What Is an Ally? »« Negotiables

D.J. Grothe on the Feminist and Atheist Blogospheres

In the discussion of my post suggesting D.J. Grothe has a bad habit of walking into arguments and taking a side without fulling understanding the implications (which he assures me he doesn’t), he signed off with the following:

This will be my last post on this topic. I’ll go back to believing what I have believed for a while now about some of these atheist blogs, now yours included: that fomenting movement controversy often seems to be prized over honest and sincere argument, that some folks are too quick to vilify and engage in destructive in-group/out-group thinking, that these online communities are exclusive rather than inclusive, and that unfortunately as a whole, the feminist and atheist blogospheres often operate quite separately from and counter the growing skeptical movement working to combat unreason and harmful pseudoscience in society.

Now, there are a few things to be noted about this statement. I’ve made this same honest and sincere argument before, because, as I hope we’ve all learned in the last few months, nothing blows up a movement like a leader making ill-considered arguments. Suggesting that pointing them out instead of letting them slide constitutes fomenting controversy is ignoring the responsibilities of the leaders who made them.

Aside from noting that someone who calls Greta’s posting of a #mencallmethings moment “bullying” may not be the best person to talk about being quick to vilify, I’ll also note briefly that no community is going to be inclusionary to everyone. The insistence that all groups be open to some people will lead to all groups being closed to some people. The topic probably warrants its own post, however.

But now, the feminist and atheist blogospheres: I hate to break it to D.J., but we are the movement. We’re not all of the movement, of course, but neither are the more established groups. We do very similar but not completely overlapping tasks: organize events, promote events, speak at events, raise money, issue action alerts, write position papers, write articles in mainstream publications, write books, write blog posts, organize smaller-scale social events, give people with common interests in science and rationality a place to socialize online.

As for differences: we mostly don’t lobby politicians directly; they mostly reach people who are already particularly interested in skepticism. We are also composed of people with a broader range of expertise, simply because we are selected for criteria other than an interest in the traditional topics of skepticism. That is both a strength and a weakness for us. We can cover more topics and react to more of the day’s events, but there isn’t always a strong voice nearby to tell us when we’ve messed something up. There isn’t always someone there to counteract our authority.

Authority, by the way, is the biggest reason I think having bloggers working separately from the institutions of movement skepticism is a good thing. There is nothing about being a high-profile skeptic that makes one immune from spouting off on topics where one is not an expert. If you run in those circles, you probably just thought of two examples. And now a third. Having the independence to comfortably (sometimes more than others) criticize the big names when that happens and they get things badly wrong is a very good thing.

Nor is it working against the movement to criticize each other. In fact, limiting our ability to be critical is antithetical to skepticism itself. It’s not impossible for such a thing to impede the mission of a group, but a much better case would need to be made for that happening than, “You laid out my behavior in a blog post,” or, “You criticized my focus.” The movement that can’t withstand that is very weak indeed.

Skepticism isn’t that movement. So, rather than focusing on the negative in the comments here (if you must be negative, go post in response to the comment instead), I’d like to highlight how the feminist and atheist blogospheres strengthen the skeptical movement. I’ll do that by mentioning the contributions of two bloggers.

The first is Dr. Kate Clancy of Context and Variation. Her focus is on what she calls “ladybusiness,” that bit of human biology that is specific to females and the behavior that surrounds it. She frequently takes all those things you thought you knew on the topic and, being an anthropologist, puts them in the context of other cultures, other species, and human history. One great example of her applied skepticism is “Do Women Bleed Together? On Menstrual Synchrony.” She also recently posted her list of the best ladybusiness anthropology blogging of 2011 (full disclosure: I’m on the list for a piece on the age of consent). Much of it is applied skepticism at its finest. Just ask the women on that list if they consider themselves part of the feminist blogosphere.

Over in the atheistosphere, we have Greg Laden. Up until not that long ago, Greg didn’t even know there was a skeptical movement. He certainly hasn’t gotten himself organized into any of its institutions. What he has done, however, is adapt a minor specialty of critiquing skeptics for adopting new rubrics and fetishes in the place of those they have discarded. It’s kind of a pain in the ass being kept honest that way, but it’s still a valuable service that improves skepticism.

So, I’ll put it to the rest of you: Who are feminist and atheist bloggers who add value to the skeptical movement and how?

Comments

  1. Konradius says

    Rebecca Watson, Greta Cristina, Maryam Namazie, the godless bitches (ACA podcast), Greg and you. Just in the first minute of thinking. Happy to follow them all, even though not always I fully grok the implications myself.

    Well, at least I display some skeptical thought within 24 hours, unlike DJ it seems.

  2. screechymonkey says

    It should be noted that Grothe’s contempt for online communities extends even to his own organization’s. On the rare occasions that he has deigned to post in the JREF Forum, he’s been pretty arrogant and dismissive of any criticisms made.

  3. Maria says

    If you’re talking women in SKEPTICISM [not just atheism], I’d list those women who are prominent at skeptical conferences recently — in no particular order —

    Harriet Hall
    Jennifer Michael Hecht
    Karen Stollznow
    Kylie Sturgess (she’s a Freethought blogger too, right?)
    Sara Mayhew
    Dr Pamela Gay
    Jennifer Ouellette
    Julia Galef
    Julia Lavarnway

    Not bloggers but female voices out there —
    Eugenie Scott
    Desiree Scheell (Skeptically Speaking podcast)
    Swoopy of Skepticality podcast (Robyn or Robin)
    Carol Tavris
    Suan Blackmore

    They’re all value-add and many of them don’t get profiled or recognised or enough shout-outs enough for the work they do IMHO.

  4. Stacy says

    Ophelia Benson, who spends a lot of time on feminist issues and discusses them with nuance and passion. PZ (almost goes without saying). Sikivu Hutchinson, who writes and blogs about race and class as well as gender, and trains a sympathetic but rightly skeptical eye on the mostly white, middle class Skeptic Movement. And everyone mentioned in the previous comments.

    It’s funny how some Skeptics would rather debunk their 142 gazillionth haunted house than aim the tools of skepticism at preconceptions and biases that actually, you know, effect society at large. Not that woo doesn’t–but it’s already mostly intellectually marginalized. Anti-feminism and anti-atheism are still mainstream.

  5. SallyStrange, FemBrain in a FemBadge (Bigger on the Inside!) says

    Amanda Marcotte. Her emphasis is on feminism and politics than atheism and skepticism, but those are clearly her approaches.

    I will note that both she and Liss McEwan, the owner of Shakesville, are firm atheists but refuse to emphasize that as part of their public identity, specifically because of the unchallenged misogyny in the atheist community.

    I second the mention of Sikivu Hutchinson. Her book, “Moral Combat,” really helps answer the question of why people of color are more likely to be religious, and lays out why this religiosity is so damaging to POC. And no, it has nothing to do with innate intelligence (fancy that!).

  6. mel says

    I add Hayley Stevens to the list of contributors and Sharon Hill. Traditional skeptical investigators are needed, unless you’d rather leave it to Randi, Nickels and Shermer. Those ghost-hunting shows aren’t going anywhere soon without new blood.

  7. says

    Ahem. Positive examples, please.

    mel, where did I suggest the traditional fields should be left out? This is about recognizing the contributions among the feminist and atheist blogospheres.

    Jennifer Oullette is an excellent example, particularly with The Science & Entertainment Exchange. I will also never forget being in a radio studio dealing with a climate change “skeptic” with Amanda Marcotte. That’s in addition, of course, to all the science she adds to the abortion debates.

  8. says

    If this is some kind of faux pas, please forgive me, but I’m about to shamelessly self-promote. I’ve been blogging since July about specific ways people can make women feel more welcome in the skeptical movement, for the purpose of increasing the number of women who consider themselves active participants.

    More Women in Skepticism

    I also have started reviewing books with a skeptical eye, for the reason of because I like to read books and as a practical demonstration of how to practice skepticism in daily life, but mostly because I like to read books.

    Whether or not I add value is for other people to decide. If this comment is deleted as not being in the spirit of the conversation or because it opens up the floodgates for comments of the same kind beyond what is wanted, I totally understand.

  9. mel says

    My positive examples must still be in moderation — I gave a link to Karen Xs appearance along with Ouellette and TigTog in a podcast episode of the Token Skeptic.

  10. SallyStrange, FemBrain in a FemBadge (Bigger on the Inside!) says

    Didn’t know about Scicurious before. Thanks, Jason, Stephanie!

  11. mel says

    Both Sharon Hill and Hayley Stevens are bloggers BTW. Sharon blogs for Doubtful news and Hayley at Hayley is a Ghost. Links aren’t being posted due to moderation but you can look them up.

  12. says

    Why, oh why, can’t we just go back to the days of unbending Uri Gellers spoons and unexplaining velekofsky and that other guy????

    /sarcasm

  13. gwen says

    I agree with all of those mentioned above, but I don’t think I saw Greta’s name, and I KNOW I didn’t see Rebecca’s, or the Skepchicks mentioned.

  14. Konradius says

    Those were actually the first two Gwen, and I think they’re so obvious that nobody bothers to name them anymore here.
    But then again, they did place 1 and 2 for most influential female skeptics of 2011.
    And actually, you are right the other skepchicks havn’t been mentioned by name.
    Masala_Skeptic, A.Real.Girl, Elyse, Sam Ogden, Jen, Amanda, Surly Amy and Debbie Goddard.

  15. says

    Don’t forget Natalie Reed on Skepchick and now Queereka, she’s been kicking ass those last weeks as well as giving anybody willing to listen an actual education in trans-issues.
    I think I know much more about genital reconstruction surgery now than I ever thought I would.

  16. SallyStrange, FemBrain in a FemBadge (Bigger on the Inside!) says

    Yeah Gilliell, Natalie’s been KILLIN’ it! I’m a big fan.

Trackbacks