Guest Post by Sharon Moss, President of the Humanist Community of Central Ohio with Lyz Liddell, Director of Campus Organizing at the Secular Student Alliance
These are the views of individuals and do not represent the views of the Secular Student Alliance or the Humanist Community of Central Ohio.
If the freethought community doesn’t have a problem with sexism, why did I just spend 20 minutes in the bathroom consoling a woman who was publicly insulted when she asked the panel a question about sexism in freethought communities? Note to dudes, it doesn’t matter if it is sexism or biology, if you’re making people who come to your group uncomfortable, you’re doing it wrong. — Facebook status, Sharon Moss, 1/30/11
I’m not one to post snarky facebook status updates. I generally view snarky facebook statuses as the realm of the powerless. And, damn, did I feel powerless.
Last weekend Lyz and I were at American Atheists’ Southeast Regional Atheist Meet in Huntsville, Alabama. This is the first regional conference America Atheists organized and the over the two prior days, it sold out with 200 atheists from as far away as North Carolina and Ohio. At a rough visual estimate, probably 30% of the attendees were women. When David Silverman polled the audience on Sunday afternoon, for about half of those in attendance, this was their first atheist conference of any kind. Clearly, American Atheists is on to something.
Sunday morning’s first session was an “Attendees’ Choice” panel discussion, featuring five local group leaders. Attendees were asked to submit written questions ahead of time, and the most frequently asked questions were asked of this panel.
A panel of five guys and one woman discussed what an atheist group should do to attract more women. The all-too-common problem came up of a woman showing up to a meeting and every dude there hitting on her. First, the panelists grabbed a theme that had been floating around all weekend: that men hitting on women is just biological (therefore excusable), making it sound like a woman in that kind of situation should just STFU and get over it.
Then the moderator asked the women in the audience, as if it were a rewording of the same question, whether they would feel harassed or flattered if they showed up to an event and a few guys started flirting with them. We women in the audience, pressured to respond to the question at hand but feeling duped because we knew it wasn’t the same thing, gave an honest response. Sure, a few guys flirting with us is sexy. BUT!!! (we all screamed in our heads, even though the panel never let us say it out loud) 20 guys our father’s age blatantly staring at and talking to our cleavage is a totally different situation! It’s not sexy, it’s gross and creepy.
It was extremely frustrating. So I wasn’t surprised when the young woman who finally stood up and started challenging the panel snapped. First, despite her having her hand raised for most of the discussion, the panel never even acknowledged her or invited her opinion (despite soliciting the opinion of several guys both on and off the panel. Finally, she just stood up and started shouting to make her voice heard. Her question focused on the language the panel had been using – “female” instead of “woman,” and pointed out that it made us sound like livestock rather than people.
But did the panel address the question, perhaps looking for the point at which the discussion took on the word “female” so universally? Did they take the opportunity to discuss how things like language can make a group uncomfortable for women, and what we could do to make it better? No! The woman asking the question was viciously torn apart and ridiculed for even bringing it up. First, a combination of panelists and audience members tried to defend themselves by saying that feminists won’t let men use the word “women” off-limits because it has “men” in it. Then a commotion of everyone talking at once, which was cut off by one panelist’s definitive comment: “What do you want us to say, ‘the weaker sex?”
She got upset (and who wouldn’t be?) and left the room. I – a member of the audience, not one of the event organizers – went after her. While there were a few odd calls from the audience for the panelist to apologize, the moderator sort of awkwardly pushed the discussion on to a new topic, with an embarrassed air of “Sorry for the disturbance.” No apology, no discussing a better way it could have been handled. Not even a joking “This is how *not* to be welcoming” comment. Just “nothing to see here, move along.”
This wasn’t an isolated incident. In fact, almost the entire conference had a bizarre quality to it when it came to gender issues. If I had to point to when it started, I think it would have to have been in Sean Faircloth’s Saturday talk. This talk began well enough: a strong feminist position, an excoriation of Victorian moralist Anthony Comstock, mention of several areas in which the law imposes on women’s rights. But then it got weirdly uncomfortable. First, came the proposal of a new motto: “What Would Don Draper Do?” (Don Draper is your role model, seriously?)
Sean’s transition hinted strongly that men also face gender discrimination, which had huge potential to be really interesting (wow, a chance to talk about our society’s constraining, conflicting roles for men! *insert Greta fangirl here*).
[Jen's note: I've temporarily removed the section on the "Million Dollar Challenge" since there seems to be a lot of debate over whether it was depicted fairly. The Alabama Atheists are uploading the video of Sean's talk to make this situation clear. While I wouldn't let Sharon and Lyz do a guest post unless I trusted their judgement, I also don't want to misrepresent Sean Faircloth, so I'm waiting until I've seen the video.]
From there, the conversation wandered into a weird discussion about how men’s biology drives them to frequently (if not constantly) pursue sex, and since it’s biology, no one should get upset at, judge, or think less of men for any skirt-chasing they might engage in. (Because we never intellectually overcome our animal instincts in other areas of our biology, right?) The attitude in the room shifted: suddenly women were the bad guys for saying no to men’s propositions because it denies the men’s innate biology. Most of the guys in the room loved it, but as a woman in the audience – it was really uncomfortable. It was demeaning, frustrating, and not what you want to say to attract more women into this movement. And the attitude stuck around.
All these people got presented with a totally skewed perspective on our movement’s views on gender equality and sexuality. The message was loud and clear: it’s totally ok for guys to be assholes. Women should just STFU when men treat them like sex objects. The appropriate way to solve the problem of gender imbalance is to ask a bunch of guys about it (oh, and the entire problem is just because women won’t let men have sex with them whenever they want to). The way to handle women’s input is to ridicule them.
But there’s an even bigger problem here. Situations like this drive wedges between otherwise natural allies in our movement. That young woman is on our side – she came to this event at the cost of her time and money to get involved – and she was driven away. So are thousands of women across the country – for no other reason than because this movement can’t seem to figure out how to treat them like equal humans.
Why don’t we see more women in our groups? Maybe because when Jen McCreight showed up to an atheist meeting, guys in the group stood around comparing her to her photos from Boobquake. Why don’t we see more young people? Maybe because when a new parent shows up to a group event, other members make rude comments to her face about how her child is disrupting the meeting. Why are we so overwhelmingly Caucasian? Maybe because a black person shows up and hears a bunch of racial jokes.
We need to have these conversations, but there’s no reason to drive away people who are *on our side* by having them in completely the wrong way.
American Atheists created a real opportunity for members of local groups to come together, share ideas, get leadership training, and go home ready to take over the world. For many issues– activism, law, supporting campus groups, the future of the atheist movement– they were incredibly successful. I’ve been doing this for 10 years and I haven’t seen this kind of enthusiasm for the grassroots outside the college level. Ever. But there is always room for improvement. We lost a real opportunity for local leaders to share their experiences, successes and failures. Creating a more inclusive movement needs to be a priority at both the national and local levels.
From my own experience as the former president of Students for Freethought at Ohio State and as the current president of the Humanist Community of Central Ohio and from talking to other local leaders, the grassroots gets it. We want to be more inclusive and we’re taking the steps to get there.
Here’s what I’ve learned, both from my own experience and from talking to other local leaders. These suggestions aren’t just about being more accessible to anyone who isn’t a middle aged white man. Some of these are just good practices for running a group. Turns out running a more professional (wrong word) group brings in more people of all kinds.
- Be a leader. Take responsibility for the tone of your group. If potential new members are being made to feel uncomfortable and aren’t coming back, you’re doing it wrong. As a leader, it is your job to prioritize the comfort of your attendees in programs, group dynamics, and communications. Try to put yourself in other members’ shoes and also ask for feedback.
- Promote a sense of community. Take the time to socialize and get to know each other. If you’re group isn’t primarily a social group, thinking about adding some social time. Go to breakfast before the protest, compose your letters to the editor over coffee, or grab a pizza and beer after that lecture. When you know each other, you have each others backs. Being a jerk isn’t tolerated.
- Moderate discussions. Make sure everyone has the opportunity to participate- new people, quiet people, etc. Don’t let conversation be dominated by one or two people who must “win.”
- Embrace and accept different ways of communicating. Whether someone is an aggressive debater or not, make sure they’re still welcome. The other atheist in the room isn’t your enemy.
- Encourage subgroups. Every event your group hosts doesn’t need to appeal to your entire membership. Many women appreciate women-only space to express their nonbelief and to connect with other atheist women. Here at the Humanist Community of Central Ohio, we started a subgroup book club called Reasonable Women. When it grew to have about 25 regular members and was beginning to be a little too large and unwieldy to function as a book club, we created a second group, Heathen Chicks, which is just a social group that meets at a local cafe. It isn’t just about creating women only space, for us, this has been a way to draw more women into other events our group hosts.
- Foster women in leadership. Groups with women in leadership positions tend to have more women. Encourage women in your group to be visible in leadership.
Our movement is growing faster than ever, and we have more opportunities for growth and expansion than we have ever seen before. While hiccups like this can be frustrating, they’re also a great chance for us to make our groups, communities and movements even stronger. We encourage you to take a look at your group and see if there are ways you can reach out to women, younger adults, minorities, or other groups.
601 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Skeptiheidi
February 7, 2011 at 10:20 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Gross. Just gross. I have no witty insight, no advice, no helpful comments at this moment in time.Just anger, frustration, and weariness.
Ian
February 7, 2011 at 10:25 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Thank you for this great guest post. I hope Jen will post more and that more women atheist leaders will continue to speak up.
Charlie Kilian
February 7, 2011 at 10:28 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
To the men of the skeptical movement who would assert that we are trapped by our biology: Talk about a double standard. If we’re trapped by our biology, why even bother trying to practice skepticism? We accept that we should overcome our entirely natural tendencies to form quick — often incorrect — cause and effect (such as “our people are sinners, which is the cause of our recent drought”). So why is it so hard to accept that we should not be slaves to our biology when it comes to sex drive?Which is to say, that’s a bad argument regardless of whether men actually *are* slaves to our sex drive more than women are. Which I highly doubt.
asonge
February 7, 2011 at 10:28 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
This seems like such a caricature of bad behavior, I have a hard time believing that this happened. I run a local group, and just under half our membership is women…and I just don’t see any of these overtones at all, but I can easily see where it can come from. This could be because a co-founder is a strong feminist who would’ve brow-beaten anyone who made any such absurd comments. We talk about issues with race and women a lot (we are in the South, after all) and everyone seems to be very comfortable with the topics. Only thing I remember is once a guy joked about a girl being a slut (obviously in a derogatory sense) and everyone brought the ridicule down on his antiquated double standards.Is this just a relic with the older and more established groups? It’s obviously a given that these people are assholes, but I know many assholes who aren’t so ignorant.Also, the sheer logic of indulging every biological drive justifying subjugating women is insane. Maybe somebody should’ve obeyed their immediate biological need to shit on top of the panel’s table in a show of dominance.This post has me angry (not a bad thing). Thanks for posting this. Sunshine can be a good disinfectant, but sometimes we need to bring out the roach spray.
JRB
February 7, 2011 at 10:31 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“But then he issued the million dollar challenge. The men in the room were encouraged to actively look around and find a woman they would want to boff. (In the challenge, a man who could hypothetically boff said woman that night would win a million dollars.) “…is there any more context for this… because… wow… just…wow… if this is an accurate paraphrasing of what was said, then… wow… it… sorry, I cannot think of the words to describe the pure wrong of this.
Don
February 7, 2011 at 10:32 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I would add, “Provide child care at meetings.” If we expect mothers of young children to participate, they have to know they aren’t going to be kid-wrangling for the whole conference. Letting the kids wreck the conference for the people who didn’t bring children, is not an acceptable alternative, and the mothers will be both kid-wrangling AND unwelcome.Something I’ve had experience with is an organization that required the national leadership to be 50% women. The result was a mixed bag. The clear message being sent was that women were taken seriously as leaders at the highest level. On the other hand, I heard numerous complaints from women—who were still in the minority of total membership—that they felt pressured to stand for leadership posts because they were women.
Mike Hare
February 7, 2011 at 10:32 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I am so tired of this! No, not the topic, men behaving badly and then making it worse by defending it. I am 65 and come of age in a matriarchal household. Father left early and I grew up with sister, mother and grandmother. After the Air Force I lived with my wife and then 2 daughters. Now, hearing what crap my adult daughter put up with from the men at work and complete strangers, it just makes me angry..
asonge
February 7, 2011 at 10:33 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’ll glom on to this a little: we need to call these people out for not being skeptical about their attitudes at all. Even if I were more of a bigot than I think I am, I’d be skeptical of any evidence that confirms my hypothesis neatly. There are so many biases that are possible (indeed they seem to be there) that you shouldn’t ignore anyone speaking out on how they feel they are being treated.
Benjamin Manigk
February 7, 2011 at 10:37 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Ugh. This was painful to read. Is there maybe some way to lodge a complaint to American Atheists that these kind of panelists have no place?
Barbara_K
February 7, 2011 at 10:37 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
What was the point of the million dollar challenge? Was there one? What purpose was there in putting all of the women there in that position, as objects to be assessed as possible sexual partners, that’s terrible. After all of that I would have walked out, never to return.
Ethan
February 7, 2011 at 10:40 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
This is outrageous. American Atheists should publically apologize for this and refund the admission fees for people who were offended. What a shameful display by the speakers and panelists.
Jack Scanlan
February 7, 2011 at 10:40 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’m disgusted by this, and I have to agree with asonge – I’ve never come across such attitudes in the groups I’m part of, but then again, my groups tend to be filled with younger people with an equal gender ratio. I think it’s probably either an age/group-age thing or simply stochasticity that brought all the assholes together. Doesn’t make it acceptable though. Gah.
steve
February 7, 2011 at 10:43 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Shitting on the table would be too much, but I was thinking of something we could really do. People on panels usually have water, don’t they? Next time a guy on a panel talks about biology, someone should stand up and grab his water and drink it. Thirst is an even bigger drive than sex. To any brave people reading this, be on the lookout for this opportunity.
asonge
February 7, 2011 at 10:45 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I was going for absurdity, but drinking their water would be funnier.
Old Earth Accretionist
February 7, 2011 at 10:47 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Grargh… what makes me the most grumpy about all of these incidents is not that they make the mistakes/fall in to the trap in the first place but that when someone points out that they have they don’t even just back peddle they try to justify it as not a mistake at all.This doesn’t just happen with sexism… it happens with everything… Most people are too afraid of being wrong to admit to being wrong when they actually are. The ironic thing with this group of people is that I’m sure they encounter this sort of attitude from many a religious person about their atheism. Grow up. Learn to accept mistakes and learn from them rather than pathologically justifying that they really weren’t mistakes to begin with to make yourself feel better…. you will look (and act) a lot more intelligent if you do and gain much more respect from people around you. A person confident enough to say that they made a mistake and move forward from it gains more respect than someone who hides behind “it is just because of my biology that I made you uncomfortable, not because I didn’t think about it before I did/said it”And I’m sure it hasn’t escaped anyone’s notice that huge heaps of examples of this self-gratifying justification of mistakes in behaviour where related to sexism are available just a few posts down about Jen talking about her experience of being on the internet while female.
Brandi
February 7, 2011 at 10:50 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Terrible. What is the alternative? Putting together a facemash for atheist dudes? Unfortunately, I feel like that would be like choosing the lesser of two skeezeballs.
John Small Berries
February 7, 2011 at 10:50 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’d like to add, in the absence of conference-provided child care, why should we expect mothers of young children to be the full-time child-wranglers if they wish to participate?I find it hard to believe that every woman with a child who might wish to participate at an atheist or skeptic conference has no husband or significant other with whom to share child-wrangling duties, no family who could watch the child while she is at the conference, and no access to babysitters.
Rose Schwartz
February 7, 2011 at 10:51 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I like this. While I personally have not encountered much sexism in the atheist/skeptic movement, I’ve heard the argument from biology in many other forms. Natural sex in the homophobic community. What is ‘natural’ and who cares? Humans have come to a place in our evolution where we can decide to do something different than our biology may suggest… Thanks to the power of conscious thought.And to assume that women don’t like sex is faulty, as you suggest. I also agree with that. :)
leanne
February 7, 2011 at 11:03 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
just one more reason i’m terrified to attend an atheist event. [the main one being i'm not much of an extrovert]
Improbable Joe
February 7, 2011 at 11:07 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I wonder, if I had been at this meeting and things had played out as described, would I have been justified in expressing my male biological impulse to punch assholes in the face? Would the people making those claims about males being slaves to their urges have simply wiped the blood off their faces and respected my natural behavioral tendencies?
Amanda Gulledge
February 7, 2011 at 11:08 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
No doubt most men are half-past chimp when around women, but I’m guessing this isn’t why more women aren’t in the atheist movement. The churches are over-flowing with milk-soaked bra pads and we “know” the church isn’t pro-woman.
TheWanderingFool
February 7, 2011 at 11:13 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’ve heard the “Million Dollar Challenge” before, but the way I heard it phrased was, (to the guys), “Okay, let’s say you would get one million dollars if you could sleep with a woman here before midnight tonight. How many of you think you could do it?” (Check hands raised) Then to the women, “Okay, let’s say you would get one million dollars if you could sleep with a guy here before midnight tonight. How many of you think you could do it?” (Check hands raised) I guess it was supposed to demonstrate that women tend to be the “gatekeepers” of sex, since guys are more likely to bang anything with a pulse.Of course, I have no idea how it was used at the American Atheist Conference– probably not appropriately, if there even is a case where the Million Dollar Challenge could be used appropriately. I can’t think of one… it’s a degrading exercise for everybody involved.Frankly, any time someone even insinuates “well, it’s okay for men to be pigs because it’s their biology” I’m reminded of those Islamic clerics who say “Well, women have to wear a burka, and if they don’t, it’s their fault if they get raped, because that’s just how men are. You don’t blame the cat for eating the meat that gets left out, do you?” It’s incredibly insulting, to both genders, and if that’s how the discussion at the conference went, then… just wow.
Add
February 7, 2011 at 11:16 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Geeze, for someone so hyper critical of any gender offense you sure seem eager to write off older men as disgusting creeps. Agist! Men shouldn’t be ashamed to approach women they are interested in. No, it does not mean women have to oblige and can’t indicate they aren’t interested, but the male bashing in this post is ridiculous.
Ola Rozenfeld
February 7, 2011 at 11:17 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“20 guys our father’s age blatantly staring at and talking to our cleavage is a totally different situation!”Sorry, but the ageism made me a bit sick. It sounds like you’re saying that flirting is great, as long it’s someone you might actually find attractive… otherwise “OMG-stop-treating-me-like-an-object”! The only thing I can agree with is this: there are repectful and disrespectful ways of hitting on someone. The disrespectful ways are not cool, and guys who do that are stupid assholes. BUT!There is nothing wrong with wanting to have sex with me, and there’s nothing wrong with hitting on me, provided you don’t do it like an asshole. (And yes, continuously talking to my cleavage is an asshole move) And it doesn’t matter whether it’s “biologically normal” or not, that’s not the point! In fact, it’s a strawman. The question is whether there is anything morally *wrong* with this behavior, and whether men should need to control themselves and avoid it — and honestly, I don’t think so!I have an analogy: suppose someone says that it annoys her how people always try to become her friend. She doesn’t need any more friends, she’s not interested, she just came to the conference to discuss atheism/biology/webcomics — but for some reason people just insist on talking with her, and end up sharing personal things, inviting her to board game nights with their friends, ugh!.. So sick of that! What is wrong with people, can’t everyone just leave her at peace?If someone said that, we would call her crazy (among other things). And the reason for that is that there is nothing wrong in friendship, and pursuing friendship — again, provided that you’re not being an asshole. There is nothing wrong with it even if the person is not interested (as long as you can take a “no” for an answer).Saying that men should hide (or downplay) their sincere affection for women that they meet at atheist venues… I just can’t agree with it, because a) I want to hit on people and I don’t want to be sexist and say “Oh, women can hit on guys, but not the other way around” b) I want people to hit on me (especially at venues where the probability to find someone intelligent and like minded is 10 times the normal one…).I’ll admit one thing: if it turns out that the vast majority of women would indeed prefer that men refrained from hitting on them, I will yield (begrudgingly). But I would do the same if the hypothetical “friendship-freaked” girl represented the vast majority…
Todd
February 7, 2011 at 11:18 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“20 guys our father’s age blatantly staring at and talking to our cleavage is a totally different situation! It’s not sexy, it’s gross and creepy.”First, that’s a very ageist statement. As you get older you will learn that humans don’t become asexual just because they reach middle-age. Even though you see them as gross old men, that doesn’t mean they see themselves that way.Second, maybe in that setting it would be best to not display any cleavage.I’m actually very sympathetic with the problems that women might have feeling comfortable at atheist gatherings, but the points of the above statement seem to be, “It’s only nice for attractive men to show their attraction to me” and “I can display my sexuality, but DON’T YOU DARE NOTICE IT!”
Sfaircloth
February 7, 2011 at 11:27 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
There have now been many people posting here who did not hear my speech but have a false impression of it. The speech was a STRONGLY feminist talk. Women came up to me after and praised the strong feminist message. Those women are not heard here. The short portion of the speech that mentions the million dollar challenge comes from a woman PHD in the psychology of evolution. I would have appreciated a call to discuss this before it was posted.
WhatPaleBlueDot
February 7, 2011 at 11:28 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
But we don’t get to say that God will love you more if you go to the conferences. And, frankly, this shouldn’t be about whether we’re attracting women members, but whether we’re being represented–and abused–by sexist buffoons. This is about whether atheist groups are actually behaving better than the religious they claim to be superior to. This is about whether we are properly questioning biological determinism, which is a plague.
Thread Bear
February 7, 2011 at 11:39 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hello from far away Australia. This discussion reminds me of the next big thing that “atheism” needs to tackle as it makes its way into a solid set of ideas. What is to be the nature of ethics post-religion ? Does atheism have a need to organise a morality outside of or alternative to religions? Yes, people should be “good”. This is subject to enormous disagreement, as per thousands of years of internecine wars etc. If atheism is to compete with the established religions, on what basis do we argue behaviour that is “ethical” “moral” and “good” without the baggage of religious nonsense? This maybe a new topic, sorry if it complicates this discussion. Forget I spoke!
Toronto Atheist
February 7, 2011 at 11:39 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
What the hell were you thinking when you asked the man to do this?”The men in the room were encouraged to actively look around and find a woman they would want to boff.”If this account is correct you should stop making excuses and apologize immediately.
Dread Meeting You Again
February 7, 2011 at 11:42 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Mr. Faircloth, you’re a total skeeze in person. I’ve seen how you behave around women.
Barbara_K
February 7, 2011 at 11:44 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Apparently not everyone came away with the impression that it was a strongly feminist talk. I’d like to know how this million dollar challenge was phrased – was it introduced into the talk the way it was described, by inviting men to look around at the women and assess whether or not they’d be able to have sex with any of them? If so, I’d really recommend that you not do that in the future, that’s an approach that is bound to make people uncomfortable, and I don’t care what the gender or credentials are of the person who came up with it. As I said above, if I was put in that position I would leave and never give that organization another second of my time. Keep in mind that just because it met with the approval of some women it doesn’t automatically follow that it’s ok to ignore all of those who might have disapproved or been uncomfortable.If the talk has been entirely misrepresented here then that would be nice to know. If you have a recording of it I urge you to share it.
plublesnork
February 7, 2011 at 11:45 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Do you seriously think that a mother who attends such an event and brings her child along is doing so because she wants to have the child there? I’d be extremely confident that if they could have someone else look after their kid while they go to such a meeting that they absolutely would do so.As for babysitters, I’m sure they all have access to those, but to assume they have access to the money to pay for said babysitter, that’s privileged horseshit.There’s also a lot of single mothers out there. I’d much rather be inclusive by catering for their needs where possible, rather than silently judging them through my inaction.
Azkyroth
February 7, 2011 at 11:50 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I thought that part was a refreshing break from the “young males == dumb jerks” meme, personally. (To say nothing of the misnomer of “socially inept” for people who just don’t give a shit, other than optional perverse amusement, what effect their actions have on the emotional state of “people who don’t matter,” which not only is insulting to those of us who actually struggle with social interaction but impedes understanding by codifying a faulty interpretation of the motives for a behavior. I notice it’s been a while since Jen did that, though, and I appreciate it ^.^)But, like, did you read ANYTHING ELSE IN THE POST?Dumbass.
Azkyroth
February 7, 2011 at 11:51 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You can notice without staring.Also, while I think there’s probably some truth to the charge of “ageism” and/or the charge of subconsciously devaluing the sexuality of people “we” don’t find attractive, I don’t think it’s inherently misguided to suggest that people should seek sexual interactions with their peers, and/or (given the history of attitudes and gender dynamics) to be suspicious of, and/or unenthusiastic about, some of the possible reasons older males might gravitate towards younger females.
Marywuderwood
February 7, 2011 at 11:53 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Unfortunately, women that are involved in traditional faith systems, especially the more conservative and fundamentalist faiths, do not generally expect equality. It was generally never offered and/or promised by these groups. I think most aetheist woman have actively chosen not to be a part of these institutions, probably in part because of the acceptance of inequality inherent in them. I don’t think they are going to be as willing to tolerate sexism and inequality.And, I’m really hoping your “overflowing with milk-soaked bra pads” wasn’t slam against motherhood or breast-feeding!!
Azkyroth
February 7, 2011 at 11:53 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hell, it doesn’t even mean those women weren’t uncomfortable; it may just mean they’ve figured out it’s more socially rewarding, in the short term, to swallow their discomfort and support the status quo (one of the major reasons so many women are seen upholding overtly patriarchal religious institutions and traditions like FGM in Africa), or, less cynically, that they’ve been trained by the society they grew up in to not “rock the boat” and especially to avoid overtly challenging male authority or even making it uncomfortable. I’ve met a disturbing number of women who are so eager to not be tarred with the stigma that attaches to feminism from traditionalists that they can’t denounce and trivialize it fast enough (much like Mooney and other Invertabratheists with their fratricidal tone-trolling).
Daniel Schealler
February 7, 2011 at 11:55 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
EDITI got very, very angry when reading Ola’s post, and continued getting everm angrier when writing this reply.I do still think hit that I hit some very good points in my response. But all the same I still descended into hyperbole and ad-hominem. This was very wrong of me – and for that I unreservedly apologize./EDITIs this a poe? A troll? A troll-poe?I’m running on the assumption that you’re serious here… But please, fuck, let me be wrong. Let that be a tasteless joke – it’d be easier to swallow.There is an entire world of difference between casual, witty flirtation and overt ogling. The first is non-threatening and fun, and can be opted-out of with a few strong hints.The second is sexual harassment.Is this really so hard a concept?Put it another way:I’ve been hit on by gay guys a few times. They walk up, chat, maybe try to get me to dance (I don’t dance). They establish I’m straight and not interested, give a wistful smile, and move on. Some of them are even really good looking themselves, which is flattering. And making my female friends green with envy is always good for a laugh.But at Uni I once met this really, really, really creepy bisexual dude who wouldn’t keep the fuck out of my personal space. Constant leering, crude failures at double-entendres for what was on his mind, and frequent ‘accidental’ touching.How the fuck women put up with this nonsense used to confuse the hell out of me. But since then I’ve learned something else: They don’t have a choice.I always had the option (never used it) of punching creepy gay dude in the face. Firstly, I’m a male and we had a similar approximate level of strength. More importantly, I’d probably have got away with it. While I may not approve of heterosexual privileged, it nonetheless exists. I could have knocked the prick out and (unjustly) got away with it scott-free.A woman doesn’t have that option for both reasons. Firstly, a woman has to work far harder than a man to maintain the same level of physical strength. A woman who trains as hard at fighting as me (none at all) would be very lucky to take me down in a fight.But secondly, a woman who lashes out violently at a man can be branded and punished in all sorts of ways – and I’m probably not even aware of most of them. Social ostracization springs to mind, snarky comments about Lorena Bobbit and Bitches be Crazy, that kind of thing. And worse that I can’t think of right now, I’m sure.So no. A woman can’t respond with violence.But hey – our hypothetical woman can at least stand up and complain, can’t she?Well, actually, no. It turns out she fucking can’t.Sharon Moss just did that. She stood up and complained.And you had the small-minded short-sighted arrogant fucking gall to mansplain down to her about how when she’s being sexually harassed by creepy older men its her problem because she doesn’t understand that harassment is really just a form of affection. And worst of all, that men shouldn’t be held responsible for restraining their affection even when a woman points out that it’s making her completely and utterly uncomfortable.On top of that, you accuse her of ageism.You disgusting little troll.Please, please, please: Let me be wrong. Come back and tell me to cool down, chillax, it’s all a joke, I was yanking your chain.I’d rather stomach the embarrassment of overreacting to an internet troll than the bitter taste that drivel you posted has left in my stomach.This is why women put up with male bullshit: They don’t have a fucking option.Grr.
Barbara_K
February 8, 2011 at 12:03 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
That is another possibility, thank you for bringing that up. I’ve been guilty of that behavior myself, but now consciously avoid it after having realized that for the sake of belonging or being taken seriously I was betraying myself, and other women, as well as insulting all of the men who would prefer hearing the truth over just having their egos flattered.
Andrew Gould
February 8, 2011 at 12:09 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I have encountered this attitude – not in person or at conferences, but online, where people have an insulating blanket of anonymity.
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 12:13 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I would need more of a definition of “staring.” If someone is actually looking at a woman’s cleavage for more than a second or maybe two, then I would agree that it’s inappropriate in that setting. However, given the tone of the rest of the statement, I have to wonder if a “stare” is sometimes just an unwelcome, but noticed, glimpse.
Kele Cable
February 8, 2011 at 12:13 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
How was _everyone_ not made uncomfortable by this, regardless of gender?
TerranRich
February 8, 2011 at 12:14 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Older men staring at a women’s breasts while talking to her is CREEPY, yes. Nothing in her post grouped all older men into one generalization. Like Azkyroth said, did you even read a damn word in the above post?
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 12:16 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Maybe I would be freaked out if creepy older women kept on overtly staring at my crotch and ass and making crude entendres at me.However: It’s never happened to me.Which isn’t to say it *never* happens, but still.It’s never happened to me.How many women can make the same claim?
Praedico
February 8, 2011 at 12:17 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I… I just… this is… I mean… GAH!Sigh…I tried to come up with a constructive comment, I really did. But after typing, retyping and typing again for at least half an hour, all I have is a barely coherent rant, punctuated with phrases like “social skills of a demented cabbage”, and profanity-laden exhortations for men to stop acting like biological imperative to mate gives us the right to treat all women like masturbatory aids.Unfortunately, it did a poor job conveying the shame, embarrassment and downright rage I feel towards my gender right now.Oh, FSM, now I’ve gone and read the comments that appeared since I first read the post. The phrase “blind, seething rage” seems insufficient to describe my current state.
TerranRich
February 8, 2011 at 12:17 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
What the hell is it with all these claims of ageism/agism? The whole point was OGLING HER BREASTS and treating her like an OBJECT. It had nothing to do with agism. You people need to get over yourselves. And yes, I said “you people”.
TerranRich
February 8, 2011 at 12:18 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
(Wrong place, sorry)
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 12:18 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
By mentioning their age she implied that it wouldn’t have been so creepy if they had been younger.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 12:19 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Ditto.
TerranRich
February 8, 2011 at 12:20 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
(I’m trying to reply to a post above, and it keeps putting my post at the bottom. Weird.)
Megan Webb
February 8, 2011 at 12:22 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
THANK YOU
TerranRich
February 8, 2011 at 12:24 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It was an example. The context in which it was written has nothing to do specifically with older men.
Amanda Gulledge
February 8, 2011 at 12:25 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
no, not a slam. I’m a mom with two boys. I’ll never forget my milk-soaked bra pads ;)
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 12:27 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
If she had mentioned their race, rather than their age, would it not have been racist?She mentioned age because she thought it was relevant to that situation. That’s why it’s an ageist statement.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 12:27 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I don’t think that’s neccesarily what she implied. To my reading, she was relating her experience of being hit on by creepy men who happened to be older. The implication I got from this is that her history of being harassed by creepy men is such that older men were disproportionately represented in the sample compared to the base population.However:Getting hit on by someone significantly older is creepier than getting hit on by someone your own age. It has this whole Odepial thing to it. Ick.That’s not to suggest that charming old rogues don’t exist – because they do. But they ain’t exactly in the majority.(Edited this post after Todd’s first reply: I corrected ‘minority’ in the final sentence to correctly read ‘majority’ – silly me)
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 12:30 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Okay, no real chance to be witty with this one. It’s insane.Now, I know that I get things wrong in this sort of issue sometimes; I expect everyone does, sometimes, with any given discrimination issue. However, the most important thing I can say to other guys about this sort of thing – just try to imagine what it’s like for the women, okay? Try to empathise. Sure, you might like it (or imagine you would) if loads of women started really obviously checking you out – but has it ever happened? My guess is that most guys wouldn’t like it, especially when it keeps happening in situations where you want to relax and enjoy yourself.And how about someone said “oh, sorry about clubbing you over the head because your car is better – it’s connected to evolved behaviours!”? That seem reasonable?If I’d been in a situation like that, I’d've kicked up a stink until I was forced to leave, because it’s just so stupid and wrong. Idiots.
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 12:30 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
If that’s the case, then she should have left their age out of it. However, I doubt that was the case.
Sfaircloth
February 8, 2011 at 12:31 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Here is coverage from a woman reporter for the Huntsville paper: http://blog.al.com/breaking/20…
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 12:31 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
There’s an awful lot of scholarly work on ethics that either makes no appeal to religion, or stands up fine without any claims the author made in that regard. A lot of it is very old.
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 12:33 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“Getting hit on by someone significantly older is creepier than getting hit on by someone your own age. It has this whole Odepial thing to it. Ick.”That is an extremely ageist statement.
Amanda Gulledge
February 8, 2011 at 12:37 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
http://vimeo.com/15651539
Barbara_K
February 8, 2011 at 12:40 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Thank you for the link! I wish I didn’t have to run to class, but I’ll watch it tonight when I get home.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 12:41 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You’ve clearly never worked at a bar before. I have. I’ve watched men hit on women young enough to be their daughters more often than I care to count.So while I continue to grant you that exceptions do exist… Trust me. In the general case: It’s really fucking creepy.Perhaps more importantly: If a woman finds given male attention creepy and says so, then no matter how innocent the motive behind that attention may be, it should stop. She doesn’t have to provide a bullet-point justification for why it should stop. It should stop. End of story.I’d say that the reverse was true for men as well – but as I noted before, I can’t think of a time it’s ever happened to me, so the ‘turnabout-is-fair-play’ gambit would be a bit disingenuous here.
Barbara_K
February 8, 2011 at 12:51 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
A couple of points about your link. 1. That article says nothing about the feminist content of your talk. 2. Did you really just respond to one woman’s description of her reaction to the event by trying to find something else published by another woman who wasn’t critical of it? If so. that’s not a response, it’s an evasion of addressing the content of the post.I’d also like to say that I find your suggestion above that Sharon or Lyz should have contacted you before publishing their reaction is rather condescending. No one needs your permission to give their opinion, and no one’s stopping you from defending yourself in these comments.A link of your talk, or one that you gave on the same subject at a different venue, I’m not sure, has been posted to one of my responses to your prior comment in this thread, and as soon as I get the chance I will watch it. I may not be able to do this until tomorrow.Understand, I’m not looking to vilify you, I’m looking to understand what was said and how things were handled.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 12:57 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hmm… Put it another way.An older man hitting on a younger woman isn’t necessarily creepy simply in and of itself – at least, not in principle.But in practice, it almost always is creepy due to related context and circumstance, despite the occasional exception.
Scott Savage
February 8, 2011 at 1:03 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You can lodge a complaint with me. I am the Alabama State Director. I can be reached at [email protected]
Scott Savage
February 8, 2011 at 1:05 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You can lodge a complaint with me. I am the Alabama State Director. I can be reached at [email protected]
TheG
February 8, 2011 at 1:06 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
So, your reply to unabashed sexism is with… sexist comments? I’m lucky the chimp half of my brain let me type with the contralateral hand long enough to put blaghag into my browser to read your wisdom.
Scott Savage
February 8, 2011 at 1:06 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You can lodge a complaint with me. I am the Alabama State Director. I can be reached at [email protected]
R. Elisabeth Cornwell, PhD
February 8, 2011 at 1:07 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I am a female-evolutionary psychologist, and I am very concerned about this article and how it portrays both men and women. I consider both Lyz and Sean my friends and colleagues (I don’t know Sharon Moss, although we have met). As an evolutionary psychologist, I have studied sex differences (and I mean ‘sex’ not ‘gender’). I’ll note here exactly what I tell my students:all individuals differ, we cannot make individual assumptions based on statistical probability statistical probability is the interpretation of probability that defines an event’s probability as the limit of its relative frequency in a large number of trials. Statistical probability in study after study shows there are differences between males and females. (let’s clarify something here about the term ‘female’ vs ‘women’ or ‘male’ vs ‘men’ – yes, it is a biological term… we ARE animals. It is not an insult – it is a fact). One of the differences that have been shown consistently is that women own the womb in our particular species… and as in other species where females control the womb, females are in control of sexual access. Perhaps some people find that crude… suggesting humans are indeed animals and have evolved, like other species. I know a lot of religious people who object to the concept strongly. The fact is, we are animals and we have evolved… both our physical and mental traits are products of millions of years of evolution. When we ignore that fact, we have lost vital information that can lead to an understanding of human behavior. Another issue I repeat to my students on a regular basis is that ‘is’ is not an ‘ought’. What does mean? Just because something has evolved in terms of human behavior, does not mean we must accept it. But unless we acknowledge that such behavior does evolve, we cannot address it properly. Do men, on statistical average, more receptive to a possible sexual invitation from a woman (please let’s keep it simple and talk about heterosexual men… if we were to bring in homosexual behavior the data are even MORE supportive of these sex differences) than a woman is to a man’s sexual advances? Unequivocally the answer is ‘Yes’. Now let’s ask the question… does that mean all men are ready to act on that evolved impulse to perceive a smile as a possible ‘yes’ to sex? Does it mean they will act on It? Does it mean that men are completely ‘out of control’? No. And to make the assumption that all the men in the room were lusting after all the women is just as bigoted a statement as to say that all women use sexual innuendos to get what they want. It just ain’t so. What I found in this article is reverse discrimination… that there was an assumption that men are out of control, incapable of not lusting after women, and will use evolutionary biology as an excuse for this behavior. Often after my classes and lectures, it is the men who come to me and tell me how refreshing it is not to be stereotyped. Yet, they also recognize that they are easily swayed by a female smile. And the women, do the majority of them suggest that they are ignorant of their ability to sway the male mind? No, they don’t. When Sean spoke of the sexual differences between men and women (and now I will note men and women because it is specific to the human species) he was citing a study from 1989 by Clarke and Hatfield titled ‘Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers.’ in the Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2: 39-55. The study has been duplicated… and in every class I have taught, in every lecture I have given, when I have mentioned this study there is an acknowledgment that, well yes, women if they really wanted to could find someone with whom to have sex. They could accept the ‘million dollar challenge’ but men won’t risk it… It is not meant as an insult to either men nor women… it is meant as a study to understand that women control human reproduction. I often wish I knew then what I know now. You can be certain my niece is going to understand these sex differences, and I think every young boy as he reaches puberty should also be aware that his hormones and brain have evolved over millions of years to seek out sexual partners more so than most girls. Then, using this knowledge teach both girls and boys how to learn to respect and control their natural urges. Boys can learn that what they want is not necessarily what girls want, and girls can learn that what they are looking for is not necessarily what a boy is looking for. Until we begin to understand our evolved differences, we can never understand how to confront them and deal with them. To deny them is fatal, to deny that male jealousy is more dangerous than female jealousy in terms of violent outcome is not only naive but deadly. Are there issues that need to be addressed in order to bring in more women, minorities and young people – yes. This is not the appropriate dialogue. Automatically accusing human males as being lusting, sexist pigs is in appropriate. Knowing Sean, I know how hard he has worked to benefit women and minorities against the sort of stupidity that usually comes from an ignorance of evolution. Do we really want to be in the same boat with those denying human evolution? I don’t. I want to understand it, I want to understand the very broad aspects of human behavior including sexual differences. Equality is something we all should strive for, but by denying our evolutionary histories suggests that we have a long way to go because we value some statistically probable sexual behavior over other statistically probable sexual behavior. That’s what we need to address, not that differences exist, but that they need to be acknowledged and discussed in an open dialogue without letting our hackles raise – in either sex.
TheWanderingFool
February 8, 2011 at 1:12 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Just because the concerns in this post weren’t mentioned in a 500-word newspaper article about the event doesn’t mean that said concerns are invalid. It’s easy to get defensive when criticized (especially if you feel like it’s unfair criticism), but don’t pull a Sarah Palin. Respond to the content of the post.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 1:12 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
See:PythagorasIsocratesGorgiasSocratesPlatoAristotleEpicurusthe SocraticsConfuciousSpinozaKantHumeVoltaireThomas PainSamuel ClemensPeter SingerAC GraylingSam HarrisThat’s just to name a few up to my first mental pause. I don’t agree with everything all the authors/schools above wrote or taught, but it’s all worth thinking about.Also, I’m sure it’s just the tip of the iceberg. After all, I only have *pretentions* to be well-read. I’m sure that someone who is *actually* well-read could supply a whole lot more names before their first pause.
Azkyroth
February 8, 2011 at 1:12 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Why structure the term as “MANsplain” if you’re going to use it to describe statements from women? Or has any woman who ever disagrees with prevailing opinion in a “feminist” context therby forfeited her femaleity?
Dustin
February 8, 2011 at 1:13 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
This looks like a Boston talk, not the incident in question. Would you be so kind as to verify whether the two speeches are more or less identical? Also, at what point does the offending material begin? Call me lazy, but I don’t want to fish through forty minutes of video :P
TheG
February 8, 2011 at 1:14 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I think this was the point more than a few possibly poorly chosen words. It doesn’t matter what is the age of the proposition-er; don’t be creepy and stop when someone is creep-ed.That, and don’t go to an intellectual convention to pick up on someone in a lecture.
Just sayin' is all
February 8, 2011 at 1:14 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
To be fair, if that happened to me, I wouldn’t be upset.
Scott Savage
February 8, 2011 at 1:14 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
A full video of this event will be posted soon. Sfaircloth got a standing ovation from the woman in the group for the Woman Empowering speech that he gave.
Christie Swords
February 8, 2011 at 1:15 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
As a woman who was at this event, I am appalled. I am appalled at the dishonest, incorrect recounting of the speeches and the event in general. I will grant you that each person brings their own personal baggage / experience with them so others may feel something that I did not. However, there are many blatant lies in this blog post. It is a shame that the young lady got upset, but to say that the panel viciously tore her apart is incorrect. The “female” who was on the panel explained that she saw no difference between the word female vs woman. She answered the audience member’s question honestly and without negativity. As to how the moderator handled the remainder of that panel, I couldn’t say because I too was in the bathroom with the young lady who got upset. For Sharon to claim that she “alone” heroically went to rescue the young woman (nay, female) from the sexist “assholes” is just wrong. I am a leader of the local group where this event was held. Our group worked with American Atheists to help run this event. So to say that no one went to check on the young lady is an out and out lie. I stood in the restroom with Sharon and the aforementioned lady for 20 mins. Several men (some from American Atheists) went to look for the young woman, but were told that perhaps they should not speak to her since she seemed to be so upset by the men in the room. If the event leaders chased her down after she came out of the restroom, they would have been criticized for embarrassing her. As to Sean Faircloth’s speech. The point was that women are sexually strong. It was about women’s strength and how they had been sexually repressed for hundreds of years. The point was that a lot of the judgement about women’s sexuality comes from a religious arena. I personally know Sean and have never heard him say anything sexist, racist, or any other -ist besides HUMAN-ist. He is a fine individual. Taking his intent and words out of context and besmirching his and American Atheists name is unfair and disappointing. After seeing this post, I called several women who were at the SERAM to see what take they had on it. There was nothing but positive remarks. When I directly asked if they felt that the SERAM or Sean was sexist, they laughed. One even asked, “Why would I think that?” Sean’s speech was empowering. It did mention biology, but it was referring to the fact that we are biological creatures. What is so wrong with that? Are we not? FYI – Sean Faircloth got a standing ovation (even the 30% stood up). Your accusations just do not hold up.I find it more offensive to have someone ascribe thoughts to all the women in the audience. Just because you (the authors) felt a certain way does not mean that everyone did. You definitely need a bigger sample size before making such “broad” statements. (pun intended)Maybe some women prefer to be treated like they do not have any rights to be sexual people. I prefer to be treated as “an equal”. It is high time that feminists stop giving women a bad name. Not all of us are weak flowers that need to be protected from hearing the dirty truth about how the world works or how nature works. Honestly, I expect better from intelligent people.Also, the whole thing was recorded. Video will be available later on. I hope you will all watch and come to your own conclusions.
Scott Savage
February 8, 2011 at 1:17 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
A full video of this event will be posted soon. Sfaircloth got a standing ovation from the woman in the group for the woman Empowering speech that he gave. But, you are right. Apparently not everyone come away with that impression.
SaraDee
February 8, 2011 at 1:18 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
My favourite favourite favourite part of the “It’s my biological imperative to aggressively seek sex from women all the time so how DARE women be upset about it!” argument is that not one douchebag swayed by that logic would be swayed if a woman said “It’s my biological imperative to be extremely choosy about my mates because I have a much greater parental investment and don’t want to be saddled with a sub-par offspring – so how DARE men think that women should welcome unwanted male attention!”It’s like the above examples with the face-punching. Biology is so oddly selectively imperative.
Azkyroth
February 8, 2011 at 1:25 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Because of social attitudes about age and older people, age may be relevant in a way that’s hardly reflective of bigotry. There’s a significant degree of privilege and social status that comes with age, and that was truer when the current group of older adults were young and their attitudes were (for the most part) crystallizing. Younger people are taught to “respect” their elders (and we all know how some people define “respecting” them) and show deference, and midlife and older adults are generally afforded greater social status. Many of them also perceive younger adults as “kids” or as naive and in need of their guidance, and those younger adults’ opinion of the appropriateness of that guidance is irrelevant. Hitting on someone you have, or expect to have, an advnatage in institutional privilege over is indeed creepy, and that is likely to be a significant portion of the reason older males might hit on young females.
J'Carlin
February 8, 2011 at 1:26 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I wasn’t there, but no matter how STRONGLY feminist the speech was the challenge was simply letting a prick talk. The misogyny of religion caused me very early to formulate an ethic that women were never even to be thought of as sex objects. And the thought of “boffing” one would have been equivalent to thinking of my mother as a whore. I enjoy sex as much as the next man, but it is a result of a relationship never a goal. You can be as STRONGLY feminist as you want, but if you look at a woman as a “boff” you are simply a prick.
Azkyroth
February 8, 2011 at 1:28 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I wonder if it would help to acknowledge with our language the significant fraction of men who don’t act like this. Not just for the social esteem needs (Maslowian sense) of men who make a conscious effort not to be douchebags, but as a way of framing the debate. If we’re continuously implying that all, or virtually all, men act this way, that could easily feed into the idea that it’s biologically determined and pointless to fight.
Christie Swords
February 8, 2011 at 1:29 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Thanks Todd for pointing out the blatant disrespect for people’s feelings. pot meet kettle.
TheWanderingFool
February 8, 2011 at 1:31 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Also, for what it’s worth, I watched most of the video that was linked of your Boston speech, and if the same speech was given at the American Atheists Conference, then I do think Sean is being unfairly portrayed in this post. Admittedly, it’s a risky topic, there’s room for criticism, and I can see where people would get offended… but some of the facts are left out, and the speech is portrayed through one narrow lens. Which is fine (blogs are for personal opinion, after all), but hopefully both sides of the debate can treat the other with a modicum of respect and rationality.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 1:31 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Well, you should be skeptical of both sides of the issue. It is possible that you are bias. It is possible that they are bias. Just look at the facts.
Azkyroth
February 8, 2011 at 1:32 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Make up your mind.
nicole.
February 8, 2011 at 1:33 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I am a female and I was not offended by anything that was said or done at SERAM. I though Sean Faircloth’s speech was amazing, and I didn’t think that is was slanted towards males more than females.
Maggie
February 8, 2011 at 1:35 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Err… Dustin, that’s the very definition of ‘out of context’.
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 1:35 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’ve known many women who privately said that they were bothered by the number of overly-forward black men who hit on them at bars. I don’t think that they were being racist. They were just expressing a concern based on their personal preferences. However, if they had then written an article which was primarily a critique of male chauvinism, but into which they also dropped the race of their unwelcome pursuers, I don’t you would be so quick to defend them from the inevitable charges of racism.
nicole.
February 8, 2011 at 1:37 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
And that is supposed to say thought** not though. Posting fail.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 1:37 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
*looks up, re-reads post*Actually, yeah, that’s definitely a mis-application when taken in-context.To anyone not familiar with the term MANsplan or MANsplanation:When a member of a privileged in-group is criticized or challenged by an underprivileged minority they tend to respond with a very specific and condescending pattern of privilege denial and blaming-the-victim.In the case of sexism this pattern of argument is often referred to with the derogatory label of ‘mansplanation’ to convey the condescending and patronizing manner in which men too-often adopt when talking with women. The word has different meanings in different contexts too – but this is the context in which I intended its use.Ola’s original post reads like a cut-and-paste version of one of these arguments. Take out the graphic and put in something gender-neutral as the name, and I think I’d be fully justified in assuming the author was male. It reads like every example of male privledge denial that I’ve ever read. Anyway, despite a few personal attacks in there (which, having calmed down a at this stage lot, I now regret) it was the argument that had me fuming, and in the flow of the moment I applied the label that seemed to fit at the time.Also:Ola, for what it’s worth: I apologize for getting personal in my response to your post. I shouldn’t have included ad-hominem attacks in my response to you. I consider emotionally-charged personal attacks to be immoral and it’s bad logic. So I’m wrong twice to have done so, and I unreservedly apologize.I’m almost tempted to go back and edit away the bits I’m not proud of – but as Azkyroth has already (correctly) called me out for poor behavior that feels like Orwellian dishonesty.Unless there’s any objections I’ll refrain from erasing my misdeeds and let them stand by my apology so anyone passing by can see what I’m apologizing about.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 1:38 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Not sure I’m in favor of a quota system. What if all of the best leaders just happened to be women? I wouldn’t want to necessarily say that the makeup HAS to be exactly equal of a given gender, race, or other characteristic.
Amanda Gulledge
February 8, 2011 at 1:40 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
yes, I guess that was my reply. Sorry if it offended you. I like chimps.
Don
February 8, 2011 at 1:41 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’d say the verdict is in concerning sexism in the freethought community. It’s a problem. Continuing to argue about whether the problem exists, is a symptom, not a solution.
SaraDee
February 8, 2011 at 1:41 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
holy shit… Elisabeth Cornwall – I just re-read that whole post TWICE and I can’t find anywhere where the author stated that she thought that men were all “out of control, incapable of not lusting after women” her point was that that is UNacceptable to use use evolutionary psychology to make that very claim! (as so many posters have pointed out – my biology makes me want to punch someone in the face, but it doesn’t make it okay to do so). Biology is not destiny, it’s a tendency, and a lot of us atheist women would really like it if so many men would stop friggin’ trying to pass it off as a divine freakin’ commandment to be an asshole. Women do it too, oh, frustratingly, yes they do – but mostly men, in my experience, because too many men (where too many = more than none) are already used to looking for reasons to not have to treat women like people. I have no beef with evo psych, it’s a fascinating and (apparently direly) necessary field. But I’ve lent copies of the Blank Slate to friends and family after more than one heated discussion about exactly what this post was about. Instead of God being waved as the magic flag to push women down in church, “biology” is too-frequently-for-comfort-if-not-universally used to push women down among atheists.
Scott Jones
February 8, 2011 at 1:42 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I was at the meeting. I heard the “$Million Question”. It was sexist, but that was the point. I can kind of see why some women felt uncomfortable, but believe me ladies, when the heads were swiveling around the room, it wasn’t that we were checking you out, we were looking for the guy with the balls to raise his hand. The question made me uncomfortable, because I new the premise of it was true. Women decide when/if sex happens. I would have thought you would have found it empowering, just as I found it disarming. I missed the discussion where the “female” stormed out of the panel discussion, but i did hear about it at length later. There is nothing sexist about the word female. Other points or topics may have raised her sensitivity and that just set it off, and I am sorry that happened, as I wish there had been more women at the meeting, as well, and I certainly would like to do anything to encourage their attendance. However, as I said, there is nothing sexist or misogynistic about the word “female”. I can tell you that, though I don’t know who said it or which particular instance set off the observer’s sexism alarm, but if it was Tom Hand, it may very well have been because he is prior military. I am active duty, myself, and I can tell you that in the military, “male” and “female” are the terms most commonly used to specify gender, when necessary. More often than not, we just refer to the troops as “Soldiers”, but there are times when one must specify. There is nothing sexist about it, it’s just the terminology we use, so Tom may have a predisposition to using that particular word left over from his Army days.
Derek Johnson
February 8, 2011 at 1:44 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You have been lied to. I’m not going to waste another minute on this ridiculous article systematically debunking it and exposing the blatant effort to mischaracterize events at SERAM in furtherance of some unknown agenda. No one was a victim at SERAM. But don’t take my word for it; watch the video and you will clearly see how you have been misled. I truly hope you will watch the video and confront these authors for wasting your time, lying to you, and attempting to get you needlessly angry at people who have a genuine appreciation and respect for women.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 1:44 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Although the resulting realization (that women are the gatekeepers of sex) IS true. This kind of excersize has no place at an Atheist meeting, but it does show an interesting point about sexual relations.
Jen
February 8, 2011 at 1:46 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’ve temporarily removed the section on the “Million Dollar Challenge” since there seems to be a lot of debate over whether it was depicted fairly. The Alabama Atheists are uploading the video of Sean’s talk to make this situation clear. While I wouldn’t let Sharon and Lyz do a guest post unless I trusted their judgement, I also don’t want to misrepresent Sean Faircloth, so I’m waiting until I’ve seen the video.
Amanda Gulledge
February 8, 2011 at 1:46 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
From what I remember, it was pretty similar to that exact video.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 1:47 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Aha!Now this is what I like to see.The article has indeed had be all hot-and-bothered. But as always: A change of mind (and an apology) would be forthcoming if shown to be wrong.Thanks for the response: I’m looking forward to the video.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 1:50 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Although just because it never happens doesn’t mean ‘turnabout-is-fair-play” is disingenuous. If it is the same for either sex, then that is fair. We just need to decide what fair is.
Greg Henderson
February 8, 2011 at 1:52 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I attended SERAM in Huntsville, and from your description I’m not sure we were in the same location… There was certainly some frank “grown-up” discussion about gender, race and various other topics. But this post seems to be a gross caricature of the actual event.
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 1:54 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Then, according to your reasoning, men should never “hit on” women, since men have historically had a higher degree of privilege and social status relative to women. Also, wealthy people should never hit on poor people. White people should never hit on nonwhite people (except, maybe, in certain Asian countries). College graduates should never hit on high school dropouts. Blond people should never hit on brunettes.If the writer was implying that the older men were trying to use their age to take advantage of her, then she should have made that clear and given evidence.It is much more likely that the older men were interested in her simply because they thought she was pretty. Even though she just sees them as men old enough to be her father, they probably don’t primarily characterize themselves that way.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 1:56 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Why assume that only men can be sexist? Why use a term at all which suggests that men aren’t capable of being objective and that female opinion always takes precedent?
Amanda Gulledge
February 8, 2011 at 1:58 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
thanks :) I think he is being misrepresented and I was there. I wasn’t at the panel where the woman was so offended and so I don’t feel that I can respond to that… but Sean’s speech was to empower women, not put them down.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 1:59 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Daniel, she made clear that there is a difference between flirting and harrassment. Harrassment is never okay. But saying that older people aren’t allowed to flirt with younger people IS ageist. It may be that younger people are less interested in older people and that’s fine. But we shouldn’t tell older people that they’re never allowed to flirt except with people their own age.
Derek Johnson
February 8, 2011 at 2:00 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@Jen: REMOVE THE WHOLE SLANDEROUS ARTICLE!!!!
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 2:01 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Are you asking Azkyroth or me?
Leaann
February 8, 2011 at 2:01 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I didn’t catch this “sexual hostility,” but maybe I just wasn’t looking for it??? sheesh. My husband pointed out when the woman stood up and complained that women in provocative images were used in Faircloth’s presentation, that Pinalope Cruise was half naked on top of a half-naked Tom Cruise. And it’s TRUE that women are the gate keepers. If the men want in, they better act right. Doesn’t that make women in charge??? What’s humiliating about that??
Christie Swords
February 8, 2011 at 2:04 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
If the description of the SERAM and Sean Faircloth’s speech were accurate, I would be disgusted, too. The truth is that this blog is very slanted and untruthful. I am a woman. I was present at the SERAM. Sean got a standing ovation from everyone including the women. I have had many conversations with other women about the SERAM and Sean’s talk. I have heard no one else say anything about either being sexist. I met both Sharon and Lyz. They seem like intelligent, nice people, but the assertions here are unfounded. Please take that into consideration before diving right into the oh-so-handy bucket of despair. I am not saying that they did not feel they way they felt. I am saying that it is wrong to rake people over the coals if you weren’t there. Evidence-based folks should ask for more than one blog before gathering the torches and pitchforks. Watch the video when it comes out and make up your own minds.
Cortex
February 8, 2011 at 2:06 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Dude, how did you get to be so old without ever growing up?
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 2:08 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The original article made the distinction clear as well.Sure, a few guys flirting with us is sexy. BUT!!! (we all screamed in our heads, even though the panel never let us say it out loud) 20 guys our father’s age blatantly staring at and talking to our cleavage is a totally different situation! It’s not sexy, it’s gross and creepy.The difference is: I consider the above to be an example of sexual harassment. If Ola comes back and agrees with me… Well, then I’ll just be stumped as to what the devil she was disagreeing with in the first place.
Scott Savage
February 8, 2011 at 2:08 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
As one of the event organizers, I need to call out Sharon on this one. She states: “She got upset (…) and left the room. I – a member of the audience, not one of the event organizers – went after her.”This is blatantly wrong. A number of organizers responded immediately. I (as well as several other organizers) spoke to Sharon who also responded after the event. I am at a loss on why she is mischaracterizing the events.We will be posting a video of the event so that everyone can judge for themselves. If after watching the video, you feel that American Atheists needs to apologize, I will be glad to hear your concerns.
Sivi
February 8, 2011 at 2:08 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hm. Given the later comments here I’ll refrain from much outrage, but the fact is there:a. is a problem with sexism in the freethought community. There’s one in every community, but it’s worse for us, because we’re supposed to know better.b. are far too many bad, mansplaining evo psych arguments used by privileged people in our community. Not just sexist ones, admittedly. I’ve also heard them directed against religious people, non-white ethnic groups, and poor people.c. is a general lack of understanding of the term ‘privilege’ in our community. Some education would be good.Also – complaining about ageism is a diversion. Being hit on by someone much older than you usually involves a power imbalance, particularly if you’re a young woman in your early 20s and the other person is a man in their 40s. The power imbalance makes it creepy, unless there’s additional context.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 2:09 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It is hard for men to understand women’s uncomfort because they often wouldn’t be uncomfortable in the same situation. This is because of biology (and no I’m not trying to justify anything. Just explaining). Women can usually only have one baby at a time while men could theoretically have thousands. Thus women have to be more cautious than men and thus feel more harrassed by unsolicited male sexual attention.
Scott Savage
February 8, 2011 at 2:11 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Barbra_k: “What was the point of the million dollar challenge?”The point was to show that women hold the power over men.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 2:14 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
good point
Maggie
February 8, 2011 at 2:15 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
How so? Especially if you do not have the full context of the talk to go on?Would you also then say that talking of feminism has no place at an atheist meeting?
Scott Savage
February 8, 2011 at 2:15 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Yes. This is the same speech.
Cortex
February 8, 2011 at 2:16 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
That’s the way to grow a movement, John. Tell people how to manage their families.
Scott Savage
February 8, 2011 at 2:20 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Thanks Jen.
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 2:22 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Please feel free to elaborate and I will explain.For the record, I’m 38.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 2:22 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I think you’re a little bit off base on this one Az.Acknowledging that individuals are distributed within a bell-curve doesn’t mean we can’t still learn about, and teach our children about, how the curve is distributed and why.Read fairly, there’s no contradiction in those two quotes.
Leaann
February 8, 2011 at 2:23 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It was used in the context of how religion represses the natural sexuality of BOTH sexes. I, a female….oh, excuse me “WOMAN,” geesh….didn’t find it offensive. But I do tend to have a sense of humor.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 2:23 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
good post
Steven Moore
February 8, 2011 at 2:26 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“A panel of five guys and one woman discussed what an atheist group should do to attract more women.”"guys?” – Who’s the sexist here?
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 2:27 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
another good post
LS
February 8, 2011 at 2:27 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
There’s nothing I can say that I’m not sure the 90 commentators before me said better. I’ll just add that I am disgusted. And, as you’ve so often noted Jen, I feel that disgust intensified because I expect better of the skeptical community.
SkeptimusPrime
February 8, 2011 at 2:29 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
In the section where you mention how they stated “men’s biology drives them to frequently (if not constantly) pursue sex” What surprises me is that the men in the audience seemed to like this statement. Maybe you misread them, I don’t know, but as a man I find it rather offensive….and dare I say, sexist, to have them to suggest that men are nothing more than a walking penis waiting for some willing woman to happen by. Nonsense I say, for a group that should pride itself on rational skepticism they apparently forgot to engage their brain before uttering that particular canard.
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 2:30 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The complaint about ageism my seem like a diversion since the article was mostly about male chauvinism, but that’s the point. She expressed her age bias without even noticing it.Also, as I said in an earlier comment, if she was taking about a power imbalance then she should have made that clear and provided evidence.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 2:30 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
From other posts, the million dollar challenge seemed to be a way of pointing out that women are much more selective in who they have sex with. And that is supported by scientific evidence. Women can only normally have one child at a time while men could have thousands so of course women are going to be more selective about who they let impregnate them. This seems to be a valid point though I’m not sure how it fits into the talk. I’ll have to watch the video when I have time.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 2:35 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Yes, the context of the video does matter. I guess I should have waited to watch it before making that comment. But these comments are piling on so fast, I wanted to be heard too ;)
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 2:39 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I was asking Azkyroth. I know he is trying to be fair, but if we define mansplaining as making a sexist comment, we should note that not just men can be sexist. I was also noting that the term mansplaining is often thrown around to dismiss anything a man says even if it has merit.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 2:42 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Though I’d say there is less sexism in the freethought community than in society at large. But because there are fewer women it is more noticable.
BC
February 8, 2011 at 2:42 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
HUH? There are some errors in this report. Some concrete – such as the distance the attendees traveled to attend the meeting – I, myownself, traveled from California to attend; others are maybe more likely errors in judgment or interpretation of events. I was present. I did not have an experience anything at all like what has been reported here. Maybe because I am a more mature woman (i.e. female) I was able to use my years of experience and foundation of wisdom to put everything said in this conference session into a more level perspective?
Andrew Scruggs
February 8, 2011 at 2:43 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’d be interested to see the video, as I’ve heard it may be different from the original description. Based on the original description (which is all I have to go off right now), I would say that it was a wildly inappropriate way to get the point across. And maybe I’m just reading too much into your wording, but saying “women hold the power over men” seems to (1) oversimplify the issue, as though there is nothing men are doing to hold some kind of power over women or treat them inappropriately; and (2) perpetuates the idea that it is some kind of battle, rather than an issue where we need to try to understand each other and come to some sort of agreement.Anyway, I apologize if I was too quick to come to judgement on that. I really would like to see the video for myself and see how it played out.
SaraDee
February 8, 2011 at 2:47 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“And it’s TRUE that women are the gate keepers. If the men want in, they better act right. Doesn’t that make women in charge??? “Holy crap. No. Theoretically, you would think so… and in a perfect world where No meant No that could be true. But it isn’t. It’s not that the evolutionary or biological arguments aren’t sound – it’s just that they can’t be used to make moral arguments about what sexual behaviours are good for men and women to act on in modern society. Because, while it is a biological fact that women have a strong incentive to be pickier about sex, it also really is a biological fact that men, in the sex-scarce scenario, have historically been tempted to steal sex, ie, rape. (“Why did the robber rob a bank?” “Because that’s where all the money is.”)And from a sociological perspective, a lot of women will be made uncomfortable – even humiliated – with “just sticking to the facts, ma’am” presentations about sexual psychology, because the idea of Woman as Sexual Gatekeeper has been used to deny rape charges, and shame victims – if women are in charge of when sex happens, then the argument goes, sex can’t have happened without her say so. How could someone charged with such a sacred trust have let such a defilement happen to her? (Oh sure, she says she said no, but her body said yes). In less obvious but more pernicious ways, it lets some men justify feeling resentful that women are holding all the sex, and not giving them any, even when they act nice and listen to their stupid ideas. God, what does a guy have to do to get her to give it up? What’s she doing with it anyway – guys care about sex more than girls, everyone knows that, so why is she being such a prude? (Of course, if she does have sex, more than other people want her too, she’s clearly an unnatural slut – women don’t like sex that much).It’s not that we can’t talk about the biology here – it’s just that people who choose to do so have to understand that they’re not talking into a vacuum, or even a room full of scientists who are well-acquainted with the difference between “is” and “ought” in biology. You’re talking to women who have, in many cases, been personally abused by other peoples’ inability to make a distinction between is and ought in practice. This is a hot button not because Bitches Be Crazy and Teh Feminazis are on the march – but because there are genuine historical reasons why women are nervous that they won’t be taken seriously on account of their freakish uteruses (or, worse breasts – right out in the open like that, what did they think was going to happen? They’re supposed to control how men think about them, because they’re the Gatekeepers of Sex). Are some women a little too jumpy sometimes? Yeah, maybe. But they have good reason to be. Maybe we ought to spend a little more effort trying to see how we can make those women feel safe enough to stop jumping at shadows because the shadows in our house really aren’t burglars, and a little less time yelling at them that, for chrissake’s, we put in a new alarm and that guy is in jail now and we’re in a nice neighbourhood so won’t you JUST CALM DOWN?!?
Cortex
February 8, 2011 at 2:48 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
::sigh:: Well, to begin with, you’re blaming women for the way people treat them when they wear totally normative clothing in public. If they were walking around with nothing other than nipple stickers on, then I could see your point. But come on. Grow up.Also, turnabout is fair play:I’m actually very sympathetic with the problems that men might have feeling unattractive at atheist gatherings, but the points of the above statement seem to be, “It’s only nice for attractive women to be receptive toward me!” and “I can display my age, but DON’T YOU DARE NOTICE IT!”
Leaann
February 8, 2011 at 2:49 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
We had a Xian idiot on the news saying, “I look forward to having a buncha godless women in town for the weekend,” and THIS is what ya’ll’re getting your panties in a bunch over??
Steven Moore
February 8, 2011 at 2:49 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I was on that panel and this blog post is not only inaccurate, it is grossly unprofessional, detrimental to our cause, and unbecoming for a Director of the Secular Student Alliance. The authors of this blog post failed miserably to accurately describe any of the events of this discussion nor put any of it into context. I expect that once the video is released for this event that a formal retraction and apology will be posted immediately.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 2:49 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Not all evo psych arguments are bad. “Because a feminist said so” is not proof that privilege exists in a certain situation. Having privilege does not mean that you are always wrong. Being older does not necessarily involve a power inbalance. And finally, I find the term ‘mansplaining’ sexist because it assumes that if you are sexist you must be a male and is used too often to dismiss anything a man says without thought simply because he is a male.
Azkyroth
February 8, 2011 at 2:52 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’m making a point about clashes between etymology and usage. If the word used were “sexistsplaining” you would have a point, but incorporating a specific reference to one gender into a term that’s then applied to members of both genders is illogical and disingenuous at best. (It probably also contributes to the abuse of the term you’ve described, which I’ve noted in the past, including on Daylight Atheism).
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 2:53 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Well, okay, you have a point. As so often online, people just misunderstood what other people where saying. She is right that men talking about a girl’s cleavage without her permission is harrassment. Ola just assumed that the part about “our father’s age” meant that older men shouldn’t be allowed to flirt with younger women, when in reality the OP was just saying that she personally wouldn’t want to flirt with older men, though that point wasn’t entirely clear.
Azkyroth
February 8, 2011 at 2:54 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
That’s not my reasoning, but I certainly wouldn’t argue that the members of those groups are being sexist, classist, racist, etc. for being bothered by that potential/perceived angle.
K.Morgan
February 8, 2011 at 2:54 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I attended SERAM and was in no way offended by any of the content. The Million Dollar question, was, to me, a funny exercise. At the end of the presentation, when a woman requested that Sean include some eye candy for the female audience as well as the male (because yes, it was heavily laden with attractive females), the idea was accepted and appreciated.I was also at the panel when the female vs. woman incident occurred. I can’t say that it was handled perfectly, but the entire scenario was just plain confusing from my from perspective. The comment from the audience member seemed to come out of left field – here we were talking about something related to gender, but then the labels of female vs. woman was brought up, and being like “cattle.” The panel responded, a couple of them, saying they thought of the terms as synonymous (as do I), the audience member asked everyone to think of it in the future, and then yes, a comment was made saying, since we’re talking about labeling women here, that “why don’t we just call them the ‘weaker sex’?” – it was intended as a joke, and taken as such by most of the audience. I felt sympathy for the woman who raised the question – it was obviously something that she felt passionate about and here she was in a group of supposedly like-minded people who just didn’t understand, and who could appreciate a joke that she found offensive. Since she was obviously upset I think it would have been best if a quick apology was given (not solicited by the audience, but prompted by the speaker of the ‘offensive’ statement), but it wasn’t and the conversation had to move on.
Azkyroth
February 8, 2011 at 2:57 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Which is more or less what I was saying when you argued with me above. O.o
Robert Posey
February 8, 2011 at 2:57 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It’s funny… She kept her hand raised throughout the entire panel discussion about something very relevant to how women are treated in free thought groups to change the subject to something as trivial as being called a female. I’ve never heard a single complaint from a male about being called a male. To be fair, this is the first time I’ve ever heard a female complain about it. I’m sure that once the videos of the panel are released.. you will all see that that this blog needs to be scrapped… just like the authors integrity.
Azkyroth
February 8, 2011 at 3:02 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
There’s also the point that the supposed omnipotence of (properly behaved) women over men, due to women’s role as the Gatekeepers of Sex and men’s supposed slavery to their sexual impulses, has historically and repeatedly been used as an excuse to deny women an equal share of every other kind of power society had to offer, or to fuel efforts to curtail what they already had access to in that regard. (I seem to recall, for instance, that this was pretty much John Adams’ entire rebuttal to his wife’s urging that he support provision for women’s rights and political participation in the constitution, while it was being drafted).
paisley
February 8, 2011 at 3:03 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I did just watch the Faircloth video from the Boston event and I have to say that while it was overall alright, there are a few moments during the talk that would have made me feel uncomfortable. If I had been at the event in Alabama with the intent on writing a piece about my experience as a woman at an atheist event, there would be some criticisms. For example, it felt that although most of what he said was pretty good, he still needed to bring home the point that he’s a straight guy who enjoys sexy women. While I feel that he may do this to make the guys feel a little more comfortable bc he’s talking so much about women, being a a room of mostly men with practically naked P. Cruz would make me feel very aware that I’m a woman around a bunch of men – and a lot of them think that’s hot. Also, the Million Dollar Challenge would have made be feel a little uneasy too. Plus, I don’t see how the Million Dollar Challenge is even necessary – since middle school people know that women are more likely to be the determining factor of whether or not sex will happen. And yeah, too much glory for Don Draper. Lastly, why is a man giving the big talk on women’s sexual repression and agency? Especially because there was not a single speaker who was a woman, and there was only 1 of 6 panelists that was a woman. I do have to say, though, I appreciate that Mr. Faircloth has taken so much time to learn about these issues facing women, and help us in our fight. Lastly, and this is not related to Faircloth’s talk, I do find it irksome when I get referred to as “female” or when people talk about “females”. It’s one thing to say “female speaker” or “female student” but to just say stuff like “and females, they….” I find it disrespectful – many women do. And the women who’ve commented on here saying that they don’t find it disrespectful, that’s fine for you, but realize that a lot of us do; and I hope that you will be respectful of that.
Azkyroth
February 8, 2011 at 3:05 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You know, I’m completely sympathetic to the position of people who justly feel they might have been misrepresented and I find this comment incredibly pompous and arrogantly demanding. I suggest rephrasing it.
Azkyroth
February 8, 2011 at 3:06 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Apparently I’m doing it wrong here, too.
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 3:08 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
If they clearly explained why they were bothered, then I might not argue that either. However, if they just said (or, more relevantly, wrote in a guest post on a blog that I read everyday) that someone hitting on them was “creepy” if that person was a member of a certain racial/age/social group and implied that it would be less creepy if that person had not been a member of that group, then they shouldn’t rely on a commenter to make a retrospective rationalization for their public expression of a personal bias.
Jen
February 8, 2011 at 3:12 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“Second, maybe in that setting it would be best to not display any cleavage.”You must not be reading closely enough to make idiotic comments like that.
Leaann
February 8, 2011 at 3:16 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Well, thanks for letting me know that I SHOULD be offended, and that I’m just a weak wil woman.
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 3:18 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’m not blaming anyone. However, if a woman is so bothered by men looking at her cleavage in certain settings that she’s motivated to write a blog post about it, then there’s an obvious solution: Don’t show your cleavage in those settings.Your last paragraph doesn’t make sense. First, no one said that women had to be receptive toward any man who was interested in them. If you’re not attracted to older men or black men or fat men or poor men, that’s fine. Just don’t drag your personal tastes into a blog post about male chauvinism. Second, if the men involved were consciously “showing their age” (I don’t know how…maybe by wearing an “Old Fart” t-shirt or by saying “You can call me Big Daddy”), then you might have a point. However, most people don’t really have any choice about whether they show their age.
Steve Caldwell
February 8, 2011 at 3:18 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Is it me or does the “million dollar challenge” sound heterosexist?
Jen
February 8, 2011 at 3:20 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’m amazed it took this long for someone to point this out. Yay heteronormativity!
Katherine
February 8, 2011 at 3:25 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
THIS. Mansplain is too often used as a blanket dismissal of anything anyone has to say, and it’s often unfairly leveled as a criticism against men, when women “mansplain” just as much as men do. I hate “X Bingo” for the same reason; rather than using a reasoned argument against someone, you’re using an ad hominem attack in the form of out-group shaming. It’s a juvenile move. If you thinking someone is being ignorant, I feel like you have three good choices; ignore them, link them to a 101 blog, or respond. Making childish remarks to someone with innocent intentions might be satisfying, but it’s still lame.
Deziner
February 8, 2011 at 3:25 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
What if it was a man your father’s age? Also, just because it wouldn’t make you uncomfortable doesn’t mean it’s a non-issue for others.
TheG
February 8, 2011 at 3:26 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
An addition (not an argument negating your point) is how uncomfortable I get when referred to as a “male nurse”. The only alternative when someone feels to point out my genitalia when referring to my profession is “boy nurse”. My anecdotal evidence indicates it is overwhelmingly “female patients” who use these names for their caregiver.I don’t know if I would be less offended if someone called me “man nurse”. It has never come up, honestly.
Jen
February 8, 2011 at 3:29 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Just wanted to pop in and say I agree wholeheartedly and fucking hate the term “mansplain.”
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 3:31 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
How so? She wrote about older men “staring at and talking to our cleavage.” What do you think I’m missing?I don’t think that sort of “flirting” is appropriate, especially if it’s really as extreme as she describes, but I also don’t understand why she would wear a cleavage-bearing shirt in public and then be perturbed that the wrong kind of men stared.Also, Jen, I’ve read your blog everyday for the last several months. Even though I occasionally think you’re wrong about something, I would never refer to anything you wrote as “idiotic.”
Amanda Gulledge
February 8, 2011 at 3:39 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Why would we dislike the word female… it didn’t do anything wrong. :(
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 3:43 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
That doesn’t make your personal biases/preferences fodder for a blog post about male chauvinism.
Steven Moore
February 8, 2011 at 3:51 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You obviously were not there and I don’t really care how “incredibly pompous and arrogantly demanding” you find my comment. Your suggestion has been duly noted and filed accordingly.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 3:51 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hmm….I’ll answer anyway. ^_^There is a difference between sexism and privilege.Women can be sexist. A woman can be sexist towards men. Hells, a woman can be sexist towards women – it’s weird, but it happens.However, men are privileged in a way that women are not. I’m taking it for granted that I don’t have to justify this so I’m omitting that part. But I can elaborate if requested.To me, the use of ‘mansplanation’ is a weapon against male privilege – to be specific, a weapon against a specific sub-set of behaviors that emerge that are bound up with that privilege.That’s not to say it can’t lend itself to mis-used. I certainly did earlier today.But used appropriately it can be a very useful, cutting, and (to my mind) pithy descriptor that exactly encapsulates the behavior that it is intended to describe and deride.
Christopher Delos Stedman
February 8, 2011 at 3:53 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@Steve and Jen — I’m *so* glad you raised this, as I was just about to say something myself. I definitely have seen similar heterosexism in workshops / lectures on topics of this nature at atheist conferences in the past (though I’ve occasionally wondered if, because I’m queer, I was projecting… glad to see others noticing the same thing), and it should be addressed.Also: Regardless of how “accurate” this article is, it is still a reminder of how important it is to confront sexism (and, for that matter, other -isms and -phobias) whenever we see them appear in this movement. Thanks for initiating the conversation; even if turns out that a minority of women present were offended by these incidents, the fact that anyone was is important and must be acknowledged / responded to.
Jen
February 8, 2011 at 3:53 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I have spent the last *year* making posts about why comments like that drive me crazy, especially over the last few days.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 3:53 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Awww. :(I still like it because it fits.
J'Carlin
February 8, 2011 at 3:54 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
OK at the next atheist meeting we will all have the women dress in gunny sacks so the pricks of any age won’t be tempted to gawk. If you find it hard to simply appreciate feminine sexuality without worrying about sex I would second the motion that you should grow up I don’t care what the calendar says. Women have secondary sex characteristics that are difficult to hide. It is up to men, especially atheist men to control their rut. God didn’t tell us to be fruitful and multiply. We should be more civilized than that.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 3:59 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
That’s the thing: It’s not the same for either sex.Differences in practice are just as important – if not more-so – than differences in principle.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 4:02 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Good point.
Nidia
February 8, 2011 at 4:02 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
This attitude that it is in a man’s “biology,” to ogle, stare, chase, etc women is frustrating. I expect these sort of comments from religous groups (since they often try to justify female modesty biblically as a way to protect the purity of men) but not from atheist groups.I feel terribly that you had to uncomfortably sit through that.
jesusfetusfajitafishsticks
February 8, 2011 at 4:11 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
http://jesusfetusfajitafishsti…
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 4:13 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hmm…I read through the article again and it got me thinking.The original point of the panel was how to make women feel more invited at atheist conventions, yes?Greta Christina once pointed out that one of the things that made her feel really welcome in the atheist community was that if she jumped into blog comments or a messageboard on an atheist site and someone made stupid comments about GLBTs, a whole heap of straight atheists would scramble out of the woodwork and tear them down. Greta didn’t have to do anything – the atheist community had her back. She felt welcomed.Greta was using her experiences as a bisexual and what she felt appealing about atheism as an analogy for how atheist groups could appeal more to non-whites.I think the analogy holds true for how atheist groups can appeal more to women.
R. Elisabeth Cornwell, PhD
February 8, 2011 at 4:14 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The ‘million dollar challenge’, which I have used in my lectures and courses to open up the discussion of how parental investment influences sexual access:To the men: I will bet a million dollars (if I win you pay me a million if you win I pay you), that by midnight tonight you cannot find a women to have consensual sex with you… but these are the rules… she must be someone you have never before met, no drugs, alcohol, money, promises of love, anything can be exchanged – all you can do is ask her if she would willingly go and have sex with you. That’s it. One question… Then ask if any of the men think they could really win that bet? No takersThen I offer the same bet to the women in the room… and ask do you think you could take the bet and win… Most of the women agree that they could. Does that mean they will? No, it means they are aware that they could win that bet and the men realize that their odds are slim. That’s the challenge… it is meant to simply highlight the control women have… and if anyone actually read a bit on evolutionary theory, they would understand that because of this control, males and females have been exerting sexual selection on the opposite sex of their particular species. It differs with species, mammals are generally female choice. There is nothing sexist, offending or bizarre about using this example as a way to provide an example of how evolution – and in particular sexual selection – works. In the sea horse, its opposite – males are choosier because they hatch the eggs and watch over the fry – while female sea horses pursue males and are aggressive. Evolution does not care about being PC – it cares about survival and disproportionate reproductive success. Humans, unlike all other living things happen to have brains capable of not only understanding why this is, but understanding the influence it has on culture, religion, politics, and family…. Whether or not people wish to change how we think about individuals and learn to respect one another is our choice and, I might add, relatively new on the scene. In terms of my paraphrasing about the views that were expressed in the original article about male behavior was just that – paraphrasing from sentences like “that men hitting on women is just biological (therefore excusable), making it sound like a woman in that kind of situation should just STFU and get over it.” and “20 guys our father’s age blatantly staring at and talking to our cleavage is a totally different situation! It’s not sexy, it’s gross and creepy.” as well as “how men’s biology drives them to frequently (if not constantly) pursue sex, and since it’s biology, no one should get upset at, judge, or think less of men for any skirt-chasing they might engage in”…. I did not quote the authors – if that was not what the authors were hinting at… what were they suggesting? Actually the million dollar challenge is not heterosexist… as I alluded to, studies of homosexual behavior confirms the male/female bias.
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 4:15 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Oh, you meant I wasn’t reading YOUR blog posts closely enough. I thought you meant I hadn’t this particular blog post closely enough.I’ve read your blog posts on similar issues. I’ve never commented on them. Sometimes I think you have a point and sometimes I think you complain too much. You’re right often enough that I chose to not make an issue of the times I thought you were wrong. Since the issue was raised here: I don’t think you can become famous in large part for encouraging women to show their cleavage and then reasonably expect that no one will notice your breasts even after Boobquake is over. (That doesn’t excuse the loutish behavior you’ve described in other posts, but it does mitigate it.)
Sivi
February 8, 2011 at 4:27 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Mansplaining involves a certain tone of voice, and is almost exclusively delivered by men to women, particularly when explaining anything scientific or technical. It doesn’t mean men can’t explain things, they should just avoid a condescending tone while doing so.Not all evo psych arguments are bad. Evo psych makes a lot of sense, but too often it’s just used to confirm pre-existing biases.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 4:35 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It turns out men have other states than ‘horny’.(From when I was 17)Aunt: You know, men only really feel three emotions. Happy, sad, and angry.Uncle: I don’t know. Sometimes I get hungry.Aunt: That’s not a feeling.Me: Maybe not to you auntie. But it is to us.Uncle: Exactly!Aunt: Fine. That’s still only four.Uncle: What about the feeling when you’ve just caught a great big fish?Aunt: Elation?Uncle: Not exactly. Oh, it’s its own thing. There’s nothing like it.Aunt (dubiously): Even so, that’s only four.Daniel: We get horny sometimes too.Uncle: *cracks up* That we do Dan. That we do.Aunt: Fine. *leaves the room*Uncle (calls after her): Then we can mix them up! Catching a fish and hungry! Hungry and sad!Daniel (sotto): I wouldn’t want to try catching a fish and horny, though.Uncle: No… That would probably get awkward for everyone. Especially the fish.We didn’t even include ‘sleepy’ in our discussion.
Goblinpaladin
February 8, 2011 at 4:36 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“Second, maybe in that setting it would be best to not display any cleavage.”Wow, way to make it the woman’s fault there, chuppo. She has it coming! Look how she is dressed.
Maggie
February 8, 2011 at 4:40 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Except that I grew up in the south where “hey, woman” and “all you women” leaves a particular bad taste in my proverbial mouth. Conversely, my mom doesn’t care for the term ‘ladies’ because of her particular experiential association to it with prostitutes. So what’s respectful? And how can one be expected to be preemptively respectful ; especially when using an altogether proper term?
Scott Savage
February 8, 2011 at 4:41 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Search the thread for “Elisabeth Cornwell PHD” she covers it quite well.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 4:43 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Burkha’s at an atheist convention?Nice.
Just_some_weird_person
February 8, 2011 at 4:44 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Stupid cunts are more damaging to the feminist movement than horny old men that say the world “female.” Maybe I am just a pig of a man, but I saw nothing offensive about Mr. Faircloth’s speech and I daresay anyone with the ability to use their brain would agree with me here. Fact of the matter is that we are animals, and you are indeed females. I am a male and I see no cause to get offended when I am referred to as much. The “weaker sex” comment was used in jest and perhaps if the person had a sense of humor she wouldn’t have stormed out of the room. It is unfortunate that someone did get offended but is it really enough to write a blog entry about? Do you really think that your coverage of the convention is at all accurate? If you can spew a load of malarkey that rewrites the fore-mentioned events then I hold the right to call you out on that. Its not hard to find offense if you are looking for it.
Scott Savage
February 8, 2011 at 4:44 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Make that “Elisabeth Cornwell, PHD” She has posted more than once, so be sure to see the one that starts out describing the “million dollar challenge.”
Gus Snarp
February 8, 2011 at 4:46 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
No, stick with shitting on the table. Or at least urinating or waving your penis in the male panelist’s face. This should now be the automatic response to cries of “but our biology makes us do it!”
paisley
February 8, 2011 at 4:49 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
it evokes non-human animal imagery to me. I don’t think cattle, like the woman at the conference said, but I do hear the National Geographic voice say “The female of the species…” And feeling like you’re being talked about like something other than human feels uncomfortable.
paisley
February 8, 2011 at 4:52 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
That’s an interesting point. When I was growing up (in the Midwest) there was a neighbor my age who always called me “woman” and I hated it! I think it’s why it took me so long to be ok with calling myself a woman. However, someone saying “hey, woman” I feel is sexist: it doesn’t matter who you are, you’re just “woman”. Does hearing the term “women” in every context bother you?
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 4:52 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Okay, I’ll grant you that.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 4:53 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I really want to see this video now.Fuck its confusing.Storm in a teacup?I’m wondering how long it’s going to take someone from outside the atheist community to take this piece up, get the interpretation even more wrong, then slap up an article somewhere prominent.Can’t be long now.
paisley
February 8, 2011 at 4:53 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
This was just brought up on FriendlyAthiest (post about abortion). I didn’t make the comment (that being in a community of men sticking up for women’s rights made me feel proud to be part of the atheist community), but I felt the same way.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 4:55 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I disagree that difference in practice is just as important. If it is based on choice or culture, then it is unfair to hold the genders to different standards. That would correctly be declared sexist.However, there are some biological differences (biology seems to be a dreaded word on this thread) which would explain why women are less likely to hit on men and thus by extension why older women are less likely to hit on younger men than older men hitting on younger women. Women normally only have one child at a time while men could theoretically have thousands. So women are much more cautious about who they let impregnate them. Thus being hit on bothers them more. But like you said earlier, it doesn’t matter why the person feels uncomfortable. If they do, then a person of either gender should stop.
Sivi
February 8, 2011 at 4:59 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
…To YOU. It’s less noticeable TO YOU. To women, who find themselves surround in the sausage-fests that atheist meetings generally are, it’s extremely bloody noticeable. Particularly, as I’ll point out again, because we’re supposed to know better.
R. Elisabeth Cornwell, PhD
February 8, 2011 at 5:02 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I hope people will take the time to look at the evidence and note that Sean (nor others) ever suggested that poor behavior (by either sex) is excusable because of our evolutionary history. Sean did not intimate at any time our biology excused male behavior or sexism. Nor, would any reasonable person imply that by understanding natural and sexual selection that we were justifying war, infanticide, jealousy, homicide, intolerance, or rage… to suggest that by understanding our biological heritage means we accept all forms of human behavior is like saying that studying the causes of schizophrenia, depression, cancer, diabetes means the researchers are encouraging these diseases. Through understanding evolution, we can see how morality, love, kindness, friendship, parental care, and care for non-human life came about. Atheists don’t mind with claiming that our evolved natures through being a social species can explain the better part of our nature than being made in god’s image. Well, evolutionary pressures also created parts of our human nature that are not particularly terrific. But we can’t lay claim to our evolved good natures and then refuse to acknowledge some of the other parts of our nature have evolved and require explanation. Sexual selection is incredibly powerful – Darwin acknowledged its ability to push traits well beyond the benefits that survival on its own would dictate. Hence the peacock’s tail, and why men tend to die younger than women (testosterone is unhealthy). Just actually look at the evidence from Sean’s talk and listen to what was said rather than assuming what was meant.
Christie Swords
February 8, 2011 at 5:02 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
As one of the “assholes” you are speaking of, I am quite offended. It is SO disappointing for so many people who were not even there to judge not just one person but a group of people based on one person’s opinion. Where are the skeptics here?Mr. Scanlan, you do not even know me (and I am guessing – do not know anyone else who was at the SERAM or you might have a different opinion). I don’t mind being called an asshole when I have done something to deserve it. But seriously, you should consider what you are doing before you so flippantly throw around hateful words.
Amanda Gulledge
February 8, 2011 at 5:07 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“sugar lips” always made me cock a brow.
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 5:07 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I didn’t say she “has it coming.” I’m just pointing out that, based on her earlier experiences, she knows that some men are going to stare at her cleavage if she attends an event wearing a shirt that shows her cleavage.If a man attended an event wearing a tank top and then whined in a blog post about people staring at his well-developed biceps, I would make a similar recommendation to him.
J'Carlin
February 8, 2011 at 5:08 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I would have suggested burkha’s but properly worn they can be quite suggestive to those that cannot or will not control their lust.
Rob
February 8, 2011 at 5:09 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hahaha, evo psych troll.
Christie Swords
February 8, 2011 at 5:10 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I was wondering how long people who were against sexism would let that statement go. Apparently, for most of the people on here it’s okay to insult men since they are big and strong ehough to take it. *rolls eyes*
Gus Snarp
February 8, 2011 at 5:10 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
What I find myself wondering is why a room full of intelligent people is expected to learn anything from this million dollar question. It seems to me to be nothing more than stating the obvious in a way that is contrived to be a bit. It says nothing about any real issues of power dynamics between men and women, but is just a cheap ploy to get laughs with a joke so hackneyed it would embarrass Leno. And that’s the most generous way I can imagine those words being contextualized. It only goes downhill from there.
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 5:14 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
If she had said, “staring at our breasts,” then I would have assumed that she meant the outline of their breasts as visible through their shirts. In that case, I think you would have a point when you say that women “have secondary sex characteristics that are difficult to hide.”However, she complained about men staring at their “cleavage,” which I take to mean that they were wearing cleavage-bearing shirts. (I know this was within the context of a hypothetical, but she seemed to be basing her comments on actual events.)Also, your assumption that I would “gawk” at women’s cleavage or otherwise harass them just because I made a suggestion about how they could avoid that problem in the future is incorrect.
Christie Swords
February 8, 2011 at 5:21 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I find it insulting and udderly disgusting that so many people on here act as if we women are not capable of standing up for ourselves. As if we need someone to speak up for us and come to our rescue. To me, that is more sexist than any of the false accusations that have been thrown around in this article and in these comments.Speaking of the comments, for those of you that jumped on Sharon’s bandwagon without any consideration for the validity of her claims, I hope you folks don’t get called for jury duty if you are willing to take one person’s word as evidence. Good night all.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 5:21 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Heh.We’re getting a bit cramped here.Here’s an example where turnabout is not fair play:”I love it when women come up and grab my ass! Therefore you’re being oversensitive when you tell me I’m such a bastard for doing it to you. It’s a compliment. You should be pleased. What’s wrong with you? I’m just doing unto you as I’d have you do unto me, babe. *wink*”Part of what makes the above so transparently, absurdly wrong is that the practical reality for a man is very different than for a woman. And that needs to be taken into account.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 5:24 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’ll definitely be watching the video, yes.Just out of interest: Do you have anything science-y for all of this that you can link to that isn’t behind a paywall?I’m not demanding evidence or anything. I’m just curious. I’d like to do some reading up.
Allison B.
February 8, 2011 at 5:24 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I too, am a female that attended SERAM. I had to strain to see the woman (lady/chick/female) in the back with the “female” question- so it did probably take forever for them to get back there to get her to ask her question. (IMO-Blair, the moderator and my friend- isn’t one to leave someone hanging simply becuase they are a woman/female/chick/lady-it was because she was really far away and he was picking off people in the front where he could easily see them.) I find most of this post to be highly skewed interpretation of the tone, sense of humor, and nuance of the events & specific parts of speeches from SERAM. Yes, there were men there oversimplifying how they follow their penises. But at no time was there mention or implication that women should STFU and take it. I’m sad to read that one person did think that-but I wasn’t forced to laugh, think, and stand up and applaud the SERAM presenters. Next, another SERAM panel discussion spoke about how to be inclusive and how to deal with a variety problems- including(!!) what happens when someone gets offended. How was Blair Scott (moderator) or the offending panel members/speakers able to apologize much less rectify the matter with the offended who presumably didn’t have the fortitude to go talk face to face with them afterwards? As I read the post, she ran off and it’s pretty hard to give a worthy apology to those not around that need to hear it. There were lots of breaks where if you wanted to- could have found any of the organizers or panelists and had an adult conversation with them. The hotel restaurant and bar was open the whole weekend and filled with SERAM participants both days- there was plenty of opportunity to talk about this “hiccup”. Honestly, if I had seen the main offended lady’s face and recognized her during the breaks and had known she had walked off- I would have gone and talked to her about it. Another oversight that is frustrating to not read: the organizers under scheduled the Sunday events. There was an open period during the closing hour in which anyone was asked to come forward with concerns, problems, or comments. I didn’t hear one person say anything about presentations being sexist or offensive. I’m really confused as to why there is this blazingly awful review of SERAM and no mention of what the posters/offended persons did to rectify anything. We all have to work to make this community better. Or perhaps, the offended (presumably more than three-which is possible) could have taken the time out to find them (the offenders) online (eg Facebook) since SERAM and confront them about their concerns and feelings? She didn’t say her name to the crowd so I don’t think it was as easy for the panelists to go apologize to her/others offended. Lastly- since there’s no mention of any of the above actions – I must say I’m disappointed that this negativity bomb would be dropped on such a widely read blog without trying to work things out first. Sounds like those offended would have left SERAM with a lighter load if they had tried to talk it out-instead of fuming all the way home (which just plain sucks that this happened and I had to read that it did) and then write this obviously angry post for all to read. If we are to go forward as an atheist community- everyone needs to take responsibility and work for a better understanding and communication between each other. I do not find the beginning ~60% of this article to accomplish that at all. I’m disappointed in the guest posters for not following through on their own suggestions.
AK
February 8, 2011 at 5:26 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“Stupid cunts are more damaging to the feminist movement than horny old men that say the world “female.” Assholes like you are pretty damaging as well when you start out your comment with a sexist word used to belittle women.
J'Carlin
February 8, 2011 at 5:26 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I would still object to the million dollar challenge as the focus is getting laid by midnight. Of course the women could find a prick to do the deed, but you can bet she would only take you up on it if the contraceptive was firmly in place. At least in a relatively well educated group attending your classes or lectures. The reproductive investment in humans is measured in years, for intelligent humans maybe in tens of years. Getting laid should be no part of the equation either for men or for women. The days of sowing your seed and hoping someone will bring up the kid are long gone outside the fundamentalist world. They may be right, but I certanly hope not.
Britt Hannah
February 8, 2011 at 5:27 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It was my first time attending SERAM and a convention of this kind. As a strong, independent woman with a critical-thinking journalism background, I treated each speaker with an open mind and without any previous personal connection (I knew no one at the convention when I first arrived). While I closely analyzed the gist and message of each speaker, I also have a keen sense of humor to let communal jokes slide by (I didn’t see anyone walk out when Monty Python’s “Every Sperm is Sacred” was sung along to on the first day). Sean Faircloth was one of my favorite speakers. His message and delivery was fair, balanced and professionally articulated. I mirror the note of a few other posters that he received a standing ovation at the end of his talk. He spoke of himself as a feminist – I am as well. He made no snarky, degrading remarks to anyone involved at the conference and in my humble opinion, someone who takes great offense to him showing depictions of a million dollar challenge and the fictional character of Don Draper, is digging for a controversy to muddy the water of him representing a great force of strength and pride in the secular community. As to the female/male stink and the woman who walked out, I was flabbergasted as to why that was such a stink. The panelist was calmly talking about a situation involving males and females when the outraged “why females instead of women?” was brought up. This is just silly and crying wolf. He was speaking about both genders equally in a very respectful manner. Why the attendee found it upon herself to interrupt the panelists and create a dramatic situation, I have no clue but I suppose it makes for a titillating blog posting. I thoroughly enjoyed SERAM, all attendees involved, and I hope to attend again. Best of luck to all and keep debate strong and intellectual! As the popular Auburn T-shirts espoused at the conference, “Question Everything!”
Dae
February 8, 2011 at 5:28 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Why don’t you describe your point of view, then, with specifics? You’ve said that this post mischaracterizes the situation, and you’ve implied that it makes something out of nothing, but you haven’t stated how, or given your own version of events. I’m willing to entertain the idea that the interpretation presented here is flawed, but you’re doing nothing to convince me (or anyone, I suspect) of that by blowing steam like you’ve been doing.
Dae
February 8, 2011 at 5:34 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“Women as gatekeepers” is no more True than any other maleable social construct, and there are enough exceptions to that generalization that it harms both men and women. I agree with TheWanderingFool – I don’t see an appropriate context for the “challenge,” period.
Dae
February 8, 2011 at 5:36 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Everyone has a line where humor ends and something becomes offensive. Yours may be in a different place than the woman mentioned in this article, but that doesn’t make hers wrong.
J'Carlin
February 8, 2011 at 5:38 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I apologize for seemingly personal comments. They were not intended to be. My point remains bikini, cleavage showing or sexy burkha, the Japanese onsen addage should still apply: nakedness is frequently seen, but never stared at. One can even appreciate the beauty but gawking is always a social error.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 5:40 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Christie:You’ve touched on something here that I’d really like you to elaborate on.Earlier in this thread I referenced a talk given by Greta Christina. She found the atheist community very welcoming when she was moving into it because whenever she was on an atheist-themed forum, blog or panel and someone said something stupid about GLBTs, all these straight atheists appeared out of the woodwork and started tearing it down. She felt like the atheist community really had her back.She was using it as an example of what the atheist community can do for non-whites. Straight people sticking up for GLBT rights seems like a pretty good analogy for white people standing up for the rights of non-whites.But I also thought at the time that this could also be a good idea that atheist groups could use to try and appeal more to women. Get men to stand up publicly and more often in support of women’s rights.So whenever a feminist issue comes up I make a point of coming out of the woodwork myself and having a say. I don’t do this because I suppose women can’t. I do it because I both give a damn and want to show that I give a damn.Normally this idea meets with positive response. But even so, I was hoping for a reality check. From your comments here, you don’t sound like you’re one to sugar coat. ^_^Do you think I’m way off base, or am I on to something here?
Charon
February 8, 2011 at 5:44 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Chill. Reread the comment. He said MORE noticeable.Chill.
Just_some_weird_person
February 8, 2011 at 5:46 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Bitch, Cunt, Asshole, Dick head … These are words and they have as much power as you are willing to give to them. I wrote that with the intent of catching attention. I am sorry if you’re not adult enough to hear a simple word. In this case, yes, people that get offended and write a selective article on an issue are cunts. It is also more uncouth to call a someone an asshole on your twitter account just because you have opposing ideas of what that term actually means. Somewhat petty as well. I think i did a good job of presenting how I feel about this blog post. It’s unpretentious and brutally honest. If you think that I am a sexist because I said cunt, then that doesn’t bother me. I will not apologize because some people have a narrow view of the world. Get a life and perhaps read a book sometime. Your time would be best spent that way. I am quite sure you have more to say … but I don’t. :)
PamEllis
February 8, 2011 at 5:48 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I was not present at this conference, but when I first heard about what set this off…it totally confused me. I am still confused. I never got the memo that I was supposed to be offended by being called a female, as I AM A FEMALE.Jeez.Treating this as sexist is just an insult to people who have experienced real sexist discrimination. Most of my jobs have been in areas dominated by males. So maybe I am so used to seeing how to handle myself in that arena that it really takes a lot to set me off, but running out of a room because people don’t fall in line with how I view things would not be an option. That fits in with my own stereotype of the kind of female I don’t want to be.
Dae
February 8, 2011 at 5:48 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Second, maybe in that setting it would be best to not display any cleavage.Well, THIS suggestion sounds familiar, now doesn’t it? Sorry, I don’t buy your “I’m actually very sympathetic…” – take your victim-blaming and go fuck yourself. You can “notice” without looking at and talking to someone like a piece of meat. It’s how my roughly Kinsey 5 bisexuality tends to go under the radar with straight women. =P
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 5:50 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Y’see, this is one of the weird things for me.I tend to use ‘female’ as an age-neutral term. For example, if I’m referring to a collection of females that comprises both women and girls, I’ll say ‘females’, and think I’m being all clever and respectful and properly inclusive.Until reading this I’d never even considered that ‘female’ could be read in a derogatory manner.
R. Elisabeth Cornwell, PhD
February 8, 2011 at 5:50 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Daniel – I will take a look, I know journal articles cost – but the online peer-reviewed journal Evolutionary Psychology (http://www.epjournal.net) is free to all – they have variety of articles on this field (no, it is not always about sex).It is interested that when speaking of sexual orientation, scientists have steadfastly argued that there is a strong biological component. I have spoken at length on the topic – and the data are overwhelming that sexual orientation is part of our individual biological make-up. No one on this list would suggest even though it is biological, some sexual orientations should be banned or seen as unacceptable (or sexist). But, as soon as we start to talk about the biological differences between the sexes – some will accuse me and others as making an excuse for unacceptable behavior (when no one from the EP side said that or suggested that on this thread or in general). So I am just curious why we can accept sexual orientation as a part of our human biology – and say viva la difference, but then be completely intolerant of the suggestion that male-female differences are biological – and that by suggesting they are biological (those of us that do) promotes debauchery and intolerable sexist behavior. Is that sort of a double standard? Only the religious people (and not all religious people – but I never hear atheists attack such a view) become upset with me when I speak about the strong biological influence of sexual orientation. And, might I remind people – sexual orientation is a human behavior (even if not acted upon).
Charon
February 8, 2011 at 5:52 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I don’t understand your repeated vitriol about ageism. What is weird or wrong with generally wanting to mate with someone your own age (particularly if you’re young)? And if I say the average 20-year-old is substantially more attractive than the average 45-year-old, that’s just true. Holy cow. This is like being upset when someone thinks it more likely that a 100-year-old person will die in the next year than a 25-year-old person.If you read Lolita, you do in fact sympathize with Humbert Humbert, but you still think what he does is creepy and messed up.At least, most of us do.
SaraDee
February 8, 2011 at 5:53 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
nobody said anything of the sort. If you’re not offended, fill your boots – but just because you, personally, are not, is not a good argument for why women, in general, shouldn’t be. You asked a question, with three question marks, as though to you it was really obvious that women shouldn’t be offended. So we answered with reasons why many are. No where in either of those statements did someone say EVERY woman should be.
Azkyroth
February 8, 2011 at 5:54 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
So what’s with people who use “mansplaining” as an ad hominem to dismiss ANY criticism, regardless of tone and even when it’s delivered by a woman?
Just Al
February 8, 2011 at 5:54 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
When I first read this post, I was extremely disappointed in the behavior I was hearing – but also a little wary. I can’t say that I’ve ever witnessed anything even remotely like this in any kind of environment I’ve been in, and having worked construction, I’ve seen some pretty heavy-handed sexist behavior. I was wondering if there were aspects that were misinterpreted.Now, with several posts distinctly and specifically calling this into question, I’m still disturbed, but over two entirely different things:1. That a certain number of commenters here are blatantly refusing to accept the contradictory accounts, and are clearly playing towards a bias without apparent support. That they’re not even pausing to see what the video shows is a total failure of the critical thinking skills most of us promote;2. If true, it means that the guest posters either drastically misunderstood, failed to observe objectively, or intentionally misrepresented the whole affair. Since this is not the first time I’ve seen behavior of this sort, I can tell you honestly, this is why I have an ugly taste in my mouth over feminism. I’m very supportive of equality – but not of seeking it through hyperbole, misrepresentation, and false victimhood. And I’m sure I’m not alone. Such tactics are certainly not going to help promote the cause. As yet, it is not clear that this occurred.I have once in my entire life seen a guy staring at and talking to a woman’s cleavage. That’s anecdotal evidence, of course, but it’s enough to make me wonder just what definition of “staring” we’re actually talking about. I have as much interest in cleavage as the next guy, but decorum and the desire to avoid “creepiness” has forced me to avoid anything more than momentary glances, so much so that my girlfriend actually got annoyed when I was failing to notice something she was wearing. But I also have to ask why anyone’s cleavage is even visible if they are offended at the attention – there are plenty of fashionable, acceptable clothing styles that do not display cleavage or mammary size. And of course, this forces me to ask if it is being displayed because certain attentions are welcomed, but only from select people? While this is going to come off as one of those dreaded excuses of behavior, men are as culturally aware as women. When a woman dresses to accentuate her body, it is because she is encouraging attention – that’s the way our society works. Even if you don’t like it, you’re not going to change it by ignoring it and then complaining because you received exactly the response you should have expected.Were I not in a happy relationship right now, would I be seeking someone at such a conference? Hell, yes! People with my interests and values are pre-selected just by being there! And because women are under-represented in such circumstances, this does mean they’ll receive far more attention than in “normal” circumstances. The same thing applies, with differences in approach, in places where men are underrepresented. This isn’t sexism, it’s opportunism, and it doesn’t have a gender bias. At the same time, where women are overrepresented, the competition among women often gets… can I use the word “catty” without setting someone off? Probably not, but you know exactly what I mean when I say it. What is the term for the woman who shows the most cleavage in that situation?As Dr. R. Elisabeth Cornwell said above, there are distinct differences between the way men and women view interactions, relations, and sex. The reason that the male approach is even brought up, most times (I cannot vouch for this conference that I did not attend,) is to make women aware of it, not to excuse the resulting behavior. Very often, I’ve seen the attitude that since men and women are different, men are wrong – it’s almost pervasive in our society, and actively encouraged in media aimed at women. Dr. Cornwell is one of the very few people I’ve seen ever address this – thanks!I have had to deal, numerous times, with women that cannot handle adversity without crying and leaving the room, which makes it exceptionally difficult to encourage them to handle customer service, or even to receive employee reviews. How come no one ever addresses this inexcusable trait? Should I ignore it when I see it, pursue the woman and keep plugging away at the problem I’m addressing, because it’s ancient evolutionary behavior intended to deflect unwanted adversity, that women should have left behind by now? Shouldn’t empowered women have stopped resorting to this? Or be decrying (heh! I’m a card) it when they see it?And finally, to wrap up this rant. Most men are actually receptive to sexism issues, believe it or not. But the approach has to be honest, and it has to be aimed at encouraging change, rather than throwing blame. Several people directly involved with this conference are actively present in the comments, but I’ve seen no one start a dialogue. That’s not a good sign to me.
Azkyroth
February 8, 2011 at 5:55 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
How could my being or not being there possibly be relevant?And you evidently care enough to have to have the last word, even at the expense of doing the additive inverse of dispelling my conclusion that you’re an infantile prima donna-type with a ridiculous sense of entitlement.On that note:
Would this be a bad time to point out that sentence is ungrammatical? :)
quantheory
February 8, 2011 at 5:58 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“Blah blah blah, I care enough about how I’m perceived to mount a rebuttal, but not to evince basic social skills and empathy. Blah blah blah, when people don’t like what I say it’s because they are narrow-minded and not because I’m intentionally being a dick. Blah blah blah, arguing and cursing here means you’re petty and have no life, but that doesn’t apply to me.”I’m very impressed, weird person.
Charon
February 8, 2011 at 5:59 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The point is that apparently many people didn’t explicitly realize this before, or so clearly.When I teach physics classes, I ask the students why they have antilock brakes on cars. They all have some vague feeling about why, but usually no one can actually articulate it properly. I think it’s freaking obvious, in terms of static v. kinetic friction, but… I’m a physicist. What’s obvious to you isn’t obvious to everyone else (a point which… isn’t obvious to everyone ;)
Christie Swords
February 8, 2011 at 5:59 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
An apology wasn’t offered immediately, however, I think it would have been a moot point anyway since the woman left the room. The panelist who made the joke spoke with the woman later. He said he apologized, and she said that it was not a big deal. She also said she was being “thin-skinned”. Thanks for giving the perspective as someone who was actually there.
quantheory
February 8, 2011 at 6:00 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Thank you.Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou.
R. Elisabeth Cornwell, PhD
February 8, 2011 at 6:01 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
So you are suggesting that 100,000 years of human evolution (and even longer when looking and mammalian evolution) simply vanishes because of the invention of contraception? Have you read anything on evolutionary theory? Are you suggesting that there is a body-mind disconnect? The body parts evolved, but the mind did not (we invented it on the fly?). Honestly – before you begin to make such statements, you need to read at least a little bit of science.
SaraDee
February 8, 2011 at 6:05 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
the author was not EXPRESSING those views, she was COUNTERING them. That was, again, the point: it’s aggravating when a bunch of men say “men hitting on women is just biological (therefore excusable)” therefore “making it sound like a woman in that kind of situation should just STFU and get over it.” Apparently some woman haven’t experienced it, but it has sure has hell shown up on this blog, and at my university, I’ve been told that over and over and over and over and over again. I’ve been told that I shouldn’t have shown up to work on a mine, if I didn’t want the men to talk about what they’d like to do to me over the pit channel (while chit chat is normally a fireable offense on that channel, it was only to be expected from men when there was a woman around. A woman in coveralls, hard hat, safety glasses, and safety vest inside a truck driving by.) “It’s just biology” is constantly used to excuse sexist behaviour, and this article was pointing that out, not condoning it.
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 6:05 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Please elaborate on how this suggestion sounds familiar.
quantheory
February 8, 2011 at 6:10 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’m going to reserve judgment on these specific incidents, because a) there’s a lot of anecdotes and drama flying around, and b) the specifics of this event have no real impact on my life right now.However, I will say that the next time a straight guy tries to justify obsessive sexualization of women as a matter of biology, I will definitely be tempted to see how he feels about being on the receiving end of such treatment.
Christie Swords
February 8, 2011 at 6:10 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I appreciate that you took the time to check out the claims that were being made before coming to a conclusion. Kudos!I am curious if it offends you when you fill out a form at the hospital or DMV or well, practically anywhere, and you have to mark that you are well – female. I am trying to be sympathetic to the fact that people are sensitive to certain words. But for reason’s sake, we are all posting on a blog that has “hag” in the title. No one seems to have a problem with that, but some have a problem with a scientific word. It is simply astounding to me. The word is common vernacular. If someone asks on a form what sex you are, do you write that you refuse to answer the question on the grounds that the word that is used to identify your sex is offensive to you? I am not trying to be a smartass. I seriously don’t get it. Why is the word “female” offensive?
Christie Swords
February 8, 2011 at 6:17 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
What she said!
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 6:18 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Thanks for the apology and clarification. They are really appreciated.I agree that any actual staring was inappropriate, even if she was showing cleavage. (I must stress again, however, that this really depends on how one defines “staring.”) I’m not meaning to excuse the staring, which is rude behavior.I’m just saying: She seems to know that some men will “stare” if she shows cleavage in those settings. She seems to really dislike the staring. So, it seems reasonable for her to not show any cleavage in those settings.
quantheory
February 8, 2011 at 6:18 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I actually have to agree with R. Elisabeth Cornwell below, that the million dollar challenge is based on principles which are actually supported by studies of gay/lesbian sexual behavior.I suppose that it’s heteronormative insofar as the presentation assumes that the whole audience is straight. I would definitely feel a bit weird about such a situation. However, the principle that it’s trying to elucidate is not one of those things that disintegrates as soon as you bring non-heterosexuals into the picture.
Maggie
February 8, 2011 at 6:19 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It doesn’t bother me, per se, because I know it’s my own particular social conditioning at work and not someone else’s malicious intent.
Christie Swords
February 8, 2011 at 6:21 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Kudos on getting more info before forming an opinion!
quantheory
February 8, 2011 at 6:23 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Do you speak a language other than asshole? Even if your original complaint is 100% valid, I now feel like you can just shove it.
Katherine
February 8, 2011 at 6:26 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Don’t forget the bingo cards, Rollingforest! :P Nothing says, “We dismiss your relevance out of hand” like a bingo card.
J'Carlin
February 8, 2011 at 6:31 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I am a scientist, and am fluent in evolution. Not really for this discussion but if you think contraception didn’t turn human sexuality on its head by giving women absolute control over whether the man had any children I would wonder about your understanding of sexuality. See http://jcarlinsv.blogspot.com/… if you wish to discuss this further.
Katherine
February 8, 2011 at 6:36 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
And the women who’ve commented on here saying that they don’t find it disrespectful, that’s fine for you, but realize that a lot of us do; and I hope that you will be respectful of that. Fair enough, but… is it really realistic for any in-group member to expect an out-group member to know and understand any what any given member of the in-group might find offensive? Is it really realistic to hold them to that kind of standard? It’s one thing if you’re talking about something blatantly offensive or sexist (“the weaker sex” “get in the kitchen”) but when you’re talking about how (“some women may maybe feel offended by the word female and you should always be respectful of that”) I feel like that’s getting a little unreasonable. I don’t think the word “Female” is something any given man can reasonably be expected to know that any given woman is going to offended by.
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 6:42 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I don’t have a problem with her not being attracted to older men, just as I wouldn’t have a problem if she privately said that she wasn’t attracted to men of a certain race, socioeconomic group, etc.However, if, within the context of a post about male chauvinism, she writes that it’s “creepy” and “gross” when men of that group “stare” at her cleavage (thereby implying that it would be less creepy and less gross if the men were more her type), then someone should call her out her out about that.Also, the major problem with the Humbert/Lolita relationship was not the difference in ages. It was that he was an adult and she was a child.A 47 year old man pursuing a relationship with a 22 year old woman is not comparable to a 37 year old man pursuing a relationship with a 12 year old girl.It’s as if some people in their early twenties retain childhood ideas about age disparities (e.g., “An 8th grader going out with a 6th grader! Ewwww!). As you get older, age differences become less noticeable.She’s being ageist because she assumes that any reasonable person is going to realize that it’s “creepy” and “gross” for a middle-aged man to show an interest in a 20-something woman.
Christie Swords
February 8, 2011 at 6:42 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
@Jen – It is not ageist to want to date within your age bracket. It is ageist to call older people gross. It is also rude and shallow. *the more you know*
quantheory
February 8, 2011 at 6:42 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I think you actually have some very valuable things to say, but I think you are dramatically wrong in the second-to-last paragraph. (Also, does “PhD” really have to be in your name here? No one does that; you probably didn’t mean it, but it sounds arrogant.)In terms of my paraphrasing about the views that were expressed in the original article about male behavior was just that – paraphrasing from sentences like “that men hitting on women is just biological (therefore excusable), making it sound like a woman in that kind of situation should just STFU and get over it.”This was a complaint about what they thought other people were saying. It’s not that they think men are out of control, but they are objecting to such a statement being used as an excuse.and “20 guys our father’s age blatantly staring at and talking to our cleavage is a totally different situation! It’s not sexy, it’s gross and creepy.”This is the behavior they thought was being wrongly excused. That is, they think that men are perfectly capable of not doing this, but some large number (apparently 20) didn’t bother.as well as “how men’s biology drives them to frequently (if not constantly) pursue sex, and since it’s biology, no one should get upset at, judge, or think less of men for any skirt-chasing they might engage in”….Again, reporting the offensive statements they thought they heard, not saying that this is correct.I did not quote the authors – if that was not what the authors were hinting at… what were they suggesting? They were describing what they thought others were saying, not what they themselves believed. I understand that you want to clear people who you don’t think did anything wrong, but you’d be better off not rushing in with a misconstrual of what the accusation is. The accusation is not that men are like that, but that some men claim to be like that in order to avoid responsibility for their actions.
J'Carlin
February 8, 2011 at 6:46 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The only difference between masturbation and sex with a voluntarily sterile woman is that it is friendlier and the body thinks it has accomplished something useful for evolution.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 6:50 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Reminds me a lot of this old thang: http://www.ted.com/talks/steve…The is/ought thing is a tough nut to crack. The number of times I’ve heard an otherwise reasonable and intelligent person resort to the phrase: “That’s all well and good, but it’s just not natural.”I suspect that nearly everyone can passively, intellectually accept the is/ought divide when someone such as yourself (or Sean) explains it:Is/ought divide? Well duh. Of course. I knew that. Get to the point, speaker! My attention is starting to drift here!But internalizing the notion and accepting it on an emotional level? I suspect that’s a lot harder:Because, like, natural things are good and pure and stuff. So icky things must not be? So if something’s icky, it must not be natural. And if natural is good, not natural is bad. It just makes sense.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 6:51 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Also: One of the nice things about not being a scientist myself is that I can make unqualified statements and not have to worry about my professional reputation. ^_^
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 6:54 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
My reading of R. Elisabeth is that she’s concerned that Sean didn’t actually present the views that Sharon attributed to him.It isn’t: Oh my goodness, Sharon thinks is => ought.It’s: Oh my goodness, Sharon thinks Sean thinks is => ought.At least, that’s my reading.Man…. Keeping up is getting tiring.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 6:57 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
For what it’s worth, I now really wish I’d defaulted to wariness myself.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 7:00 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Wow.It looks like I completely blew up in that post over nothing.And people still keep clicking ‘like’.I’m grateful to be liked and all – but what’s up? If I could go back and ‘unlike’ my own post now, I’d do so.
quantheory
February 8, 2011 at 7:12 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I think that R. Elisabeth Cornwell, PhD espoused a hybrid. Let “is” mean “Men are out of control”, “ought” mean “men are allowed to be out of control”, and “tends” mean “men have a tendency, but can control it”. Sharon asserted:”Tends”, neither “is” nor “ought”, but Sean asserted that “is” and “is” implies “ought”, therefore Sean implied “ought”.Then Cornwell asserted:”Tends”, neither “is” nor “ought”, but Sharon asserted that “is” but not “ought”, and that Sean said “ought”, but Sean said “Tends”, neither “is” nor “ought”.That is, I think both agree that men have tendencies which can be controlled, but Cornwell falsely believes that Sharon is asserting that men are out of control. And they disagree about what Sean said, which can’t really be settled without video.
Azkyroth
February 8, 2011 at 7:13 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
If that’s true, I pity both you and your partners.
Katryna
February 8, 2011 at 7:45 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Oh for fuck’s sake. If well-developed biceps caused people to become oppressed and abused simply by virtue of having them, that would be one thing. Don’t pretend that well-developed biceps on a man = large breasts on a woman. Just don’t.Also, I’m really not getting what the fuck you’re on about here.If someone gets their pockets picked in an area that’s high in crime, do we then turn around and say, “You have no right to complain–you were carrying money there!” Of course they have a right to complain, they were the victim of unacceptable behavior.And when that unacceptable behavior is socially entrenched, it’s important for some people to step out of their comfort boxes and fight for what they believe in. Part of that includes making the problem visible, which means–GASP!–going through uncomfortable experiences and talking about how uncomfortable they are in the hopes that decent people will say, “This makes some people uncomfortable; perhaps I should stop doing it!” Or (in the case of the people in charge, such as police etc.) “this is really a problem, perhaps I should do something about it.”We both agree that ogling is unacceptable behavior that should be stopped. I think we can both agree that it’s generally socially entrenched. So what, pray tell, is going to cause change if some women don’t stand up and make the problem visible. Men don’t have these experiences–are they supposed to speak for us?So really, if her complaints are making you that uncomfortable, there are one of two options available to you. There’s a back button in the left-hand corner and an X button in the right-hand corner. Avail yourself of one if you are not willing to reconsider your statement.Now, if you have made it through that blistering, angry comment intact, might I recommend reading this before posting again? http://synecdochic.livejournal…When multiple people are telling you after multiple rewordings that something is seriously wrong and fucked-up about your post, it’s a good idea to consider that something is seriously wrong and fucked-up about your post. Thank you, have a nice day.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 8:15 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Most of the time when I see the term used, people are saying that it’s not just the tone but also the content of the man’s comment that is sexist and wrong. But what you are talking about, men being condescending to women about science, is wrong, though I don’t see it too much in my personal life. But tone of voice can often be misunderstood, especially on an internet forum and we shouldn’t rush to judgement about a man’s motivation everytime he explains anything.
Goblinpaladin
February 8, 2011 at 8:19 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
O_o”She got raped because she was wearing a short skirt.” Seriously, that is EXACTLY how your comment reads.
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 8:20 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You said, ‘If someone gets their pockets picked in an area that’s high in crime, do we then turn around and say, “You have no right to complain–you were carrying money there!” Of course they have a right to complain, they were the victim of unacceptable behavior’I never said she didn’t have the right to complain. Also, if someone continually got robbed after carrying around something visible and valuable in a high crime area, I would suggest that he might want to stop doing that.Additionally (and more importantly) staring is not a crime. A woman is completely justified (based on ethics and probability) in assuming she won’t be raped or groped when she wears a low-cut shirt in a room with dozens of men. She may have an ethical assumption that she won’t be stared at, but she almost surely knows that she probably will be.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 8:22 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Yes, there is variety, but I think that women are more likely to be the gatekeepers given their biology. I just don’t see how anyone could argue that a woman has less to worry about from pregnancy than a man does. The woman is the one who goes through 9 months of being pregnant and likely 18 years of caring for the kid. The man has the option of disappearing the next night so men have a higher likelihood of seeking sex.
Goblinpaladin
February 8, 2011 at 8:23 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
OH NOES! A woman wants to wear clothing she feels comfortable in! It makes men free to leer at her and treat her like shit! If she doesn’t like it it is her own fault for bein’ sexy and she oughta have covered up her damn woman parts.Other arguments from the land of your privileged douchey face: “He got hit by a care because he dared walk on the side of a road! If he didn’t want to get hit by a car, he oughtn’t have been near a road.”Or maybe “He got beaten by white bogans because he was pakistani! If he didn’t like it, he shouldn’t have moved to this country.”
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 8:23 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
That doesn’t make the woman in the article right either
Goblinpaladin
February 8, 2011 at 8:26 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I want to see the video, but YES.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 8:27 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Reply to Daniel from 12:21 AMOkay, I see your point, but I still say that the difference is caused by how biologically costly pregnancy is to each gender as to how sexually active they are. And that people should take other’s feelings into account regardless of gender.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 8:27 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’ve that’s true, I think my partner and I have been doing it wrong.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 8:29 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
That took way too long to parse – but yes, I now agree with your assessment.Wow.My brain hurts now.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 8:36 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
We shouldn’t have our terms revolve around the failings of the members of one group (be it gender, race, sexual orientation, ect) because then people begin to always accuse that group of failing even in circumstances where they don’t. I’m okay with the term ‘feminism” because it has been around so long that everyone knows that it means gender equality, even if it does make you think primarily of one gender. But trying to push the term “mansplaining” into the lexicon just makes one more likely to blame someone of that group without considering the facts.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 8:42 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Are men privileged in many ways? Yes, absolutely. Not having to fear sexual harrassment or rape as much is one example of male privilege. But there are a few things were women are privileged (car insurance, or more importantly the draft). There are also many things where feminism has almost completely erased male privilege in our society (voting, going to college ect). So while I think dealing with the issue of male privilege is important, I think that saying that society is entirely male privilege is way too much of an over generalization (I’m not necessarily saying that you are saying this, but this is the impression that a lot of talks on male privilege give).
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 8:46 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
A troll is someone who doesn’t believe what they say but just says it to rile people up. I have yet to see you make any attempt to counter what I said, so I’ll assume that you are rejecting my statement out of blind faith in your humanities major dogma which said that everyone is completely a blank slate and biology has no effect on anything. If you have a serious comment then make it.
Azkyroth
February 8, 2011 at 8:53 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
…except when it doesn’t (Reply to Daniel Schealler)
Ola Rozenfeld
February 8, 2011 at 9:32 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
First: I’m a girl, and I’m sincere. Second: it seems that you misunderstood me somewhat (a lot?), perhaps by reading only what you wanted to read from my (admittedly wordy) post.You agree that there are different ways to hit on people. The respectful way is welcome. The assholish way isn’t. THAT is basically all I’ve said!You know, I thank you — I suspect that our misunderstanding mirrors the misunderstanding that people had at that venue. Maybe I’m wrong. But: it sure seemed (to me) that in this post, and many others, the women were trying to get men to refrain from flirting with them AT ALL — not just from doing it *disrespectfully*. Remember their conversation about biology, about men’s instincts, etc.? Why did they go into that conversation at all? Men weren’t trying to prove the point that their biological instincts tell them to behave like assholes. All they were trying to show is that they have to hit on women. The conversation wasn’t about HOW, it was about WHETHER.Now, since we agree that people want to hit on each other, the next step will be to discuss the “how”. Talking to someone’s cleavage (or junk, or whatever) is universally considered disrespectful, hence — it’s out. Sneaking a peak occasionally is fine. An uninvited touch is a big don’t. (I assure you, we agree on this! I have been harrassed in my life — that wasn’t fun at all. I used verbal violence, and it was effective, but I sure didn’t enjoy it). As long as we agree what are we talking about, it’s a promising venue of conversation — I’m sure that there is A LOT of disagreement about it (at what point an occasional peak becomes ogling? Language — what is offensive, what isn’t? Is a touch really always inappropriate? etc. etc.).Btw, ageism: sorry, she yanked my chain! If *all* that was bothering her was the “talking to her cleavage” part, then — why the hell does she begin that sentence with the guys’ age? Why is it there at all? What, if they were younger, would it make them staring at her boobs more okay? Sorry, but she was asking for it. Even though I agree that these guys probably behaved like real assholes, and I sympathize! But the beginning of her sentence was still very wrong.
Daniel Schealler
February 8, 2011 at 9:35 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Pedant.;-)
Ola Rozenfeld
February 8, 2011 at 9:55 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Don’t worry, Daniel, I was not offended — probably because I felt that you misunderstood me and the insults were referring to what you thought I meant, not to what I actually meant. So it’s okay. But it made me wonder:Suppose you and I (or other people) have a discussion on the good and the bad ways of hitting on someone. Now, is this a topic on which disagreeing is even allowed? Let me explain: suppose A says “Men shouldn’t do X, its disrespectful” and B disagrees. Is there ANY WAY AT ALL for B to express their disagreement without being accused of MANsplaining (whatever X is, and A and B’s genders are)?
Welsh Andy
February 8, 2011 at 10:00 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Defensive much? Words can have many different values and effects. Here in Scotland the word ‘cunt’ is often a term of endearment when used in a certain context and in the UK in general it doesn’t have quite the same impact as it does in the US. however if you call a group of women you disagree with ‘stupid cunts’ you are using the word in a sexist manner. I don’t give a toss if you did it to get attention to your post, which is the equivalent of a child shouting random swear words to get adults to pay attention, opening your post in this way just reinforces the thrust of the posts argument. Way to go with defeating your own argument.
Whoever
February 8, 2011 at 10:19 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
So him calling the author a cunt is bad, but you calling him a dick is ok? How is that not the same thing?On topic, people should stop beeing dumbfucks, goes for both male and female members of our species. That woman was surely a bit oversensitive, which doesnt make the comment less retarded. You all suck, grow the fuck up.
Che26m
February 8, 2011 at 10:22 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’d like to see the whole video first. I’ve noticed some strong opinions by people who haven’t seen the video and who weren’t at the event. Aren’t freethinkers supposed to be more skeptical, logical and reasonable? I don’t believe everything I read on blogs, and the story on this blog missed some points and at times is short sighted. 1. There are many groups out trying to address the challenges of getting more of a broader crowd of gender, age and ethnicity at public events. We’ve been doing it for years and are still working on it. 2. The blogger here, did hit some accurate points about how to help with getting more of a wide range of people at the events. However, all these points are already being addressed with some conventions out there and are a work in progress. My organization has tried for three years to involve the Secular Student Alliance at our events, and since 2008, we have not recieved one reply. If you want more inclusion, and more input into the movement, then you have to read your emails and pick up the phone when people and organizations are reaching out to you.
Che26m
February 8, 2011 at 10:30 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I also know Sean Faircloth personally, and will say that never once has he come across anything other than intelligent, thoughtful, and a person who is driven to help everybody in our movement move forward. Again, I’ll wait to see the video. He was at the Texas Freethought Convention last year, and will be again this year. We are proud to have Sean as one of our guests.
johannthecabbie
February 8, 2011 at 10:36 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I was offended. Daniel called you a fucking troll because you dared to express an opinion of your own. That’s something a sexist pig would do. For shame, Daniel.I should hope that a discussion relating to hitting on people can be discussed rationally and politely, but this blog maybe the wrong place to try it.
paisley
February 8, 2011 at 11:18 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I am not offended to make my sex on a form. However, I am assuming that the form says both “female” and “male” and you select one. If the form said “man” and “female”….then I would be irked.
Michael Brown
February 8, 2011 at 11:24 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“Women as gatekeepers” is no more True than any other maleable social construct,I see what you did there. :-)
paisley
February 8, 2011 at 11:29 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I have not seen the video that the Alabama Atheists are going to post, but it seems like the woman at the conference tried to let people know she was bothered. From the description it really doesn’t sound like she was being listened to at all. I would never just assume that people should know what offends and what doesn’t. But I do feel like when someone is offended by something they should be able to express why, and the listeners should try to show some consideration. I remember seeing this resource for men who want to be allies from Geek Feminism, and elementary mistakes they make. One of the things that was discussed was speech and to not use “female” as a noun when talking about human females. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/…
steve
February 8, 2011 at 11:39 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I was going for something that could really be done. But if someone is really super brave, they can try the shitting.
paisley
February 8, 2011 at 11:41 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Yeah, I never understood what it was necessary to call a nurse who is a man a “male nurse”. I’m a scientist and I was on the subway pretty recently and I saw an advertisement for a university: it was a picture of a woman working in the lab and the caption read something like “top ranking women scientists doing research”. I stared at it! There is a pic of a woman, why is it necessary to say “women scientists” it felt like “women scientists” are this different, lesser category of scientists. I know many authors/directors/etc feel this way about “woman” being put in front of their profession – that it makes them feel as if they are a different (lesser) member of that profession.So I guess I’d like to know: when you get called a “male nurse” do you feel like people are devaluing you?
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 11:44 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The problem with that is that it’s not actually scientific… until and unless there’s some possible experiment to test it (potentially a few years away, or whatever) it’s not truly falsifiable, and thus not scientific. It might be coherently reasoned, but so were the Ancient Greeks’ ideas about cosmology, gravity, optics, and so on.Just because something makes sense and is well reasoned, doesn’t make it true. It’s just a hypothesis or a postulate, not a theory in the scientific sense of the word, and certainly not one supported by evidence.I’m sure biology, and evolutionary psychology, do have an effect on people. We just have no idea what that effect is, and no clear way available to us of separating any such effects from socialisation.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 11:59 AM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It is good to hear from someone in the field, but the thing I always wonder about evolutionary psychology (as I mentioned in an earlier reply above), given that it refers to biologically-based behaviours, is how you can separate biologically-based behaviours from socialised ones. I behave fairly atypically for a male, and for a White British person, and some other categories I’m in – and very typically for others. Some of this categories are social, others are biological (with strong links to social counterparts, as in male/man). I have little doubt that a fair amount of my atypicality comes from atypical socialisation when I was very young, and as I grew up. Would evolutionary psychology support that possibility? If so, how can deviation from typicality be socialised, but typicality is so clearly biological?Just because there’s a great explanation available for the behaviour differences being biological, doesn’t mean they are. Even a statistical study doesn’t bear it out unless you have controlled variation in conditions (or wide enough and well-measured enough variation to alleviate the need for controls) – otherwise it’s just cum (or post) hoc ergo propter hocOh, and as a final point, however much people relating these arguments don’t want them to be, they can’t help coming across like an excuse (unintended consequences and all that – I’m sympathetic, we get unintended consequences in my current field as well), or being used as one by someone else, who willingly accepts the (apparent) claim that these things are scientific gospel. For that matter, might the implicit excusing of such behaviour inhibit ongoing behavioural evolution, as the conditions have changed the most advantageous sexual behaviour has changed, so we interfere with whatever change this would bring about by (however much it’s not intended) condoning those behaviours.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 12:12 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It is good to hear from a (presumably) neutral third part on this. I’m perfectly prepared to reserve judgement on the speech in question, and I’ll get on to my preliminary thoughts having now heard all three sides in a moment. My first thought for the event as a whole (the bits we’ve heard about) is that perhaps the failing wasn’t sexism per se, but a lack of sensitiyity to percieved sexism. As sensitive members of any movement (or even society) we should be aware not just of potential sexist (or other discriminatory or prejudice-promoting) behaviour, but also of things that may be perceived as such, and consider our delivery so as to, where possible, avoid such perceptions without altering the underlying meaning. Also, while you would urge the people who were unhappy with the event to consider that they may have a wrong impression, may have mistaken things, consider similarly yourself that there may be sexist aspects to what happened that no-one involved discerned. Either is possible – even both.Regarding the speech… if the description of certain fragments is accurate, then it seems to me that the overall speech may have been pretty good, worthy of an ovation, and not particularly sexist overall. I can certainly see people being uncomfortable at the idea of the male audience being encouraged to look around and assess the degree to which they’d like to sleep with the women in the audience. – I’d be uncomfortable with that, as a man. If few women were bothered by it, then I think that’s arguably a result of socialisation leading to women accepting that men do that, and evo psych arguments (‘not trying to excuse it, but…’) only support such socialisation. One might argue that, if everyone finds it acceptable, that’s a good outcome, but I hae trouble with that morally.However, I would certainly agree that one problematic element doesn’t make the whole speech bad, and a couple of such incidents don’t necessarily make a whole event bad.
Brian Fields
February 8, 2011 at 12:16 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I think it does a disservice to all bloggers everyone if you don’t reserve judgment BEFORE you post. If you want to be taken seriously as “journalists”, then fact check your articles. If you don’t, then don’t be surprised if you get vociferous negative reactions.I wasn’t there. I don’t know exactly what happened, and I’m reserving judgment until I see the video. Because you didn’t do the same by allowing the guest post BEFORE you have seen the video, you have caused this firestorm over an organization and people that I respect very highly. THIS is what pisses me off.Even if your post is accurate, Jen, you’ve done the entire community a disservice with your actions. Was it so important that you make your political point that you couldn’t wait a day to do due diligence?And before you say anything, I’m certain that if you asked the organizers for the video and told them why, they would have obliged. If they hadn’t within a reasonable timeframe, then you would have every justifiable reason to go ahead with the article.This is what journalists do.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 12:27 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Well, it’s arguably humiliating to men, but that’s beside the point…Partners should be equal; all of us as partners in society, and each of us as partners in the relationships we have. Women shouldn’t have to be empowered by having almost complete control of the sexual sphere (assuming arguendo that they do), it ought to be something that requires willingness from both parties without being able to assume willingness.In fact, the argument that women are in complete control is predicated on the idea that men don’t refuse sex. That ought to feel insulting to everyone, but how would it make any woman who’s been refused feel? Sure, leaving aside violence, coercion, etc, women are gatekeepers of sex; actually, so are men. Both parties have to be willing, if you’re leaving aside violence, coercion, or rape of any sort at all. Is it really that vanishingly rare that men turn down sex?
Ola Rozenfeld
February 8, 2011 at 12:27 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Thanks :-)No, I think this blog is a great place to try it! Maybe I’m naive, but I think that most of the people here are nice, smart, and willing to discuss these important topics, and actually listen to the other side. And Daniel is probably one of them, despite his fit of rage. It was actually quite telling: when someone says “X makes me feel uncomfortable, therefore men shouldn’t do X”, you can’t disagree! No way. You’d just be blaming the victim and denying the priviledge and whatnot… For example, in the article, when that woman went about the word “females” and how it makes her feel like livestock… how can I voice my utter and complete disagreement with her without inducing fits of rage in otherwise normal people?
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 12:31 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It’s possible to be upset about more than one thing at a time. Besides, as has been suggested here on several occasions, we expect better from sceptics/freethinkers/etc.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 12:35 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
No, it really did sound pompous and demanding – not sure about the arrogantly part. Try approaching people as equals, or considering that, while it differs from your impression, the authors may have some justification to their reactions. Surely being sceptical on ones own subjective impressions is something we should aim for – and I happily direct that comment at everyone expressing a first-hand opinion of the event; it’s possible that you’re all a little right. To those of us who weren’t there, I suggest that we apply the same uncertainty – we have no way of knowing what it was like, and while a video will improve that, it won’t give us the same impressions as being there, nevermind the fact that the experience of each person there is subjective and will thus differ, without anyone being ‘wrong’.On a subject like this, I’d say that there’s only a wrong if someone, for whatever reason, posted a view or report that doesn’t agree with their own experiences. After that, it’s all subjective experience and difference of opinion.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 12:39 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
There is a value to giving the apology publicly even when the person who was obviously upset isn’t there, assuming it’s given to them later as well. It serves as a signal that the person knows something went wrong, even if they don’t know what it was, and that they wish it hadn’t; that can be reassuring to other people who were (less) offended, or who were concerned at the handling, or whatever.I don’t mean this as condemnation, merely constructive criticism. It’s hard to think about things like that when it happens. I just wanted to offer some food for thought.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 12:43 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Most complaints I’ve heard about the use of male/female versus man/woman are actually in the area of gender more generally than sexism, when concerned with the difference between biological sex and gender identity, and so on. Someone could easily be offended by the conflation of the two, particularly if they are transgendered in either direction (a woman feeling that it is suggested that she has certain traits because she’s male, or a man feeling that it is suggested that he’s not a proper man because he’s not male, therefore won’t have the right traits). Especially when evo. psych comes into it, you can get a terrible tangle between biological issues (some of which may apply to a person’s gender if they’ve had certain trans-sex treatments, we just don’t know because we don’t understand the mechanisms of biological behaviour differences too well yet) and social issues. Nature versus nurture, biology versus socialisation, it’s all a complex question that’s hard to tease apart. As you might have gathered from some of my other comments, I tend to feel that many evo. psych arguments ignore (or minimise) this question.
Stephan Goodwin
February 8, 2011 at 12:51 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Damn straight! I’m tired of these dickheads giving my gender a bad name! Where the hell are they coming from? Seriously, there seems to be some underground movement within atheism and skepticism that is focused on sheer asshattery and I was definitely left off the list.To all the women reading this, as a man, I apologize (to the extent I can) for any dickish behavior of these guys. We need, desperately to overcome these issues as a movement. Regardless of any possible interpretation issues, there is obviously something wrong here.
Jim Fisher
February 8, 2011 at 1:06 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Umm, excusa’ me? Can someone please tell me when the word “female” became a pejorative? That is not in the atheist bible anywhere as far as I can tell. In the meantime, females, please note that there are differences between men and wom… er, females. Men see wom…er females differently than females see men. Seriously, I looked this up in a biology book one time. Vive la différence!
April
February 8, 2011 at 1:11 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Correction: evopsych loony.
Jim Fisher
February 8, 2011 at 1:23 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“and “20 guys our father’s age blatantly staring at and talking to our cleavage is a totally different situation! It’s not sexy, it’s gross and creepy.”Speaking as a man who is old enough to be your daddy: Look, of you don’t want men staring at your cleavage, then cover it up. If I walked around with my butt crack showing, there is no possible way you could NOT look . . . At least for a second before you ran screaming out of the room.Seriously, a woman could be 400 pounds, covered with open sores, smelling of elderberries and if her cleavage is showing a man is going to look. It doesn’t mean we want to take you out back and bang you (well, it might). It simply means that cleavage is a huge red flashing light to our monkey brains that demands attention. It takes superhuman strength to not look at them and, believe me, there are many cleavages that I wish I would not have seen.Seriously, why would FEMALES hang their puppies out there at an event that they KNOW is going to be well attended by men… er MALES, then dare anyone to as much as glance at them?
Dae
February 8, 2011 at 1:26 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Haha, that wasn’t even intentional…
Dae
February 8, 2011 at 1:29 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Yes, women have more at stake in having sex, thanks to the potential for pregnancy. (Which is why we need legislation to protect women’s bodily autonomy instead of the recent slew of attempts to remove it, but that’s another rant and one that I suspect you don’t need to hear, assuming you’re a decent human being.) It’s still a generalization that plays right into line with our society’s deplorable sex-negativity, and I’ve yet to see a convincing argument for why this “point” was being made at an atheist conference.
Dae
February 8, 2011 at 1:32 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
But it does make anyone who dismisses her out-of-hand simply because their line of tolerance is elsewhere wrong. When someone says “I’m offended by this,” the proper response is to consider it seriously and have a dialogue about how that could be changed, even if the conclusion is that not much will change. It is NOT to ridicule the person and dismiss his or her concerns.
Dae
February 8, 2011 at 1:38 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The suggestion that women should change their behavior to avoid being harassed, raped, or otherwise treated like shit. (Maybe we should wear burkas to shield ourselves from men’s lustful eyes – OH WAIT, women in head-to-to covering STILL GET HARASSED AND RAPED.)Women are not responsible for men’s bad behavior toward them.You’re an absolute cretin if you haven’t understood that by now, especially since you’ve bragged about reading this blog often.
Svlad Cjelli
February 8, 2011 at 2:28 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I may be a callous bastard, but I don’t really care about the insulting panel issue even if it hurt someone, and I think “female” is a pretty neat word. The “it’s OK to harrass women” issue is the disturbing part.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 2:30 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
One pretty much can’t help but look; I certainly don’t find that I’m compelled to stare. Certainly not to talk to.
jimmyboy99
February 8, 2011 at 2:31 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The “C” word, specifically in the US, has been used extensively to denigrate women, a group who have to endure much from the patriarchical “dude” world. A group that has been mistreated and abused over millenia.”Dick” on the other hand has not been used as a term to denigrate men in the same way, and even if it had been, men do not get equal status here: they have been the powerful group who collectively have benefitted from sexism so they are much more immune to this kind of harm.So no. That’s false equivalence there.Being offended by the C word in the US context appears to be a resonable response to the history of the use of that word (think of the N word if that helps give a fairer equivalence). If you want more on this, I propse you pop over to Pharyngula, post the word there, and get yourself an education from some folks who are a lot more eloquent than me on this subject.Impressive debating skills you have there by the way. Well done.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 2:36 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
How about we try to look at the original post aside from the contested points. Is it inaccurate to say there are problems with this around the community? Are the suggested improvements not worth considering? Maybe we should try and draw focus away from the bits that there’s questions over, and work on the bits we can agree on, at least in principle.
jimmyboy99
February 8, 2011 at 2:43 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Christie: it’s a really difficult one. Sexism against blokes is clearly rubbish. But…it just does not have the history that misogyny does and therefore is much less potent. I think of if like punching a bruise perhaps. I am definitely in with lots of blokes who sometimes wonder what our place is in these debates (though when the unreconstructed wankers start chatting, it becomes more apparent). So sure: I think sexism against men can (and maybe should) be pointed out. But it’s not equivalent at all because it lacks that (dreadful) historic pedigree. CheersJimmyI also actually find it very difficult to spot in its subtlest forms – which I think is common. Again – it’s the bruise thing: I’ve not been beaten over the head all the time with sexist stereotypes by women who have then profited extensively from the inequality that they have caused, so I’m pretty insensitive to it.
Rob
February 8, 2011 at 2:47 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Ok, here’s my serious comment: read Sex At Dawn by Ryan and Jetha. It rigorously debunks everything except cultural presumption as the basis of the behaviors you described. I’m not going to take a 200 page argument and try to fit it into a troll thread, but I can say that that portion of evo psych has been thoroughly trounced.
jimmyboy99
February 8, 2011 at 2:51 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Offense is a difficult issue: it is entirely reasonable to offend some people on some subjects. To set out to do it even. Sometimes you have to.Take the Jesus and Mo cartoons. Designed to offend – and (in part I presume) to make the point that someone’s right to take offense does not trump my right to give it.Whether it’s the best way to proceed in a particular situation is always up for discussion.If you have a group that has been abused for ever (as women have) then it’s quite likely that being prepared to offend them on a sexist platform (because they lack a sense of humour, or your sense of humour or???) is probably just plain stupid. It’s not unreasonable that those who are capable of understanding these nuances (ie freethinkers for eg?), would aim not to reinforce patriarchal, misogynyst stereotypes just because they can or because their sense of humour means they personally are not offended.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 2:56 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I think the only thing that anyone, male or female, present at the event or not, can say without a great deal of doubt or fear of bias or whatever, is that these issues are complicated. Maybe extend it to experiences being subjective as well. No-one but the people whose actions are in question can possibly know their motives at the time, and motives aren’t the only thing that’s important. If there does seem to be a problem, looking at videos, then let’s not assume malice on the part of those showing the problem; if not, let’s not assume malice on the part of those who felt there was. In either case, let’s not assume idiocy on any part. Just a suggestion.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 2:59 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Just to clarify my own comment here: I was writing fairly specifically about the explanation (whether it’s meant to be excuse or not) of ‘typical’ male behaviour with evo. psych, with the delivery (I can’t speak on the scholarly science people are doing with it) seems to take a rational explanation as being evidence, without consideration of alternative explanations. Evidence is needed, beyond reason, for something to be established.
J'Carlin
February 8, 2011 at 3:00 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Sorry, I was rushed. I should have stuck with “boffing,” getting laid by midnight. Partnered sex is an entirely different evolutionary kettle of fish. Establishing a strong pair bond through sex in anticipation of eventual parenting or even just for bonding to face the rigors of life is an evolutionary strategy common in the animal world and necessary in humans.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 3:04 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I should add: factual misrepresentation is a bad thing, of course, and some allegations of factually misleading elements of the post are there, and should be examined, and that’s all fine. I think what some of us found difficult with the comment was the tone of entitlement, and of escalating the conflict. Stuff like this can be resolved in other ways, and you could even have made the same point and request without sounding so objectionable. Of course, it could all come down to tone not coming across in text…
Sara Duncan J
February 8, 2011 at 3:10 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“Fair enough, but… is it really realistic for any in-group member to expect an out-group member to know and understand any what any given member of the in-group might find offensive”And therein lies the rub – the topic at the forum that started this whole brouhaha was about why more women weren’t involved in atheism. Well, that’s a pretty big problem when women in general can be thought of as a special “outgroup”.
J'Carlin
February 8, 2011 at 3:13 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I have known (in my younger days) several women who dressed provocatively at functions like this simply to separate the pricks from people she would like to spend time with. I will admit she didn’t complain about the pricks. She simply frosted them, or should I say wilted them?
Sara Duncan J
February 8, 2011 at 3:15 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Ah, yes, the old: well, maybe I’m just more mature/have a better sense of humor/more experience/more intelligence than other women, because *I* wasn’t offended. I, at least, am not one of *those* women.I filled my bingo card ages ago… anyone else?
Gus Snarp
February 8, 2011 at 3:16 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’ve been thinking about this almost every waking moment since I read it last night, because the description is so shocking, and because there’s so much disagreement. Not having been there or seen the video puts me at a disadvantage in one respect, but it also gives me a cool and objective distance, something I think is valuable in this case, so I’m going to share a few more of my thoughts.There are a lot of people saying this post is full of lies, but when I look at the major factual assertions made in the post as well as those made by people who were there and disagree, I find no real disagreement in those assertions. The language is different, certainly, the perspective, maybe even some of the context, but if you’re calling someone a liar, it’s a good idea to make sure they actually said what you’re calling a lie.First, the author says that a woman was torn apart and ridiculed for saying she was offended at the use of the term “female”. Reading the female panelists account of the event, I agree, she was ridiculed and torn apart. Those words are a bit stronger than I might use, but I would certainly go with belittled and made fun of. The words quoted are accurate, and while some of the audience reaction does not seem to be corroborated, in a large crowd what happens in your immediate location may seem very different from someone else’s view of the crowd.Second, the woman fled the hall and the author went after her to console her and the organizers did not. Those calling her a lier seem to corroborate this point. She never claimed to be alone, only that organizers didn’t follow, which apparently they didn’t. Now maybe it was awkward for them to do so, that’s a nuance and perspective that could be important, but did anyone in any official capacity talk to this woman in a supportive way? I’ve seen no one assert that there was an official representative of any kind talking to her.Third, the million dollar challenge, which has been attacked and edited out for supposed dishonesty, is merely a lack of context, everyone seems to agree with the basic substance of what was said. The author may have made it sound a bit worse, but not much, and in a long speech a dramatic moment involving audience participation that offends you could easily stand out and not really be taken in context on the spot.So, let’s stop calling people liars. Misleading at best, certainly not lying, and not nearly as misleading as George W. Bush.Now, on to evolutionary psychology. It’s basic human nature to become defensive when someone tells you you are being sexist, racist, ignorant, that you have a drinking problem, halitosis, body odor, bad hair, or whatever. No matter how much they’re trying to help, the natural response is defensiveness. That makes sense in an animal with a highly evolved social structure, if your social status is attacked, you lash out at the attacker, attempting to bring them down in status before they can bring you down. I just made that hypothesis up off the top of my head, but anyway any psychiatrist or therapist will tell you that defensiveness is the standard response.This leads to an enormous amount of the conflict in the world, including this one. But while it’s a natural response, it’s not the right one. One person had the courage to stand up and say she was offended by the extensive use of the word “female”. Was she being over-sensitive? I don’t know, but in a meeting packed with and run by men her voice should have been respected. Acting dumbfounded or making a cheap and dismissive joke was a defensive response, and it was wrong. This was a discussion where women’s issues was a topic at hand, this could have been a jumping off point into more conversation or though, at the very least an honest explanation could have been proffered instead of belittling comments.The defensiveness has continued with the response to this blog post, which may be inflammatory, but that doesn’t mean we should cast it aside with offended and officious protestations and accusations of lying. Instead we should be willing to examine and discuss the actual issues the post raises. One of which is the standard issue in blogging: how much should bloggers hold back? How much is airing of dirty laundry in the wrong place? It’s a tough issues, because blogs began as rather personal publication spaces, and that ethos still holds sway. But it doesn’t mean bloggers don’t sometimes do a real disservice to an issue with a hasty and inflammatory posting. Nor does that mean that the blogger doesn’t have a legitimate concern or that their point of view should be ignored.And finally, more on this million dollar challenge. In spite of the response to my comment above, I stand by it. Anyone who has done any dating or had any kind of heterosexual relationship knows that women control access to sex. They may not have compared us to birds of paradise in the biological origins of our behavior, but they know the basic fact. And anyone without that experience has seen it on a sitcom or a bad stand-up routine. It’s not new and it’s not terribly interesting. What might be interesting in a discussion of sexual equality is to look at the broader implications of this fact. One of which is that it is basically saying that the only power women have in society is control of sex. So for a woman to be powerful, to get what she wants, she has to withhold or dole out sexual favors in a manipulative power struggle instead of just having fun with someone she likes. And that’s no fun for any of us.The million dollar challenge demonstrates something else as well, namely that all those women with their hands raised have to be concerned when they’re out drinking that someone will drop a roofy in their beverage, while the men have no such concern unless they put too much stock in urban legends about kidney thieves. Not everyone is a victim, and women shouldn’t all be seen as victims, but I didn’t create the implication, it flows naturally from the statement made by the million dollar challenge.These are things worth talking about. They’re challenging, they require new and original thought and methods of progress. They’re the kind of thing that people who pride themselves on being smart, on being free thinkers, and simply on liking to think and discuss weighty issues ought to be discussing. Not the fact that women get to say who has sex, therefore they have power, but rather what that means for society. So did the speaker go into any of that?
Greg
February 8, 2011 at 3:20 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I call BS, I am man her fathers age too and you are doing the typical blame the victim routine. What? should she dress in a full burqa? would that work for you? She is not talking about casual glances (both sexes engage in that), she is talking about out right ogling, which if I were a 20 something woman would creep me out too.
Gustavsnarp
February 8, 2011 at 3:20 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
That’s the point? I’m not so sure. The speaker may have though it was a revelation, but was it really a revelation for the audience? If so then we skeptics have earned our reputation for being socially awkward nerds. I don’t think anyone who has been in a sexual relationship or watched a sitcom can fail to be aware of it. Of course for high minded skeptics, perhaps they have enough of a classical education to have read or seen a performance of the Trojan Women.Fundamentally I find the demonstration insulting and demeaning – to the intelligence of the audience.
plublesnork
February 8, 2011 at 3:20 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
ugh, what a grotesque comment.This power women have over men, it’s such a wonderful privilege they have there. Makes me think of the privilege of preferential treatment in custody battles because those wimmins are the ones who are supposed to be looking after kids, because that’s womans work.Or then there’s the women who get hassled by men all the time, you might say they have the privilege of being able to get laid pretty much whenever they choose, or the privilege of cheap nights out because of all the free drinks guys will buy for them. Taking advantage of the situation to get what you want in that one in one thousanth occurance where an advance isn’t unwanted/unwelcome, yeah, that’s totes a privileged position there.I’d like to support your organisation, Scott, but you’re being a douchebag.
jimmyboy99
February 8, 2011 at 3:23 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I have been guilty of this myself, partly because I like breasts, and partly because I’m getting really absent minded. I stare at lots of things quite by accident these days.But I’ve always assumed that if I cause offense by staring at a woman’s cleavage that really is my fault and I should try quite hard not to. Pointing the finger at the woman for having and showing a cleavage is classic victim blaming. There’s nothing wrong with a woman showing her cleavage and she should not have to apologise for it or hide it. If blokes stare and make women uncomfortable that’s not the woman’s fault. My curiousity combined with my sexuality are mine to control.
Manlyawesome
February 8, 2011 at 3:29 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
QUIET YOU! American rules only online. Duh.
Don
February 8, 2011 at 3:32 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
When I was a nurse, and people would call me a “male nurse,” as opposed to “nurse” or “professional nurse” or “the charge nurse,” I did find it irritating. It’s not that the phrase made me feel devalued, it’s that the people who used the phrase had other, much more damaging, ways of showing that they didn’t want me in their profession. (And they won. Now I write software and laugh at my former salary.)
paisley
February 8, 2011 at 3:37 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’d like to go back to the female/women discussion. I stated earlier in the thread that I don’t like it because it makes me think of National Geographic. However, I feel that I should elaborate on WHY I think it makes me feel this way. It appears to me that throughout this thread many of the women at the event (which was in the South, so I think it may be fair to assume that they are Southern) found it ridiculous that anyone would find a woman being referred to as “a female” would get upset. However the authors of this post (both from? (or currently living in) Ohio) found it reasonable, as do I. I’m originally from MI (South Detroit) and I’ve been living in the North East for the past 3 years (always in a major city). This is WHY I find “females” irritating.1. It is very rare to hear. I’ve only just begun to hear “females” leaking into speech in the last 2 years.2. I have ONLY ever heard “females” being used instead of “women” by men, NEVER any women. Specifically by men under the age of 30.3. I don’t ever hear “males” get used in place of “men” or “guys”If the experience in the South is different – both men and women use “females”, “males” will get used instead of “men”, using “females” has been around for awhile and is not uncommon – then I guess I can understand why it was found to be so strange that someone didn’t like it.Finally, I have to say that I’m kinda disappointed that so few commentors choose to try to interact with me to understand why I shudder when I get referred to as “a female” instead of “a woman”. Instead many commentors have chosen to respond with “I’m a female, it doesn’t bother me, if it bothers you then you’re stupid and petty”It’s much more productive to try to figure out the reasons. If someone can tell me that their experience in the South is that “females” is part of normal vernacular then I’d appreciate knowing that. Then I would know that if I make a trip down South that I shouldn’t be offended (when I would have otherwise been). Furthermore, it’s good for you to know that if you come to a city in the North and are a woman who would refer to a woman as “that female” many people would be surprised, and if you were a man who did that, there is a decent chance some women would be offended.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 3:40 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Regarding the million dollar challenge, I’m just seeking clarification; the researcher who (I believe) coined it said it had two parts – to the men, and then the women. For what it’s worth, with there clearly being two parts the value is clearer, although I’m not sure I’d go as far as to get people to really put themselves in the shoes or encourage them to look around, for instance, but it’s a good illustration.I haven’t read every comment in the thread, for obvious reasons (I have a life away from this blog, after all). However, no description I’ve heard of the version at this conference included the second part. This could be a natural omission – so I’d like to know if it was included. Can anyone who was there clarify?
Todd
February 8, 2011 at 3:42 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You’re comparing rape with “staring.” One is a crime; the other is not.Besides the obvious lunacy of implying that rape and staring are even in the same range of behaviors, there is the matter of probability.A woman could walk into practically any room full of men in America wearing a low-cut shirt and reasonably expect that she WON’T be raped. I don’t just mean that she would be morally justified in expecting that she won’t be raped. I mean that it is extremely unlikely that it will happen.”Staring,” however, is a different matter. If a woman walks into a room full of men and she’s wearing a cleavage-baring shirt, there’s an almost certainty that someone will look at her cleavage for more than a second at some point.I think some of the problem here is that people have seen movies like The Accused and then they want to apply that lesson to the wrong scenario.
TheG
February 8, 2011 at 3:45 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I do, but not necessarily in a sexist way. The best method I have to explain why it is so debasing is to ask them to start referring to the doctor as “black doctor” or “female surgeon.” I especially use this line of comparison on obstetric units, where there are many doctors that understand how hard it is to overcome the stigma of your gender within a profession. Nobody wants to have their achievements qualified with a discriminator (“yes, he’s a good nurse… FOR A MALE” or “I suppose, as far as someone with too much pigment in his skin, he’s competent as a president…”)
Greg
February 8, 2011 at 3:50 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Why do you shudder when you hear the term “female”? I never use that term, I try to use woman/women. I refrain from using the term “girl(s)” when speaking about an adult woman. I must admit I am not perfect though and when I am with the “boys” I will saying something like “chick”. refering to women.
Richard Hesketh
February 8, 2011 at 3:58 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Perhaps that now, some men feel freed up from the fetters of a religious dogma they have a right to voice unacceptable attitudes and opinions? I have seen this in the UK. As some are brought up to understand that a moral framework equals belief, they tacitly and perhaps unwittingly see their new group as ‘liberal’ in all ways. Men behaving badly is no unusual phenomenon when the teacher’s out of the room. I am ashamed of my sex’s conduct sometimes and struggle not to get on my soapbox!
Steven Moore
February 8, 2011 at 3:59 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You’ll have to forgive my bluntness, twelve years in the military does tend to leave that mannerism in people. I did not mean to come across as pompous or demanding but if my statements offended you please know that calling me names or ridiculing my grammar will not sway my opinion in any way. I understand that the authors of this blog post are stating their perception of the events that transpired and they are entitled to their opinion. However, you have to understand that not everyone agrees with their perception of the events. As someone who witnessed these events first hand I can confidently tell you that my perception of the events that transpired was entirely different. As for the bluntness of my original comment, perhaps I could have phrased it differently. But in doing so I believe it would detract from the indignation I feel about this libelous blog post. I hold people accountable for their actions and the authors of this blog post do not get a free pass to misrepresent an entire group of people unabated.
Steven Moore
February 8, 2011 at 4:00 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Noted.
Gus Snarp
February 8, 2011 at 4:01 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’ve heard the term used in a highly pejorative manner, usually in the South, actually. This may not be noticed among highly educated people and scientists in general, but if you’ve spent enough time around the great unwashed masses you find that “female” is a term you apply to a hunting dog or to the prey, not to a human. When applied to a human it’s usually “those pesky females” (as a crude example, but perhaps you see the kind of usage I’m thinking of?) . No, not everyone uses it this way, and this probably never crossed the speakers’ minds, but it exists, and someone in the audience could surely hear it that way. I actually heard it that way reading the female panelist’s blog post on the matter.Now the claim is that the terms “male” and “female” were used throughout, but if you happened to hear “men” used a few times, but only heard “female” for the women, it could quickly come across as a bit sexist, I imagine.
paisley
February 8, 2011 at 4:01 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I watched the link of the talk from Boston (which granted is not where the incident took place) but a few people said it was the same talk. Both parts were included. First the men raised their hands if they thought they could “boff” a woman by midnight, Then the women raised their hands if they thought they could “boff” a man by midnight. When I read the post (before the Million Dollar Challenge part was removed) I do not recall the authors mentioning the second part – of women raising their hands.
Don
February 8, 2011 at 4:06 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Since you helpfully quoted the original complaint, it’s clear that she wasn’t complaining about to “looking” or “glancing.” She was complaining about staring, which is an aggressive behavior, something you’d readily admit if someone was staring at you. (Or, try staring at someone with a REAL monkey brain: see how a wild gorilla likes being stared at. I’ll watch from over here.)So instead of responding to her actual complaint, you set up a straw man and bravely knocked it down. I don’t speak for women, but I’m going to predict this isn’t going to persuade them to agree with you.You also claim to be unable to stop staring at their tits. I could buy that from an adolescent, but not from a (fellow) old fart. We’ve both had decades of practice at not looking when the situation called for it. At this point if you’re staring it’s because you want to, not because you can’t help it. Make some non-staring eye contact FFS, is that so hard?
Greg
February 8, 2011 at 4:21 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Thanks.
jimmyboy99
February 8, 2011 at 4:23 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You have presented a straw man here. Who said there is anything wrong with wanting to mate with someone your own age?Please quote.And if I say the average 20-year-old is substantially more attractive than the average 45-year-old, that’s just true. Holy cow.,/b>That’s “just true”? You seem very certain. All my life I have found older women attractive (a certain beauty that comes with age, together with life experience). There are no certainties or absolute truths here. Well – as stated it might be true that you find certain groups more attractive than others, but very clearly that is not applicable to everyone.There are plenty of very successful relationships which have substantial age gaps. I’m sure Jen knows this – and was not suggesting otherwise. What’s creepy is having a load of blokes letching. Make them old blokes and they are still letching – which is the problem. Old might make them feel more intimidating to a young woman because the age/respect thing might make them seem harder to deal with perhaps. But there is nothing inherently wrong with age-discrepant relationships until the age difference is used to exploit a weaker party (let’s leave juveniles out here which we can probably agree on – but would be a red herring to the argument). At which point it is the exploitation which is the issue, and age just the tool used to execute it.This is like being upset when someone thinks it more likely that a 100-year-old person will die in the next year than a 25-year-old personFalse equivalence: the two are not comparable. One appears to be a definitive statement that the average 20-year old is substantially more attractive than the average 45-year-old – and as presented, universally true. A universal truth, if you like. (Which I can confirm to be untrue for some people: it matters – older people should not be demeaned by being thought of as automatically unattractive).The other is a statement of statistical probability which is certainly corroborated by facts in most societies.When I read Lolita I struggled to complete it. I sypathised not 1 tiny jot actually – because there was a juvenile being exploited sexaully which I find sickening.At least, most of us do.Who is “us”? If the world at large, do you have any way supporting this (wild) assertion? It’s complete shite I’d suggest – as is your attempt to make a point by claiming support which you have not obtained.Your imperative certainties are pretty revealing.
OneSidedDiscussionMan
February 8, 2011 at 4:25 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
They like to concentrate on negative attitudes and pretend that it is the norm around here.
Steven Moore
February 8, 2011 at 4:31 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I understand that Sam and I do tend to be a bit blunt and abrasive. Anyone who knows me will probably tell you that I tend to get straight to the point and that I sometimes rub people the wrong way by doing so. I mean no harm, I only expect that people be held accountable for their actions… as should everyone. I never “demanded” a formal apology and a retraction, I merely expect (predict) that once the video is released and the truth of the events are revealed that the authors of this blog post will see their error and take the appropriate action.Also, I do see how difficult it would be as someone who did not witness the events in question and are receiving two entirely different versions of the events on which to base any sort of opinion. And you’re right that even the video will still fail to sway some people’s perceptions. Without the proper context anything can get skewed to purport a different meaning entirely. What matters is the civility shown to those that have a different opinion from your own. From my experience so far on this blog it seems that civility has gone entirely out the window.
jimmyboy99
February 8, 2011 at 4:39 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Bold formatting fail. Apologies: Disqus isn’t letting me back into edit.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 4:40 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Civility is important, sure. Also, I would say that, however swayed someone is to either position by a video, or by being there, that should cause them to disregard that fact that some people had a problem with it. The difficulty the anonymous woman had with ‘females’ is separate from the difficulty the posters had with the million dollar question, and both are separate from any problems in how it’s been reported. I just want to remind people that, for instance, even deliberately misleading content in the original post doesn’t invalidate any problem anyone might have experienced.And civility is still here from some of us; I suspect, from your explanation, that the tone you would have delivered the original comment in was different from how we read it, and that can even be down to regional differences in use of English. Certainly, I’ve heard “confident expectation” used as an expression of arrogant certainty and self-assurance (“I know I’m right so I don’t even need to consider other views”) before, and in person, so that’s the way I read it.
Gus Snarp
February 8, 2011 at 4:44 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I just really want to see someone shit on a desk and explain it as their biological imperative.
Gus Snarp
February 8, 2011 at 4:55 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Interesting hypothesis.
Attendee
February 8, 2011 at 4:59 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
As a long time supporter of genuine equality against the claims of sexist feminism I was not “offended” by the anti-male feminist content of Fairlcloth’s speech. I am completely used to it. It’s normal in our society to stereotype men negatively. He also made some points about anti-male discrimination and issues which was pretty brave of him.I did not witness the Sunday morning events but it sounds like the woman was a jerk. If a man had acted as she did he would be called a jerk. But women can get away with this rude behaviour. As described above she stood up and shouted out when everyone else was politely waiting their turn to speak. Jerk. Then she made a ridiculous and divisive attack on the speakers accusing them of thinking women were cattle. Jerk. Then when she couldn’t get sympathy for her position she ran out of the meeting.If a man did all this we would not be discussing his feelings but what an asshole he had been. Nobody would run after him and nobody would tell him how valid his views were. Nobody would tell him that as long as he feels unhappy his emotional state is more important than the good running of a meeting with 200 other people in it.And certainly nobody would write long articles defending his right to be a jerk.
Pieter B
February 8, 2011 at 5:01 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It also depends on the definition of “cleavage.” A few years back there was a kerfuffle about Hillary Clinton “showing cleavage” on the Senate floor. Here’s what the fuss was about: http://www.marius.org/2007/07/… There was just enough of her upper chest showing to make it obvious that like most women, she has two breasts. Alert the media! Nearly 90,000 Google hits. <facepalm></facepalm>
Attendee
February 8, 2011 at 5:08 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“Male” and “female” are used very commonly in gender discussions. I bet the authors of this article use those terms a lot (a quick search of their web site would no doubt prove this) and I bet the woman who disrupted the meeting uses both terms a lot too.Accusing someone of thinking women are cattle on this flimsy basis was rude and disruptive.
OneSidedDiscussionMan
February 8, 2011 at 5:12 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hey, look at all the comments taking Jen’s side without having checked if what they heard of the the other side has any accuracy.Like that /r/atheism thing.I beging to see a pattern in how this site works. I’m fucking happy not to be part of THIS “atheistic movement”, it looks like some Cult Of Jen.
paisley
February 8, 2011 at 5:22 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The video of what happened during this part of the conference has not been put up yet and so I am unable to speak to what actually occurred. Furthermore, I did not get the impression from reading this post that the woman was accusing the panel of thinking women are cattle. I read it as, “when you use language, like replacing the noun “woman” for “female”, it makes me feel uncomfortable – as if you are talking about a non-human animal.” Just as I have said that when I hear men do this (because as you can read above, I’ve only heard men do this) it suddenly causes that National Geographic voice to play in my head “The female of the species…”And again using “female” and “male” where I’m from are proper in certain situations. For example if you’re talking about biological differences that span species, or if you’re using it as a adjective. However, I have almost exclusively heard it used as one guy talking to another guy “man, females are crazy” or “we’re gonna go check out some females tonight”. I’ve never heard woman say something like “us females are gonna go out tonight” “that female has some great shoes”.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 5:26 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’ve found that when people start using personal insults, it means that they are worried that they won’t win the argument and want to bring down their opponent before he can ask anything that would reveal that fact.
Attendee
February 8, 2011 at 5:31 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Would you say those women were pricks for doing that?
ENonImus
February 8, 2011 at 5:31 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Sorry, but what it lacks in “potency,” it more than makes up for in “irony.”
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 5:31 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Again, to you apparently “troll =anyone who doesnt’ agree with me” like you’re trying to play God or something.This comment reminds me of an article circulated a few months ago by a theist who said that Richard Dawkins wasn’t allowed to talk about atheism until he had read every single theist paper that had been published in the last 2000 years. Nowhere did the theist actually provide any argument for his side, instead just sending Richard Dawkins off to do all the work. It seems that there is a similar situation here.Sure, I’ll try and read that book. But if it was so great, you should be able to summerize it here.
paisley
February 8, 2011 at 5:33 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“a woman can be sexist towards women – it’s weird, but it happens.”This actually isn’t weird at all; it is very common. We live in a patriarchal society and many women are wedded to patriarchal ideas. One of the ways the feminist movement actually developed was by women getting together and talking about the sexist views they had towards themselves and others and trying to work through them. Furthermore, when patriarchy gets challenged, those women who stand by it get praised by men and are thus rewarded by those at the top of the social hierarchy. We also live in a society with white privilege and many people of color will tell you that they find themselves valuing some ideas of whiteness that are racist – example: Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye spoke of blacks struggle with ideas of white beauty.
Attendee
February 8, 2011 at 5:34 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Well the female equivalent is looking at men’s bank balance of course, not their biceps and women do that all the time. When a woman who says to her friends, “I met a nice doctor” is slammed as a sexist as much as a man saying “I met a nice Double D cup”, then we will have gender equality.But until then women offend far more than they are offended in this matter.
jimmyboy99
February 8, 2011 at 5:37 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
But I also have to ask why anyone’s cleavage is even visible if they are offended at the attention – there are plenty of fashionable, acceptable clothing styles that do not display cleavage or mammary size.Right.And why would any woman wear a mini-skirt if she doesn’t want to be raped, right?Nice victim blaming.I have once in my entire life seen a guy staring at and talking to a woman’s cleavage.Do you think that possibly the fact that many women describe this behaviour, might indicate that it’s your “eyesight” which is the problem here? Or are all those women just being over-sensitive in that way women just are? Just all hormonal and all over the place, right?There’s so much more I could comment on here…but could I propose you jsut try to put yourself into the shoes of a woman who is feeling harrssed by these issues for a second? Start with: “if they are complaining about it, maybe there’s some truth in it”, say? And then go on from there.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 5:39 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Just assume for a moment that they were sincere, it being impossible to establish absolutely either way (therefore needing to consider both possibilities). Feeling very strongly about something, and frustrated with “in order” attempts to voice it, they spoke out. In terms of basic principles, the same as civil disobedience from powerless people trying to fight for their views (so not out-and-out not on). On voicing this opinion, they were, seemingly (and none of the other accounts from people who were there seem to contradict this in the facts) ridiculed for this. More appropriate would have been “we certainly didn’t mean to be offensive; we can’t deal with this in detail now, but someone will certainly discuss it with you afterwards”. Things were done inappropriately by more than the woman in question, based on what I’ve read from both sides.This doesn’t make anyone evil, and no-one should be being demonized about it.
Christie Swords
February 8, 2011 at 5:40 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
If you call a group of men that you disagree with “cunts” is it still sexist?And, I get blah, blah, blah, poor pitiful women, men evil men don’t have a right to weigh in or have feelings. I am asking you a sincere question. So please cease and desist with the women are so frail and unsubstantial that men should treat them like fucking rose-petals / men are evil, privileged assholes bullshit. Eventually, the “weak” have to stop being such a bunch of weak-ass whiners and wo-man the fuck up! It is time for people to stop playing the martyr cards. I have “faith” that people are strong, powerful individuals. Why do they underestimate and undercut themselves so much?Sorry, Welsh Andy. The question was for you; the rant was not. : )
Attendee
February 8, 2011 at 5:40 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
That’s not the precise issue. The issue is that men and not women are expected to make the first approach in sexual relations. It’s a shitty job that opens you up to all manner of rejection, humiliation, disappointment and in some cases criminal liability.It’s sexist that our society expect women to do none of this work. It’s all on the men. But rather than give men respect and thanks for doing all that work – which both sexes benefit from – the male role is criminalized and women feel they have the right to complain when men get it wrong Ask men if they would like or dislike lots of pretty young women making eyes at them and approaching them. Women are complaining about a situation where they have it far better than men! Of course sometimes being approached is a pain and you get people you don’t find attractive approaching you along with those you do, but on the whole both men and women agree they would much rather not be the one that has to do the approaching.
Christie Swords
February 8, 2011 at 5:43 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I sounds to me like “asshole” is your mother tongue, quantheory.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 5:45 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
We obviously can’t tell whether the characterisation of “accusation” is fair, of course, but the distinction is that “female” has no implied humanity (nor does “male”), but “man” and “woman” do. I can’t say about that specific situation, but one does see some texts, or hear some speakers, use “man” predominately for men, and “female” predominately for women. Unless you’re making a distinction between sex and gender (where male and female are the right words), or talking across multiple species, using ‘female’ as a noun is problematic (not necessarily objectionable) for just this reason.Of course, I’m far from the first to explain that in this thread…(ooh, case in point of it as a dramatic device, look at Ferengi dialogue in the first few seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation = the writers effectively signpost Ferengi misogyny by their exclusive use of ‘female’ even in the noun form)
jimmyboy99
February 8, 2011 at 5:49 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Too right. Apart from anything else: let’s try not to have 5 men, 1 woman on a sceptical panel. Let’s try to ensure we have lots of women in leadership in our organisations even if at first some are a bit nervous about that due to lack of experience or legacy expectations for eg (we can always be supportive and helpful after all). Let’s get lots of women to speak at our conferences. Let’s ensure that when women speak their views are given due consideration. Let’s try to ensure they speak in the first place. Let’s look back over how things were organised with a critical eye for the male/female balance. Let’s think creatively how we can be really open to women at our meetings and given the issues raised, have an elevated sensitivity to those issues. Let’s not hit on them aggressively or in large groups when they come to our meetings. Let’s use their judgement as to what is intimidating here and not trust our male judgement on this (because it’s been found wanting just once or twice in the past). Let’s call sexist language all and every time it occurs, not just let it slip because that’s easier to do.And if we don’t have more women coming after a bit of effort, let’s ask ourselves why and not let ourselves off the hook with a crap answer.Why is this so difficult?
paisley
February 8, 2011 at 5:51 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I don’t believe Jen took a side in this discussion. In fact, she even removed part of the authors’ post. The only thing Jen has had any input on in this thread has been the whole “if you cleavage can be seen, then you deserve men to look at you” trope. Also, I’ve been following this whole comment thread and I’ve felt that with the input of those who were at the meeting added, it was kinda decided that everything was up-in-the-air as to how it all took place and have moved on to discussion issues that were raise outside of specific details of the event.
Angel of Harlots
February 8, 2011 at 5:52 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
This post really is a misrepresentation of the events that took place at SERAM. I was there and present at the panel discussion where the young lady became upset; it was an unfortunate incident, but it was not something that needed to derail the rest of the conference, and I believe that by moving on with the panel, the moderator did the right thing. Another point that I would like to make is that the statement “none of the event organizers went after her” is a blatant lie. Christie Swords was an event organizer, and left the room immediately to follow the woman to the bathroom. She stayed there with her until the end of the panel discussion. In fact, I had to go in to let her know that she was due to be on stage for her own panel so she would not be late.I think that emotions are running high on both sides of this debate, and views are getting skewed. No one is evil or stupid in this situation. I think if we step back and look at the reality of the events, we’ll see that it really doesn’t need to be this much of a deal.I have a lot of opinion on this, and I don’t want to take the space here in the comments to say everything. I’ll be blogging about it tonight.
Quantal
February 8, 2011 at 5:52 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
If women don’t want us to look at their breasts, why on EARTH would they walk around with their breasts exposed? It is completely illogical. Many women even do it during winter, when it is surely in their interests to dress warm. Despite claims to the contrary, we’re not all capable of preventing ourselves from looking at a woman’s exposed breasts. We all differ in levels of self-control.
jimmyboy99
February 8, 2011 at 5:57 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Read it again. Lots here have taken no side (while commenting extensively) because we don’t know the facts (and probably won’t get them just by watching a video either given how limited that information will be). You read what you wanted to read.It’s not strange that people come here because they like Jen’s take on things (and perhaps can’t be arsed to run their own sceptical blog). To suggest it’s a Cult of Jen just speaks to your ignorance. Lot’s here take regular issue with Jen’s positions. It’s part of being sceptical. And she rarely bans people either so…where’s the “cult” bit come from?Did you have a real point there at all?
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 6:01 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Not sold either way on the ‘female’ thing, as it can, IMO, be problematic at times.Right with you on the “biology tells them to be jerks” argument. Whatever the intent of the speaker, it ends up being used, even if only internally to a person, to excuse behaviour.
jimmyboy99
February 8, 2011 at 6:01 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I genuinely have no idea what point you are making. Could you explain?
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 6:04 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It is possible to test the idea that women can only have a few children while men can theoretically or actually have thousands. There is evidence for it in the real world. For example, 8% of central Asia is directly descended from Genghis Khan because he forced so many women to have sex with him during his rampages. There is another example from Libyan history and another from Irish history. There are no women that have that large a biological impact in that short a time. Also, humanity’s last common female ancestor (mitochondrial eve) lived at least 50,000 years earlier than humanity’s last common male ancestor (Y chromosomal Adam). It is also possible to test in other animals (for which we, rightly or wrongly, don’t give the same ethical considerations that we do to humans) that females are more choosy do to biology. We can prove that females with limited eggs in every species we test are more choosy except in cases where a readily understood exception shows otherwise. We can also show that female humans are more choosy in pretty much every culture. So yes, it is possible that humans could be completely special and due to the ethical limitations of our research, we would have missed this odd twist that goes against everything else we’ve ever learned. But when you have proof for all other animals and circumstantial evidence strongly suggests humans are the same, how cautious should we be in suggesting our theories? Biology is never going to be as precise as physics (as the quote goes from the physicist goes, all science is physics or stamp collecting). There are always going to be thinks that we can’t absolutely prove (I can’t absolutely prove I’m not dreaming this conversation, but I’m still willing to agree with the science of how my computer works). What vocabulary should I use? “The evidence suggests…”?
Gus Snarp
February 8, 2011 at 6:04 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Excuse me while I shit on your desk to demonstrate my dominance. I can’t help it, it’s biology.Besides, read from the beginning. The operative verb root used is “stare”. I expect that many women who wear shirts that show some cleavage don’t mind a glance, but you shouldn’t, and you don’t have to stare.Not to mention of course that some women’s breasts are apparent virtually no matter what they do. See Jen’s “bro-Jen” picture in a previous blog entry for an example. Is anything less than an ace bandage and a burka an invitation to gawk? But surely you knew all this, it’s certainly been covered, you’re just being obnoxious.
Christie Swords
February 8, 2011 at 6:05 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It is okay to have a problem with it. It is not okay to lie about events that happened in an attempt to skew people’s opinions of another person or group of people. I think THAT is what keeps getting overlooked here. Sharon lied. The dishonesty cannot totally be attributed to a difference of opinion or subjectiveness. I also hate that when someone points out that the post is dishonest and hurtful no one seems to care about that. They simply call us assholes or sexists and move one. (Just like the blog post accused the moderator of doing.) The fact that Jen is leaving an article that is offensive and hurtful to stay up is disappointing. I have been a fan of the blag hag for a while. I do not always agree, but this really hit home when Sharon made it sound as if the whole group of atheists that were there are insensitive assholes. I was one of those athesits. Why take down the Million Dollar Challenge part if you are going to leave the rest of it up. Her accoutn of what happened has been discounted by several people who were present and were hurt by her saying that no one cared enough to help a distressed person. It also bothers me that she tried to say that all the women were screaming inside our heads about the outrage that we felt. 1. Most of us did not feel outrage. 2. If I did, you can damned well bet that I don’t need anyone to stand up for me, particularly someone who is dishonest. As I have stated in other posts, I am not doubting that Sharon felt offended. I am not saying that she has no right to feel such. I am saying that she lied about events that happened. It draws her whole intent into question. I feel that she has falsely tried to get people to believe that some heinous thing happened at a southern atheist convention. She is allowed to feel that way all she wants. If someone has a valid point, they do not have to lie to make their point.It is sexist to think that just because someone is a female, and they have their feelings hurt that they cease to be accountable for their actions.
Christie Swords
February 8, 2011 at 6:06 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Well put. I agree.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 6:08 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
So does that mean that theoretical physics isn’t science? Theoretical physicists use mathmatical models but leave the scientific tests to the experimental physicists. String Theory, for example, one of theories that physics focus on the most, has mathmatical models supporting it but deals with subatomic particles too tiny to test currently. Is string theory, the theory that has captured the attention of physics professors everywhere, not science according to your definition?
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 6:08 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I wasn’t in this sub-conversation, but here’s my take:I don’t see that women are fragile and men have to be careful not to hurt them. People are fragile, generally, and we ought to be mindful of the possibility of hurting people, but that’s not the real point I’d want to make.People who have expressed that something hurts them should have some consideration of that. Where there’s genuine evidence that the individual in question is misusing claims of hurt, “crying wolf”, effectively, then that can have relevant too. If someone sincerely expresses hurt because of a person’s actions, it behoves that person to try to understand why it hurt them, and figure out what to do either remedially, or to allow for the problem in future.
OneSidedDiscussionMan
February 8, 2011 at 6:09 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I receive notification of the posts here on my gmail.So I read your comment, about how the enlightened people here went to discuss the core principle of Sexism. Next, I look at the post right above yours (I receive them in order they are posted of course) and this is what I see : “Apart from anything else: let’s try not to have 5 men, 1 woman on a sceptical panel. “That’s not about the panel? I see comments like this in every new posts to this thread in fact. People that *where at the fucking conference* are getting called assholes, and that despite having other posters corroborating their side of the story.Jen took a side just by posting this without verification. This posts wouldn’t have made the main page if not for the little feud with non-blogging atheists she had this weekend. That’s the side she took.The call on this blog for “sexism” in some elusive “atheistic community” is based on 3 things right now : How /r/atheism are sexist : This claim is refused by atheists AND feminists Reddits.How replies to the mess about /r/atheism are sexists : Duh. I see hate, not sexism. No other female atheists gets her kind of reaction (even though they do get catcalls)This conference : The claim is once again disputed.So you have 2 disputed claims and people who can’t argue without being assholes (I include Jen along with the people who replied in a sexists manner in this)Don’t believe me? Check her newest post : She use the comments that do not agree with the article in this thread as “proof” of sexism in her next thread. THAT IS ALL SHE HAS EVER PROVIDED AS PROOF for the past 4 days.She is weakening her position, not reinforcing it. As someone targetted by one of those claims and who was the target of her rabid fans, I’m not taking her seriously at all. And the reactionary opinions seen in this thread tells me that this particular “atheist community” isn’t any better than the next one, and that are not in any position to be throwing stones at anyone.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 6:10 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
This, oh so this. People screw up. Doesn’t make them evil. On the other hand, it behoves everyone involved to try to understand every side of a question like this.Or: calm down, everyone who’s not calm.
jimmyboy99
February 8, 2011 at 6:13 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
DUPLICATE POST (sorry the other did not come out as a reply)Read it again. Lots here have taken no side (while commenting extensively) because we don’t know the facts (and probably won’t get them just by watching a video either given how limited that information will be). You read what you wanted to read.It’s not strange that people come here because they like Jen’s take on things (and perhaps can’t be arsed to run their own sceptical blog). To suggest it’s a Cult of Jen just speaks to your ignorance. Lot’s here take regular issue with Jen’s positions. It’s part of being sceptical. And she rarely bans people either so…where’s the “cult” bit come from?Did you have a real point there at all
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 6:14 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Not sure about everything in that comment, but the general point about inequality in sexual relations is very true; it creates a fundamental imbalance in power that isn’t entirely in favour of either side – the initiators are disempowered in that they always have to take that emotional risk, and the non-initiators are disempowered in that they are reliant on someone else making ‘the first move’. It’s evolving to be more fluid, in my experience, but movements in the direction of allowing or expecting either party to make an approach is a good thing.It doesn’t sit in isolation, though; it does interact with other gender and discrimination issues.
Just Al
February 8, 2011 at 6:15 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
And why would any woman wear a mini-skirt if she doesn’t want to be raped, right?I guess you missed the part where I mentioned hyperbole.Selecting a mode of dress to reveal, or draw attention to, any particular portion of anatomy is a conscious choice, and as I said, claiming unawareness of the reaction to this is not a valid excuse. You can walk around naked for all I care, but bitching because our society considers this inappropriate doesn’t really make your point valid – all it does is show you provoking a response.I said nothing about any physical contact whatsoever, nor is it even remotely implied in what I wrote. Thanks for so effectively demonstrating why such issues cannot be discussed rationally.Do you think that possibly the fact that many women describe this behaviour, might indicate that it’s your “eyesight” which is the problem here? Or are all those women just being over-sensitive in that way women just are? Just all hormonal and all over the place, right?Yes, indeed I have considered it – that’s exactly why I’ve paid attention to it. Thank you for considering that I might actually not be talking out of my ass. Yes, that was sarcasm – I suspect you need it pointed out to you.As for women being over-sensitive, yes, I consider this too. Most especially since we now have a culture espousing the idea that all women are victims of sexual harassment and abuse. When you have a prevalent attitude, it can easily influence the conclusions and the experiences. Did you miss the large number of comments here that interpreted the conference in an entirely different light than what the OP portrayed? So, do you have a decent way of determining objective truth from someone’s written account? Because the courts would love to hear it, I’m sure.Until that time, I will feel free to state reservations where they seem warranted.I will also point out that I did not mention hormones, either, nor select anyone to blame. I merely called attention to the idea that critical examination was probably a good thing to wield. Someday, perhaps, you’ll get reading comprehension down.Start with: “if they are complaining about it, maybe there’s some truth in it”, say? And then go on from there.Thanks, I did. I just didn’t assume it was necessarily accurate, but looked for independent confirmation. Sorry if rejecting confirmation bias offends you. No, actually, I’m not sorry, either. Get over it.The fact that you purposefully, and with malice, tried to twist my words around to make your point more prominent is exactly why I find feminism so ineffective. You didn’t demonstrate any effort whatsoever to try and see things objectively, and instead tried to create a conflict that did not exist in reality. You will excuse me if I fail to find you a good role model.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 6:16 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I know what you mean! I’ve given up trying to read all of the posts on this thread. They just keep getting added at such a fast rate that I simply don’t have time. I’m mainly only responding to comments that are responding to one of my earlier comments. Don’t get too exhausted by this yourself!
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 6:20 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
And then I don’t agree… it has to be seen in the context of overall power imbalance and privilege, and the usual personal experience of women. Plus, in-your-face sexism (gawking) is more obnoxious than behind-the-scenes sexism (the doctors example).
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 6:21 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Just because it’s on a bingo card doesn’t make it right. And just because a person is offended does not mean that they get to set the standard. We should be considerate to those who are offended and try to understand them, but for everything you do, there is going to be someone who is offended by it. It’s wrong to say “I was offended therefore I’m right.”
Maggie
February 8, 2011 at 6:27 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Paisley said: “Instead many commentors have chosen to respond with “I’m a female, it doesn’t bother me, if it bothers you then you’re stupid and petty”As one of those who replied, quite calmly and clinically I thought, and having read the replies to your earlier post… I have to say that I did not see you called stupid or petty, either literally or figuratively, in any of the replies to you. But I will say that telling people they aren’t interacting with you to your liking and aren’t attempting to figure out your particular perceived offense isn’t going to win anyone over. Especially if it’s prefaced with a list of “I’ve never” argument from experience/argument from ignorance.
DES
February 8, 2011 at 6:27 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I may not be not old enough to be Jen’s father, but I am (barely) old enough that I could, in theory, legally engage in consensual sexual behavior with women half my age. Speaking in that capacity–in other words, as one of those you try to defend–I fully support Jen, and I do not find her characterization offensive in any way, shape or form. The situation she describes *is* gross and creepy. Besides the fact that any unsolicited sexual attention beyond polite flirting is inappropriate regardless of age, the lack of cultural common ground between a 50 year old man and a 25 year old woman precludes any form of meaningful romantic connection, meaning that the man’s interest is purely sexual and that the woman means nothing more to him than “a piece of tail”. It is condescending and demeaning on an entirely different level than if they were of comparable age. The fact that this occurred at a conference rather than a night club makes it twice as offensive, because while an unaccompanied woman in a nightclub can at least plausibly be looking for casual sex, a woman attending a conference most definitely is not.[EDIT: oops, it wasn't Jen saying those guys were gross and creepy, it was Sharon. My point still stands.]
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 6:27 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Physics is science; there are theoreticians and experimenters. They are handling different parts of the scientific process.And yes, I do have trouble with the characterisation of string theory as a scientific theory; it is far more a hypothesis, or a set of them. It is one of the problems with the different meaning of theory; even within science, it sometimes has the meaning I gave it, but I admit I excluded the meaning of a coherent collection of structures, hypotheses, etc, which is what I suspect is usually meant in the case of String theory.By the by, speaking as someone who’s studied advanced mathematics, mathematics (pure maths) is certainly not a science; it is, really, an art, but people don’t like that sense of ‘art’ in modern use. While maths can be applied to reality, it has very little to say about reality itself.
Ashli Axtell
February 8, 2011 at 6:30 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I am a female who attended SERAM and I find the portrayal of the events in this blog post to be incredibly inaccurate. The panel never concluded that women should “STFU and get over it” when guys check them out – in fact, it was outright stated to males that they should stop creeping out the new ladies in their respective groups by not ogling them and instead, treat them with decency and respect.Second, if only 30% of your attendees are women, then it stands to reason that a similarly representative sample of audience members would be chosen to question the panel directly, which would explain why more men were selected. More men raised their hands and were selected because more men were in attendance. Also, this woman was sitting across the row from me and one table farther back, and I was about four tables from the very back of the room – far from the front of the moderator’s and panelists’ faces. They appeared rather tiny from where we were.She did ask if anyone was offended by the use of “female” instead of “woman,” pointing out that she felt it made women sound like livestock and the question was posed to the female member of the panel who said that she wasn’t offended, that it denoted a biological difference. Then, someone asked if men would be insulted by being referred to as “male” rather than men, to which the moderator and panelists said they would not. One of the panelists joked that rather than calling us women or females, we’d heretofore be referred to as “the weaker sex,” whereupon the woman hastily exited the room. His humor was shared by many of the attendees but unfortunately, fell short of the woman for whom it was intended. In retrospect, could this situation have been handled more sensitively? Probably. However, everything happened quickly and with such physical distance between the panelists, moderator and woman of subject, the ability to assess visual cues about her emotional state was severely limited. It’s regrettable that she was upset but to give the impression that she was publicly derided and torn apart is very misleading and inappropriate. Finally, the portrayal of Sean Faircloth’s talk as anti-feminist is blatantly false. The million-dollar challenge was merely an illustration to show that women are the gatekeepers of sex and that it is an empowering position. The overlying message of his talk was that in our society, we seem to be moral eunuchs and we should, rather, embrace our sexuality in a respectful, healthy and honest manner between consenting adults. What would Don Draper Do? He’d have some sex and make no bones about it, that’s what. As a very strong feminist, I found Sean Faircloth’s talk to be inspiring and uplifting. I stood to applaud him.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 6:35 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It’s also wrong to say “I don’t understand why you were offended, therefore you’re wrong”. Can we at least agree that everyone reasonable probably thinks we should keep away from those two extremes?
Don
February 8, 2011 at 6:48 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
In fact the organization I was part of, having tried the quota system for several years, got rid of it at the behest of the leading women in the organization.
Feminatheist
February 8, 2011 at 6:48 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I agree! Treating women as objects and calling it power over men? What a douchebaggy thing to say.
Vanessa
February 8, 2011 at 6:52 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Cue Affirmative Action. Best candidate gets the job regardless of gender. It wouldn’t be a bad idea for atheist groups to use it.
DES
February 8, 2011 at 6:58 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
[EDIT: this was posted as a reply to a previous comment about cleavage; I don't know why it showed up as a standalone comment instead]Oh, grow up. Women don’t wear plunging necklines because they want to show off their “mammary size”, as you so eloquently put it; they wear those clothes because they like the way they look in them, and because they make them feel good about themselves, and to a certain extent because it is expected of them. You may not realize it, but it’s really no different from a man wearing a well-cut suit, a button-down shirt and a matching tie (and if you tell me that you’re not comfortable in a suit or that you hate neckties, you’ve clearly never owned a good suit or a shirt with the correct neck size or learned how to tie a necktie). The only difference, really, is that women have more latitude in style and color, while men only have one choice: a suit that matches their skin and hair color, and a shirt and tie that match the suit and the occasion.
DES
February 8, 2011 at 6:59 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Jen never claimed to be a journalist.
Feminatheist
February 8, 2011 at 7:02 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Oh and the women should all wear burkas too, huh Todd? So you creepy old dudes can control yourselves when confronted with women’s bodies? Seriously dude. Shut up!
Lindsay
February 8, 2011 at 7:03 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Thank you so much for bringing in the heart of the matter as it seems like a lot of other people have failed to do. In the current mainstream feminist landscape, the aversion to the biological rather than cultural terms of denoting one’s gender has everything to do with equality for trans women. Not all females are women, and vice versa. Thank you, a million times over.
paisley
February 8, 2011 at 7:03 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’m sorry if the wording was confusing. I did not mean that they replied to my post (in a way that would appear “in reply to paisley”) that was mean-spirited. I was referring to the general attitude of how it was addressed later down in the forum about the woman/female topic. Such as saying that the topic of woman/female is “silly crying wolf” that “treating this as sexist is just an insult to people who have experienced real sexist discrimination” Not for a woman: “Can someone please tell me when the word “female” became a pejorative? That is not in the atheist bible anywhere as far as I can tell. In the meantime, females, please note that there are differences between men and wom… er, females. Men see wom…er females differently than females see men. Seriously, I looked this up in a biology book one time. ” Maggie, you did reply very calmly and I did think you made an interesting point. I had no issue with you.
Feminatheist
February 8, 2011 at 7:06 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Keep digging, man.
quantheory
February 8, 2011 at 7:09 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Noted.
jimmyboy99
February 8, 2011 at 7:18 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I guess you missed the part where I mentioned hyperboleWell. No – but I had no idea what point you were making and it wasn’t relevant to the point I was making: ie that you were indulging in classic, sexist victim blaming. There’s a long history of it – and you joined in. I pointed it out. I note that you believe that you find “feminism so ineffective” because I “purposefully, and with malice, tried to twist my words around”. I didn’t: I highlighted your sexist argument and put it in the context of its bed fellows. Victim blaming is victim blaming. claiming unawareness of the reaction to this is not a valid excuseWho claimed unawareness? This appears to be a straw man. Interesting from someone as vitriolic as you.As it happens, I think the authors showed strong awareness and objected to being letched at (my summary). I made no further judgement in this post on what had happened (because that wasn’t what I was commenting on here).You can walk around naked for all I care, but bitching because our society considers this inappropriate doesn’t really make your point valid – all it does is show you provoking a responseYou think the reaction to someone walking round naked has equivalence with a woman being irritated by men perhaps regularly talking to her cleavage?I said nothing about any physical contact whatsoever, nor is it even remotely implied in what I wrote. Who said you did? Get a grip. I put your comment into the context of the same arguments which are more extreme, but fundamentally the same point.Thanks for so effectively demonstrating why such issues cannot be discussed rationally.You really are searching here (in the absence of actually addressing the points made). You just repeat arguments that show you are a classic, sexist, dude, unreconstructed, victim blamer and indulge in some also pretty old and tired arguments about why feminism is crap. Well done.You didn’t demonstrate any effort whatsoever to try and see things objectively, and instead tried to create a conflict that did not exist in realityThe flood of irony is drowning me.Did you miss the large number of comments here that interpreted the conference in an entirely different light than what the OP portrayed? So, do you have a decent way of determining objective truth from someone’s written account? Because the courts would love to hear it, I’m sureNope. I got them. But I didn’t comment on those (because I noted that we don;t have all of the agreed facts and I wasn’t there). I picked you up for sexist victim blaming. Don’t move the goal posts or I’ll assume you can’t defend yourself. You could of course apologise for being a sexist victim blamer, but somehow I think that is unlikely.I will also point out that I did not mention hormones, either, Who said you did? I put you into the bracket which you came across in to me.nor select anyone to blame.Yes you did. You said women shouldn’t wear certain types of clothing if they didn’t want the attention. Classic victim blaming and right up there with the “don’t wear mini-skirts if you don’t want to be raped” argument.Thanks, I did.Evidence?I just didn’t assume it was necessarily accurate, but looked for independent confirmation.Right. And what you found was a load of old fashioned, stereo-typical, bias-confirming (I can throw that one too), sexism.I merely You didn’t ‘merely’ do anything. You had a big rant and revealed yourself to be a sexist, dude, victim blamer.called attention to the idea that critical examination was probably a good thing to wield. No you didn’t – well not that I commented on. You made some stupid, old fashioned, sexist, victim blaming comments. And then tried to defend them.Someday, perhaps, you’ll get reading comprehension down.Nice argument. Well done.You will excuse me if I fail to find you a good role modelI suppose I will then as you explicitly ask me to. I excuse you for being a sexist, dude, victim blamer. But then it’s not really in my gift to do so. Try asking the women reading this to do so.
Jim Fisher
February 8, 2011 at 7:59 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
paisley says, “Finally, I have to say that I’m kinda disappointed that so few commentors choose to try to interact with me to understand why I shudder when I get referred to as “a female” instead of “a woman”. Instead many commentors have chosen to respond with “I’m a female, it doesn’t bother me, if it bothers you then you’re stupid and petty”It’s much more productive to try to figure out the reasons. If someone can tell me that their experience in the South is that “females” is part of normal vernacular then I’d appreciate knowing that.”My goodness. Are we REALLY having this discussion? Are we, perhaps, witnessing the evolution of a common word into a pejorative? I mean, really, WTF? My slant, for what it’s worth: Some women, especially over-the-top feminists, are just looking to get offended. it is really hard to get offended at such a large gathering of like-minded people like an atheist gatering. So some women went hunting for offense. It started with the million dollar challenge that stated simple fact. There was not quite enough offense in the challenge to get worked up over, though. So she tried to get the attention of guys by allowing her puppies to show and succeed in getting offended. She noted the abundance of men there who were oggling her abundant bosom and got offended. The panel consisting of mostly males, er, men, er, guys offered opinions on our views of sexuality (hint: we are pigs, get over it). Not much offense there so she narrowed in on the “female” word. Some guy made a joke about it and there you go: instant offense at a word that no one knew was offensive.Look, “female” is the word used in a clinical setting. “Woman” is typically used in a less formal setting. “Girl” is very close to slang in some uses and clinical in others (babies, for example). But please, someone tell me how in the hell is this offenseive? Please tell me why “female” is more offensive than “woman”? Shall we just refer to each other as “person” now?Jesus christ.
Attendee
February 8, 2011 at 8:00 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Ridiculous. She wasn’t powerless. She interrupted everyone and threw it in their faces. She had power and she used it irresponsibly to cause dissension and be rude. She made everyone ELSE there powerless, both men and women who were trying to have a rational discussion. She made a scene.The person who should apologise is the woman who ran out. Why should rudeness be pandered to? I don’t care if she was sincere in her rudeness or not. She acted like a child and not an adult. Such behaviour should be discouraged.And again: if a man had done it they would have been called a jerk.
MRJF
February 8, 2011 at 8:02 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I attended Sean Faircloth’s talk in Boston in October. As a Humanist woman, I found his discourse informative and even empowering. Frankly, I thought the “Million Dollar Challenge” was pretty funny, insightful, and accurate (from my experience). It demonstrates female intellect. I wasn’t at the conference in Alabama and certainly cannot personally attest to the overall tone of the event, and am genuinely sorry if it was as misogynistic as the author reports. If Sean’s talk was anything like the one in Boston, I applaud his efforts for the secular cause and gender equality.
Attendee
February 8, 2011 at 8:08 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It is entirely in favour of women. It is entirely sexist against men. Women have the option of initiating they simply don’t because — why would they? They don’t have to and it is a shitty job. They are not forced to sit and wait but they do so because of the benefits.Men are forced to initiate because a man who says I will wait for women to approach me is basically saying they will be single all their life.Furthermore only the male role is criminilaized. Men who approach wrongly are called sexual predators (stalkers, harassers etc) but women who perform their role badly are not criminalized are they? At worst they are called prudish or a tease but you don’t go to jail for that.The imbalance in power is total and one sided and it favours women over men.Please stop dismissing sexism against men by pretending women have the same issues when they do not.
Kai Haswell
February 8, 2011 at 8:10 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I’m disgusted. Yes, as a man, I can vouch that it’s impossible to not notice an attractive woman. But it’s actually possible to avoid staring at her chest and making awkward comments about sex! It is! Maybe I’m not a Real Man(TM) for saying so, but…I actually think women are people too. Like, with their own minds and interests and everything!Thank you for bringing these problems out into the open, Jen. Please don’t get discouraged by the amount of bullshit that you’ve encountered.
Attendee
February 8, 2011 at 8:11 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
So your “logic” here is that women must be seen as powerless in this specific case, not because of the evidence, but because of an “overall power imbalance” that you have no evidence for?Is that even rising to the level of circular logic? It is simply an assertion of your prejudices I think.
Rollingforest
February 8, 2011 at 8:12 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the opinions of those who are offended should take precedent over the opinions of those who aren’t.
DES
February 8, 2011 at 8:16 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Second, the woman fled the hall and the author went after her to console her and the organizers did not.Christie Swords wrote in an earlier comment:“I am a leader of the local group where this event was held. Our group worked with American Atheists to help run this event. So to say that no one went to check on the young lady is an out and out lie. I stood in the restroom with Sharon and the aforementioned lady for 20 mins. Several men (some from American Atheists) went to look for the young woman, but were told that perhaps they should not speak to her since she seemed to be so upset by the men in the room. If the event leaders chased her down after she came out of the restroom, they would have been criticized for embarrassing her.”Anyone who has done any dating or had any kind of heterosexual relationship knows that women control access to sex. [...] And anyone without that experience has seen it on a sitcom or a bad stand-up routine.Sitcoms, stand-up comedians, movies, books, comics… all have their tropes and their conventions and their accepted truths, but just because a thousand stand-up comedians say it doesn’t mean it’s true. Media, and especially American media (thanks to its prudish and politically correct self-censorship) routinely depict female sexuality as beautiful and empowering and male sexuality as dirty and abusive, and routinely uses physical and psychological abuse of men by women, and especially their wives and girlfriends, as comical elements and symbols of female empowerment. That doesn’t make it true, or right.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 8:24 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
So, just to check… if someone sees injustice (of whatever sort), be it against themselves or someone else, but is in a situation where it would be ‘rude’ to say or do anything, they should just keep their mouth shut?If I’m at an event and I think the speaker is being offensive (depending on how severe), I’m going to let them know about; if I’m bothered enough, I’ll heckle them out-of-turn. Why? Because, in some situations, that’s the most effective, or only effective, thing to do. Sometimes a quiet word afterwards is more appropriate, sometimes it’s not, but with the information I have I couldn’t say which was which in this case.
J'Carlin
February 8, 2011 at 8:33 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Not at all. It was an easy way to separate those who were interested in the person not simply a boff. If one was interested in appreciating her very attractive body you simply had to appeal to her mind first. They didn’t mind sharing their beauty if you could keep the drool off your chin.
Gus Snarp
February 8, 2011 at 8:34 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Hmm, you may be right on the first part. To me she makes her relationship to the event sound a bit tangential. She’s a leader of a group that worked with American Atheists to run the event, which doesn’t automatically make her an organizer or an official, but maybe she is and just expressed it poorly, in the way that one might try to make themselves seem official when they’re not, I don’t know.On point 2: What? One of us is missing the point, which is that the supposed revelation of the demonstration is such common knowledge that it’s a standard comedy trope and well recognized by most people, not a new and shocking insight.
Attendee
February 8, 2011 at 8:42 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The only REAL people I have seen do this are (some) feminists who often refer to men as “males”. But I don’t think they do it to be insulting. When they insult men they are usually much more open about doing so as insulting men (as a collective birth group) carries no opprobrium in our society.Seriously who on earth would care about such trivia if there were any real issues to explore? “Men are all rapists” was once a popular feminist slogan. Valarie Solanas’ “Society for Cutting Up Men” remains a popular feminist essay to this day. When men are not called rapists they are all “potential rapists”. I am not going to care about some feminist calling men “males”.
Attendee
February 8, 2011 at 8:49 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
So your position is that it is offensive to use the word “female” to describe women? Even when the speaker was using “male” to describe men too? Even when nobody else at the even, either male or female, agreed with the utterly ridiculous notion? No that is not your position but you insist that we allow that insanity to be HER legitimate position.What huge power you want to give this woman. She can invent whole new reasons to be offended and that gives her the right to disrupt 200 other people over it. Again: is it only women you say should have this power?If a religious person had attended that meeting and taken offense at some trivia — oh I know how hard it is to believe they could be offended — would you say that such a person had the right to disrupt the entire meeting to say that use of the word eg. “religion” was offensive to them when referring to religious people?
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 8:54 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Those sort of views I’ve only heard expressed at the most extreme end of the spectrum, or to illustrate a point (i.e. not meant as literally true). Using them to tar the whole of feminism is very much a straw man. Or, I suppose, it could be bad inductive reasoning instead – X is a feminist, X makes weird arguments, therefore feminists all make weird arguments…
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 8:57 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
No, my position is that it can be offensive to use the term ‘female’, depending on audience, dialect, and context. It is therefore unreasonable to dismiss the complaint as ridiculous or label the complainant negatively.
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 9:00 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Oh, and regarding the religious person bit… the event was expressly atheist. There’s no reasonable expectation of avoiding offence on the basis of religion. I assume that such a conference isn’t trying to include Christians. It would be organised differently, I’m sure, if it was intended to foster atheist-theist dialogue, it would be different.However, I assume that people do want to include women at these things, so concerns specific to women (not necessarily universal to women) should be of concern.
DES
February 8, 2011 at 9:04 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Yes, you are missing my point, which is that “common knowledge” and “standard comedy tropes” are not always (or perhaps I should say “rarely”) right, and should not be quoted in support of an argument in a serious discussion. I brought up sexuality and abuse partly because they are the subject of some of the most common and egregious lies perpetuated by “common knowledge” and “standard comedy tropes” and partly because of your assertion that men do not need to fear rape.Physical and psychological (and to a lesser extent sexual) abuse of men by women is just as real, just as common and just as traumatizing as the reverse, but we as a society choose to pretend that it doesn’t happen, and that if it does it’s nothing to worry about. Take it like a man! She’s just standing up for her rights and her opinions! It doesn’t show up in crime statistics because men are too ashamed to report it, and if they do they are met with disbelief and derision unless the abuse has gone so far that they require urgent medical attention. Even then, it is often assumed that “he had it coming” and the woman acted in self-defense. Abused men have nowhere to go, because shelters won’t take them in; to paraphrase an actual quote from a shelter here in Norway, “the women at the shelter would be traumatized by the presence of a man”.At least in English-speaking countries you have a gender-neutral term for it (“domestic violence”), while in French, for instance, the corresponding term is “violences faites au femmes” (“violent acts towards women”). In Norwegian, the common term is “kvinnemishandling” (“abuse of women”); the gender-neutral and more general term “familievold” (“family violcence”) is rarely used.
DES
February 8, 2011 at 9:10 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
One more thing: my wife argues that the depiction of female-on-male abuse as comedy is discriminating against women because the underlying message is that nothing a woman does to a man can have serious consequences. I’m not sure whether to agree with her or to consider her a part of the problem.(I used “female-on-male” because “woman-on-man” sounds like a reference to a sexual act)
Jim Fisher
February 8, 2011 at 9:10 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Kai, I’m not sure who this person actually was but I have an idea. There were a couple of pretty “large” women who were wearing some VERY low cut shirts. This wasn’t just your normal cleavage but way-down cleavage and lots of it. There were lots of college aged kids there that, I’m sure, found it hard not to look.Next time I go to one of these things, I swear to god I’m gonna wear my “fake butt sticking out of jeans” costume and DARE some women to give it more than a one second glance. I can write a blog, too, by god so if you stare more than two seconds I’ll post the damn thing for all to see! So watch out, ladies, I’m on the offensive for offense!
DES
February 8, 2011 at 9:20 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I don’t think anybody has taken the SCUM manifesto seriously in, what, 40 years? Valerie Solanas herself described it as satire (see Poe’s Law).
Sam Barnett-Cormack
February 8, 2011 at 9:33 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It depends on the depiction; it’s either against women because it portrays the idea of female-on-male abuse as ridiculous, or it’s bad for everyone because it suggests that domestic (or other) abuse is something we don’t have to take seriously. Very rarely it’s effective in communicating about abuse, although it does happen.Well, that’s the way I see it.
Beth Walls
February 8, 2011 at 9:42 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I was going to refrain from commenting on this, as I was not able to attend SERAM, but the more I read and the more I talk to friends that were able to attend, the more annoyed I get. I just have a few comments to make.If you knew Mary Posey- the lone female on the panel- at all, then you would know that she would not hesitate to speak her mind if any of the panel members had said anything that she deemed offensive or sexist. I know that she is very capable of hold her own in an intelligent debate with 5 other people, be they male or female. I am also of the opinion that she could very easily hold her own with the 5 woman hating, savage, caveman that you seem to think were occupying the panel with her. Now while I know that what offends one might not offend another, there were multiple female representatives of NAFA- the local freethought group that helped to organize the event- who attended SERAM who would have also spoken up had they been offended. The females in NAFA have no problem with letting you know that you’ve crossed the line with them, whether its hitting on them or remarks you make about females in general, and the fact that most of them, if not all, seem vastly irritated with this blog should say something to both the authors and readers of this farce. Seems to me that the biggest offense was underestimating the strength of character and willingness to be heard of these females.And lastly, if you are trying to make an issue of female/male equality or trying to say that women are not the weaker sex, running to the bathroom to cry because things did not go your way in no way helps that argument. Neither does posting a grossly inaccurate and biased article written to make you seem like a victim.
Attendee
February 8, 2011 at 9:53 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
They were deliberately teasing men. I would say they were pricks.
steve
February 8, 2011 at 9:53 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
The point here is that someone has to do it. If want to see it happen, you should be willing to do it yourself.
Attendee
February 8, 2011 at 10:03 PM (UTC -7) Link to this comment
You are wrong. Marilyn French (“all men are rapists”) was the feminist best seller of her generation. Dworkin is not popular now but her side-kick McKinnon was one of the most successful feminists ever in the legal field and inv