I try and avoid drama. I am happy to comment on any issue, but once the acrimony starts, I can generally find something more constructive, or at least, less annoying to do. Hurling insults, and Flame wars on the internet, is the stupid.

That said, I always found the ‘women in secularism’ thing needlessly exclusive and the bottom line is, traveling to conferences can be expensive. But if I was ever inclined to go, it was after reading Amy’s recent post. Oh, and it’s not because I feel sorry for her or any of that. War is hell. If you play the game, you’re in the game. It’s because she’s being constructive, rational and reasonable, even in the face of huge amounts of stupid.

Here is a link to more info on the Surly Grants which is a project run by me alone, I use my own money that I make selling jewelry and through donations to pay admissions to events. I know the website is geared mostly towards helping women get involved, as that was my initial goal, but I feel very strongly that we need more men to join us at Women in Secularism if we are ever going to rise above the hate.

And that is what skeptics do.

Update:This is good.

Where I work we have what they call a ‘respect’ policy. It’s pretty simple really.

If someone says/does something offensive:
1) It is the offended person’s job to say so.
2) It is the offending person’s job to listen.
3) If they can’t come to a compromise or understanding on the issue, then the person who is offended has the option of taking it to the next level, by reporting it to a supervisor or HR.

This policy, treats everyone as adults. No coddling and no accusations of criminal behaviour(harassment) until the problem has been communicated rationally. It is not perfect, but it allows everyone to be heard.

It’s a little bit different in social situations, like bars, where people are often less formal and there is more room for play as well as abuse. But regardless, when a person says no, or ‘not interested’, that should be the end of it. And if you have a good respect policy, your security people should make sure that is where it ends.

That said, seeing PZ Myers and others agree to what is essentially a blasphemy policy… is really disheartening.

Harassment includes offensive verbal comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, sexual images in public spaces, deliberate intimidation, stalking, following, harassing photography or recording, sustained disruption of talks or other events, inappropriate physical contact, and unwelcome sexual attention.

I’m generally not one to defend being offensive for no reason, but I think people should have the right to be as offensive about religion, as PZ often is on his blog. That doesn’t mean you can stalk and harass religious people. But it does mean you have a right to say offensive things. That is free expression. Wrong side of history, indeed.

Imagine No Religion 2 will be held in Kamloops, BC on May 18, 2012.

Reviews from last year are scarce and I couldn’t find any attendance records so I don’t know the expected turnout but the organizers have recruited a decent list of speakers so they seem to know what they’re doing. If anyone attending wants to be drafted as a Canadian Atheist reporter, please let us know.

The recent skeptical tempest about women and conferences has been interesting to watch, while still unfortunate. My take on the problem more generally, is that conferences by their nature are a bit of a stew of competing interests. 

On the one hand, you have the ‘professional’ learning and networking aspect, that many people attend for.

Then there is the more social part, where people are looking for conversation and interactions with people with similar interests.

And then of course there is the ‘Hooking up’.

Many people go for more than one of these reasons, but some are more focused on one of them, and others are specifically not interested in one or two of the three.

For me, the second is the most important reason I go, your mileage may vary, but I think, done properly, all interests can be accommodated.

I think this article is a very reasonable and rational response to the issue of sex and the single skeptic

And… of course, don’t be a skep-dick*.

(*And yes, using a reference to the male anatomy was intentional, its somewhat sexist, and also somewhat appropriate, so sue me.)

(Thanks to KatieKish for some of the links)

Apparently the blogosphere is all atwitter… although I suppose twitter probably is too, about the latest CFI conference. There was an incident… or rather an incident that happened because of an incident at another conference. Now some people have downplayed both incidents, others have gone all nuclear-feminist about the first. I’m not going to do either.

The situation, as described by the woman involved was pretty straightforward. She was at the hotel bar at a conference, late night, around 4am. She decided to leave, and a ‘fan’ of hers(she is a bit of a celebrity) followed her to the elevator, got in the elevator with her, and asked politely if she’d like to accompany him to his room for coffee.

Her reaction was, in my opinion, not particularly surprising. It creeped her the hell out. When you mix the late night, the presence of alcohol, an enclosed space like an elevator, I think a lot of people might react defensively, to what a friend of mine described, not so subtly, as: “coffee = sex”.

On this particular point, I’m with the woman. She has every right to react defensively, IN ANY situation, where she perceives a threat, or even a possible threat. We have those instincts for a reason, they have helped us survive in a very dangerous world. When you are in a situation, you listen to your gut, and if necessary, sort it out later from a safe distance. You might feel stupid later, but so what, the alternative bad ending to this story is well worth avoiding. And in this situation, I think intentionally or not, the guy did wrong. Some people seem to disagree on whether that sort of question, in itself, is sexist… but given the variety of reaction, I’d say there is nothing that would be acceptable to everyone.

When you go to geek conferences, you invariably run into two things: People who want to hook up, and people with stupendously poor social skills. He may have been either, or both. Or, he could be one of those people that celebrities hire bodyguards to protect against.

I also have no problem with her discussing her experience, women need to speak up about what makes them uncomfortable, and I think we need to encourage women to come out to these things. I also think we need to prepare women to deal with what they might experience, and encourage them to take steps to protect themselves.

Of course sometimes when people go through a traumatic experience, the last thing they want is to have it dissected and criticized. Dealing with all of this requires frank and open conversation, but also sensitivity. Unfortunately, fear and anger can sometimes lead to people lashing out verbally or via blogs. And that is when you get the unneeded drama of blog-vs-blog flame wars. In my opinion, that just makes an unfortunate situation, worse. Like religion, sex is one of those topics that people get passionate about… and so very irrational.

The only serious criticism I have for Watson is her choice of using her speech as a vehicle to attack someone in the audience she disagrees with. Seems like an ambush to me. In essence, Watson cornered this woman, who was criticizing her, in an environment where the woman could not fight back. To me that seems unprofessional, and an abuse of power. It’s not as serious as the possibility of physical danger, but still not fair or appropriate.

Being aware of the power we have, either physically, or from celebrity, and the effect it can have on others… is the point, no?

PZ has weighed in on this… and again…and again, and although I tend to agree with his views on being decent to other people, I think his point is somewhat at odds with his own attitude that we kick ass and take names, every chance we get. If people are dicks to each other on the internet, does that really translate to being decent to each other in person?

Dawkins too has waded in… with an unsurprising result. I always find it amusing when atheists find themselves disagreeing with Dawkins, and then all of a sudden, the ad hominems come out. Is male privilege real? Yes. Is it plausible that some kind of lack of understanding of women led Dawkins to his opinion, absolutely.

But this whole big blog mess started when two women disagreed on what the actions of a man meant. Watching this unravel on facebook, I’ve noted that men and women are coming down on both sides of these issues, some in the middle. So, “You’re a man, you don’t get it” seems the wrong response, and not very constructive. Typical, but not constructive.

And I should say, for the record, I don’t agree with Dawkins on this. I think the context of Watson’s experience spoke of hugely poor judgement on the part of the man involved. It doesn’t mean he’s a misogynist of course, but like many atheists, he could use some guidance on how to deal effectively with the opposite sex. Although if I were him, I might avoid conferences… for a while.

Update: and Phil Plait.