Women in skepticism
By Rodrigo Neely
Article ID: 1230
Since becoming a dedicated and pro-active skeptic, I have observed some troubling trends. One is the under-representation of women. I submit that all of my data on this issue is anecdotal. But some of my anecdotes are pretty compelling. In the Dallas-Fort Worth area where I live, I’m a member of the local skeptic group, the North Texas Skeptics. I’m also the president of a skeptical club at my university. In these two areas I have seen about 1 woman for every 10 men.
This could just be Dallas-Fort Worth, but I also asked Alison Smith. She coordinates the James Randi Educational Foundation’s million dollar challenge, directs SAPS, a skeptical ghost hunting organization, and is an all-around skeptical hero. I asked her what her experience has been, and she readily acknowledges that skepticism does seem to be a sausage party.
One cannot have an honest discussion of gender and skepticism without acknowledging the important work of skepchick.org. This is a skeptical blog with a predominantly female writing staff and a legendary skeptical pin-up calendar. I bring up Skepchick mostly to acknowledge its existence, but it’s an anomaly in the unfortunately male world of skepticism.
The trend is that skepticism is predominately male.
I have heard various explanations for this.
One is that women are just gullible. That’s right, women are naturally more inclined to be believers, and there is just nothing that can be done about it. I usually get this reason from female skeptics.
I would beg to differ on one point: the data seems to suggest that humans are just gullible. If one looks at the more ridiculous movements - like the New Age movement, the UFO movement, the psychic movement, the Faith Healer movement and others - men are extremely well-represented as victims of all these frauds. One does not see the audience of victims groups as being almost exclusively female, while all the males sit lonely at their local skeptic club wondering where all the women are.
Rebecca Watson, founder of skepchick.org, and co-host of The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe podcast, has observed that women’s magazines don’t seem to emphasize critical thinking, and that they are riddled with ads for woo nonsense.
She has a point there. But I don’t think it’s much worse than your average men’s magazine, which will offer its fair share of scams. They may be more of the pyramid scheme, martial arts magic variety, but one never sees articles celebrating the virtue of critical thinking in publications such as GQ, or Maxim. Don’t even get me started on Men’s Health.
Yet women are under-represented in the Skeptical movement.
What must skeptics do?
I think what would be ideal is a study. It doesn’t have to be a formal academic one, but instead simply be a survey for women in Skeptic Magazine or Skeptical Inquirer magazine. With a little networking and coordination, it could even find itself in the newsletters of smaller local skeptical organizations. This survey should ask women why they think women are under-represented in skepticism; ask them why skeptical activism is important to them, and if it’s not, then why not.
The men who subscribe to these magazines could go the distance, and even ask their wives to fill in this survey, and we could get some data from women who aren’t active in the skeptical movement.
Once a year the JREF holds a skeptical convention called The Amazing Meeting, or TAM. I am told women are more than a little scarce at TAM.
Are skeptical males just unusually inept in attracting women?
Are homosexual males over-represented in the skeptical movement?
If the answer to the above questions is “no,” then why don’t we see male skeptic’s female romantic partners?
Is it because skeptical men think their wives and girlfriends wouldn’t enjoy an activity that they have found worth doing?
Is it because they have asked their wives and girlfriends, and have been met with rejections due to the counsel of the Horoscope section in Cosmo, which is followed by them running off and crying and putting on makeup, and playing with Barbies?
Perhaps, a hard question worth asking, it is because our female romantic partners are at home doing work keeping our homes and families going so that we fellas can go and debunk nonsense?
This is what my wife suggests is going on. She says, “You don’t see any women because they are at home taking care of the kids, it is not because women are exceptionally gullible.”
For the record my wife holds a bachelors degree in microbiology and a masters in neuroscience, and is 10 times the critical thinker I am. And also ten times the skeptical activist. She fights woo in the scientific community, where many of us would be disregarded by scientists based on our credentials or lack thereof.
She’s also hot, but that’s beside the point.
If she is right, then we could see a huge upsurge of prominent women skeptics if male skeptics asked themselves if this is true in their own homes.
Is your wife driving the kids to soccer while you frolic off to TAM?
Does your wife or girlfriend prepare dinner while you sit down and enjoy the newest Michael Shermer book?
If so, why don’t you hand her the book, and start making dinner from time to time?
Why don’t you consider just giving your wife your ticket to TAM and you stay home and take care of the kids?
TAM is such a blast, I’d wager almost anyone could go to one and come back a devoted skeptic.
These are all just ideas. But they’re important parts of a conversation the skeptical community desperately needs to have.
New article email alerts
Podcast on iTunes
Podcast RSS feed
Jim Lippard:
I think there’s something to the criticism that skeptics tend to be people who are overly intellectual and underly (if that’s a word) emotional, a characteristic that’s also common among techies and other sorts of geeks. Women are less likely to go to extremes in that direction–they have a tendency to consider the emotional and social to be of greater importance.
12 July 2008, 12:04 pm