Poster girl for skepticism
In a recent post titled ’2011′ I wrote out a list of insults I had received last year. One of them was ‘poster child for skepticism’ and people have seemed confused as to why I would consider that an insult. I was actually wrong – I got called ‘the poster girl for skepticism’.
The reason it is an insult is because a) it was intended as an insult and b) it was insulting
To be called a girl equates me with being young and childish. I’m often told that I am young, childish, immature, ‘playing with bigger kids’, ‘running with older skeptics’, ‘throw tantrums’ and similar. Putting to one side my issues with my mental health that often cause me to seem like I’m having a tantrum, and how insensitive peoples comments can be – the world is, it seems, always very keen to remind me that I am indeed young, and that because of this people wont take me seriously.
Rebecca Watson
I bet some of you are already spoiling for a fight in the comments of this post simply because of the title.
How ridiculous of you.
I was going to write down my thoughts about the recent ‘Reddit makes me hate atheists’ article written by Rebecca for Skepchick, but it seems so many people have summarised what I wanted to say in a much better way than I could.
…& then Sue Blackmore was gone
It was meant as a light hearted nod towards US blogger PZ Myers and wasn’t meant to alienate anybody, but when The Skeptic Mag temporarily removed Susan Blackmore from their banner and replaced her with PZ Myers, it left me feeling quite uncomfortable and sad.
I do have a problem with the way in which women are under represented throughout skepticism – I created SheTalks to try and help remedy the problem (and according to the feedback the register is working despite still being in its early days). To see a reputable publication like The Skeptic Mag take the only woman on their banner down - even just for a moment, as a nod to comments made on twitter earlier that day, seems so dismissive and needless. I’m not sure what led to them doing so, or why PZ Myers highlighted earlier in the day via Twitter that he wasn’t there.
People will say I am blogging over nothing or that I’m making a mountain out of a mole hill, but I’m not. Intentional and unintentional exclusion of women in skepticism is something that so many people work tirelessly to eradicate. Although The Skeptic Magazine didn’t replace Blackmore like this with a dismissive or sexist intention, this demonstrates how one thoughtless action can undermine so much, and have a negative and demoralising effect on those who see it.
I'm not a token, and here is why
Earlier today twitterer Trinoc_ brought to my attention a comment that had been made on the SGU listeners forum in which I was referred to as the token female host of the Righteous Indignation Podcast.
They said:
I also listen to the Righteous Indignation podcast which also the one token woman in a bunch of guys.
They went on to say:
“She’s the only one of one type of thing (woman) amongst a larger amount of other, although similar, types of things (men). That makes her a token woman in my book. I mean that in the nicest possible way. She’s great. I dig Hayley, were I to ever have forewarning about an impending meeting with her i would gladly bake her a cake or crumble pie*”
I am not blogging to have a dig at the person who said the above and called me a token woman because I don’t believe they said this as an insult, they simply didn’t think through what they were implying by saying I was a token woman; a title that is both incorrect and unfair. To label a person – male or female, as a token undermines their work and effort put into a project (in this case, the podcast).
It also presents the idea that the person in question has been asked to be involved with a project because of their gender, and not their ability to do well in that project/role or to contribute their skills and insight.
This is why I was initially quite angry and annoyed to see myself being referred to as a token female host. I don’t think that lowly of my co-hosts to think they would do such a thing and I certainly wouldn’t allow myself to be in a position where my gender was the thing that got me there.
I don’t intend to go into how I came to involved with Righteous Indignation in the first place as I have covered that before, however, I should probably point out that when Righteous Indignation first started there was myself – a female host, and Trystan – a male host. Was he the token male skeptic? No, and he wasn’t seen that way either.
Marsh came along a bit later and just fitted with the show – we didn’t decide to ask Marsh to be a permanent host because he is male, we asked him because of his sense of humor, his ability to tackle big stories and interviews in a purely brilliant manner and the fact that he just gelled into the show with us.
There have been other things I have been involved with in the past for which I was the only female, or the only skeptic but I have never been asked simply because of what I am, but because of who I am and what I do and am able to do.
The picture to the right is me as a bratty child. Despite the long blonde hair and blue eyes I grew up a “tomboy”, I didn’t have a problem getting stuck in with fights, climbing trees in the neighbourhood or taking part in dangerous bike races. Being girls was never a problem for me and my friends when we were growing up and I think it’s quite remarkable being the only girl in a group of friends or in a game was never as significant as it is now that I’ve grown older.
Funny that.
*Cherry crumble or it doesn’t count for anything.
female representation. Where the hell is it?
Last year I spoke at the ‘Weird ’09 paranormal & ufo conference’ in Warminster, Wiltshire. I was the only female speaker and rather than making me feel powerful it made me feel a bit lonely and outnumbered.
This year the Weird ’10 conference has possibly 1 female speaker (representing ASSAP) and reflecting upon this fact recently made me wonder why it is. Paranormal research is a research field full of females and males – so why is it only a few women are ever seen speaking at conferences and why do we never see a predominantly female line up at such conferences?
I know that Kylie Sturgess touched upon this issue on her blog here.
I think that the issue of gender equality is an important one that is vastly overlooked. Okay so paranormal research doesn’t have feminism high on its equality focus list – instead they focus more on skeptics vs. believers equality which is fine, but where that’s important to have in equal amounts it is also important to ensure gender of speakers is equal or at least nearly equal too.
Like I mentioned before ghost research is a mixed bag of females and males, UFOlogy and cryptozoology can seem like a bit of a boy’s game (even though there are female researchers out there) so there is, in my view, no excuse for females to be lacking on the speaker line-ups for paranormal/ufo/crypto conferences.
One suggestion put forward to me is that these sorts of conferences are usually organised by men and therefor the speakers are men and that’s a poor excuse.
Another was that those females with something worth saying in the research field either:
a) don’t want the fame/bright lights
b) are too busy
Which is probably true and is a shame when you consider that the resentment of going public with something to say is causing the field to have a lack of female representation. Which is bullshit.
Thank you!
Dear sister suffragettes and early feminists,
Due to your endless campaigning and sacrifices I was able to vote today in the hope of making the change I would like to see in my country. Perhaps my vote will help, perhaps not – but at least I had a chance to vote and that’s a freedom I’ll never underestimate even if so many people do.
Thank you girls! Much appreciated!
Hayley M Stevens x
Check it out…
