Something Larger Than Yourself
So, there is a whole mess of messiness going down lately among some of the atheist/skeptic blogs I read. It's generally the same sexist messiness that has been going on for...well, for ages, but in terms of being publicly discussed...for the last year or so. Which I bring up here and now simply because rather than just the typical infighting and sexist assholes being sexist assholes, there also seems to be very much a war going on terms of the direction of the culture/movement.
Which fascinates me for a whole lot of reasons.
***********
I've always been an atheist/agnostic by default. And while atheist is probably closer to what I am than agnostic, I tend to hesitate to call myself one because so many atheists are just as annoying in their proselytizing as certain religious people are. And I have never, until the past few years, considered involving myself with organized atheist or skeptic organizations. They all pretty much come across as a bunch of pompous assholes determined to make sure the world knows that they are right. And well, this is what I hate most about politics and organized religion.
There's a conversation happening now though, among the people who believe that sexism exists in the skeptic/atheist community and needs to be dealt with [i know! what a concept!], that part of the problem is not just the gender imbalance and the patriarchy, but also that the kinds of topics that skeptics choose to focus on - and the manner in which they go about doing so - is ultimately self-absorbed in a way that is going to attract selfish blowhards and not people who actually want to work towards useful change. This conversation is scattered and tangential to the main conversation, but it is popping up every so often.
This is what I find so fascinating - because, you know, I both appreciate all the humanitarian work that religious organizations do - and am bothered by how much of it is done by religious rather than secular and government organizations. And for the purposes of this discussion, I am counting organizations that are open to all religions - but yet still assume you believe in a god - as religious. It think these groups do great work too, and I have fewer problems with how most of them go about doing so, but because of where I live I feel less comfortable participating in them because the assumption among their actual members is still very much that I am religious and probably Christian. And that what we do is god's work.
A skeptic conference that is merely about debunking myths is not something that I feel is worth my limited time and resources, but a local meeting of a secular or atheist group that is working to actually directly help people in my community (or elsewheres)...now that is something that I would be interested in. [It is in fact, one of my goals this summer to find a place to try to donate some of my limited time to.] And while sexism and harassment are the topics under discussion - the fight really seems to be about this. If this kind of model is what atheist/skeptic organizations should go for...or if they should just remain the people who debunk Bigfoot and rail against the evils of religion.
So, as someone who would only ever consider participating if "movement" goes in the direction of working towards concrete and humanitarian change - and who is intrigued by the brand new "Women in Skepticism" conference - I am vastly amused by all the accusations that all this focus on sexism is driving people away from the "movement" and conferences. Aside from the usual "really? this is what you are concerned about? bodies in seats over people being treated well?" I also just want to laugh at the people making these arguments...because it seems pretty clear to me that they are not concerned so much about driving people away but about driving the wrong people - people like them - away and encouraging the wrong people - people like me - to participate.
************
It's been a especially amusing watching various peoples flail at the thought of an atheist or skeptic conference having a harassment policy [!!!!what?!?!? this is a new concept to ppl?!?!?] while I am in middle of dealing with reports of suspect behavior at work. It's not that it can't be complicated to deal with harassment even when you have a policy in place - it's that actually dealing with it makes it so much clearer how useful such policies are in terms of handling the complications.
Thankfully, mine was a case where no one was in the wrong and we could come up with an easy solution:
One of my teen volunteers was approached by a gentleman who was insistent about shaking her hand and letting her know he was leaving. While this sounds uber creepy and it freaked her out enough to come tell me, I was pretty sure right away it was merely one of the mentally challenged adults who come to the library on a supervised outing. Mostly because I did ask her some questions about how it all went down, and it was all very out of the blue and brief and he didn't try to linger or stick around or get her name or anything. I told her right away I thought it might be that, but that I would look into it and let my boss know. Also, I told her that I was very glad she felt comfortable coming and telling me and that if she saw the man again to please come get me or my boss right away. Plus, I made sure she was comfortable going back out there, and asked if she would rather have someone with her or stay in the back for the rest of the day. [she chose to go back to her station]
A few days later I saw a gentleman do the same thing to two other volunteers (and myself) and yes, it was exactly what I thought. So when I talked to the original volunteer again, I explained that the man who had approached her did not mean any harm and was probably not going to understand if we tried to explain that he was making her uncomfortable. I also said that this didn't mean that she needed to interact with him if she did not want to - if he came by and she didn't want to deal with him, she was welcome to simply leave the area and come get me. [If she was an employee I would have limited that "you have to be nice to him but no you don't have to shake his hand" but she's a young teen and is at the library to pass out reading prizes to kids, not deal with strange adults twice her age and size, no matter their mental age.]
I tried to strike a balance between on the one hand encouraging her to empathize with him and be respectful of his limitations and be friendly to all of the people around her, and on the other emphasizing to this 14 year old who is likely getting a lot of messages that she needs to value niceness over her safety, and may soon be running into deliberate harassment (if she isn't already), that she is allowed to set her own boundaries and expect people to respect them.
I dunno that I did everything perfectly. But I can tell you that being familiar with my employer's harassment policy - and my profession's view on service, ethics, and marginalized groups - was helpful rather than otherwise.
***********
If you do any work with kids or teens (in the US?) you will probably eventually run into one of those "assets" lists - the lists of all the things that youth can have or be given that will make them more likely to succeed. They are kinda of interesting actually and full of random stuff like "feels valued by adults" and "spends 2 hours playing sports a week." They are not meant to be a checklist of what every single kid needs to have and do so. Rather, they were gathered based on statistics and are meant to be used in analyzing services to youth. Mostly, I have run across them in library work where we use the stuff like "feels useful and valued and capable of contributing" on the teen list as a starting point to talking about why teen events should really focus on letting the teens run them as much as possible.
The first time I encountered them was in a education class - and the one part on the list that immediately jumped out at me was something along the lines of "goes to church" or "parents believe in god." Which got my hackles up, let me tell you. When we got to that point on the list our professor explained that it was badly worded. What they actually found was that it is important, in terms of success and being a productive member of society, for youth to believe in something larger than themselves. God and religion tend to be what that is for most people, but simply participating one's community in a way that does not directly benefit ones family works just as well. In other words, my dad being an AYSO ref long after his children had stopped playing and my mother using off work time to tutor students - these all counted. All of which made sense to me immediately - it's not just that there is a limit to how much good you can do in the service of only yourself or your family, it's also that a certain amount of humbleness is necessary when it comes to being able to listen to others and navigate conflict with minimal repercussions.
From my, admittedly limited, understanding this is what is missing from a lot of skeptic and atheist conversations. And that many within the community are attempting to bring social justice to the forefront not just for practical and personal reasons, but also because it is very important to them that the organizations they are a part of exist to serve not only their members but the larger community as well.
So, it will be interesting to see if they are successful. And I am rather tempted to help them out.