Are feminist skeptics "woo filled idiots"?

My command of the social media site Twitter has grown and over the last month particularly I have come across or engaged in discussions about women and their relationship with science. My ramblings below are prompted by a post on the Blag Hag blog called The more feminists mistrust science, the more women look like fools. This was a response to another article published at I Blame the Patriarchy on a scientific study looking at the effects of porn. (BTW I'm not getting into a porn debate!)

I have also recently become aware of groups of people calling themselves "skeptics" who meet in pubs across the UK and take a critical view on pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo like homeopathy and astrology. I've never been to one of their meetings but they're held all around the country. Recently a group called Ladies Who Do Skepticism formed along a similar vein. Recent discussions on Twitter have focused on why women don't get more involved in skepticism and come to these meetings.

So here are my thoughts.

Science has historically been the preserve of men (as have most professional and academic fields). The situation has improved somewhat but I am aware that the numbers of women in science is still pathetically low, particularly at the top of professions. If there isn't a glass ceiling then women must be very good mimes. The factors involved are numerous, and I won't go into them. However I think that our perceptions of who does science still hasn't changed much. For example, Google search for "scientist" and you usually get something like this or this. Google also suggests the related search "female scientist" which feeds into the assumption that male is the default setting for a scientist (search for nurse and Google suggests "male nurse").  I think that may women who are not scientists don't see science as something that affects them, or at least not as something to get involved with. This is true of non-scientist males too, but the male scientist stereotype is an extra barrier for women.

I've also noticed a certain aggression in some of the skeptical discussions that take place online. While aggression is not an exclusively male trait, I have picked up on an element of machismo and derision towards those who do not agree and I can see how that might be off-putting to women more than men. I haven't been to a skeptics meeting but I'd be interested in seeing for myself whether this is true in real life.

Anyway back to the Blag Hag article, in which the blogger (Jen) basically attacks Jill (from I Blame the Patriarchy) for questioning the validity of a a study on the effects of porn on men. It's interesting because Jen appears to see herself as the voice of scientific reason, defending science from "those feminists who distrust science". And yet a look at Jill's article shows that Jill was simply approaching the subject at hand with a healthy dose of skepticism. The really fascinating part is when  Jen says:

"Every time a feminist treats science like some great big boogeyman, she makes all feminists and women look foolish and ignorant."


I have a big problem with this statement. Do we really have to simply accept any scientific study for fear of looking like "woo filled idiots screaming conspiracy theories"? Why does questioning make us look stupid rather than skeptical? Are male skeptics accused of being foolish and ignorant too?


I actually think the right place is a middle ground and I can find points in both articles to agree and disagree with. Some, but of course not all, scientists and science experiments are misogynistic. But Jen's overreaction to healthy skepticism from a fellow feminist is wrong and serves to discourage women from skepticism. Women are constantly being bombarded by crap science, whether it is surveys on sexual happiness, creams for prolonging youth or all-natural yoghurts to feed the young 'uns. Even if we get it wrong, we shouldn't hold back from questioning the science if we think something's amiss. We should rush to hold those who conduct and benefit from science to account. 


I want to comment also on intuition. Whether it is skepticism, experience or simply (my favourite) an internal bullshit-o-meter, we all need something to prompt us to start questioning where a problem may not be obvious. All of these things make up what I like to think of as intuition, and therefore I don't know why intuition is seen as such a dirty "emotional" thing. What's important is that intuition leads to rational scrutiny. I want to add that I don't think emotion and science are mutually exclusive. Scientists are passionate, they are defensive, they get excited, they are competitive and their work can be biased by emotions and beliefs. So let's not act like science is always cold and rational, because often it isn't. 

To sum up (because I could ramble on forever), I'd say the following are reasons why women aren't more involved in skepticism (questioning bad science).

1. Science isn't by female non-scientists seen as "for us" because of pervasive stereotypes and male domination
2. There is a lot of bad science targetted specifically at women out there. This may have the effect of women building up some kind of immunity and an ability (or need) to simply ignore it all
3. Questioning what appears to be science may draw negative reactions from others and accusations of being anti-science
4. The idea that science is cold and logical combined with the message that logic is for men and emotion is for women
5. Most importantly,  there aren't enough women doing science. This is by far the biggest problem. You don't need to be a scientist to be a science sceptic but it helps, not least with having the confidence to question.

Hey it's not all doom and gloom. Have a look at some drawings by schoolchildren of scientists before and after visiting labs and talking to scientists. If this doesn't cheer you up and inspire hope, nothing will.