The princess and the MCB »« Jen dances all night

This thing is different from the other

What is “dogmatic feminism”? It turns out it’s not dogmatic at all, it’s stating things in strong terms. Well it’s too bad that Becky called it dogmatism then, because that’s a different thing, and much more blameworthy than stating things in strong terms.

A comment on Bad analogies are bad pointed out another strange claim of Becky’s, and I belatedly got curious enough to take a look.

Becky’s claim:

In Stephanie’s post addressing our episode, you in three words reveal your tacit agreement with one of the most egregious characterizations of atheist men I’ve seen condensed into one paragraph (the 5th, if you’re following the links), bolstering an us-versus-them mentality.

The “one of the most egregious characterizations of atheist men” she’s seen in one para is in comment 91 on Stephanie’s post, by Jacqueline S Homan of godless feminist. Para 5 says:

Yet, it never ceases to amaze me how many “rational” men who are “reasonable” resort to evo psych — the last refuge of scoundrels, a load of bullshit cooked up by professional bullshit chefs — in order to justify oppressing women and keeping the atheist community a privileged white ol’ boys’ club, where the only women that are welcome are women who don’t challenge men’s use of their unearned male privilege as a cudgel to beat women down and silence us.

But I “in three words” reveal no tacit agreement with that at all – my three words have nothing to do with that paragraph. I quoted a different paragraph – the second, not the fifth, and added my three words. That’s comment 97.

When the whole Elevatorgate thing erupted, what really bothered me the most was not the initial incident (although that was uncool), but the vicious misogyny and the threats of sexualized violence aimed at Rebecca Watson in response to her very reasonable request that guys not corner women in elevators. This same kind of vitriol was also hurled at Greta Christina.

And at me.

See? Nothing to do with para 5. Becky says my quoting a different paragraph and saying that the same kind of vitriol was hurled at me reveals my tacit agreement with a different paragraph. What an idiotic claim. There’s nothing else I can say about it, and I’m bored with this anyway. But really – it’s idiotic. Quoting one passage is not tacit agreement with a different passage. Pretending it is is just a silly gotcha move. That’s how flimsy her “case” is, yet they squandered two hours of talk and a blog post on it, all for the sake of gaining a bunch of ERVites hurling more vitriol at me.

 

 

Comments

  1. says

    Yeah, I remember being kind of confused about what the hell that particular complaint of theirs was about and looking at the comment and not being able to figure out what was so terrible about it and wondering if I’d gotten the citation mixed up. But then I got distracted by all the rest of the wrong and forgot about it. Seems I was right to be confused.

  2. NateHevens says

    I will say… I think that particular paragraph of Stephanie’s could’ve benefited from the word “some”… beyond that, though, she actually does have a point…

  3. LeftSidePositive says

    As for Paragraph 5, “how many” does not by any means mean “all,” and she is very clearly referring to the atheist men WHO RESORT TO EVO PSYCH, which could not, by any reasonable person be a critique of all atheist men–only those who resort to evo psych, which is an act worthy of criticism, because it’s bullshit. Again this is not “being an atheist man=scoundrel,” but rather “use bullshit arguments=scoundrel.”

    Is this really so hard?

  4. Dave Ricks says

    Of all the things Yogi Berra never really said, my favorite is, “I never said half the things I said.”

  5. says

    Wait, I don’t see anything wrong in that paragraph.
    Remember “Rileygate”, where a prominent CFI blogger (sorry, I suck at names, you know who I mean) treated us with the “women like pink because of berries” crap?
    And I have lost count of the times men told us that it’s just in their “nature” to spill their sperm as far as possible, and that of course they have to look.
    Many means just that: a large number. Not a majority, not X%. The sentence: In the wake of Elevatorgate many atheist men stood up alongside the women and many more came forward in the meantime to tell how all this educated them on women’s issues and privilege is absolutely true as well. And nobody would say that this somehow whitewashes the atheist/skeptic community of their sexism problem.

  6. says

    Nate @ 2 – it wasn’t even Stephanie, it was Jacqueline. It was a comment on the post, not the post.

    Yes, Becky is so desperate or so confused that she claimed I’m dogmatic because…I quoted a not-remotely-dogmatic para from a comment on a post of Stephanie’s that (the comment, not the post) included a different para that Becky considers way dogmatic.

    That’s it? That’s what she’s got?

    Amazing, innit.

  7. NateHevens says

    Ophelia Benson @#10:

    Sorry. Yeah, it wasn’t Stephanie.

    For the record, I only said that the para would’ve done well with the word “some” because of people like Becky and them. If you don’t specify a specific amount, they will scream “whitewash”. I believe the phrase is “scraping the bottom of the barrel” or something like that… sometimes it’s good to make sure that even the bottom of the barrel is spick-and-span. Although, I mainly like that because I get a weird satisfaction in seeing people flounder like a fish out of water when they realize there’s nothing to scrape…

    :D

  8. ckitching says

    “Dogmatic feminism”? I think that’s the same thing as “Fundamentalist atheist”. In other words, someone who fails to pay the proper deference.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>