum Disorder, and this disorder is far more common among men than among women. Spending days obsessed with a problem while failing to eat, wash, sleep, or socialize is classic autistic behavior, but in this case it’s (sometimes) rewarded. There was an article on this in Wired: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers_pr.html

Maybe that’s the reason why autism is more common among men, come to think of it. Nearly all societies have been set up so that this type of obsessive, antisocial, but potentially rewarding behavior is far easier for a man to get away with than for a woman.

Tommy, they picked that picture.  And no, I can’t smile.  I mean, I can, but I tend to stop when someone instructs me to do it.  I have the worst performative smile in the world.  One of the ways I’m bad at playing the feminine role.

This always makes me laugh. I know so many geek/geek and non-geek/geek couples where one person’s tendency to start rambling about chemistry, physics, engineering or other science geek interests while on a date was entertaining/mentally stimulating/physically arousing to the other person.

Unfortunately, this requires that the non-geek member in the couple is intellectually-oriented and is open to learning new things well outside of his/her comfort zone.  That’s asking an awful lot, especially in the anti-intellectual climate in the US where any discussion which even has a slight whiff of being intellectual or *shudder* even academic is verboten in casual social situations such as dating.  And mainstream standards seem to be discussion of anything school related or anything other than one’s latest real estate purchase in some exclusive area, latest car/electronic gadget purchase, parties with famous celebrities/people, the latest episode of American Idol or some other highly popular mass-market show, or random gossip about who is dating who or who is in debt. 

Worse, the offender is often considered to have committed a grave faux pas regarding casual social etiquette…...a possible reason why so many STEM nerds and geeks IME developed such a deep hatred for casual social situations like parties and dating whenever they are dominated by non-nerds/geeks as in their minds….the permitted conversation topics allowed are the epitome of total frivolousness and inanity.

Frivolous and inane to geeks, maybe.  But I wouldn’t consider politics to be either and I don’t run into many conversations with geeks discussing that.

I think explanations that focus on why there’s more male geeks than women are missing most of the story in a way, though.  As Antigone said, the women are there, they’re just treated as invisible. And the number of women willing to tolerate that are limited.

“I think explanations that focus on why there’s more male geeks than women are missing most of the story in a way, though.  As Antigone said, the women are there, they’re just treated as invisible. And the number of women willing to tolerate that are limited. “

This.  This exactly. 
And part of this has to do with a definition of geek that is often redefined to be more and more narrow.  I know SO so many female geeks who are not considered ‘geeky enough’ to really count.  Their existence is repeatedly dismissed by the larger community.  ‘Them and any geeks of colour.

As Antigone said, the women are there, they’re just treated as invisible. And the number of women willing to tolerate that are limited.

I think that’s true of a lot of professional/intellectual environments. The difference is that among geeks and skeptics, you’ll find people making the explicit claim that with THEM, unlike everyone else, there is a primacy of raw talent and empirical evidence. Everyone expects investment bankers to be sexist douchebags. Geeks claim that their intellectual mores are above that sort of thing.

exholt, you seem to be a bit removed from some aspects of geek culture: among geeks/nerds, you get an enthusiastic obsession with various aspects of pop culture, including mass market TV, in part because everything is consdered fodder to be analyzed, categorized, obsessed over, and deconstructed. And in part because geeks recognize that even a guilty affection for reality TV is not necessarily more shallow or intellectually inappropriate than an obsession with 70s punk or 90s indiepop.

And geeks can certainly be overbearing to the point of not shutting the fuck up about some stupid shit they’ve just decided to obsess over, as anyone who’s been friends with someone who just discovered libertarianism can tell you.

evolutionary biology = there is no “wrong” in natural systems = rape is just an alternative and stunningly effective mating strategy

Frivolous and inane to geeks, maybe.  But I wouldn’t consider politics to be either and I don’t run into many conversations with geeks discussing that.

Some of the STEM geeks I knew in high school tended to regard politics with the same disdain they regarded religious groups and regarded those with strong interests in politics/political affiliations as being cult members who “drank the kool-aid”.  The ones from Eastern Bloc or Mainland Chinese/Vietnamese countries especially regarded anyone obsessing with political ideology and theories “have their heads up in the clouds” as the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideologues from their countries of origin or your “average social science/humanities/arts majors”.

However, this was not the case with the STEM major colleagues in the workplace as they were just as politically engaged and interested as we are on this board.  They tended to either be extreme libertarians or extreme progressive-left DFHs and took politics quite seriously. 

exholt, you seem to be a bit removed from some aspects of geek culture: among geeks/nerds, you get an enthusiastic obsession with various aspects of pop culture, including mass market TV, in part because everything is consdered fodder to be analyzed, categorized, obsessed over, and deconstructed. And in part because geeks recognize that even a guilty affection for reality TV is not necessarily more shallow or intellectually inappropriate than an obsession with 70s punk or 90s indiepop.

Other than a deep obsession some have had with Japanese Animation, computer/engineering forums like Slashdot, and sci-fi shows, they didn’t seem interested in much of the prevailing pop culture beyond disdaining it as “inane frivolousness”.  Coming to think of it…their only real “guilty pleasures” was Japanese animation, porn, and really sappy and sometimes cringeworthy East Asian/European techno-pop type music du jour.

I can’t stand “voodoo atheism” as someone once called it. How a person can be so reasonable in his rejection of organized religion, only to embrace the most absurd in new age snake oil is beyond me.

For some reason this is making me think of a short story that ran in the New Yorker not long ago. It was about a young physics student in England (who would go on to win the Nobel Prize) having a crush on a literature major who thinks all science students are uncool, unfeeling nerds. Her specialty is Milton, so he takes a week off and gives himself a crash course—major works, criticisms of, etc. This leads to some gaffes, as when he innocently enters a rare bookstore and asks to buy a first edition of Paradise Lost. But eventually he springs it all on her, she’s overwhelmed, he beds and eventually marries her.

What’s funny about that story, which is told in far retrospect, is that you never quite know whether to think of the hero as a charmingly determined romantic, or a manipulative jerk. Revenge of the Nerds, indeed.

I think female geeks are generally expected (by a lot of men) to fit some kind of sexy-librarian mold. If they don’t somehow fit that stereotype, I think a lot of dudes can’t figure out how they could possibly be any more three dimensional then Velma from Scooby Doo.

jTuba:

You know, I’ve noticed this with two prominent female geek vloggers. Laci Green and NixiePixel are both dedicated geekgirls (Laci about gender, sex, and rationalism; Nixie about computers). Both are also staggeringly attractive and tend to show it off. Both have received significant harrassment accusing them of trading on their looks, even though they’re both extremely competent in their chosen subject matters (and Laci Green is quite a talented humorist besides). And when Nixie got a guest gig on a website called OMGUbuntu, a couple of commenters on her first post (a review of the Lucid Lynx release) outright demanded that she resign.

It’s sort of like the old “work vs family” debate—there’s still a large number of people who think attractive women need to hide it to be taken seriously. I certainly don’t mind looking at videos of attractive women, but Nixie and Laci could hold their own on a blog or audio podcast without ever showing their faces or even revealing their genders if they wanted to. The fact that they’re not ashamed of the fact that they’re beautiful young women does not take away from that.

Apologies, Antigone.  I think we’re all in agreement that men outnumber women, but I think a major reason for that is the women that are there feel so marginalized.

Science does not occur in a vacuum. Some marginalized groups are poked and prodded and asked insulting questions in order to serve capital K Knowledge and capital I Inquiry. I’m an atheist, avoid woo and what have you, graduating with a biology degree next year, but I am wary of some people that think all scientific study is permissible and value neutral. A lot of people that hang out in atheism/skepticism circles and read Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens all day and scoff at woo tend to take an absolutist position on this, that every question that can be investigated scientifically, should. I don’t know if that makes me anti-science in the way Amanda describes, because I love and study science, but I try to understand when and how scientific inquiry reinforces the kyriarchy. I would encourage people to read this blog post.

Intuition is critical in creativity, which is something geeks lack. Except scientific geniuses. I find concrete thinking to be weak. I know many priestesses who take exception to some of this article.

What’s funny about that story, which is told in far retrospect, is that you never quite know whether to think of the hero as a charmingly determined romantic, or a manipulative jerk.

It could go either way—I could see it being charming that a man who is interested in me wants to be interested in the same things I’m interested in (which is advice that women have gotten for years in order to hook a man), or I could see it being really creepy since it’s not uncommon for the geeky type to decide that what he actually wants to do is to have you acknowledge him as your superior in all fields, including the one you’re an expert in.

It’s like “The Dot and the Line,” though, as an adult, it looks awfully sexist to me now.

This always makes me laugh. I know so many geek/geek and non-geek/geek couples where one person’s tendency to start rambling about chemistry, physics, engineering or other science geek interests while on a date was entertaining/mentally stimulating/physically arousing to the other person.

God, I hope so.  I find myself becoming entangled with a church-going Christian non-geek, and I’m really hoping the difference in interests doesn’t sink whatever this is becoming.  I find myself modifying my geek tendencies while feeling her out on how intellectually open minded she is - I loaned her “Finite and Infinite Games” yesterday, and the reaction should be interesting.

She knows I’m agnostic bordering on atheist, but I don’t know whether she’s a feminist or not.  I wonder if there’s any way to corrupt her into appreciating geek interests without driving her screaming from my door.

(And, oh yeah, that “Dirty Song” from “Cars Can Be Blue” Amanda introduced the blog to quite a while back?  Deleted from my playlist at home *sigh*)

JillieFromChilie, you are bang on with that. Scientific inquiry is ultimately a human endeavor.  Humans come with biases, agendas, and huge blind spots.  Science is a tool, but, like a hammer, it can be used properly (drive a nail) or used incompetently (hit your thumb) or used maliciously or otherwise improperly with the appearance of proper (nailing someone’s head to a coffee table).  I don’t think that you have to be an actual practicing scientist to appreciate that, but anybody discussing science needs to understand that!

Good luck with that, Ms Kate.

That requires nice, large, doses of history (the real thing—ideological history inoculates people from reality).  I don’t think you really *can* appreciate science unless you’ve been exposed to considerable amount of science and engineering history—such that you can make a theory of science of your own, like Kuhn.  Far, far, FaHHHHHHRRRRR too many people tend to understand science in very intellectually isolated ways if they remotely understand it at all.  I really wish there was a link to that small section of Neil Stephenson’s Anathem where the protagonist describes all the ways people misappreciate scientists.  It also requires plenty of exposure to philosophy too, for reasons that are pretty intangible.

Many atheists tend to approach science like people who watch too many kung-fu movies tend to approach physical arts.  For example, they’ll talk about how aikido is all about redirecting force, but they mystically elevate that idea or the founder of aikido—or they approach the concept as a confused mix of redirection as tactic and redirection as strategy.  Bottom line is that they’ll speak all the lingo, and have absolutely no clue about what that lingo really means when they do it or watch someone else spar.  If you want to see some of this stuff in action, check out pigskin football, and sports media (especially blogs).  One of the most dismaying things I’ve ever encountered was reading the posts of people who knew all this…details, words, formations about the sports and have a complete lack of understanding of the interplay that goes from good playcall to successful execution.  I find that this happens everywheres, from scientism in politics to idiots trying to shout down weather forcasters in hurricane blogs.  Just makes me go AAAAAARRRRGGHH!

And yeah, this is why I have made some defenses of religion in this blogs comments from time to time—and I’m not truly very sympathetic to religious practice.

Those of you who’d like a relatively mild exposure to science appreciation, check out the Steerswoman novels by Rosemary Kirstein.  Fantastic for smart youngsters as well.

Far, far, FaHHHHHHRRRRR too many people tend to understand science in very intellectually isolated ways if they remotely understand it at all.

I find that far too many people delude themselves that they understand science, when what they understand is philosophy of science, which is really nothing but a way for philosophers to appropriate the respectability of science for their useless field.

Did you delete it so she wouldn’t find it, Piator, or was she appalled at the filthiness of it?

I have no doubt that other women have had very different experiences, but I am a geek and have had very few bad experiences with sexist geeks, and a whole lot of experience with sexism outside geek culture.
We’ll see if that changes now that I’m going back to college to take a bunch of math and science courses (I want to become a physics teacher). My usual experience is with gamers and sci-fi fans.

*****

Amanda, you were WAY kinder to Tommy than I would have been. There have been numerous posts about how men use telling women to smile as a domination tactic. Not to mention a speaker at a convention might *want* to look serious, so as to be taken seriously.

So she wouldn’t find it, or rather so it wouldn’t accidentally come on when she was round at my place.  I’m still wondering what will happen when she actually listens to the Leonard Cohen or Warren Zevon lyrics - on the other hand, I introduced her to Beth Orton, who she seemed to like.  This is going to be interesting - on the other hand, it is what it is, and if it doesn’t work out, I’ll do my best to still keep her as a friend.  She’s a Green voter, which suggests good things.

Well, I took it more as unchecked privilege than an act of overt domination, so I thought I’d just point out how uncool it is without getting angry.  Perhaps I’m just in a mellow mood. 

The funny thing, Piator, is that song has always struck me as the perfect kind of goofy song that you might want to play around someone you want to fuck because it’s funny.  Laughing relieves a lot of the pressure off sex.  Or maybe that’s just my experience.  But yeah, if someone was going to get upset, that wouldn’t be any fun at all. 

Oh well.  There will always be You Tube.

I am reminded of college days when some friends decided that they couldn’t trust commercial tampons, because the patriarchal corporations which made them didn’t care about women’s health and thus hadn’t adequately tested them for safety.  So THEY decided to try sticking all sorts of various shit up their vaginas while menstruating.  They really couldn’t see the fallacy involved.  The former may be true, but that doesn’t mean the latter is the best reaction. Note: I am oldish.  This was before there were Diva Cups and Lunapads and such.

As for intuition, Bruce Schneirer has written about this in the context of “if you see something, say something.”  Basically, it only works if the seer has intimate and detailed knowledge of what they are witnessing.  So the vendors in Times Square, who are looking out for each other getting ripped off all day every day, are reliable recognizers of possible terrorists - airline passengers who have never seen actual Muslims praying, not so much.

I got really pissed off recently listening to a woman go on about a crocheter who made discovered that you could model hyperbolic planes with crochet - which proved the importance of women’s knowledge.  I pointed out that the woman who discovered this did, in fact, have a PhD in mathematics and was a professor at Cornell.  But this woman could not give up the fantasy that some random lady crocheter could just figure this stuff out.  Actually, the discoverer Daina Taimina has a book out about this: Crocheting the Hyperbolic Plane.  There is also TED talk about using this knowledge to crochet coral reefs as an art project to raise awareness of global warming: Margaret Wertheim on the beautiful math of coral.

This example does show how women’s different life experiences and knowledge can bring new possibilities for discovery to math and science.  But it is intuition based on a women’s worldly knowledge, not her fantasies.

What I will say about that picture is that when that was taken, I was working off like only 4 hours of sleep, and I’m someone who is crabby if I get anything short of 7 plus hours.  Lindsay Beyerstein took that picture of me when we went to Amsterdam, and I’d only gotten off the plane early that morning.  I think I look pretty good for someone who hadn’t gotten any sleep, if I do say so myself.  But maybe it was just that amazing bed that the hotel had.  I still think about that room sometimes.  Amsterdam = rules.

Many atheists tend to approach science like people who watch too many kung-fu movies tend to approach physical arts.

The technical term is scientism.

And yeah, this is why I have made some defenses of religion in this blogs comments from time to time—and I’m not truly very sympathetic to religious practice.

Organized religion is a relatively recent human phenomenon, and even agnostics recognize the deficits therein:

Some of the clergy have the independence to break away, and the intellect to maintain themselves as free men, but the most are compelled to submit to the dictation of the orthodox, and the dead. They are not employed to give their thoughts, but simply to repeat the ideas of others. They are not expected to give even the doubts that may suggest themselves, but are required to walk in the narrow, verdureless path trodden by the ignorance of the past. The forests and fields on either side are nothing to them. They must not even look at the purple hills, nor pause to hear the babble of the brooks. They must remain in the dusty road where the guide-boards are. They must confine themselves to the “fall of man,” “the expulsion from the garden,” the “scheme of salvation,” the “second birth,” the atonement, the happiness of the redeemed, and the misery of the lost. They must be careful not to express any new ideas upon these great questions. It is much safer for them to quote from the works of the dead. The more vividly they describe the sufferings of the unregenerate, of those who attended theaters and balls, and drank wine in summer gardens on the Sabbath-day, and laughed at priests, the better ministers they are supposed to be. They must show that misery fits the good for heaven, while happiness prepares the bad for hell; that the wicked get all their good things in this life, and the good all their evil; that in this world God punishes the people he loves, and in the next, the ones he hates; that happiness makes us bad here, but not in heaven; that pain makes us good here, but not in hell. No matter how absurd these things may appear to the carnal mind, they must be preached and they must be believed. If they were reasonable, there would be no virtue in believing. Even the publicans and sinners believe reasonable things. To believe without evidence, or in spite of it, is accounted as righteousness to the sincere and humble Christian.

To be clear, I’m not saying people’s hunches aren’t real!  I do think in many cases, our brains subconsciously put shit together.  And often women are discouraged from following hunches that will keep them safe, such as ones like, “This guy is creepy, stay away.”  Certainly, reading a situation without being able to immediately articulate why you think something is an important skill, probably an evolved thing in our brains. 

But men and women both have it.  “Women’s intuition” is a patriarchal myth, and it’s created for the same reason “only women see dirt” or chivalry was—-to put a nice gloss on an idea that functions to keep women away from real power and keep us doing shit work.

I make those defenses because the kind of crap religions do is not really an aspect of religions per se.  Over and over and over again, religious officials try to uphold freedom of thought (and all that), but at the end of the day, religious institutions pay rent to the power dynamics.  No kissing the arse of the local wrinkly bearded guy mean your church is burned down by the local thugs and your family member raped, and worse.  So one way or another, religious officials like Saint Paul really sell out the premises of their hero’s words in exchange for protection and lucre.

It works pretty much the same everywheres.  Social groups comprised of humans are very, very, allergic to independent thinking and usually apply strong utilitarian principles on allowing it.  That’s why something like the scientific method is taught as if it is science (when it probably should be in English classes), data is presented as if it came from the loins of men with giant brains, and little in the way to teaching people how to actually observe or think (photography courses would do more good than a high school chemistry lab!).  When economic times are bad, then tolerance for creative thought drops to nil, whether there is a religion or not.

Intuition is critical in creativity, which is something geeks lack. Except scientific geniuses. I find concrete thinking to be weak. I know many priestesses who take exception to some of this article.
Comment #46: PatrickNM on 06/13 at 06:55 PM

Giggle.

To be clear, I’m not saying people’s hunches aren’t real!  I do think in many cases, our brains subconsciously put shit together.  And often women are discouraged from following hunches that will keep them safe, such as ones like, “This guy is creepy, stay away.”

We’re evo1ved to interact with small groups of peers and have a theory of mind running for others.  In my opinion, intuition is only good for those circumstances, and when an expert has internalised a hell of a lot of information and spent time putting it into practise.  Otherwise intution can lead us seriously astray - check out the assumption that a government is like a company or a household when it comes to budgeting.

I’m sorry - that sounded like evo-psych.  Let me just add “and that’s why women like being told what to do by strong men.”

How did I do on points?

And often women are discouraged from following hunches that will keep them safe, such as ones like, “This guy is creepy, stay away.

I absolutely must object to this.  The worst abusers/rapists are extremely charming and manipulative.  My father isn’t a rapist but he’s abusive, and he is the last person anyone would suspect until it’s too late.  He’s a sociopath and he is very skilled at convincing everyone he’s a great person.  If only creepy guys were rapists and abusers, then there would never be any rape or abuse!  I know that you mean well, but this type of thinking really makes it harder to convict rapists and abusers.  Accused men who are charming and not creepy will take the stand, and jurors will think “Oh, well he doesn’t seem creepy to me.  She must be making it up.”  Intuition is a really sucky way to determine risk, and relying on it actually makes things more dangerous for everyone.  Everyone likes to pretend that they are in control and that they can determine which distinct group a certain man will fit into, but it really just doesn’t work that way.  And rapists/abusers absolutely know this and use it to their advantage both to find victims, and then to get away with their crimes.

I’m a skeptic and a feminist.  But one problem I have is that some in the skeptical community seem to think that atheism is the panacea for feminism, or that religion is the root cause of misogyny.  This is clearly ridiculous; just look at Bill Maher.  Of course Maher isn’t a skeptic, but he’s certainly an atheist.  Some people seem to think that if religion just disappeared, misogyny would go with it.  But Maher is the perfect example of losing the religion but keeping all the worst aspects of it.  And then there’s Confucionism which is pretty damn patriarchal while still being atheist or at least not affiliated with any specific deity.

I don’t think that religion is the cause of misogyny; I think that it’s the other way around.  The misogyny existed and religions incorporated it, making it even worse.  Of course the two feed on each other and can easily spiral downward to a point where women in the 21st century have 20 children and six year-old girls in the United States are beaten for making adult men think of sex.  But there are also plenty of atheists who are highly misogynist, for example basically any atheist libertarian and all of the evo-psychos.  I think the real problem stems from equating atheism with skepticism or rational thinking.  I certainly don’t automatically think of atheists as feminists allies.

Catgirl,  Intuition as to whether someone is dangerous (at least as I have experienced it) isn’t really about whether some guy fits a stereotype of what a creep is.  Sometimes it is just a subtle cue that maybe I can’t analyze in the moment but which sets my guard up. 

I am not saying it is fool-proof or that we can assume all abusive guys can be detected this way. I just think that when you DO have that gut feeling that a situation might be wrong, you shouldn’t ignore it.

I haven’t had a chance to read this whole thread, but I wanted to weigh in a little about “women’s intuition.”  I think there is a difference between “women’s intuition” as classically understood, and intuition as Ms. Kate describes its use in science.

A scientist may use an intuition to determine what she wants to investigate.  But then she always either confirms or dispels her intuition by empirical testing.  Scientists don’t run around claiming they just “sense” that something (like global warming, fer instance) is true or untrue.

“Women’s intuition” as classically understood is the notion that women just go by their gut without testing their intuition and are often right, through some mysterious non-intellectual process.  My father always claims that his mother would just get “a bad feeling” about a particular person, and nothing could ever shake her from it, no matter how wonderful that person might turn out to be or good deeds he might perform.  She privileged her intuitive feelings above all evidence. 

I suspect that the concept of “women’s intuition” may have had an element of truth at a time when women were generally less educated than men.  If you haven’t had to undergo a rigorous educational process of justifying all of your assertions with evidence, than you are naturally going to be more inclined to rely on what you sense intuitively.  And it is not so uncommon for people’s intuition to be correct (I imagine intuition probably is some sub-conscious recognition of clues or patterns). Thus, women’s amazing intuitive powers.

That’s not to say that the concept of women’s intuition hasn’t been used to “other” women.  The assumption is that we aren’t very logical, but we have some sort of magical power that comes through for us once in a while.

Shah @ 60:
I call BS.  I had both photography (as part of yearbok, including developing our own BW film) and Chem in HS.  I know which one has been more important in my life, and it isn’t the photography class, despite the fact I am a major digital shutterbug.

Laurie @67:
I would say that people who are not allowed to pursue education are forced to rely on their intuition and more informal forms of observational proof.

Actually, catgirl, the kind of charming man you describe is exactly the kind of person who would trip a person’s intuition—but because he’s charming, his victim would rationalize it away. Most victims’ intuitions do get tripped by the “warning signs” for abusive behavior but they ignore it because the abuser is popular and charming.

If he’s not victimizing you in particular, then he might not trip your intuition—which is how charming abusers convince juries. But if you are being abused or groomed for abuse, charm isn’t going to dampen your intuition on this subject.

Gavin de Becker has done a lot of research about this, and as a sexual health/assault counselor I’ve seen quite a bit of it.

I’m curious about evangelical atheism. Is it simply the assumption that religion is harmful to people and society and should be abolished? That strikes me as incredibly conservative. I thought the progressive stance would be that religion is what you make it, and as long as you’re not basing hate on religion, god’s an okay thing to have in life. My biggest problem with religion as a whole (in addition to the misogyny that exists in many if not most major religions) is that they all insist that they’re right and everyone else is wrong. How is evangelical atheism different?

Actually, catgirl, the kind of charming man you describe is exactly the kind of person who would trip a person’s intuition

I disagree.  If you met my father, you would probably never suspect anything until it’s too late.  I’m sure it’s very comforting to believe that you would get some kind of warning sense, but you probably wouldn’t.  Those people who are overly charming are not the type that abusive people emulate.  My dad and others like him are sociopaths.  He will consciously study the behaviors that avoid any sense of suspicion, and he will purposely imitate those things.  Of course hindsight is 20/20 so victims of abuse probably believe that they really did have intuition and then suppressed it, but in reality the vast majority of people are no more intuitively suspicious of abusers than they are of other people.

If he’s not victimizing you in particular, then he might not trip your intuition—which is how charming abusers convince juries. But if you are being abused or groomed for abuse, charm isn’t going to dampen your intuition on this subject.

I disagree.  The people who are being abused certainly realize that abusers are jerks, but the ones who are being groomed for abuse often have absolutely no idea until it’s too late.

I haven’t read all the comments yet, but I thought this post (the parts about science and feminism) dovetailed nicely with one by The Skeptical OB.  She argues that the extreme end of the homebirth/breastfeeding/babywearing crowd have defined the “good mother” in a way that simply repackages patriarchal ideals* that limit women’s freedom, often tossing science aside in the process.**

http://skepticalob.blogspot.com/2010/06/is-baby-best-ally-of-masculine.html

*my words, not hers.
**despite many many claims of “evidence”.

#65

I’m a skeptic and a feminist.  But one problem I have is that some in the skeptical community seem to think that atheism is the panacea for feminism, or that religion is the root cause of misogyny.  This is clearly ridiculous; just look at Bill Maher.  Of course Maher isn’t a skeptic, but he’s certainly an atheist.  Some people seem to think that if religion just disappeared, misogyny would go with it.

Catgirl, sure. You could say similar things about religion and world conflicts. (There’s still reason for people to kill one another without religion.) However, I don’t think that was really the claim Amanda gave, she said: “they’ve invited me to speak this year about the intersection of feminism and atheism—-how religion is used to oppress women, and why atheism activism and the promotion of critical thinking help feminism.” More of a “our interests are aligned” sort of argument, less of a “religion is the root cause of misogyny”.

However, I don’t think that was really the claim Amanda gave

You’re right, and I didn’t mean to imply that Amanda thinks that.  My point was tangential and only about a few other atheist that I have encountered, but not the majority if them.

#74

My point was tangential and only about a few other atheist that I have encountered, but not the majority if them.

Yeah, I’ve met them too, actually. They annoy me.

  Actually, catgirl, the kind of charming man you describe is exactly the kind of person who would trip a person’s intuition

I disagree.  If you met my father, you would probably never suspect anything until it’s too late.  I’m sure it’s very comforting to believe that you would get some kind of warning sense, but you probably wouldn’t.  Those people who are overly charming are not the type that abusive people emulate.  My dad and others like him are sociopaths.  He will consciously study the behaviors that avoid any sense of suspicion, and he will purposely imitate those things. 
Comment #71: catgirl on 06/14 at 10:18 AM

Amen to that.  Someone who’s sociopathic and reasonably intelligent and good at observation will learn to pass for normal and use their skills to get as far as they can.  Couple that with a lack of conscience and you can get some pretty scary results.  Most seriously don’t realize they’re different, they just think it’s all a big game, and that everyone is lying all the time. 

It usually takes people years to figure out my sister is broken somehow, and her adult daughter is, tragically but predictably, still trying to “understand”/fix her. 

There’s a range of skill, though, and the ones who are just learning, or who don’t have a deep game, trip alarms.

Attributing this to “intuition” is, I think, more often because the reasons women don’t like a particular man are summarily rejected, rather than they’re unexplainable.  If a woman didn’t think she’d be mocked or mansplained to when saying “he invades my personal space,” that particular warning sign wouldn’t have to be relegated to intuition, it’d just be a reason.

I’m curious about evangelical atheism. Is it simply the assumption that religion is harmful to people and society and should be abolished? That strikes me as incredibly conservative. I thought the progressive stance would be that religion is what you make it, and as long as you’re not basing hate on religion, god’s an okay thing to have in life. My biggest problem with religion as a whole (in addition to the misogyny that exists in many if not most major religions) is that they all insist that they’re right and everyone else is wrong. How is evangelical atheism different?
Comment #70: cifweltr on 06/14 at 10:15 AM

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I believe religion and, yes, even spirituality, poisons your ability to reason.  It appropriates the unknown for its own purposes, drawing a convenient order on blank chaos, and uses it to place a spurious, numinous importance on selected opinions.

I’ve always wondered if a lot of women without god-beliefs are reluctant to openly identify as atheists because of the Mr. Gruff the Atheist Goat-style stereotype, which conflicts with the social messages we get about how we’re supposed to act. “Atheists are MEAN! Girls are supposed to be NICE!”

I don’t know. I think the problems with my fellow atheists and feminism go quite a bit deeper than atheism’s association with geek culture. Part of the issue is that I don’t feel that there is nearly as much effort spent on humanism as constructive political action or ways to live well, rather than humanism as a critique of religious institutions and dogmas.

And perhaps falling out of that, there definitely seems to be a focus on some form of intellectual purity which runs somewhat counter to third-wave feminism’s realization that coalition-building across cultural contexts is necessary, especially in regards to groups where religious life and institutions play critical cultural and political roles.

Add to that the fact that many of the most vocal role models and published authors are sexist as heck (Hitch) or admit to privately struggling with their own regressive impulses (Dawkins). Then there is love for libertarian values and I think there are some real conflicts at hand there.

My biggest problem with religion as a whole (in addition to the misogyny that exists in many if not most major religions) is that they all insist that they’re right and everyone else is wrong.

I don’t understand why this would be your problem with religion, given that you clearly think progressive politics are right and “everyone else” - conservatives, libertarians, anarchists - are wrong.

Surely the greatest problem with religion is the factual absurdities that underly it, and the obedience frequently enforced by violence - not the fact that they’re occasionally engaging in conversation to convince others. I mean, you certainly engage in discussion to advocate and convince for your political views, and you support those who do the same (like Amanda and the rest of the Pandabloggers). Why don’t you consider that an illegitimate act of “evangelical progressivism”?

Trying to convince others that you’re right is something you get to do. Yes, even if what you think is right is atheism.

I don’t understand why this would be your problem with religion, given that you clearly think progressive politics are right and “everyone else” - conservatives, libertarians, anarchists - are wrong.

@Chet, you don’t know that about me, or about anyone on this board. I engage in discussion here on Pandagon about issues that interest me - not necessarily for the purpose of convincing others of my views. If I wanted to do that, I’d be a politician, or I’d read and comment on blogs that advocate for views in opposition to mine. Try some logic next time.

One of my favorite things to do is convince other people that I’m right. I’ve known a lot of people who, like @oldfeminist described, rely on religion instead of reason. However, I’ve known some who don’t confuse the two, and use spirituality as a positive force in their lives, both in guiding their daily actions and in helping to accept and cope with their pasts. I’m not going to do anything to try to take that away from them. Imposing my atheism on them would be as harmful as imposing their religion on me. What gives me that right?

@Chet, you don’t know that about me, or about anyone on this board.

I just know what you write, friend, and what you wrote was pretty clear:

Is it simply the assumption that religion is harmful to people and society and should be abolished? That strikes me as incredibly conservative. I thought the progressive stance would be that religion is what you make it, and as long as you’re not basing hate on religion, god’s an okay thing to have in life.

One of my favorite things to do is convince other people that I’m right.

Right, like how you’re trying to convince me, right now. What you’ve yet to explain is why it’s bad when the religious do it, why it’s bad when atheists do it, but why it’s totally ok when you do it.

Imposing my atheism on them would be as harmful as imposing their religion on me.

Who’s talking about imposing? Not Dawkins, not Hitchens, not me nor any other atheist. Evangelism isn’t imposing - it’s a conversation where you try to convince someone to come over to their view. You know, like what you’re doing to me, right now.

@Chet - Wow, you’ve totally convinced me. Of what, I have no idea, but you clearly have a better understanding of logic than I do, since you came to several conclusions based on no evidence at all. Thanks for that. I have been converted.

@ttintagle - That website may be the scariest thing I’ve ever seen.

cifweltr:

Fortunately, it’s a troll site. But when it first appeared ten years or so ago, there was a lot of people wondering because it was so stone-faced serious.

Wow, you’ve totally convinced me. Of what, I have no idea, but you clearly have a better understanding of logic than I do, since you came to several conclusions based on no evidence at all. Thanks for that. I have been converted.

Converted to what? Frankly you’re making zero sense.

Look, you asked what the deal was with “evangelical atheism.” Since you’re not very smart, I guess I can make it explicit - the “deal” with “evangelical atheism” is that there’s no such fucking thing; there’s just people who hold a certain position and believe it to be justified by the evidence saying so. But, of course, when an atheist’s lips are moving, we call that “being militant.”

Amen to that.  Someone who’s sociopathic and reasonably intelligent and good at observation will learn to pass for normal and use their skills to get as far as they can.

I imagine that “intelligent and observant sociopaths” are a relatively small fraction of abusers and creeps, though. Keeping an open ear to your intuition, so to speak, might not be effective against Dexter but it might stop you from going into a room alone with Joe Schmuck the Clumsy Groper.

Whether or not women should trust their “he’s a creeper!” instinct is an interesting question to intersect with geekiness and the whole nerd culture. Lots of geeky guys can come across as creepy when they’re technically harmless (he won’t rape you, but no promises if he’ll stare at your chest or not) and there has been many a Nice (geeky) Guy TM whining about how girls don’t give geeks a chance just because they aren’t good socially. And there are, of course, plenty of geeks (male and female) who really are genuinely great people but come across horribly in the first meeting.

So I’m interested in, as a nerdy/geeky woman, how you can balance out not being a judgmental asshole to people with Aspergers with not being taken for a ride by every socially awkward misogynist who knows how to build a computer. :p

@BrianX - The worst part about that site may be that I absolutely believed it could be real. Thank you for assuring me otherwise.

@Chet - Okay, I’m not very smart. However, I do know how to read.

Click on the link for Skepticon. The first page there lists as a news item: “Sam Singleton added to the speaker line up! Today we got a commitment from atheist evangelist Sam Singleton. Brother Singleton will be getting things going Sunday morning at Skepticon III!” See also.

Obviously (which is a word I use because my conclusion is true from the evidence presented, not because I’m making spurious claims based on no information whatsoever), there are people who identify themselves as atheist evangelists.

I didn’t say anything about being militant, or that atheists aren’t allowed to practice evangelism or preach their beliefs. I asked a question about pushing atheism on non-atheists, much like religious folk push their beliefs on non-religious folk. In both cases I find the practice abhorrent.

So I’m interested in, as a nerdy/geeky woman, how you can balance out not being a judgmental asshole to people with Aspergers with not being taken for a ride by every socially awkward misogynist who knows how to build a computer.

This isn’t actually all that hard when you consider the definition of Asperger’s, which is characterized by normal or higher intelligence combined with certain developmental delays.  The key word there is “delays”—not actual inability to learn certain skills.  If you’re dealing with an adult, Asperger’s or not, they will have either chosen or not chosen to master social skills sufficiently to not scare people, particularly member of groups over which they have privilege.  If the person hasn’t chosen to do so, that tells you a lot about who they are.  I’m not sure how young the geeks you’re dealing with are, but in my opinion 22 is old enough to master not being scary and 25 is old enough to master not being more subtly creepy, factoring Asperger’s delays into account.

Click on the link for Skepticon. The first page there lists as a news item: “Sam Singleton added to the speaker line up! Today we got a commitment from atheist evangelist Sam Singleton. Brother Singleton will be getting things going Sunday morning at Skepticon III!” See also.

Uh-huh. And when Ice-Cube, Eazy-E, Dre, and MC Ren decided to call themselves “Niggaz Wit Attitudes”, did you think they were being completely serious? If the idea of appropriating language originally intended to delegitimize your viewpoint is foreign to you, you need to know a lot more about, well, everything.

I asked a question about pushing atheism on non-atheists, much like religious folk push their beliefs on non-religious folk. In both cases I find the practice abhorrent.

Sigh… yes, I heard you the first time. I asked you who was “pushing” anything when all that’s going on is people, in a conversation, trying to convince each other. As happens all the time. Like you’re doing, right now. But instead of responding to the point you evaded it. Why is that?

Hey Chet? What you could have done right there, like, a lot of comments ago, was say, “Oh, when atheists identify themselves as evangelists, they aren’t serious about it.” (Kind of like when someone linked a creepy website and I was like “That’s scary!” and someone was like, “It’s not real.”) Because that, actually, is the answer to the question I asked. The basis of my question was “evangelism = pushing a belief on another.”

It did not occur to me that atheist evangelists were appropriating religious language because the concept of evangelism isn’t central to religion, nor is it used only by theists. If they called themselves “atheist missionaries,” I would have understood the inherent sarcasm.

I’m thankful that you took the time to explain a detail about the issue that I clearly did not understand. However, next time it would be appreciated if you addressed the issue without making assumptions or calling names. It makes your arguments weaker when you attack someone for asking a question.

What you could have done right there, like, a lot of comments ago, was say, “Oh, when atheists identify themselves as evangelists, they aren’t serious about it.

Look, now you’re just trolling. It’s a regular feature of the discourse that when atheists say “hey, you know - atheism actually has much to recommend it, like being true!” they’re immediately accused of being “evangelical atheists” and militants. It’s an accusation meant to stifle criticism of religion, and it occurs literally any time atheism is discussed among people who aren’t atheists - and frequently among atheists, as well.

So, sorry, no. I don’t believe you.

It did not occur to me that atheist evangelists were appropriating religious language because the concept of evangelism isn’t central to religion, nor is it used only by theists.

So given the generality of the term, it’s inconceivable that you truly couldn’t figure out how it could be applied to atheism, surely.

Shorter Chet: [BONERS]