Now that my blog is on a network that gets lots of traffic, it has the opportunity to expose you to a risk you may not have previously considered. If it occurs to you, by some strange coincidence, that I have said something reasonable, I beg you to stop and think about your next step carefully.
You see, I happen to be female. I know, that may seem obvious from the name, but a few other men apparently haven’t taken that fully into account. What have they done in their ignorance? They’ve agreed with me. And that can’t happen without consequences.
On Friday morning, Greg Laden and Scicurious blogged on the origins of the human female orgasm. Greg covered background on primate sexual and social behavior that should inform any research on the topic. Sci dug into a recent twin-study paper and looked at how well it demonstrated what it claimed (or didn’t).
On Friday afternoon, Sci sent me an email titled, “Jeezus H Christ on a breadstick what is wrong with people.” “How DO you put up with this all the time?!?!” she asked. It included a link to a comment on her post.
Laden overstates some claims, like saying, without offering any proof or even a URL, that the “byproduct” school started in part in a belief that women don’t have vaginal orgasms. (Stephanie Zvan was probably standing over his shoulder while he wrote.)
The study may or may not prove much of anything, but to link to Greg as offering a great degree of insight? Meh.
For the record, when I write about sex, I’m writing about it from a political perspective. I’m writing about things like sexual freedom and consent. And while I do occasionally write about the politics of research design or communication, I know nothing about this particular topic. That means that I’d have been horribly annoying standing over Greg’s shoulder. It’s part of his field. He was probably there when scientists started discussing it.
None of those things actually matter to this guy, of course. He doesn’t actually think I told Greg what to write on this topic. The real problem is that I disagreed with this guy, and Greg agreed with me, not him. It was a serious enough offense to “Scratch Greg Laden from the critical thinkers list“:
I used to browse him on ScienceBlogs from time to time, but, over the NASA fake exobiology story, and now, over (under the influence of his attack dog Stephanie Zvan, I believe) Julian Assange, he’s lost me … and lost “it.”
A couple days later, we find out why Greg wasn’t thinking straight:
I can only but 100 percent agree with Australian website Crikey, and against at least a certain subgroup of gender feminists such as Stephanie Zvzn (and, in her case, apparent in thrall boyfriend Greg Laden) on this issue.
Yep, now you know. Agreeing with me only happens if you’re having sex with me, which will apparently utterly destroy any free will or even outside attention you used to be able to claim. I hate to say it, but I guess I’m just that good. Odd, given how unappealingly strident (yes, really: “strident”) I am.
It must be true, however. It couldn’t be that this guy is one of those obsessive people who see conspiracy everywhere and throw temper tantrums over the multiple meanings and uses of a word. No, writing three blog posts in four days and bringing everything up again nine months later is never any indication of that sort of thing.
And really, that only begins to explain it. Some dude with a fixation wants to be upset with me? Wants to be upset with Greg? Whatever. But it doesn’t explain why Greg associating with me is an insult, or why the relationship must be a sexual one to produce that agreement. It doesn’t explain why Jason becomes female when he points out that an MRA is engaging in classic troll behavior in the comments on one of my posts. It doesn’t explain why anything Rebecca Watson did is being laid at PZ’s feet (warning: you don’t really want to have read that site) as though he were responsible for her entire life.
Nope. When a man agrees with a woman online, he’d best do it very, very carefully. You’ve been warned.