I attend a lot of public talks (usually of a scientific and skeptical nature), and frequently most of the audience questions come from men. It’s been noted that more women attend the talks in the first place over time (good), but it’s still the men that are the most vocal. So there are two different parts to this problem:
So, regarding the first point, there are many reasons that the gender balance is closer to parity. Maybe it’s because there are more female speakers (solving the visibility problem), but I’d be tempted to hypothesise that it’s because there are more speakers and topics generally, thus reaching out to a wider and more varied audience. So it is an issue of accessibility, but only because the range of topics is not so narrow. Unfortunately I don’t have any data on the groups I attend, so I can’t actually test the theory. Dammit.
However, this article in The Guardian does cover this notion, that “the fault lies with past generations of [atheist] leaders who didn’t address the issues that matter most to women and minorities“. Note that I’m not a fan of the term ‘leader’ when applied to atheist groups, as it has connotations of religious ‘leadership’, and I don’t think we should be putting rational thinkers on a pedestal.
So now that many atheists have moved with the times and looked beyond their own experience, matters that affect people who might not necessarily be like them are brought up. And it’s a good thing. And it’s been done silently and with relatively little fuss. Which brings me on to the next part of the problem.
There is an argument that the newcomers to the group might still be finding their feet and less likely to speak up. Well, ok, seems plausible. But also there’s the issue of what has been studied, measured and reproduced in many psychology and sociology papers. That when women speak up it’s received differently to if a man was talking. Unfortunately it’s not just in the workplace that this happens, and if you see a pattern occurring every time you dare to open your mouth, then the safest thing might be to keep quiet.
One way is for the speaker to pick more questions from women audience members. And I think the success of this lies in the execution. If it’s done subtly (i.e. so that it’s not obvious what’s going on – I didn’t say imperceptible, mind), then it can work, and builds a foundation for a more balanced mix of questioners at future events. I attended one talk where the speaker specifically asked for questions from women because they feel women are often under-represented in this respect. This gets a mixed reception – it just so happened that at this event it worked out well, no-one objected, and we got a good mix of questions from male and female audience members. Maybe that would have been the case anyway, but there’s no way of knowing. It was important in some ways that the speaker highlighted this problem because people do feel a bit uneasy about addressing feminist issues – like it’s a dirty word or it might upset the men – and we need to get over that. However, some people complain that it seems patronising (or even a form of benevolent sexism), and that’s always a risk you run, especially to an audience containing women who already feel empowered.
I think the best way is to encourage women to speak, but in more subtle ways, and ensure that we give them the airtime without interruptions, without some oaf ignoring what they’d said and repeating the same idea and claiming it as their own; without explaining things to them that they already know. Basically to demonstrate that it’s a respectful environment for anyone to ask questions. And yes, I know that in the majority of cases, this is so – but it’s the exceptions that stand out in people’s minds and have a more damaging effect.