Though FTB has been the center of much of the controversy over feminism and atheism that has taken place over the last year and a half, I have generally chosen to be Switzerland. I find the stridently anti-FTB crowd to generally range from the ridiculous to the odious, but for the most part I’ve stayed out of the fights. This video from former FTBer Al Stefanelli, unfortunately, prompts me to do more than dip my toes in the water. It’s time to take the plunge.
It seems that, according to Al, I have unwittingly launched an “atheist cult” of “radical extremists” who are “giving a bad name” to “real feminists.” PZ, Jen, Ophelia, Stephanie, Rebecca and others, Al says, “appear to have an incredibly unhealthy vendetta against men in general, and as it appears, the entire Caucasian race as well.” This is not a straw man, it’s an entire straw universe, a bizarro world remarkably similar to the one inhabited by the religious right, where any challenge to their privilege is terrible persecution from “feminazis” and other unsavory types.
While listening to this, it seemed rather familiar. I’d heard such rhetoric many times and I’m sure you have too. But it probably came from Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson or some other religious righter that Al no doubt considers to be a neanderthal. When they say those things, we point and laugh with derision. When they claim that those evil liberal social justice activists really just hate white people, we know that they are completely, incontrovertibly, undeniably full of shit. What exactly is the difference between their positions and Al’s position here? None that I can see. It’s the same tired and, frankly, idiotic claim that those who fight against white male privilege must hate white males and seek to do them harm.
And can we stop all this nonsense about “radical feminism”? There really is such a thing and it is embodied by folks like Andrea Dworkin, second wave feminists who are anti-sex, anti-porn, anti-prostitution. Does that really accurately describe pro-sex feminists like Ophelia, Stephanie, Jen, Greta and Rebecca? If you really think that Rebecca Watson or any of the others he names hates men, you cannot possibly have met them.
While we’re at it, can we also stop with the constant and moronic references to witch burnings and inquisitions? Michael Shermer is not a poor persecuted soul being chased by villagers with torches and pitchforks, he’s a guy who said something very sexist and stupid and is being criticized for it. He had an opportunity to say, “Yeah, that was really dumb and sexist. I’d like to apologize for that and work with others to see if we can come up with a solution to make secular communities more inclusive and welcoming to women.” He chose instead to double down on the problem and make it considerably worse. We laugh when the religious right adopts the persecution pose; it’s no less ridiculous when done by one of our own.
Most disturbing to me was when he addressed me specifically:
I feel really bad for Ed Brayton. He’s actually a really decent guy and someone I’ve known for a while. He’s put an incredible amount of effort, time and personal expense into creating and developing Freethought Blogs. It’s gotta be incredibly frustrating to him to see his baby at the center of all this controversy.
I suppose I could be happy that he singled me out for praise, but I’m not. In fact, this mostly pissed me off. I feel like I’m being used as a prop in his morality play and I have no desire whatsoever to be called one of the good guys if others that I care about and mostly agree with are being portrayed as the bad guys. So let me make a few things as clear as I can possibly make them here.
Do I sometimes wish that FTB wasn’t ground zero for quite so much drama and controversy? Sure. Do I occasionally wish that others would have handled a particular situation with a bit more nuance? Sure. But some fights are worth having, are necessary to have, and the fact that it’s going to piss some people off doesn’t much matter to me. And if the best our enemies have to offer is a ridiculous caricature like the one offered by Al in this video, you will find me on the other side of that fence every single time.
When I first approached PZ about joining me in forming FTB, we immediately agreed on one thing — we wanted to make sure it wasn’t just another place for middle aged (in my case) or old (in his case) white guys to talk about atheism. That isn’t because we hate white men; after all, we are white men. It’s because our own experiences are limited and we believe that the secular community and society in general benefits from hearing other voices. Providing a forum for more diverse voices to speak out is incontrovertibly a good thing and it is something I remain absolutely committed to doing.
Sometimes I like peace and quiet. Sometimes I’d like to see the drama subside. But if the battle is against this monumentally stupid notion that feminists hate straight white men, and it appears that it largely is, consider the battle joined. I’m not disappointed that FTB is often the scene of controversy; I am disappointed that we still have leaders in the atheist community pushing the same twisted vision of feminists favored by the Pat Robertsons of the world.
840 comments
2 pings
Skip to comment form ↓
parkjames
December 27, 2012 at 12:47 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thanks Ed, for standing up for what’s right. I’m a white man too. The idea that asking white men to acknowledge their privilege is some kind of hate crime is insanity. It’s the same shit that the other side uses all the time. Again, amen brother.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞
December 27, 2012 at 12:48 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed:
Thanks for this. I agree completely with you.
While I have many questions for the anti FtB crowd (some are lingering for over a year), I am curious at this point to know how they define feminism. I also want to know how they differentiate between feminism and radical feminism.
(I wonder how long before some people complain about you weighing in on this. “Waaaah, don’t mix my atheism with social justice.” Or “waaah, keep feminism away from politics” (as if either is possible or desirable)
hexidecima
December 27, 2012 at 12:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
oh, I saw this video today (well, I saw the youtube box for it since it wasn’t worth the time to watch) Is this the person who is so sure he’s an “equalist” on “myatheistlife”? That’s hilarious. From what I’ve seen from that person, I think he’s a little confused with what equalist might mean. From his actions, it should mean: someone who wants to imagine they are so very concerned with equality, but when someone says that they do not feel equal yet, throws a tantrum about how they “should” and how their demands for equality tromp on the equalist’s rights.
Nope, it doesn’t make much sense. Take this as an example of how atheism doesn’t make one any better than anyone else.
mouse
December 27, 2012 at 1:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
While I find all this drama frustrating, I agree that it is important (if thankless) work to address harassment and bullying head on. I keep seing commenters saying things along the lines of “this is dirty family laundry, clear it up in private.” Fine if that’s what those personally involved prefer, but I completely disagree that it’s “just” dirty family laundry. From my perspective it looks like an aggressive and long-term campaign by a particular faction of atheists to try to silence perfectly reasonable and progressive views, which I share and want to see more widely. The hateful reaction to the A+ idea has been seriously demoralizing. And when the same stupid themes are echoed by the likes of Shermer and Dawkins, I wonder what on earth has gone wrong in this movement. I don’t want the hateful faction representing the face of atheism. They cannot be allowed to succeed.
jthompson
December 27, 2012 at 1:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Tony: The same way people tell who’s a new Atheist or not. The difference largely appears to be an unwillingness to remain silent.
Jasper of Maine (I feel safe and welcome at FTB)
December 27, 2012 at 1:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’d love to see a few examples of a “true/real feminist”. As far as I can tell, if any woman, anywhere, in any context, starts talking about equality issues, hellfire starts raining down on her.
I’d love to see a citation from these people of a self-described feminist where that doesn’t happen.
redcrosse
December 27, 2012 at 1:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I read Ed’s blog daily and have for years, but years ago I stopped going to Pharyngula because of the “radical feminists” there. It’s not that I disagree with their goals or views, it’s that I’m not ideologically pure enough for them. Pharyngula and some other blogs at FTB seemed to have turned into echo chambers, and quite mean ones at that.
I understand that politeness and civility are not virtues at Pharyngula and that’s a main reason I don’t go. The handful of times I’ve tried to comment there with any mild criticism of something PZ said, I and many others have been attacked viciously, using the ‘argument from Bingo’ or accused of ‘tone trolling’. That just shuts down conversation. I understand the idea that people can use tone as ‘privilege’ to shut down a conversation, however the claims I’ve so often seen are that these people (Molly winners, Caine, carlie, etc.) claim they are not driving atheists away from the movement. That is patently untrue, for I am one who has been driven away and will not recommend FTB to any of my friends as a place to go and learn.
I can’t recall any of my comments that addressed feminism at all, but it seems like every time someone disagrees with the party line on anything at PZ’s place, they are attacked as being anti-feminist at best, misogynist or MRA at worst. Often these comments had *nothing* to do with feminism initially. The partisans there just turn everything to that subject, and attack, demean, belittle, and become extremely hostile.
Even PZ has been under fire, such as in the bunny picture incident. Reading that story and thread was a “WTF” moment, amongst many. So basically I’m saying, if this is what feminism is in the atheist community, I’ll not call myself feminist because I don’t want to be associated with that attitude. Yes, they’ve driven people away by endless attacks on anyone who criticizes anything, however mildly, or even asks for clarifications, anything that isn’t *exactly* in line with viewing everything in the world as primarily a fight between feminists and misogynists. They seem to view everything as huge conspiracy of the patriarchy. That reminds me more of religious extremists than self-declared rationalists. (I expect to be attacked, so I’ll probably not comment, i.e. flounce now).
For the record, I am not a commenter on any of the other “sides” either.
d.c.wilson
December 27, 2012 at 1:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Why does it seem like, for a group that eschews religion, we attract a lot of self-described martyrs?
Ophelia Benson
December 27, 2012 at 1:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thanks, Ed; love ya, mean it. No wait that can’t be right, because I have an incredibly unhealthy vendetta against men, as it appears, and in general against the entire Caucasian race as well. Al said so!
No but seriously. I positively squirmed when I heard that patronizing passage about you, as if you were being held captive by the evil radfems and just hoping Al would rescue you. Good grief.
Sorry about all the drama. I too wish it would just stop, but…they won’t.
Gregory in Seattle
December 27, 2012 at 1:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“I’m not disappointed that FTB is often the scene of controversy; I am disappointed that we still have leaders in the atheist community pushing the same twisted vision of feminists favored by the Pat Robertsons of the world.”
This, right here. Well stated.
@Tony #2 – I get the impression that such people define “feminism” as “not worrying their prettly heads about big matters and letting the menfolk handle it.” Anything else, especially if it involves discussing why this attitude is not appropriate, is “radical” and worthy of contempt.
robb
December 27, 2012 at 1:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
i liked reading Al’s blog here and was bummed to see him leave. he seems to have gone over the edge a bit though. just a bit.
redcrosse: what is the bunny picture incident? i don’t recall. i just remember crackergate.
also, do you know Redd Kross?
Ibis3, Blighter and Trampler since 1971
December 27, 2012 at 1:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@mouse
If you’re referring to my comment on Rock Beyond Belief, where I used the phrase “dirty family laundry” and suggested that “it” might be better dealt with in private, I was referring very specifically to the ongoing, very nasty dispute between Justin on the one hand and Jason and Stephanie on the other, apparently over being too chummy with harassers and threateners, not the wider conflict between feminist atheists and regressive misogynist douchebag assholes. The former seems to me to be natural allies speaking past each other and ratcheting up the vitriol unnecessarily, the latter is a battle that, I agree, we need to fight vociferously and publicly.
redcrosse
December 27, 2012 at 1:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@11. Rob, sorry never heard of Redd Kross, I’ll check it out.
Bunny incident was this:
Initial PZ post: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/24/yes-the-religion-and-science-conflict-only-cuter/
Followup PZ post: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/24/sometimes-a-bunny-is-just-a-bunny/
atheist
December 27, 2012 at 1:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thanks for writing this, Mr. Brayton. I have been frustrated that a small group of retrograde men have been able to cause such a stink in the atheist community, and I appreciate that you’ve spoken against them.
I have to say I don’t quite understand the whininess. They have the whole of society in which to be just as stupid and retrograde as they want to be. Why should the atheists be forced to accommodate them as well?
Jasper of Maine (I feel safe and welcome at FTB)
December 27, 2012 at 1:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
#7
It isn’t “feminism in the atheist community”. It’s an application. Your attitude is a bit silly. It’d be like going to a barbecue, not liking what you find at that person’s house, and then deciding to never go to a barbecue again.
What you experienced there is more about jumping into a pond of piranha. One-on-one, your experience might not have been so bad, but it’s the combination that can drive a person away. It’s not so much about the topic.
They’re also humans, and have nostrils, which reminds me of religious extremists. Let’s not construct an equivocation fallacy here. Patriarchy is a conspiracy, basically, so them addressing it shouldn’t be shocking. Some conspiracies actually do exist, you know. Did you not notice that the U.S. is mainly male-driven, with conservatives frequently trying to keep it that way?
The fact they’re addressing a systemic problem in society is not a rational basis to equivocating them to religious nuts.
olivercrangle
December 27, 2012 at 1:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed,
I have probably been an atheist since shortly before my Bar Mitzvah, about 4 decades ago. But I have never attended any organized atheist conference.
Skeptic? I have degrees in Physics, Math, Engineering, and Feynman has always been by hero.
Over the past two years though, reading of elevator gate, seeing all of the ignorance, hate, and bullying that spills out of your favorite FTB and SkepChick bloggers on a daily basis, all I can say is FTB has convinced me to have nothing to do with organized atheism.
But it’s also demonstrated how Contemporary Feminism, post ERA femnism, and Social Justice Warriors have so little in common with any sort of progressive values, so little in common with notions of free speech, respect for others, humanism, and tolerance. Feminist invasion of Skepticism resulted in Septic Feminism, here on display at Free Thought Blogs.
So if that’s been your goal, well, congratulations I guess, Free Thought Blogs has been a resounding success.
Enjoy your day.
mikelf
December 27, 2012 at 1:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
How about Harriett Hall?
She has actually, you know, been successful at something other than writing a moderately successful blog.
I would hazard to guess that Dr. Hall agrees.
Bronze Dog
December 27, 2012 at 1:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Meanwhile the bigots would rather stay in their familiar white male bubble, rather than accept the controversial notion that they might be contributing to the problem. Or that problems exist at all. Because that would mean they’d have to think and change their behavior, and they’d rather stay the course.
It took some female bloggers for me to realize I still had some blindspots to correct, and I generally found the correction to be worthwhile and more consistent with my sense of morality than the bad behaviors I did while still oblivious. The trolls unintentionally helped by exaggerating the logic behind common courtesy to be a labyrinthine maze of red tape and criticism for persecution. I’ve seen fundies practice the same absurdities and criticized them for it, so why should I accept the same from someone who claims to be on my side?
Didn’t help that in the rape- and harassment-related threads, there were a lot of assburgers out there. I’ve got an actual Asperger’s diagnosis, and I know I’m socially awkward, which is why I favor asking permission beforehand instead of demanding that I be entitled for forgiveness after the fact. It’s about informed consent, a foundational concept behind ethics. I know that bullies, rapists, demagogues, trolls, and so forth love to feign ignorance of social conventions. I certainly know about bullies who disregard such conventions and then blame the socially awkward victim for being uncomfortable or for objecting instead of just rolling over because peer pressure and sitcom culture dictates that they participate. It’s not terribly hard for me to imagine what it might be like for a woman to object to sex and be met with a cultural opinion claiming her outfit’s alleged implied consent overrides her explicit verbal objection, complaints that she was therefore being confusing, so it’s her fault for being raped.
TCC
December 27, 2012 at 1:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
…we are officially through the rabbit hole.
Ed Brayton
December 27, 2012 at 1:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
olivercrangle wrote:
Buh bye.
brianwood
December 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Family got here in 1634 (just in time to help annihilate the Pequot). I’m male, 68, white as fish’s belly, Anglo-Saxon 100%, according to my geneologically mad second cousin, NEVER experienced any discrimination that I can remember, but I’m here to tell you, of all possible groups of people, it’s white guys like me I distrust most. You go, girls!! When 50% of every powerful committee or other body of people is women, your job will be partially done.
Anthony K
December 27, 2012 at 2:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You’re all over the map, redcrosse.
When you disagree with PZ, you’re under fire from the Echo Chamber. But then, even PZ has been under fire, which is more evidence for the Echo Chamber, somehow.
aaronbaker
December 27, 2012 at 2:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Mixed feelings here. I thought the elevator guy’s behavior was reprehensible, because it caused a woman to fear, entirely reasonably, for her safety. Concluding, however, that he must have been a misogynist struck me then, and strikes me now, as mindreading–not an activity that should recommend itself to skeptics. Given my own experience, though, I can’t recommend sharing that insight with the licensed trolls at Pharyngula.
atheist
December 27, 2012 at 2:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@olivercrangle – December 27, 2012 at 1:49 pm (UTC -5)
Probably a good thing. If a couple of women talking about being harassed on blogs is enough to keep you away from atheism, what would you do against a well-funded, culturally entrenched and paranoid movement of right wing churches? You’re probably better off staying out of any controversy.
Gretchen
December 27, 2012 at 2:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed said:
I see it more as Shermer having said a couple of things that are mildly sexist, and having been rhetorically bludgeoned for it. Nobody seems to be immune to the impulse to double down when they perceive themselves as being attacked– nobody. Maybe instead of jumping all over someone for accidentally saying something offensive and then being surprised when they respond with recalcitrance, it would be better to take a different tack. Maybe being properly feminist when someone else isn’t doesn’t automatically mean you win and they’re the bad guy. Maybe being in the right doesn’t mean the way you’re doing it is right.
This is the first I heard that Al is leaving– that’s unfortunate. And I can’t watch the video right now. But from what you describe, it’s just all…..well, depressing.
Aratina Cage
December 27, 2012 at 2:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I have heard that Al also says in that video that we are giving the LGBT community a bad name here at FTB. I don’t get how a straight man like Al thinks he has any ground to stand on in critiquing LGBT people who read and blog on FTB. We don’t really need yet another straight man thinking he knows what is best for LGBT people.
It’s all very sad in the end because you have built a great blog network here, Ed, despite the grudges some ex-FTBers hold.
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 2:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
My only problem is the nature of the commentary – not the blog itself. The tribalism displayed down here is disgraceful.
The treatment that anyone who isn’t a feminist encounters down here is beyond reprehensible. I’d venture to guess that you miss out on a lot of quality commentary simply for the fact that no one who isn’t a feminist would tolerate the treatment they receive for deigning to suggest alternate views.
The blog itself, however, is interesting and informative. At least, it normally is (I could do without all the WND posts – going on and on about the WND being a shitty tabloid is about as interesting as going on and on about Psy being a shitty pop artist).
But you take a guy like me who is VERY interested in church-state issues, VERY interested in advancing the cause of reason over faith, VERY intersted in civil rights issues and VERY vocal about the reform of domestic policy such as prohibition, tax-exemption for churches, and anti-science initiatives… and I get run out of town because I simply don’t agree that I’m part of some privleged demographic.
I don’t expect the commenters to change (you can’t fix stupid, you can only hand them bingo cards). But you do deserve credit for offering up a daily popourri of interesting material.
I actually began to sympathize with the feminist cause… until I tried conversing about it here in the comments section a while back. Won’t happen again.
Jasper of Maine (I feel safe and welcome at FTB)
December 27, 2012 at 2:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m not going to hold my breath in hearing any specifics from you about this – such as examples of the “ignorance, hate and bullying”. I could buy hatred, as wouldn’t put it past people who actually are bullied to be a bit hateful. That’d be normal.
I swear people like you come from a parallel universe where everything is the opposite from this one. Now, those people are disgusted with me, but I have to say that what you’re saying doesn’t appear to match with reality as I’ve observed it.
What I see is the same basic functional criticism and discourse that they apply to religious/anti-science nuts.
Again, a curious statement that appears to have little to do with reality. Let’s acronym your list from above – CFERAFSJW.
Progressives values are for equality. CFERAFSJW are for equality.
Progressive values are for free speech (note, not necessarily freedom from criticism). So are the CFERAFSJW. Can you cite any examples where they were trying to shut up others? There’s plenty of examples from the other direction. What I see are examples with like Shermer, where there’s criticism. Criticism isn’t censorship, and it’s not a stifling of free speech. Just so you know, free speech is a question of societal/governmental censorship. Now matter how hard I try, I can’t violate your free speech rights as an individual.
CFERAFSJW are fighting for respect. Sometimes you have to hash things out first. However, progressive values don’t say that one must respect racism or sexism.
CFERAFSJW are fairly compatible with humanism. Are you thinking of a version of humanism where fighting for women’s equality is not compatible? Do you have any kind of example of specifics about what the problem is here?
Tolerance? There’s good tolerance and bad tolerance. Progressive values are constantly correctly intolerant of incorrect intolerance. This is normal. They weren’t tolerant of racism or women’s suffrage, for instance.
So pretty much, your statements have little correlation to reality, as far as I can tell.
Okay, bye!
Jasper of Maine (I feel safe and welcome at FTB)
December 27, 2012 at 2:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The treatment that anyone who is racist encounters “down here” is correct, likewise, for those who aren’t for women’s equal rights. I wouldn’t expect respectful dialogue with a person who is racist. I’m sorry you have a problem with that.
If you aren’t a feminist, you’re an asshat, just like if you’re racist. This should be a ubiquitous environment anywhere the person goes – if the world was moral and just.
shouldbeworking
December 27, 2012 at 2:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So Ed and PZ are the people my mom always warned me about! Too late mom, I’m trapped in the Cult of the Cephalopod.
Gretchen
December 27, 2012 at 2:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
kacyray said:
You know that saying– if you want to know why every relationship you’ve had has failed, look to the common denominator?
Jasper of Maine (I feel safe and welcome at FTB)
December 27, 2012 at 2:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m assuming you’re male. If you acknowledge that women tend to be sexually objectified more than men, such that women tend to be valued more for their looks than their intellectual capacities, then you’ve also acknowledged that men don’t have to deal with that shit. That’s an example of privilege. I’m privileged in that, because I’m male, I’m more likely to be taken seriously intellectually. That’s just one example from that particular privilege class.
Seriously, this isn’t complicated. I have no doubt this has been explained to you multiple times.
… the irony of this coming from someone who can’t grasp such a simple concept as privilege, which is so overwhelmingly evidenced in society that denial of it would put evolution-denial to shame.
davidmc
December 27, 2012 at 2:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
FTB rocks. Hope you’re feeling better Ed. I see there’s some right ones in tonight.
Al Stefanelli
December 27, 2012 at 2:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No, Ed. I don’t think you’ve launched an atheist cult. I stand by my comments that I made to you when FtB first started out. I think the concept of FtB was fucking brilliant, and you’ve got many shining stars on your network – bloggers I still read every day. Don’t forget, I know the amount of effort and energy you’ve put into this place, and it saddens me that a few are costing you readers.
When I left FtB all I asked was to be left alone, and I would do the same. I was perfectly content with moving on with my old blog, making the occasional video and writing news stories. That ended when three or four of your bloggers here decided it would be a good idea to start fucking with me, which I even let go for a while, figuring it would pass.
But no, they couldn’t leave well enough alone. Particularly PZ, with his oh-so-happy farewell video he posted on his blog, followed by further attacks on me for the simple reason that I was friends with people they did not like.
Some of your people here continue to engage in childish behavior, which includes the utterly ridiculous notion that I am a racist, homophobe, rape apologist or whatever, I will be compelled to defend my spotless record of civil rights activism.
It appears the only ‘crime’ I committed was to disagree, and to write about it on your network. I did not ask for this, nor did I instigate it.
Ophelia Benson
December 27, 2012 at 2:39 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Let’s figure this out. Rhetorically bludgeoned? I don’t really think so. Sharply criticized, yes, but more than that, I don’t think so. It was only a small part of my column, after all; the larger subject was sexists stereotypes and what they may have to do with the apparent shortage of women in organized atheism.
By the same token, I don’t agree that I jumped all over Shermer (and I never said it was because what he said was “offensive” – that wasn’t my point). And he didn’t respond with “recalcitrance” – he did a good deal more rhetorical bludgeoning than I did.
Sure, I can understand his not liking my criticism. I wouldn’t have been at all surprised by a sharp retort. His long article on eSkeptic was more than a sharp retort.
Marcus Ranum
December 27, 2012 at 2:39 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If it’s a cult, where’s my kool-ade, Ed?
These tensions are a sign of growth and dynamism in the atheist community. It’s a good thing. There are going to be a few folks who choose to step off the bandwagon and, well, whatever.
Marcus Ranum
December 27, 2012 at 2:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Rhetorically bludgeoned?
I thought Shermer likes that. He seems to dish it out handily enough. Why isn’t the crocodile-chorus shedding their tears for Michael’s past “victims”?
John Pieret
December 27, 2012 at 2:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I have unwittingly launched an “atheist cult”
Well, I hope you are getting paid as well as most American cult leaders.
Maureen Brian
December 27, 2012 at 2:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well said, Ed!
And thanks for that, Bronze Dog.
hexidecima
December 27, 2012 at 2:47 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
ummm,for all of the people who seem to hate FTB, they are on here enough to see this one post and comment on it? Methinks they doth protest too much.
and someone thinks FTB is *organized* atheism? mmm-hmmm.
can I ask again for a definition of feminism from those who are so very scared of it?
atheist
December 27, 2012 at 2:48 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Marcus Ranum – December 27, 2012 at 2:39 pm (UTC -5)
But those people who stepped off, they wanted to help us with church-state issues, man. They were gonna work with us through thick and thin! It was gonna be legendary! But no, we had to agree with Ophelia Benson that one time, and they just couldn’t take that.
Ophelia Benson
December 27, 2012 at 2:48 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Al. That’s not what happened. I didn’t “decide to fuck with you” – and I didn’t know that you had asked to be left alone or said that you would do the same.
I did a post about you right after you left because you did that podcast with paden that was all about how it’s fine to call Stephanie Zvan a fucking bitch because hey, she is one. I don’t call that leaving us alone.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/10/metamorphoses-2/
Bronze Dog
December 27, 2012 at 2:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
On the topic of “ideological purity”:
If someone makes a mistake or does something that can be interpreted as a mistake, and gets criticized for it, leading to some combination of correction, apology, and/or explanation, that’s not exactly being bound to ideological purity. That’s an expected outcome of having standards and principles and wanting imperfect, mistake-prone humans to live up to them. Rational, ethical people have standards and will put effort into applying them consistently, but will still make mistakes and need correction.
Ironically, I think the drive for ideological purity is born of having an internally inconsistent ideology and a desire to silence criticism of those inconsistencies. To an ideologue, suggesting improvement by correcting inconsistencies is blasphemous because any call for deviation suggests the ideology is wrong or incomplete in some way. The anti-feminist atheists seem more interested in that sort of ideological purity from what I’ve seen: They don’t want atheists to discuss the blasphemous topic. They call for silence on the issue, because pointing out our problems disrupts the perfect harmony of the echo chamber and takes people off the task of patting themselves on the back and feeling superior because they don’t believe in gods. They don’t want atheists asking “who are we?” because such questions might break up the mindless tribalism. They want to sweep issues under the rug because they’re uncomfortable with questioning their stances. They also don’t want to be cut off from the opportunity to associate with atheists who’ve decided they don’t want to associate with them.
We want people to be rational about more things than just the non-existence of gods, so we’re the troublemakers for disrupting their desired status quo of a uniformly homogenous front. We don’t want to settle for being just a little bit more ethical than fundies. We don’t want to rest on our laurels, we want to challenge ourselves to be more consistent in our logic and ethics. We want problems exposed so that we can find resolutions for them, even if that means changing misconceptions instead of enshrining them. We want our ideology to be alive, self-evaluating, and adaptive, not fixed and “pure.” We want atheism to be more like hard science and less like easy dogma.
Ed Brayton
December 27, 2012 at 2:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Al —
Sorry, I’m not buying this “all I wanted was to be left alone” nonsense. Within a couple hours of telling me you were leaving the network, you posted a podcast with Reap Paden defending his disgusting rant the week before, where he was literally yelling “CUNT” at Ophelia Benson, Stephanie Zvan and others into a microphone. You made a bunch of really bad arguments — “well they obviously never listened to you or they’d know this is just how you are,” as if that was a defense of anything at all. If you’re going to defend that kind of behavior, you aren’t just asking to be left alone you are joining in the torrent of hatred and misogyny — and yes, that is exactly what it is — thrown at those people. That they would see fit to answer you and criticize you is neither unexpected nor unjustified.
And I don’t see how any of that justifies this unbelievable claim you make that the people you named just hate white men. Seriously, that is exactly the same claim made by the very religious right whackos that you routinely savage. So why are you echoing them? Because people dared to criticize you for defending a sexist pig like Reap Paden? Seriously? You think this is a coherent and reasonable response?
Marcus Ranum
December 27, 2012 at 2:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
My only problem is the nature of the commentary – not the blog itself. The tribalism displayed down here is disgraceful.
I watch youtube videos, especially when I’ve had a bit too much wine, and I’m generally dismayed by the level of the commentariat. So I stopped reading them. Wow! Problem solved! Because otherwise, I’d be feeling like Miss Manners, storming in and wagging my finger uselessly at thousands of people who don’t know how to use apostrophes correctly in English, or who don’t realize that Jimmy Page is the greatest guitar player, ever, and so on and so forth. I’d be spiking my blood pressure and getting absolutely nothing out of it.
So, you can just watch FTB do its thing and – so what – succeed or fail like scienceblogs did, and who cares? After all, it’s none of your business; it’s not your website, it’s not your problem – you have the choice of being a tone-troll or a gender-neutral-Manners if you want. Or not.
Don’t choose to care and then complain because you care.
Gretchen
December 27, 2012 at 2:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There are good replies to the criticisms, but “If you hate it so much, why are you here?” is not one. People don’t only come in Fawning, Devoted Reader or Spittle-Flecked Hater.
One of the best things about the comments for this particular blog is the (general) recognition of that.
Marcus Ranum
December 27, 2012 at 2:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Bronze Dog – Well said!
Marcus Ranum
December 27, 2012 at 2:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“If you hate it so much, why are you here?” is not one.
But “if you hate it so much, what is it that you hate, and why?” is pretty good. It’s certainly a very illuminating question when it gets asked – if the other person honestly tries to answer it.
atheist
December 27, 2012 at 2:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
But the question really goes deeper than that. Not only, why do they still come here, but why do they expect that the fact that they supposedly no longer want to come here is an argument for anything? Are they really so valuable that we have to feel bad about them wanting to go? Or are blogs a social space where arguments are more important than personalities? I would hope it is the latter.
Alverant
December 27, 2012 at 2:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thanks Ed. Just because you don’t cover a topic it doesn’t mean you don’t care about it. It would be boring if every blogger here posted about the same story. Commeradde talks about race issues. No Country posts a lot about Islam. RBB is about military issues. And so on. I care about those things as well, but I don’t make it a primary focus.
The problem is that there seems to be an “all or none” attitude on FTB. If you’re only 75% dedicated to a topic it’s like you’re against it. I once asked a question on how a man was suppose to prove they were innocent of rape. I made no implication at how often they were innocent, I only pointed out that it could happen. The context of the thread assumed that being accused of something automatically meant being guilty. The possiblity of a false accusastion was an alien concept to many. And I paid for asking the question by a series of commenters swearing at me and no one not really answering my question. It was all “How dare you imply that a woman could be wrong or lie.” I stopped commenting on women’s issues after that. I still support women’s issues, but now I know better than to raise questions about it.
Marcus Ranum
December 27, 2012 at 2:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think the drive for ideological purity is born of having an internally inconsistent ideology and a desire to silence criticism of those inconsistencies.
In other words, it’s an authoritarian response to a rational question. Rationalists recognize that authoritarian responses are weak compared to a rational argument and generally assume that when someone reaches for authority, they’re ceding the battlefield of ideas.
That’s why I get annoyed when I hear people accusing others of trying to enforce ideological purity or intellectual conformity. Especially if the forums where they are (supposedly) enforcing that “conformity” are a brawl-pit of ideas and those that are “enforcing conformity” are doing it with questions like “specifically, what about gender equality is it that you’re opposed to and why?” Ooo, the conformity!
Maureen Brian
December 27, 2012 at 3:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I like the Uniformly Homogenous Front – Bronze Dog @ 43 – and feel a Monty Python coming on.
jose
December 27, 2012 at 3:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Andrea Dworkin was not anti-sex, radical feminists are not anti-sex, the second wave was not anti-sex.
mouse
December 27, 2012 at 3:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ibis – fair enough. I shouldn’t have conflated your comment (which I thought made a good suggestion) with others calling for folks to just “bury the hatchet” and get back to talking about fundamentalists.
raven
December 27, 2012 at 3:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Good.
Now if you could just find an ugly xian cult to join, you would do even more to help the atheist community,.
Try the JW’s or Momons. They are always looking for new members.
Ed Brayton
December 27, 2012 at 3:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I tend to bristle at the idea of judging a blog by its comment section. As Jamie Kilstein said a few months ago, the comment section at PZ’s blog is the 7th circle of hell. The one here is often scarcely better. Even I cringe at what is clearly — yes — tribalism that goes on in the comments section. It’s just the nature of the beast and it’s happened to me on both ends. A quick story:
A few years ago I criticized Richard Dawkins for signing a petition that would make it illegal for parents to teach their kids about religion. The comment section was descended upon by hundreds of his acolytes, saving me up one side and down the other. I was misinterpreting the petition, they said, and how dare I criticize someone who had done so much for atheism when I was just a lowly blogger, and so forth. After a while Dawkins himself showed up and said I was right, that he hadn’t read the petition closely enough, that he did not favor such a law and he’d asked them to remove his name from the petition. Even after that, many of his followers continued to excoriate me.
I’ve had the same thing happen here on the other side, where someone has shown up in the comments and criticized something I wrote. They were hammered like mad by many of my readers and I had to jump in and say, “Wait a minute, he’s actually got a point.” That makes me even more uncomfortable than being on the receiving end of it. We are all prone to tribalism and to shallow thinking, including those who regard ourselves as skeptics who are above that sort of thing.
atheist
December 27, 2012 at 3:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ Alverant – December 27, 2012 at 2:58 pm (UTC -5)
I actually do understand what you mean. I’ve hung around a lot of feminist blogs and sometimes feel that they are just mad at men. I think, to respond to your point, that it would be good if folks were more understanding. But honestly, I can understand why they aren’t. I try to have a thick online skin and not take things too personally. I think that’s the best you can do.
Marcus Ranum
December 27, 2012 at 3:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If you’re only 75% dedicated to a topic it’s like you’re against it.
Personally I’m against tone-trolling, no matter how carefully couched it is. What about you?
Do you think tone-trolling is something you need to be 100% against, or do you only think tone-trolling is appropriate when it’s you that’s doing it? I’m just asking, in a trollish kind of voice.
atheist
December 27, 2012 at 3:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You need to be 98.76% against tone trolling. I mean, to be exact.
Ed Brayton
December 27, 2012 at 3:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Alverant wrote:
That isn’t on FTB, it’s pretty much human nature. It’s something we should all try to guard against and that is one of the things that I often find bothersome. There’s too much yelling at each other from opposite sides of the fence rather than reasonable discussion. I’d like to see a lot less of that from everyone, including myself (I am hardly immune to such behavior). But if the only answer to that is “you all just hate white men,” we’ve crossed over into la la land in a big way.
Nepenthe
December 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m glad I read through the comments, because now I can just say “What jose said”.
redcrosse
December 27, 2012 at 3:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed, Even I cringe at what is clearly — yes — tribalism that goes on in the comments section. It’s just the nature of the beast and it’s happened to me on both ends.
That was my point about PZ’s blog. Tribalism (or what looks to me like ideological purity tests) is rampant in his commentariat. It hits those of us who comment about things in a way that doesn’t reference feminism, yet get dragged into it. And it happened to PZ himself when he made a post that was viewed as reinforcing sexism. Then he replied that “Not everything is about this issue”… and was savaged again.
I see a lot of “I’m not a feminist” commenters here being told GFTO “buh bye”. None of them said they aren’t for equal rights, or whatever some others ‘assume’ their definitions of feminism are.
Basically, do you all really want to run off people like kacyray?
Ed Brayton
December 27, 2012 at 3:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
redcrosse–
Having seen Kacy Ray’s behavior in the comment section here for a long time, the answer is that I wouldn’t mind running him off at all. He’s not really a good example of that.
redcrosse
December 27, 2012 at 3:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ok, no problem. I only know from what I’ve read in this thread alone.
Al Stefanelli
December 27, 2012 at 3:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You are wrong, Ophelia. I defended Stephanie, while not attempting to censor someone else’s opinion. I stated on the podcast that I did not consider Stephanie a bitch, and that she had always been very pleasant to me. In fact, I did that on multiple occasions. You then decided to respond to something I wrote that didn’t even concern you with “Fuck You, Al.” Believe what you want, but the facts show otherwise.
That podcast was recorded the previous Tuesday, prior to anything that was blogged about here. It was no secret that I had been co-hosting ReapSowRadio for almost four years. It was on my FtB bio, my website, my social network profiles, etc. Reap is his own man, a good friend of mine and he’s entitled to his opinions and commentary. You might think he’s a sexist pig, I know differently. That has not changed since I started doing his show back in 2009.
We obviously do not agree on what constitutes misogyny, hatred, etc., and I am not here to argue those points with you or anyone else. Suffice to say, it’s the same ‘guilt by association’ that I have commented on so many times over the past seven or eight years.
This is your house, and personally I have no quarrel with you – in spite of the fact that you have one with me. I think you’re basically a decent guy whose having to deal with shit that you’d rather just go away. Either way, I stand by my commentary, as you undoubtedly do yours. I am not going to continue commenting on this post, as I do not want this to devolve into what it likely will.
Greta Christina
December 27, 2012 at 3:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
How would you respond if someone said, “The treatment that anyone who’s a racist encounters down here is beyond reprehensible”? Or, “The treatment that anyone who’s a homophobe encounters down here is beyond reprehensible”?
Have you considered the possibility that you’re treated the way you are because not being a feminist is reprehensible?
Translation: “You take a guy like me who is VERY interested in the old traditional concerns of organized atheism… and I get strongly criticized when I dismiss the concerns of a huge demographic that traditional organized atheism has largely ignored, when I act in ways that this demographic finds demeaning and alienating, and when I refuse to consider the possibility that my behavior might be a problem.”
Reginald Selkirk
December 27, 2012 at 3:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A cult? Who would say such a thing? Why, Ed Brayton is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.
atheist
December 27, 2012 at 3:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s not that the commentariat wants to “run off” anyone. It’s just that you can only take so much of the manipulative tactic, “Your focus on X makes it impossible for me to stay. Renounce topic X or I shall leave!”
You can only take so much of that tactic before you start to get bored with it, and suggest to those folks that if they are really so angry about “topic X” – feminism, or whatever it is – that they should go ahead and leave. Manipulative tactics are annoying in conversation, and a clever commentariat like the one we have here doesn’t take long to catch onto them.
Alverant
December 27, 2012 at 3:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
#58 Since tone cannot be accurately conveyed in text (and misunderstood in speech) and subject to interpertations, I try to be open about tone-trolling and give people the benefit of the doubt.
bridgetgaudette
December 27, 2012 at 3:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Do I sometimes wish that FTB wasn’t ground zero for quite so much drama and controversy? Sure. Do I occasionally wish that others would have handled a particular situation with a bit more nuance? Sure. But some fights are worth having, are necessary to have, and the fact that it’s going to piss some people off doesn’t much matter to me.”
Just because I don’t believe in a particular style of fighting DOES NOT mean that I don’t think there is a fight to be had. Ed, in a conversation we had a couple weeks ago when I stated that I don’t understand the snarky and/or angry tone of some blogs, you made the same comment as above, something along the lines of “well I don’t mind it because the cause is something I believe in”. This stopped me in my tracks. I believe in equality, too! So, allow me to restate: Just because I choose to fight the good fight differently DOES NOT mean I don’t think there is a fight to be had. I am a feminist. I believe that women should have a voice in the matters that they want to have a voice in. I believe White male privilege exists. Having spoken with Al at length, I know that he feels the same. The issue here is style. Some choose a more “radical” way to express their feminism than others. For those of us who choose to “fight” differently, please don’t think we don’t acknowledge that there *is* a fight to be had.
http://www.emilyhasbooks.com/starting-point-diversity/
atheist
December 27, 2012 at 3:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
But it could have been so beautiful, we would have been like bosom buddies – us and kacyray – if only those meddling
feministskids hadn’t ruined everything!kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 3:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed,
Noted, and for the record I’ve made a conscious decision not to do exactly that. You entire comment is well-taken (interesting story about Dawkins… I was encouraged by the way it resolved) and hopefully there are plenty more who, like me, enjoy the benefits of the good (blog) and ignore the bad.(comments).
redcrosse @ 62
One of the things that has pretty much permanently put me off about feminism is the fact that the term “misogynist” has been curiously appropriated by the feminist culture for it’s own exclusive use. I use the word “misogynist” to describe people who have a deep-seated contempt for women. Feminists use the term “misogynist” to describe people for whom feminists have a deep-seated contempt.
Ed’s acknowledgement and (tacit) repudiation of the tribalism the exists in the comment section has won my loyalty as a reader (if not a commenter) of this blog for as long as it’s around, for what it’s worth.
Anthony K
December 27, 2012 at 3:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Believe what you want, but the facts show otherwise.
And Al, did you ever come clean on who exactly asked you to apologise for being white and having a penis?
atheist
December 27, 2012 at 3:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Why do I get the feeling that, before long, you will prove the feminists right beyond any reasonable doubt?
myuido
December 27, 2012 at 3:39 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So that’ll be about 99% of the human race, reprehensible.
Ace of Sevens
December 27, 2012 at 3:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Plenty of us in the comments have jumped to conclusions at times, me worse than most. The bloggers have engaged in this a tiem or two as well. This is something that happens with pretty much any blogger who writes about an emotionally-charged issue, though. It’s an effect of the immediacy of publishing. It’s liek dealign with peopel IRL: You have to take in account whether people double down when demonstrably wrong and how often they do this.
MissMarnie
December 27, 2012 at 3:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I am continually dumbfounded by the cult/witch hunt claims from people who reject feminism. We’re all supposed to be skeptics here, and open to rational and open debate on sensitive subjects. It is not a witch hunt to tell someone they are wrong, nor that they have made an unsound argument. It is not a witch hunt to ask people not to do something that makes you uncomfortable. It is not the formation of a cult for other people to support those endeavors. Michael Shermer is welcome to believe that women are less capable or inclined towards atheism and skepticism and we are all welcome to say that’s nonsense. That’s not a witch hunt,that is normal discourse.
On the other hand, I don’t see (and if it’s happening, I don’t support it) people who back Ophelia’s arguments, stalking Shermer, threatening him, hounding him, making fake social networking accounts for him or otherwise attempting to make his life miserable. Yet a not-insignificant number of the people who are siding with Shermer are doing just that to Ophelia and Rebecca and Stephanie and others. They treat fellow skeptics with more contempt than they do creationists or anti-vaxxers or faith healers.
Disagreements happen and we don’t have to like it, but what is driving a wedge in the community is not disagreement on feminism, it’s aggressive and invasive harassment that is goaded on by others in the community. If you cannot disagree without harassing someone, you are doing it wrong.
Gretchen
December 27, 2012 at 3:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
myuido said:
I know there are some anti-feminist women out there, just like there are other members of minorities who are prejudiced against their own groups. But to assert that the vast majority of the population is bigoted against women is beyond absurd. And yes, that is what you are asserting.
atheist said:
Oh, kacyray has already done that in spades. He’s one of those people who can’t distinguish between “They have contempt for me” and “They have contempt for men.” It’s some kind of projection– because he can’t be bothered to differentiate between individuals and groups, he assumes no one else can either.
kbonn
December 27, 2012 at 3:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ Ed #56
“I tend to bristle at the idea of judging a blog by its comment section.”
I would agree with that on an unmoderated blog/forum, or one with basic rules that apply to all posters
equally.
However, for an example, that is not what PZ’s section is. Certain opinions or positions are not allowed.
Worse, how much of an asshole you are allowed to be, it completely reliant on which side you are perceived to be on, or how long you’ve been part of that “side”.
It is the just war fallacy, “Oh person X is on the right side, so any tactic they use to take down/discredit people viewed as enemies is A-OK.” Which just leads to the following. “Whatever tactic person Y uses(who is an ‘enemy’), is harrassment, overly harsh, racist, sexist, etc…” REGARDLESS if it actually is, why? Well, because person Y said/did it. THIS is what has to stop.
Letting people who are on your ‘side’ run wild in your blog comments against people who might have very minor critisisms or disagreements with a post does reflect very negatively on the blog author if they censor others.
It’s like this latest issue with Greg and Justin. Greg’s pal’s are defending his behavior BECAUSE he was doing it to a person who is an enemy of their’s. It doesn’t matter if this person is an asshole or not, Greg’s behavior is unacceptable. I am sure you agree. But the mentality that its ok to employ any tactic against an enemy regardless of it morality or legality, doesn’t solve anything, it just results it shit flinging.
atheist
December 27, 2012 at 3:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ MissMarnie – December 27, 2012 at 3:46 pm (UTC -5)
This, to me, is the crux of the matter.
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 3:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Greta @66
You’re equivocating positive positions (racist/homophobe) with the absence of a position (not a feminist). But this is not a surprise… part of the feminist repertoire is to paint anyone who doesn’t agree with feminist ideology as taking an active anti-woman position. I say I’m against feminism – you say I’m against women. And it’s because you are convinced that feminism is a pro-woman position. I disagree.
But you won’t acknowledge that a disagreement can even exist, will you? To a dyed-in-the-wool feminist, there are only two kinds of people: Feminists and misogynists. If you ain’t one, you’re clearly the other, right?
I actually don’t see organized atheism as a useful construct. I agree with Sam Harris that atheism is the wrong banner for people to unite under, and I already had a very long conversation with Carrier about this. You may notice in my comment @27 that I didn’t mention atheism at all – instead I very specifically mentioned “advancing the cause of reason over faith”. I believe that advocates of reason should absolutely unite and actively fight social and cultural battles that need to be fought. Plenty of atheists advance causes that, I believe, are not founded on reason. And I believe feminism fits that description.
I am familiar with your blog. I have read your stuff. I would be very surprised if you would even be able to entertain a conversation challenging the premises of feminism without being insulting (MISOGYNIST!), presumptuous (you’re either a feminist or a woman-hater!), or otherwise subject to your internalized thoughts and feelings. I think the whole issue is just too personalized for you, and for a lot of the crowd here.
I’m not saying that makes you a bad person. I’m sure you are very well-liked by many. I’m just saying… I would be very surprised if you could have a detached, objective conversation about it. You are free to prove me wrong on this.
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 4:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gretchen @ 78
Gretchen, I wonder if you’re willing to acknowledge that fact about another member of your tribe?
Greta said “…not being a feminist is reprehensible…”
So… are you willing to apply the same standard? Or will your tribalism trump all?
Joerg
December 27, 2012 at 4:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
1) Calling someone a “bitch” is an insult, not an opinion. If it were an opinion, it would mean that they think someone is a female dog.
2) If you tell someone that they should not call someone a “bitch”, it is not censoring, it actually is voicing an opinion. If you do not voice that opinion, you are ok with the other person insulting someone in a strongly gender-stereotypical way, which to me, for all intents and purposes, is the same as shouting yourself.
3) “Not wanting to censor someone” is an extremely weak excuse.
You obviously think that you get to define what constitutes that.
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 4:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed,
Really?
If “not rolling over and just taking it” is an example of bad behavior, then mea culpa. Otherwise, I don’t know what you’re talking about. I would challenge you (or anyone) to find a single example of me instigating insults or disrespect.
You will find plenty of instances of me returning fire… but none of me instigating. And you will find no examples of me showing disrespect or discourtesy to anyone who did not specifically single me out for insults or disrespect first. I guarantee it.
In fact, in this very thread, I’ve been getting pot-shots from Gretchen and a few others, yet I’ve been cordial and I’ve been staying on topic. What behavior are you referring to Ed? Are you suggesting that bending over and taking it is what I’m supposed to do? Or are the rules different for non-feminists?
Pretty disappointing.
soul_biscuit
December 27, 2012 at 4:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There are a couple of problems with this argument.
First, the people who meet with opprobrium on Pharyngula and elsewhere typically do not advocate some neutral “a-feminism,” but more or less anti-feminist positions. Anti-feminism is a positive position.
Second, given that feminism is no more than the position that women should enjoy political and social equality, ambivalence with regard to that position is properly regarded as reprehensible.
oolon
December 27, 2012 at 4:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
… Blessed are the fence sitters, must read Ed’s blog more often.
You should also post on this subject more, although maybe because you have avoided it so much you manage to write about it without winding anyone up. Very well put and the reason that while I even think the Slymepitters sometimes make a good point I could never be on their “side” because the ridiculous hyperbole from them is just embarrassing. Seeing Al join in has been the low point of the year for me, as Ophelia put it – some of his posts when he was here were great, what happened?
myuido
December 27, 2012 at 4:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Gretchen, post 78
Don’t tell me what i’m asserting. If you think the vast majority of people on this planet aren’t either ignorant, apathetic or actively resistant to feminist principles what the hell are we fighting for?
Ed Brayton
December 27, 2012 at 4:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Al Stefanelli wrote:
The first podcast on which Reap ranted for 10 minutes about Stephanie and Ophelia being bitches and cunts was recorded the week before. The one that you co-hosted with him, on which the first 10 minutes was devoted to you defending him for doing that, saying dumb things like “well this is just the way you are and they have to realize that” (not an exact quotation, but close enough), was posted literally hours after you told me you were leaving FTB. Just to make sure everyone knows what we’re talking about, here’s Reap’s vile rant:
http://www.reapsowradio.com/?p=31213
He went on an angry rant calling Stephanie a “bitch” and telling them to “shut the fuck up” and calling them “motherfuckers.” It was a 13 year old going on a tirade calling everyone names.
But I just don’t think you get this at all, especially when you say this:
So here’s the next show, which you were on:
http://www.reapsowradio.com/?p=31218
And there the first several minutes were spent with you defending Reap, saying it’s perfectly okay for him to call women bitches and cunts for doing things he doesn’t like. That was all okay with you because that’s just the way he is. And you lashed out at those who had criticized him for his disgusting attacks. That you may later have said that you didn’t think she was a bitch is not at all the point. And to claim that you weren’t trying to “censor” his opinion is just bullshit and you should know it. To say, as you did to them, “everyone is entitled to their opinion” is just namby pamby bullshit. No one asked you to censor him; how about criticize him for calling women bitches and cunts? How about saying that maybe that’s a problem in general, whether this particular person should be called a bitch or not? Since that day, the show has been an endless series of shows featuring misogynists like Franc Hoggle and guys from A Voice for Men, which is a genuinely misogynist site. So no, I don’t think you get to now say “I just want to be left alone, I never did anything to you people.” You’ve thrown in your lot with some really terrible people who have been engaged in some seriously vile behavior. You can’t now feign surprise that you’re getting criticized for this stuff. It’s entirely justified.
Gretchen
December 27, 2012 at 4:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
kacyray said:
You’re asking me if I agree with Greta Christina’s claim about a group, in order to discern if I’m willing to differentiate between groups and individuals? How exactly is my agreement or disagreement with her supposed to tell you?
For the record, I define a feminist as a person who notices and is opposed to sexism. I think if a person knows what sexism is and does not do this, especially if they support sexism by opposing the efforts of feminists to work against it, then yes– that is pretty damn reprehensible. I would, however, believe this regardless of whether Greta Christina believed it or not, in spite of her obvious awesomeness.
If you think that’s tribalism, then I submit that you haven’t the first clue what tribalism is. But then, your grasp of what feminism is could use some serious work as well. At least, I hope that’s the case. It would be much worse if you knew full well what feminism is and still said such mind-numbingly stupid and false things about it. And no, don’t say that you’re just going by what feminists say and do– that makes as much as sense as being racist because you know some asshole black people.
Marcus Ranum
December 27, 2012 at 4:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Plenty of atheists advance causes that, I believe, are not founded on reason. And I believe feminism fits that description.
Oh, wow, I see a gigantic straw-feminist about to come stomping down the street like the sta-puft marshmallow man in “Ghost Busters” … Too bad it’s not my straw-man argument to shoot, and it’s not hunting season.
What about “feminism” isn’t rational? And, since you’re creating straw-feminisms, perhaps you’d be better off telling us your opinion of what “feminism” is?
I would be very surprised if you would even be able to entertain a conversation challenging the premises of feminism without being insulting
Holy shit! Stomping down the street after the straw-feminist is a straw-Brayton!!! The straw’s'a’gonna fly now!!
I’ll tell you what: why don’t you start by telling us how to distinguish facts from your opinions? Because, depending on whether or not that’s possible, it might just be better to leave you thrashing around in that pile of straw you’re summoning.
Ed Brayton
December 27, 2012 at 4:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Bridget Gaudette wrote:
I think you misunderstood me, both then and now. First, let me make clear that none of this was aimed at you at all. It wasn’t addressed to you or to anything you have ever said or done. It was addressed to Al Stefanelli and his incredibly stupid claim that those he now opposes just hate white men. I am perfectly fine with having different approaches and strategies, and I agree that we have to recognize different types of disagreement. Yes, there are people out there who share the ultimate goal of equality but prefer different tactics to achieve those goals, and those people should not be treated as enemies. That is exactly what I meant when I said that we should spend more time talking to one another instead of yelling at one another. But that applies to a certain group of people; it does not apply to Reap Paden or, now, Al. Once you’ve crossed over into “these feminist women just hate white men and want to hurt them” territory, you’re not an ally with a different strategy, you’re in fucking outer space (not you specifically, of course; the royal “you”). There is common ground with people like you; there is no common ground with people like them. I think it’s very important to make a distinction between those two groups, and it is sometimes far too easy to treat everyone who expresses any disagreement as though they were in the second group instead of the first. When it comes to battles with the second group, I am not the least bit bothered by “drama” or controversy or whatever. That is what I meant then and it’s what I mean now.
redcrosse
December 27, 2012 at 4:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@kbonn #79, Worse, how much of an asshole you are allowed to be, it completely reliant on which side you are perceived to be on, or how long you’ve been part of that “side”.
Yes, that’s pretty much how I perceive it, unfortunately. This is despite frequent calls to “address the argument” by both sides.
oolon
December 27, 2012 at 4:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In regard to Reap, I was watching with amazement his response to Adam Lee on twitter who very politely pointed out his nasty misogyny in spreading a “sex tape” of Stephanie. This was first spread by Hoggle, so you can imagine it is not particularly funny even. He finishes with a rant about how Adam cannot tell him what he can and cannot say… Free speech! I’m not joking, he really does think valid criticism is infringing his right to be a sexist asshole.
Also… Ed used Elam and AVfM as an example of a nasty misogynistic web site. You do know Al posted a very favourable review of the MRM, Elam and AVfM on his blog? Shortly after he compared A+ to McCarthy-ism and said the comment policy is just like the Spanish Inquisition…..
If Al popped up and said “Ha! Just joking, got you all!” I’d probably see it as a bad joke but find it far easier to accept than his new reality.
Joerg
December 27, 2012 at 4:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think they should be called ‘marshmallow arguments’ instead. They are fluffy and puffy and stretch to whatever shape you want them.
And they are white, for whatever that means.
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 4:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
SB @85
But that’s NOT a given! In fact, as I alluded to in my first comment, I actually began to hold sympathy with the feminist movement because I perceived it as you’re describing it. This was a couple years ago when Ed was over at ScienceBlogs.
I absolutely believe that women (and all demographics) should enjoy political and social equality. I believe it, I’ll advocate for it, I’ll join in the fight for it if necessary, and I’ll never ever ever speak a word to the contrary.
But anyone who believes that this description of feminism actually describes the totality of feminist ideology is in a freaking dream world, man.
I don’t want to hijack the thread and make it about feminism. This is about the accusation that Ed is some sort of cult leader, and I am happy to leave it at that.
Giliell, professional cynic
December 27, 2012 at 4:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Buah-hua-hua
I’m so glad I emptied that cup of tea before I read this.
So, Stephanie isn’t a bitch because she was nice to you, and if she isn’t anymore then she apparently is one?
But you do not want to censor anybody’s opinion, it’s not on you to criticise people who deem Stephanie a bitch, or Obama a n***.
You demonstrate aptly that you have never understood why people object to slurs.
Hint: It’s not because they’re used against people whom we like.
Kind of explains your big persecution complex.
Alverant
December 27, 2012 at 4:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
#60 Well Ed that may be true. Actually that IS true however, I expect better of us. Nothing wrong with expecting more rational behavior from a rational group.
Marcus Ranum
December 27, 2012 at 4:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
But anyone who believes that this description of feminism actually describes the totality of feminist ideology is in a freaking dream world, man.
Gosh, yes, Gretchen offered a definition that doesn’t help fuel your straw-feminist golem! Quick! Spray some vague-sounding “ideology” on it to revive it!
This sort of reminds me of watching a presuppositionalist arguing with a rationalist, when the rationalist doesn’t walk into the shit-simple presuppositionalist trap of aggreeing that the presuppositionalist is right about everything. ;)
Now, you’ve established that you have an impression about feminist ideology. That’s your opinion. Good. The next move in this game comes when you storm out in a huff because everyone didn’t immediately adopt your opinion as fact, and someone is “mean” and tells you that.
Marcus Ranum
December 27, 2012 at 4:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This is about the accusation that Ed is some sort of cult leader, and I am happy to leave it at that.
Having thrashed around and muddied the waters a bit, then unleashed a bunch of weak straw-man zombie arguments, I can see why you’d be “happy to leave it at that.”
In fact, I’d sneak away and change my name and hope nobody remembered me and “leave it at that.”
Gretchen
December 27, 2012 at 4:47 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And there are opponents of white hegemony who think the white man is the devil.
And there are opponents of homophobia who want to ban homophobic speech.
And there are atheists who wouldn’t mind actually banning religion.
By all means, let’s blame ideologies which oppose bigotry for any and all objectionable ideas endorsed by some in their ranks. That doesn’t remotely look just like support for the bigotry they oppose.
scott
December 27, 2012 at 4:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
But anyone who believes that this description of feminism actually describes the totality of feminist ideology is in a freaking dream world, man.
Well, that’s the minimum- what you have to do to get in the door. Believe in equality, and you’re a feminist. Of course there are deeper things in feminism- factions of opinion on just what equality means and how to achieve it. Some of these factions really don’t get along. But that’s all inside the line of pro-equality.
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 4:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Marcus, do you know what a strawman fallacy is? It’s when you prop up a position your opponent does hold and then attack it.
I’ve neither propped up a feminist position (I haven’t even described it), nor have I attacked it. I’ve only said that it’s more than what is being described here, and that I don’t hold with it.
However, that hasn’t stopped you from accusing me of it and then lambasting me for it.
I wonder if all those “irony-meters” are going off right now?
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 4:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“It’s when you prop up a position your opponent does hold and then attack it.”
I meant “does not hold”. I hope that was obvious.
redcrosse
December 27, 2012 at 4:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Definitely getting into “all or nothing” territory here, plus gratuitous snark and provocation. This is why I don’t go to Pharyngula. Learned my lesson too about commenting however mildly on this topic!
mojave66
December 27, 2012 at 4:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’ve been an atheist since birth. Never went to church regularly, and when I did go, it never made sense.
I have degrees in math and I’m a Ph.D. student in biostatistics. Am I skeptic enough yet? Oh yeah, a minor in women’s studies with an emphasis on queer studies.
The horrific and over-the-top villification of Rebecca Watson and other feminists after “elevatorgate” absolutely turned ME off. It wasn’t until the Atheism+ coalesced under Jen McCreight’s call for an atheist social justice program that I finally got excited about atheism and skepticism again. The fact that hundreds of other people agreed with me on her blog helped me to realize I wasn’t the only one who was utterly disgusted by the creepy and over-the-top misogyny feminist atheists were subjected to.
The feminists I’ve read here and at Skepchick aren’t “man haters.” As 50-YO lesbian I got painted with that brush by homophobes trying to discredit the GL (and later B) movement early in its infancy. Now that same sad trope is being hauled out by atheists? Anyone who uses that shows a distinct lack of a historical education in women’s rights and the actual grassroots feminist movement of the late 20th century.
I’m glad FTB is here, AtheismPlus exists, that Skepchicks and other feminist atheists keep writing despite the asshattery they’ve been subjected to. They’re the ones that keep me connected to the skeptical movement.
Thank you, Ed, for this post and for keeping FTB as good and wonderfully diverse as it is.
And a good day to YOU, olivercrangle.
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 4:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gretchen @100
That’s not what I’m doing. I’m not saying I’m opposed to feminism because there are some bad feminists. I’m opposed to feminism because I believe that it has some flawed premises… premises that are not fully disclosed by statements such as “feminism is no more than the position that women should enjoy political and social equality”.
I think that statement is well-intentioned, but false. Just as I frequently hear “But Christianity is all about loving your neighbor!” and I think to myself “The hell it is!”, I recognize that there are a lot more premises beneath the surface of feminism than that seemingly benign premises stated here.
If feminism is ONLY about social and political equality for women, then you would be a fool to alienate people like me who support those causes, wouldn’t you? So why do you hold me in such contempt?
The fact that you do is MY proof that there’s more to feminism than you’re letting on.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞
December 27, 2012 at 5:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jasper of Maine:
I am only about a third of the way through this thread, but I am so glad to read your posts. They are consistently making shout “you rock!”
PatrickG
December 27, 2012 at 5:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Maybe I missed you doing so upthread (a casual check found nothing very specific), but would you care to identify these premises? Be specific.
Gnumann+, something borrowed, something gnu...
December 27, 2012 at 5:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
An ill defined strawperson is still a strawperson. Your game here is painfully obvious for anybody above the age of five.
I guess he’s over five then.
I suspect yours short-circuited years ago.
Marcus Ranum
December 27, 2012 at 5:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’ve only said that it’s more than what is being described here, and that I don’t hold with it.
Yes, I understand. You’re erecting a straw-man called “feminism” and are employing a bizzare sort of “no true scotsman” defense of it. Because – after all – anything reasonable that feminists say, you agree with wholeheartedly and 100%. All the rest is completely unreasonable – whatever that is – though you neglect to say what it is. So your claim is that you’re not straw-manning because you’re being much too vague for your characterization of feminism to be a straw-man? Do go on.
And of course your saying that “I would be very surprised if you would even be able to entertain a conversation challenging the premises of feminism without being insulting …” regarding Ed – that’s not a straw-man, either. What shall we call that, more accurately, a “pre-registered whinge”?
Marcus Ranum
December 27, 2012 at 5:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m not “lambasting” you, BTW. I’m poking fun at you. It’s a whole different vibe.
sivivolk
December 27, 2012 at 5:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
*blinks*
Wow. I did not expect Ed to come out swinging on this. Don’t get me wrong, this is one out of the two or three FTBs I have on my Google Reader, love the blog, but he’s largely stayed out of any intra-community conflicts.
Nice to see, though.
Gnumann+, something borrowed, something gnu...
December 27, 2012 at 5:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
My thought is that you come of as one of those people who claim to support gender equality, but then oppose every attempt to define problems and implement solutions that actually help.
Don’t worry, you’re not alone (unfortunately).
And this does’t prove anything about feminism, it proves something about you.
Stacy
December 27, 2012 at 5:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
He wasn’t rhetorically bludgeoned. Go back and read what was said, Gretchen.
He reacted as if he’d been rhetorically bludgeoned. He claimed there was a “witch hunt” against him.
People really should double check this tendency to react defensively when they or someone they admire is criticized. It’s OK to criticize somebody, you know. And it’s OK to be criticized.
@bridgetgaudette, I disagree. The issue under discussion isn’t style. Accusing FtB of being a “cult” and comparing feminist bloggers to Nazis is more than a declaration of “I don’t like your style.” So is constant trolling and harassment. So is upping the ante when you’ve been mildly criticized and whining about “witch hunts.” (That’s a rhetorical “you”–I’m referring to Shermer there.)
It’s OK to have a gentler style and a preference for civility in comment sections. But hyperbolic accusations against people with a more in-your-face style are ridiculous and need to be called out.
johnfromberkeley
December 27, 2012 at 5:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As a white man, I feel horribly marginalized by FTB.
This blog is really just a thinly veiled vehicle for deep seated white hate.
It’s time for white men to take a stand!
Ed Brayton
December 27, 2012 at 5:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
sivivolk wrote:
Yeah, I have. I’ve sometimes had friends on both sides of the conflict and, because of my position, I’ve felt the need to play Switzerland. But seeing my name used in the video in that manner really pissed me off. I do think sometimes folks on my side have painted with a bit too broad a brush, rushed to judgment to scorn someone who is really an ally with a different view of how to achieve equality, or engaged in tribalism. It would be shocking if that were not the case because human beings just do those things, especially in the heat of an emotional battle. But I wanted to make clear that I do not wish to be singled out as one of the good guys if people I care about and largely agree with are being labeled man-haters and feminazis. It’s a cliche, but there’s a time to stand up and be counted.
Gretchen
December 27, 2012 at 5:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
kacyray said:
Because every time you have appeared on this blog ever since your first appearance that I can remember when you declared that Playboy magazine is a tribute to beautiful women which every woman should love, and any who don’t must be miserable ugly harpies (and defended this position to all comers for some hundreds of posts, becoming more and more vitriolic and finally bringing your wife in to defend what an awesome husband you are), you have been nothing but dismissive of women generally and feminism specifically, attributing any and all opposition to “tribalism” and the dark sewer of idiocy that is the comment section of this blog.
Gee, that just might be it.
Oh, and there was that time when your wife was spouting ignorance here and you attempted to shame everyone by declaring that she’s the sweet darling bride of a member of the military, as if that was supposed to impress us all into embarrassed respect, and then flew into a raging fit when it didn’t. That was fun.
In short….I think you support womens’ legal equality. Just not any other kind, certainly not in comparison with yourself. And I have no problem with “alienating” someone like that.
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 5:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@113
I support political and social equality for all demographics. When you use the term “equality” without a qualifier, you open pandora’s box.
I believe men and women (all human beings, really) have equal value intrinsically. The universe doesn’t care one bit whether any of us lives or dies. When we speak in relative terms, however, the measure changes. Different demographics hold certain values above others. If you want to eat, cows are generally more valuable than bonefish. If you want a companion, dogs are generally more valuable than wolves. If you want good conversation, people are generally more valuable than fish.
If you a child who wants to emote, someone who will have a good listening ear… someone who will offer solace and comfort… mom is generally more valuable than dad (there are exceptions, but this is a general rule). If you want the intruder at the door to be prevented from harming you, dad is generally more valuable than mom (there are exceptions, but this is a general rule).
So when you start talking about “equality” without specifying what aspect of comparability you’re referring to, you are leaving the door open for an entire misunderstanding of issues.
And this is one of my big problems with feminism… to tendency to believe that “social equality” and “political equality” must somehow manifest themselves into “equality” across the board, blurring any distinction between the sexes, as though none exist and it’s all in our minds.
And to deign to recognize those crucial differences between the sexes is branded as contempt for one for the other. This is one of my major problems with feminism – not only the failure to recognize those crucial differences but to demonize anyone who does.
Marcus Ranum
December 27, 2012 at 5:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So why do you hold me in such contempt?
The fact that you do is MY proof that there’s more to feminism than you’re letting on.
Whether they hold you in contempt or not is a matter of their personal opinion. Extending any of our opinions to equate to “feminism” is an absurdity.
Perhaps that’s YOUR proof but, if I were you, I wouldn’t accept it.
soul_biscuit
December 27, 2012 at 5:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Example?
Example?
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 5:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@gretchen
Thanks, Gretchen, for Exhibit A.
- All the feminists here claim that feminism is nothing more than supporting political and social equality for women.
- I have, in no uncertain terms, expressed my support for those causes.
- That’s not good enough for Gretchen.
As I said, this is my proof that there is more to feminism than this professed definition. I don’t think I need an Exhibit B.
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 5:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
SB @ 120
Gretchen’s post @117 provides the examples you’re looking for.
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 5:32 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
PatrickG @108
No, you didn’t miss anything… I haven’t explicitly gotten into it because, although you probably wouldn’t be able to tell at this point, I didn’t join this comment thread to deliberate feminism.
That being said… I’m sure that my *responses* to people who have been engaging me on the issue will be credited with starting the whole thing. And apparently Ed will find fault with my behavior. Or something.
Marcus Ranum
December 27, 2012 at 5:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And this is one of my big problems with feminism… to tendency to believe that “social equality” and “political equality” must somehow manifest themselves into “equality” across the board, blurring any distinction between the sexes, as though none exist and it’s all in our minds.
Roussea dispatched that question fairly neatly in 1754. However, since you appear to think that your straw-feminists argue that natural inequalities should be overcome, perhaps you should go quote-mine around and find some choice tidbits from Steinem or Dworkin or McKinnon where they say something like that? Happy hunting!
I do seem to recall Archie Bunker making some arguments against inequality similar to the ones that you’re straw-manning, as “feminism.” But he was a parody. I’m starting to wonder if you’re a parody, too.
Seriously – who is saying that natural inequalities must be eradicated? Are you perhaps mistaking Kurt Vonnegut’s story “Harrison Bergeron” for a documentary?
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞
December 27, 2012 at 5:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Al:
I ask again, WHO has said you are racist?
WHO has said you are a homophobe?
WHO said you are racist?
At Pharyngula, I asked you if you would be friends with someone who is racist or homophobic? You hang out with someone like Reap Paden who calls women cunts. Reap displays sexist attitudes in the posts I have read of his. Yet you hang out with him.
In your world is sexism not a bad thing, while racism or homophobia are? Or is sexism not that big a problem anymore?
Also, WHO is making you feel guilty for living while male and white? Does anyone make you feel similarly guilty for being heterosexual?
noxiousnan
December 27, 2012 at 5:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@#7 – I won’t respond to the points of your comment because I feel like you’ve robbed me of this very reply. You won’t read it, you’ve flounced off. You’ll never know if I found any merit to your opinion; you obviously could not care less. So flounce away, and thanks for wasting everyone’s time, including your own. Four paragraphs and a flounce says, “hear me, hear me shut up!”
Marcus Ranum
December 27, 2012 at 5:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m sure that my *responses* to people who have been engaging me on the issue will be credited with starting the whole thing.
You poor victim, you.
All those people being mean to you. It’s not that you’re an obtuse ass, who’s carefully weaseling his arguments and straw-manning like mad. You’re forced to do that, because of people like me who are so horribly terribly mean to you.
Gnumann+, something borrowed, something gnu...
December 27, 2012 at 5:39 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In other words:”Don’t you dare touch my gender essentialism”!
Don’t worry, there are feminists that are REALLY comfortable with gender essentialism. You might not like their conclusions, but they are really on the same page as you overall.
Back into the real world; very few if any really advocates the complete dissolution of gender roles. Most thinking beings recognise that they a malleable though, and that some of the cultural limitations men and woman face is not a good thing.
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 5:39 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Marcus, start talking to me like I’m a human being and not a blip on a screen and we will have a conversation.
allegro
December 27, 2012 at 5:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In your explanatory 117, all you did was use example of individual differences. They have nothing to do with gender privilege and the legal and social discrimination women routinely suffer. It is the latter encompassed by feminism that you claim to support. Therefore, your argument that there is “more to feminism” that in your eyes is apparently quite distasteful, completely falls apart.
Would you like to try again with a legitimate argument?
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
December 27, 2012 at 5:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@kacyray:
Did you just come out swinging with the “women are more nurturing and men are more aggressive” trope? Seriously?
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 5:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@128
Count me among them. I’ve never said they weren’t subject to change. The animal kingdom is filled with instances where the female of the species is the physically dominant sex. In same cases among human beings, this is the case as well. As we evolve, anything is possible. In fact, I hear that males will eventually be phased out. So much for being the privileged sex. Apparently, we aren’t even necessary.
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 5:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@120 Soul Biscuit
Hey, if you want another example, Katherine @131 was gracious enough to provide one.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞
December 27, 2012 at 5:48 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
For those saying they are not feminists, why do you not support the fight for full social, political & economic equality for women (you know, FEMINISM)?
Gnumann+, something borrowed, something gnu...
December 27, 2012 at 5:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You know those evopsych papers – a lot of us don’t really subscribe to that point of view on account of them being a really bad excuse for science.
Gnumann+, something borrowed, something gnu...
December 27, 2012 at 5:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
10$ he’ll be saying something about pink and blue next…
melody
December 27, 2012 at 5:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I would like to make a correction. Andrea Dworkin was not a part of second wave feminism. The mainstream movement wanted nothing to do with her and would not allow her to speak at their conventions. Dworkin was indeed anti-penetration, anti-pornography, and anti-prostitution. Second wave feminists included people like Gloria Steinem who were pro-sex, anti-pornography, and anti-prostitution.
I would also like to mention that one can be pro-sex, anti-pornography, anti-cencorship, anti-prostitution, and pro-legalization.
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
December 27, 2012 at 5:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@kacyray:
That trope is pure bullshit cause it discounts non-nurturing women and non-aggressive men and conforms to an overarching thought that if you feel otherwise (say a nurturing man or an aggressive woman) it’s because there’s something wrong with you – you might even be gay.
I’m a bad example since I’m transgender, but I’ve always been extremely nurturing. If I don’t pursue transition and maintain my present male body, what does that say to that trope?
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 6:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@138
I very deliberately stated that there were exceptions and that what I was stating was a general rule. I went out of my way to state that there are exceptions, and the fact that you deliberately ignored my efforts to point out that exceptions do exist is a pretty good indicator that you’re not trying to have an honest conversation.
That you’re one of the exceptions.
noxiousnan
December 27, 2012 at 6:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gretchen @25 – “I see it more as Shermer having said a couple of things that are mildly sexist, and having been rhetorically bludgeoned for it. Nobody seems to be immune to the impulse to double down when they perceive themselves as being attacked– nobody.”
Not me! I mean, I felt bad for him, to be sure, because you’re right about defensive response. But I have to rise above my defensive attacks; why shouldn’t he? He should even be held to a higher standard of discourse as far as I’m concerned being as I am but a lowly blog commenter, neither asked for nor paid for my opinion. From my vantage, the fallout was not from his initial mildly sexist comments. And you know, he didn’t elect to shut up about it either, so not only did he not rise above his defensive attack mode, but he escalated it on Twitter.
It was a stupid, sexist thing to say, and the very easiest way to manage it would have been to admit it…maybe even use it as an opportunity to talk about unconscious sexism. Second best response probably would have been to come back later and say he’d thought about it and it was sexist and apologize. Instead he joined the martyred bunch, emasculated by evil feminism. Instead, he’s put himself in a probably very uncomfortable position of having to support his initial and odious statements (that I suspect he does not agree with) and has likely picked up a fan base that he wouldn’t deign to have a beer with under normal circumstances.
Greta Christina
December 27, 2012 at 6:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
kacyray @ #81: I will correct and clarify. If you’re not a feminist because you’re genuinely ignorant of sexism, that’s not reprehensible. But if you’ve been made familiar with sexism, and you choose to ignore it and deny that it exists — that is reprehensible. Not being a feminist, after having been made familiar with sexism, cannot be a neutral position, or the simple absence of a position. And if you’re anti-feminist, that is extra-reprehensible.
Feminism is the position that sexism exists, and that it matters, and should be opposed. The position that sexism exists is well-supported by an overwhelming body of evidence. Denying that it exists in the face of massive evidence speaks of willful ignorance for the sake of one’s own comfort and convenience – and yes, that’s reprehensible. Accepting that it exists, but acting as it it’s trivial and should be ignored is reprehensible. And actively opposing other people’s efforts to undo it is extra-reprehensible.
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
December 27, 2012 at 6:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@kacyray:
And those exceptions are everywhere, and those exceptions feel that if they don’t conform to the bullshit trope that there’s something wrong with them. It’s BOXES. I hate boxes. You shuffle women into this box of “nurturing” and men into this box of “aggressive.” Yes you mention exceptions, but that’s bullshit because of what I said. Your exceptions are your people who don’t fit the boxes.
The fact you call it a general rule is bullshit, because it’s not a general rule. Everyone is their own person.
PatrickG
December 27, 2012 at 6:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
kacyray @123
From my perspective, you seem to have a very narrow definition of what feminism should include. And
Granting, for the sake of argument, that this is true, are you arguing that these dynamics are biologically determined, or are they products of social conditioning that leads to certain roles being associated with certain genders? You certainly seem to agree that such conditioning can lead to
If it’s the latter, I’m fairly sure there’s a whole school of thought and activism on the subject. Oh, right…. feminism! Another fun thing feminists examine is what happens to people who deviate from social conditioning. Or is that off the table, too?
Then why are you so stridently against examining those limitations? Why do you refer to the attempt as devaluing the “crucial differences” between the polar genders? If change is possible, why do you insist that trying to make change is beyond the pale?
Seriously?
Anthony K
December 27, 2012 at 6:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Whites, too. Just ask Stefanelli.
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
December 27, 2012 at 6:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@PatrickG:
You said much better than I could what I was trying to say.
Nurturing women and aggressive men are largely a product of social conditioning, not inborn. When men and women grow up against that social conditioning (like me) they get teased mercilessly. I’m sure if I hadn’t been homeschooled, I’d have killed myself in high school.
PatrickG
December 27, 2012 at 6:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Bah, somehow my sentences got chopped (copypasta fail!)… should have been “You certainly seem to agree that such conditioning can lead to dramatic differences in behavior among different groups”.
And thanks Katherine Lorraine, Kitten of Death!
Greta Christina
December 27, 2012 at 6:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oh, I forgot this:
kacyray @ #81: Right. It’s so unreasonable for women to take our systematic, culture-wide devaluation as human beings personally. You, on the other hand, have no personal stake in this issue, and are therefore able to discuss it objectively and from a detached perspective.
/sarcasm
kagekiri
December 27, 2012 at 6:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ugh, @118 kacyray, what the heck?
You sound just like thinnly-veiled racists. “I’m not racist, but black people just, as a general rule, are more naturally athletic than other races.” “I’m not racist, but Asians seem bred to do better at math while they suck at sports and English, any Asian people who don’t fit are just outliers.”
Your utterly unsupported, totally qualitative and stereotyped version being “I’m not sexist, but feminists refuse to acknowledge the obvious truth that women are more nurturing on average than men.”
Yeah….yeah, sure you’re not sexist. You remind me of a very recent treelobster webcomic…
http://www.treelobsters.com/2012/12/435-noisy-data.html
The hidden message being: “Some days, it seems like there are more statistical outliers than there are valid data points. How am I supposed to justify my conclusions with that sort of data?”
Racism is messed up because hey, even if there’s an apparent trend for a “race”, even if it HAS numbers (which you don’t) or some sort of tangible evidence to back it up (college attendance rates for Asians, black people in the NBA/NFL), hey, maybe race isn’t the sole or even primary cause of variation!
People are people first, not their races or genders, and there is more similarity between races than within them.
Classifying all females or males with character traits like protective or nurturing is EVEN more ridiculous, because that’s half the population at a time. If races turned out to be a terrible reason to like or dislike people or assume a specific trait about them (aka, you think racism is BAD), hey, maybe gender is EVEN more so a stupid reason to make prejudgments like yours.
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
December 27, 2012 at 6:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@kagekiri:
No you see. Kacy mentioned that there were exceptions to the rule. But it’s still a general rule.
tomh
December 27, 2012 at 7:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kacyray wrote:
I recognize that there are a lot more premises beneath the surface of feminism than that seemingly benign premises stated here.
Yes, yes, but…what are these mysterious premises? Since you recognize them and they are so obvious, one would think you could list just a few of them without much trouble. For instance, suppose the world were such that women had full equality, equal pay, etc., could even drive in all countries, and suppose that sexual harassment were a thing of the past. What would the goals of these feminists be? Because that’s what you’re saying. No matter how much legal and social equality they get, they will always want more. Is their goal to enslave men? Or worse? Just let me in on what it is they’re after so that I can be prepared.
ricko
December 27, 2012 at 7:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
WTF?
Why do we waste time on Kacy?
Read the comment and move along… I always read the comments, but, really? What is to be gained at this late date? I’m a guy, and it nonetheless seems pointless. I don’t have any problems with women, or men, of any sort… I have had issues with BOSSES of both sorts and I learned long ago… Just move on.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞
December 27, 2012 at 7:19 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kacyray:
Finally I get some substance from your crticisms of feminism. You believe there are critical behavioral differences between men and women, which curiously supports your gender stereotypes. Do you have any eviidence for these differences?
tomh
December 27, 2012 at 7:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
ricko wrote:
Why do we waste time on Kacy?
For the same reason that you wasted time writing your post. Because everyone’s time is their own to waste as they see fit.
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 7:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Greta @147
Now that’s different than the description offered by SB @85 “feminism is no more than the position that women should enjoy political and social equality”. In fact, it’s different in it’s essence. SB’s description calls for legal and political action. Yours calls for cultural action. And SB’s description has been reinforced by at least one other commenter so far.
What’s crucial to note here is that SB and Greta have two entirely different views on what feminism at its essence is. The next thing to note is that SB calls for actions designed to prevent people’s rights from being violated, while Greta calls for people’s personal positions and opinions to be challenged.
That’s Exhibit B – that there’s more to feminism than how SB @85 described it. Not that I needed it, but there it is.
But I wouldn’t even stop there. I’d say that if we kept going long enough, we’d find someone else who offered an entirely different description of feminism. And if we kept going, yet another. And they’d all be right, because each of them is only offering one preferred aspect of the ideology. One side of the elephant, so to speak.
I realize that since I’m a lone voice against the tribe here that what I’m saying will fall on deaf ears, but my point that there’s more depth to feminist ideology than just some short blurb should be crystal clear at this point.
I recognize that sexism exists. I expressly oppose it. I support social and political equality for all people.
So by every definition offered here thus far, I am, at a minimum, allied to your cause. So why do you not regard me as such? The answer should be blazingly obvious by now…It’s because there are ideologies and beliefs packaged in with feminism – ideas and beliefs that none of you are explicitly stating here – that separate me from the whole package of feminist ideology. None of you are telling the whole story.
To wit: There are diverging ideas as to what constitutes “sexism”. There are diverging ideas as to what constitutes “equality” (as I described earlier). So it’s far to simplistic to say “If you oppose sexism, you’re a feminist” because the term itself is subject to debate.
Translation: “You’re right, I can’t. But neither can you.”
Come on Greta. You can do better than this.
tomh @150
Read my comment @118
Martin Wagner
December 27, 2012 at 7:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If you have to qualify equality, wouldn’t that mean it’s no longer equality?
allegro
December 27, 2012 at 7:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A lot of words. A meaningless exhibit. These are not entirely different views at all – feminism addresses the inequality of women in a patriarchal culture that encompasses all of the above. You have yet to describe what subversive aspects of feminism you repeatedly claim to exist to which you so object. What are they?
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 7:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Tony @152
No no no no… I do believe that there are behavioral differences between the sexes, but that is NOT the source of my distaste for feminism.
If I wasn’t explicit enough before, let me be explicit now… I do NOT believe that either SB or Greta are accurately describing feminism. I used as an example earlier of Christians who say “Being a Christian is about loving your neighbor as yourself.” They might actually believe it, but those of us who examine the entirety of Christian history, doctrine, attitudes, actions, and influences realize that anyone who says that is either lying to us or to themselves. They are omitting critical realities about christianity either deliberately or naively.
I’m saying the same thing about the descriptions of feminism we’ve seem provided here. None of them tell the whole story.
When Greta says “Feminism is the position that sexism exists, and that it matters, and should be opposed.” she offers no means of validating what behaviors or attitudes qualify as sexist. While I realize that she probably doesn’t have time to write a book in Ed’s comment section, I don’t think this omission is inconvenient. In fact, so long as we don’t clearly define a means to validate which actions are sexist, we are free to point at any act and label it as such, right?
Or any attitude, or any belief, or any *stated observation*.
You’re asking for evidence of critical behavioral differences between men and women?
I just want to be clear… are you honestly challenging that observation?
If so, I’m a little shocked. I didn’t think it was even in question. But if you want evidence, then next time you go grocery shopping. Count the number of men talking on their cell phone while shopping and compare it to the number of men who aren’t. Then count the number of women doing talking on their cell phone while shopping, and compare it to the number who aren’t. Then, compare the ratios. Then do it again the next 9 times you go grocery shopping.
This experiment also works while you’re driving down the road.
You’ll find that more women are talking on their phones while shopping (or driving) than men. This is a manifestation of their social needs as compared to the social needs of men. This is but one manifestation – and that difference in social needs has far reaching implications regarding the different ways men and women lead their lives including what their needs are and what they are willing to do in order to have them met.
It is a crucial difference in our psychologies. Does that help?
tomh
December 27, 2012 at 7:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Read my comment @118
I read it, there’s nothing there. Your claim is that feminists want to blur the lines between men and women? Or something like that? You make no sense. List a few of these secret goals that feminists have, not some vague suppositions.
matthewhodson
December 27, 2012 at 7:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Imagine a society where women are held up to be far superior to men, where women have higher pay and better jobs, where the vast majority of political positions (and company executives) are women.
Was that difficult to imagine? Would people fight against the matriarchy and seek equality? Would it be a bad thing if this fight resulted in creating a patriarchy?
In our society we currently have a patriarchy and the movement that works to remove this bias in society is called feminism.
Ophelia Benson
December 27, 2012 at 8:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Al – you said @ 65
That’s ridiculous – you wrote it on my blog. And what you wrote was an affectionate defense of the slyme pit. Yes that damn well does concern me, because of the way most of the people who post there have been harassing me for a year and a half.
Here’s a little of what you said on my blog.
All about you, you see? All about what people say about you, and how non-sexist and non-misogynist you have found the people at the pit. Yes actually that does “concern” me, in fact it concerns me a lot more than it concerns you.
Yes, I responded with a “fuck you.” That’s because I intensely dislike your cheerful dismissal of misogynist name-calling, all the more so when you do it on my blog.
TCC
December 27, 2012 at 8:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Because you yourself have set yourself out as being outside the group! You said that you weren’t a feminist and took fucking forever to even state your reasons why. In fact, you still haven’t been absolutely clear – feminism goes beyond what you think is reasonable, blah blah blah, which is still about as amorphous as before except that we now know that you incorrectly think (if I’m understanding you correctly despite the obfuscation) that feminists are trying to eradicate individual differences between men and women. If there’s anyone to blame for not being accepted into the fold of feminism, it’s you.
This argument is precisely like a creationist taking you to a forest and saying, “Look for yourself – the evidence of design is overwhelming!” Forgive me if your “observe men and women in public to see who talks on cell phones more” argument is less than compelling evidence for differences between the genders, given how utterly lacking it is in rigor and design.
allegro
December 27, 2012 at 8:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oh FFS, you ask “what are sexist behaviors?” and then use your personal observation of supposed cell phone use in grocery stores (that is entirely unsubstantiated) as an example of gender differences? This is to support your claim that there is some subversive element to feminism? LOLwhut?
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 8:09 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Martin @155
Imagine two guys. One is a wealthy, squirrely little runt of a man. The other is a flat-broke MMA fighter.
Who has more value?
If you’re asking who has more *monetary* value, it’s one guy.
If you’re asking who has more *survival* value, it’s the other guy.
If you’re asking who has more *political* value, they are equal. They each get one vote.
If you’re asking who has more value *to their family*, the answer would (hopefully) be “each of them, to their own family”.
So when you’re speaking of equality, it’s clear that they aren’t financially or physically equal. They are, however, politically equal. This is why the aspect of “equality” you’re asking about is important to define.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞
December 27, 2012 at 8:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kacyray:
The “two versions” of feminism ARE SAYING THE SAME THING. They are just using different words.
Also, your @118 was a vague generality that you provided no support for. You believe in gender essentialism. Why? Where is your proof that gender roles are biological? Asserting that you believe in rigid gender roles is not the same as providing evidence.
allegro
December 27, 2012 at 8:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Back to pointing out individual differences that have nothing to do with cultural gender inequality.
Gretchen
December 27, 2012 at 8:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
kacyray said:
Uh, what?
– I’m a feminist.
– That’s not the definition of feminism I gave, nor does it match what other self-proclaimed feminists have given. In fact, it might only match what one of them said.
– Yes, it’s not good enough for me that you’re a liar.
– There is no point #4.
savagemutt
December 27, 2012 at 8:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Damnit, do I have to be the one to come out and say it? They want to pee in our urinals! Standing up! Our precious urinals!
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞
December 27, 2012 at 8:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kacyray:
Equality doesn’t get qualified, unless you believe people are NOT equal. Feminists believe women and men have equal value as human beings. Women are treated as unequal to men and feminism exists to correct that power imbalance.
FFS, having to do Feminism 101 gets tiresome.
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 8:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gretchen,
At the time I wrote that, it was the only description that had been provided, and no one was disputing it. You’re right, you had not provided that description yourself. You didn’t offer any description of your own, and I was regarding silence as consent. But what it should’ve demonstrated to the guy I was writing to was that it isn’t enough for someone to meet his description of a feminist. That should be pretty clear by now. In order to be a good little feminist, you pretty much have to swallow an ideology whole. It isn’t enough to support or advocate for political and social equality between men and women.
Aw, shucks Gretchen…. you aren’t getting mushy on me, are ya?
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 8:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Tony @168
Try having to listen to it for a few hours.
Martin Wagner
December 27, 2012 at 8:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I get that you have qualifiers when you’re comparing two individuals in the context of certain criteria you’re trying to meet. But if you’re talking in terms of “Should men and women be treated with equal respect and given the same basic human rights both under the law and as an inherent cultural attitude?” I cna’t imagine why the answer would be anything other than an unqualified yes.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞
December 27, 2012 at 8:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You are listening but not comprehending.
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 8:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Martin 171
I’d say yes too. But that’s not enough to make me a feminist.
PatrickG
December 27, 2012 at 8:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ouch, moderated for links, methinks…
@kacy: a quick Google survey reveals numerous studies that show male drivers getting more tickets and self-reporting phone use while driving at higher rates. So your cell phone thing*? Yeah, no.
I’ll let the full comment come through when it does, but c’mon, you accuse feminists of unsourced generalization?
* While your initial example is set in a grocery store, you also said:
I wasn’t able to find sources on grocery-phone usage.
Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish
December 27, 2012 at 8:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞ wrote:
Considering kacyray’s position is based on a lack of comprehension, it seems unlikely that’s going to change anytime soon.
kacyray
December 27, 2012 at 9:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@175
Pop shot much?
I’ve been engaged for roughly 6 hours with dozens of people, all of whom not only disagree with me, but regard my position as evil by default. I’ve done everything I can to answer as many questions as I can with as much clarity as I can while remaining cordial and staying on point, even while guys like you are constantly taking pot shots. Try it sometime.
There’s nothing wrong with my comprehension. Try arguing against my position.
Actually, scratch that. I’m pretty much done. My feelins are just a-hurtin too much at this point.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞
December 27, 2012 at 9:14 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You’ve clarified all right.
We understand you do not embrace the pursuit of equality for women and you use gender essentialist evo psych BS as your ‘support’. You are a perfect example-as is Al Stefanelli-of the ridiculousness of the “both sides are doing it argument”. The feminist position is logical, well supported and egalitarian. The anti feminist position-held by you, Al, Reap and the Pitters-is not.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞
December 27, 2012 at 9:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And screw cordiality when you are saying women do not deserve full equality in all walks of life.
Poggio
December 27, 2012 at 9:24 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
First of all, Thanks for your Blog Ed, and for weighing in on this issue, and especially thanks for including so many different voices on FtB. I’m a regular visitor (but comment only occasionally) and I’ve always found FtB to be an interesting read. I’m one of those middle-aged cisgendered white male atheists (trained as a classicist and medievalist no less) but what I’ve always loved about FtB is the variety of voices, genders, personalities and nationalities. (You really should try to find a good Brazilian or Argentinian atheist, though) I honestly cannot think of another collection of blogs that has such diversity. Inclusion needs to be an aspiration of atheism, and I wholeheartedly support your goals.
Regarding the feminist/MRA debates I don’t have anything to add except this: when I read Rebecca, Gretchen, Maryam, Ophelia’s blogs I don’t read them as feminists or even atheists. Those titles / identities mean absolutely nothing to me. Even when I read Al’s blog, or Richard Carrier’s or any of the self described atheists or believers. What they self-identify as …is interesting, to a point, but not important. What I do read is people with a particular voice struggling to make their thoughts known and discussed. Some are more successful than others, at different times and in different moods. Many times I agree with them, sometimes I don’t. But I’m glad they’re there, struggling and succeeding, and even teaching me a thing or two. It all just reminds me that people are human first, and whatever identity they want to impose on themselves, or publish, second.
dmcclean
December 27, 2012 at 9:31 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Right on, Ed.
Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish
December 27, 2012 at 9:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
kacyray wrote:
What, the position you justify holding by the number of women you’ve seen using a mobile phone in a supermarket?
Forgive me if my response to such a ridiculous position is, well, ridicule.
bastionofsass
December 27, 2012 at 9:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Always interesting to me that those who claim to be “pro-equality for women but anti-feminist” spend their time arguing on blogs against others who are also pro-equality.
Wonder if any of the “pro-equality antifeminists” also can point to their many blog arguments against those who do not believe in the equality of women. If not, why?
I challenge the “pro-equality antifeminists” to go forth into the blogosphere and wage battle against those who deny women equal rights. That would seem to be a more compelling use of your time in the fight for women’s equality.
tomh
December 27, 2012 at 9:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kacyray:
I’m pretty much done.
In other word, you want me to list those secret goals of feminism? I got nothing.
Marcus Ranum
December 27, 2012 at 9:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Marcus, start talking to me like I’m a human being and not a blip on a screen and we will have a conversation.
Don’t assume I think it’s worthwhile.
You appear to highly value your opinions, while simultaneously bending over backwards to place them off the game-board to protect them from criticism. Take yourself a little more seriously, and maybe you’ll be worth more than my simply pointing and giggling.
d.c.wilson
December 27, 2012 at 9:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Okay, I’ve been on the outside of a lot of this infighting in the atheist community, but “elevatorgate” still baffles me.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but from what I’ve read, the sequence of events were as follows:
1, Rebecca Watson complains about being hit on at atheist conventions.
2. Shortly thereafter, while riding the elevator back to her room, some guy invites her to his room for coffee.
3. Rebecca Watson writes a blog post telling guys that this is a bad idea.
Like Ed, I’m a middle-aged white male, so maybe there’s something I’m missing, but why the hell is this the major controversy in our little tribe? Even as a middle-aged white guy who has never given a thought to the idea that I might be assaulted by a stranger in a hotel room, I can see what this is a bad idea, why hitting on a woman in a hotel elevator would make her uncomfortable, even fearful.
We’re not talking about flirting in a bar or even telling dirty jokes. This is, if not predatory behavior, at least something that would set off alarm bells in the minds of most women.
Help me out here.
jamessweet
December 27, 2012 at 9:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I for one would like to thank Al — for making it all that much easier to feel confident in what the feminist/race-awareness/trans-awareness etc. bloggers at FtB are doing. Here’s what I mean by that:
See, we’re all human, including FtBers who have been most vocal in advocating for diversity and related issues — and as humans, we’re not perfect. There are legitimate criticisms that could be made about how some of the drama has been handled, about how people have been treated on occasion. Most of the time, I feel those criticisms aren’t important, that the main message is so on point as so necessary, that a few flubbed details are not even worth mentioning. Other times I start to wonder… maybe the slimepitters, for all their vitriol, do have a point, maybe the intolerance-of-intolerance, if you will, really is a problem that needs addressing. I’ve even blogged about my reservations in the past, that while I agree in the main, sometimes I don’t like the way people who are legitimately asking questions are being caught up in the crossfire with JAQoff trolls and how that influences the level of conversation.
Then Al comes along and says something as mind-numbingly stupid as “incredibly unhealthy vendetta against men in general, and as it appears, the entire Caucasian race as well,” and I’m just like, “Oh, yeah, those little nitpicks really aren’t important after all.” My God, anti-men and anti-white??? That’s absurd. Even the most extreme statement made by the FtB pro-diversity crowd has not for a moment made me think they were anti-men or anti-white. At the absolute worst, some of the bloggers might be accused of showing an undue contempt for people who are less interested and/or educated in the particular issues they are interested in — but then I compare that to the facepalminess that Al just left there, and suddenly that contempt doesn’t seem quite so undue.
When the “other side” is that wrong, it makes me feel kind of sheepish about some of my past complaints about incidental friendly fire. Keep it up, FtB, you’re doin it rite.
redcrosse
December 27, 2012 at 9:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Seems to me that kacy doesn’t agree with many of you on everything, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t agree with many of you on *some* things.
Then I see statements like this: We understand you do not embrace the pursuit of equality for women … The anti feminist position-held by you, Al, Reap and the Pitters-is not.”
He did explicitly say he is for the equality of women (and everyone). Here at @81: I absolutely believe that women (and all demographics) should enjoy political and social equality. I believe it, I’ll advocate for it, I’ll join in the fight for it if necessary, and I’ll never ever ever speak a word to the contrary.>
Yet Ed said this much earlier.
Ed @96 But that applies to a certain group of people; it does not apply to Reap Paden or, now, Al. Once you’ve crossed over into “these feminist women just hate white men and want to hurt them” territory, you’re not an ally with a different strategy, you’re in fucking outer space (not you specifically, of course; the royal “you”). There is common ground with people like you; there is no common ground with people like them. I think it’s very important to make a distinction between those two groups, and it is sometimes far too easy to treat everyone who expresses any disagreement as though they were in the second group instead of the first. When it comes to battles with the second group, I am not the least bit bothered by “drama” or controversy or whatever.
I don’t know what he did to piss off so many people in the past, but in here, today, I saw a guy get “put in a box” as anti-feminist, with people Ed agrees should be harshly criticized. From what I read, I’d put him in the “ally” “common ground” group, rather than the Reap Paden, Al, group.
bastionofsass
December 27, 2012 at 10:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I really have no idea how I’m going to manage being in Ed’s cult and one of PZ’s minions. I may need to give up my accordion practice. *sigh*
allegro
December 27, 2012 at 10:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Though you cannot speak for another, perhaps you could explain how one can claim support for equality and at the same time claim to be anti-feminist due to some subversive, though never explained or supported, feminist agenda?
scott
December 27, 2012 at 10:23 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
#185- There’s one more step to consider:
4. A massive shitpile of hate descends on RW and anyone else perceived to be “on her team”.
Which part of the sequence one finds important seems to determine where on the battlefield one lines up. The people who think “she overreacted to this innocent guy” are on one side, and the people who ask why the sky fell on her for something so minor are on the other.
I, and I think most of the commenters here, come from the second group. I really don’t care just what happened in that elevator- it’s just not important. What is important is that legions of heretofore rational people got frothingly angry about some ill-defined “feminism” that they can’t or won’t explain except that they know it’s bad.
PatrickG
December 27, 2012 at 10:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I find it extremely hard to reconcile advocating “full social, political, and legal equality for women” with “but we must remember they nurture more and talk on the cell phone a lot — because they’re women”. The attitude of the latter are at worst incompatible with and at best going to heavily conflict with the social justice aims of feminism*.
While I can’t speak directly to past encounters, I can borrow from Gretchen’s post above (#117). Equality should be for everyone, not just women who admire the physical attributes and social position of Playboy bunnies.
* For the record that’s feminism in its most unalloyed dictionary definition, not whatever feminism FTB has brainwashed me into. When am I scheduled for extermination again? I’m so unnecessary I lose track.
redcrosse
December 27, 2012 at 10:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I didn’t ever see him claim to be anti-feminist. Anyway I can’t speak for him.
In my case, I myself claim support for equality but would not call myself a feminist because I don’t like the way I see feminists argue on the internet (Here, at Isis’s place, and on Pharyngula). That group of people go by the label “feminists” seem to be, not my kind of people.
PatrickG
December 27, 2012 at 10:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oh, and since I never did comment on the main point of the post…
I just hope I never get on the bad side of this vendetta against Caucasian men. I don’t know what kind of animal minions Stephanie Zvan and Ophelia Benson command, but going to PZ Myer’s blog still brings back nightmares of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. And since he’s part of the group being phased out as part of the master plan, I can only quiver in horror at the thought of the mutant abominations the women at FTB will unleash in the future.
That’s not even counting the immeasurable power of Rebecca Watson, the original serpent in the Garden, from whom all that is wrong in the world derives…
allegro
December 27, 2012 at 10:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So you agree with the substance of equality but not the tone of the argument? What exactly offends you?
StevoR
December 27, 2012 at 10:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Congratulations I guess! ;-)
redcrosse
December 27, 2012 at 10:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
allegro, yes it’s mainly tone, and some other unimportant things.
I don’t like the tone (and that makes me a tone troll, though I prefer to think I have a “different style”). And of course people are free to use whatever tone they like, and I’m free to avoid PZ’s comment section, as I do generally. That should be ok.
2. Vicious, dripping sarcasm, attacks on newbie commenters. Considering “not agreeing with me” as “you’re uninformed”.
antialiasis
December 27, 2012 at 10:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No; it has more to do with the fact that you self-identified in your first post here as “not a feminist”. You shouldn’t be surprised that a movement you’ve yourself chosen to explicitly distance yourself from is suspicious of your claim that you’re totally allied with their cause.
We really do believe feminism is simply the idea that women are equal to men and sexism should be opposed. (These are not two completely different definitions, as you claim – it’s two statements with different emphases voicing the same basic idea that there is gender inequality and something should be done about it. I’m sure other feminists would provide other definitions, but by far the majority of them would essentially be statements of this same principle.) That’s why we recoil when somebody says they’re not a feminist, as if they had said they’re a racist (or, to use a negative term since you complained about the analogy being made with positive terms, not an abolitionist). Apparently what you mean when you say you’re “not a feminist” isn’t that you oppose these basic principles of feminism (something you didn’t properly say until much later – in your original post you referred to “not thinking you’re part of some privileged group”, which sounds strongly like believing that sexism and male privilege don’t exist), in which case, yeah, it’s sensible to say you’re allied to our cause.
Feminists disagree on many things, including the degree to which gender differences are biologically defined and what that means for feminism; you may be strongly criticized for your views on it, but if you consider yourself a feminist and faithfully uphold the idea that women should be equal and sexism should be opposed while disagreeing on that particular detail, few would argue you’re therefore not a feminist, and I would argue that those few would be wrong. (If, of course, you’re using these ideas to say that women shouldn’t be equal, e.g. “Women are more nurturing by nature, therefore women should be in the home and men should work”, then I wouldn’t call you a feminist – but that would be because you’re opposing equality for women, even though you say that you don’t.) But that’s not what is going on. You yourself decided you weren’t a feminist, not the feminists talking to you. Even if other feminists don’t think your views rhyme with feminism, you could maintain that you’re a feminist nonetheless – but you chose not to. That does seem to say something about you.
I think (and many, perhaps most, other feminists would agree) that your views about gender-essentialism, or at least the conclusions you appear to be drawing from them, aren’t very conductive to feminism (i.e. not very conductive to the idea of promoting gender equality). Since you maintain that you do believe in political gender equality, I’m going to make my case for that if you don’t mind.
That makes sense when you’re talking about two guys (though your wording speaking of this as being “their value” irks me) – not so much when you’re talking about huge, diverse groups of people, like races or genders. That’s the trouble with a lot of gender-essentialism, race-essentialism, etc. – the idea that averages across groups can be applied directly to individuals who belong to that group.
Say you’re supposed to make a bunch of comparisons like that, only in each case one individual is a woman and the other is a man. Why would you ever look at gender and not the actual qualities that make up the “value” being evaluated? Looking for soldier potential? Sure, women on average are not as strong as men, but that’s not the question; the question is whether this woman is stronger than this man. Should child custody always be awarded to the mother? No, because even if women are more nurturing on average, what matters is the case at hand. And the case at hand should be analyzed neutrally, without being biased in favor of the mother, because if the mother really does care more for the kids in this particular case, that’s what you would get out of a neutral analysis anyway, while if in this case it’s the father, you would choose wrongly if you were biased. The bias is wrong even if the average tendencies it’s based on are sound. Women vaguely tending this way or that compared to men is not a justification for any of the things feminists are fighting against; there is simply too much individual variation to make these averages remotely applicable to individuals.
Moreover, there is also a very strong argument to be made that many if not most of these differences are sociological in nature and that what makes women go into science less than men is not that they’re women in itself but that they’re not expected to go into science because they’re women. Certainly asserting as fact that e.g. science is just a “guy thing” based simply on the fact that more men are in science in today’s society is unwarranted and very counterproductive to equality for women, so if you claim to favor equality for women while also holding that, people are going to disagree strongly and suspect that you don’t care quite as much about gender equality as you claim (since then you would probably see inequality like this as something to be investigated as suspect, not simply deciding it must be a biological thing).
allegro
December 27, 2012 at 10:55 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Entirely fair. However, not quite an answer to your objections to feminism in that you agree that women deserve equality. Do you feel that commenters on these particular sites expressed legitimate, supported points and were treated unfairly just due to “not agreeing” 100% on whatever you perceive to be a group consensus, whatever that might be?
neuralobserver
December 27, 2012 at 10:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
d.c. wilson@185:
I think it’s multifaceted: IMO, the universe of the issue should also include the banning of Thunderf00t from FtB, by PZ Myers for merely for expressing differing opinions on this feminism issue within his blog,…. after being given assurances by Myers that he would have freedom to express his points of view (check out his YouTube postings, as well as those in other free thought sites; you’ll get a wider perspective on all this.). Myers’ conduct as a supposedly open-minded promoter of reason, free thought and open discussion is certainly defunct in the minds of many who have been following this middle-school style drama.
I certainly agree with Thunderf00t’s (and from what I’ve seen, many others) assessment of Myers’ hypocrisy, his lop-sided, single-minded, overblown view of this issue (as well as the other players within his narrow and reactionary sphere espousing the same party line.)
[ Also, concerning the 'Michael Shermer Incident', I find the idiocy of conflating one relatively innocuous, throw-way comment that Shermer made in that interview earlier this year, into an example of his full-blown, unrepentant sexism is, for me, beyond the pale. Some are saying that some parts of FtB are becoming divisive, ridiculous, irrelevant, mainly do to this issue and in the face of so many valid arguments leveled against Myers and company ; I would agree.]
redcrosse
December 27, 2012 at 11:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Thanks, I’d like to consider myself feminist but I’m wary of telling other people that, lest they think I’ll behave like the “feminist side” behave on this and other threads.
The commenters I’m thinking of are ones who came in and disagreed with *something*, usually mildly, and the attacks came from feminists, were turned *to* feminism, and just seemed twisted to make everything about feminism. I swear some of these commenters did not seem to initially be objecting to anything related to social justice issues, it got, turned.
I’ll further admit that I had a visceral reaction to their behavior that spilled over, in my mind, to the cause (i.e. “Jeez, these people are flat out mean for no reason, to this person who didn’t even bring that up, and Tsk’ing and cupcake’ing left and right. I thought feminism was a good thing but I think I’ll stay far far away now”.
madgastronomer
December 27, 2012 at 11:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There are legitimate criticisms of feminism as it exists.
“Feminists are mean to people who say sexist things!” and “But no, really, women really ARE different from men in these totally stereotypical ways!” are not legitimate criticisms. They are sexist. The sexism of the second one should be pretty obvious. The sexism of the first lies in the requirement that women be nice and polite to people who are, in fact, saying horrible and damaging things to and about them (no matter how nicely it’s phrased, sexist and misogynist things hurt women, period). Tone arguments always put the burden of being nice on the people who are most being harmed. People who have a right to be angry at the harm and oppression they experience, and have a right to express it, are nonetheless being told that they must be nice or privileged people won’t listen to them, thus blaming the oppressed for their oppression. It is not only actively oppressive, it is consistently factually incorrect. Again and again we see that no matter how nice oppressed people are, it’s the actual message that privileged people don’t want to hear, and they will grasp at any excuse not to listen. See the entire preceding conversation.
Legitimate criticisms of feminism are based on ways in which most forms of feminism generally fail to represent or address the problems of actual women. Most feminisms have historically and continue to fail to address the problems of women of color, who suffer from racism and sexism, and the ways in which they intersect and interact. Most feminisms have historically and continue to fail to address the problems of poor women, trans women, disabled women, and other further-marginalized groups of women. It is entirely legitimate to criticize feminism based on these problems. Some women have abandoned feminism altogether based on these criticisms, feeling that they are not allowed space in feminism and that mainstream feminists are oppressive along these other axes. Some of them have built their own equality movements instead, like black women have built womanism. Some have simply abandoned the name feminist and organized feminism while continuing to fight for equality in the ways that they feel they need to.
It is possible to be not-feminist and to criticize feminism and still genuinely work for equality. It is not really possible to be not-feminist and go around saying really sexist and oppressive shit that is actively anti-equality and still be genuinely working for equality as a general principle. Particularly if you don’t bother to actually go and do any work towards equality, but merely offer lip service.
Oh, and redcrosse? kacyray was labeled as anti-feminist because he was being anti-feminist. You may not be familiar with the usual tropes and trite complaints that people who are, in fact, working against feminism use, but many people here are. kacyray was using them from his first post on this thread.
“I’d venture to guess that you miss out on a lot of quality commentary simply for the fact that no one who isn’t a feminist would tolerate the treatment they receive for deigning to suggest alternate views.”
“I get run out of town because I simply don’t agree that I’m part of some privleged demographic.”
“I actually began to sympathize with the feminist cause… until I tried conversing about it here in the comments section a while back.”
All of these, plus claiming to be in favor of equality, but then qualifying the hell out of it and insisting that there really are basic and essential differences between men and women (known as gender essentialism) are absolutely bog-standard anti-feminist bullshit. Those tropes and others he’s used do actively undermine the effort to bring about true equality among the genders. He wasn’t “put in a box” for nothing, he demonstrated that he is not for true equality, and that his “common ground” with us consists of nothing but platitudes. He is not an ally because he is working against us. Claiming to agree with us on some things does not make him an ally. Nor does it make you one.
dobber
December 27, 2012 at 11:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
redcrosse
kacyray
His claim that those who weren’t on board with feminism were treated shabbily only because of their beliefs was completely undermined by the fact that he had no arguments whatsoever and that is clearly why he didn’t get the respect he thought he deserved.
Your argument seems to be even less substantial. Have you considered why you get that uncomfortable feeling around these kinds of people?
StevoR
December 27, 2012 at 11:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
.. Although for a “cult” there sure is a lot of critical thinking and variant opinions being aired here & can’t see much kool aid being drunk.
Cheers, Ed Brayton, you’ve got a great blog here that I always enjoy reading.
(& the WND stuff is often good for a laugh so please don’t stop posing on that ‘k?)
StevoR
December 27, 2012 at 11:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@196. redcrosse :
Agreed – & would go further that (2) often becomes “.. you’re an evil horrible nasty person if you disgaree with us on a couple of issues.”
Sometimes, just sometimes, the so-called “tone trolls” have a point and I think its good to hear and listen to both sides fairly before judging. Some of the commenters on PZ’s blog are just wa-aay Over The Top and too quick to condemn those who don’t see fully eye to eye with them. Others are good but the nasty one’s there who turn to personal abuse too quickly do give that blog’s comment section a bad reputation for a reason.
tomh
December 27, 2012 at 11:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
redcrosse:
In my case, I myself claim support for equality but would not call myself a feminist because I don’t like the way I see feminists argue on the internet
That’s may be your thing, but Kacy is saying something very different. He says he has recognized an underlying agenda to feminism that goes beyond legal and social equality. It sounds like a very pernicious agenda, but he just won’t say what it consists of. It’s bad, we get that, but … what is this agenda?
redcrosse
December 27, 2012 at 11:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@madgastronomer: You deserve a response for that thoughtful post. I had said, “And of course people are free to use whatever tone they like, and I’m free to avoid PZ’s comment section, as I do generally. That should be ok.”
I don’t spend much time fighting for equality, this is true. I don’t know the tropes. All I can say is that I am not interested in reading PZ’s or Isis’s comments because of the tone, so I don’t. I am certainly not trying to silence anyone.
I figured that supporting equality would make me “an ally” but I see it does not. That’s ok too. I’d like to be an ally I guess, I’ll do it by not being sexist in my limited sphere of influence and leave the internets alone.
@dobber, sure my “argument” is not substantial. “I don’t want to be thought of in the same group feminists as PZ’s commenters” isn’t very substantial. But it’s still my reason. I am allowed to have that reason, even if you think it’s stupid.
redcrosse
December 27, 2012 at 11:22 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@tomh, no idea what that hidden agenda is that he claims. Maybe he’ll respond. He is definitely saying something very different from me. It’s certainly not *my* issue.
allegro
December 27, 2012 at 11:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It is certainly wise to choose your battles and fortunate for you that you are able to step back from one that might make your day more uncomfortable for a bit as in participating in these discussions that could move you to examine your long-held beliefs. Would that this privilege be available to women who live with these issues daily, for lifetimes, often on an existential level. We don’t have such a luxury. Many of us are old enough and beaten enough to be damn, righteously angry and express that visceral anger when faced with the condescension and contempt of MRAs and those such as kacyray who claim they are on the side of equality while proving the lie of that claim with every post. Madgastronomer above explains this very well.
We’re rude? You don’t care for our tone? We’re not being nice, submissive little ladies waiting to have our rights granted by our natural born superiors? Well, fuck that shit. That never worked and it never will. We don’t need those who are so meek that they fear accusations of not being nice enough, who pay lip service to equality because it’s the PC thing to do and/ or as cover for their misogynistic beliefs and actions that we see and experience every damn day. When you witness all the meanies pouncing on those poor commenters who just “didn’t agree” with them, look closer. There’s a reason.
gilgamesh
December 27, 2012 at 11:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
[delurk] Yes d.c.wilson that was pretty much it, except as others have mentioned there was an unbelievable reaction from… I don’t even know how to describe them, paleo- atheists? I didn’t actually watch the video in which Elevatorgate “happened” until it was well and truly a crap tornado on our little corner of the internet. It reached the point where I thought “Somebody is seriously mischaracterizing what happened in this video. Either she says something profoundly offensive or hurtful to someone in that video, or holds up a picture of a dick getting chopped off or something, or else a there’s a bunch of people hating on her who have lost their damn minds!”
So I watched the video, and damn near missed the part where she said “guys don’t do that”, it was so casual.
It’s in the middle of her chatting about her trip, and generally positive things, and she just sort of mentions the whole thing in the elevator in an offhand way, like a conversational aside. She didn’t name the guy, or say he was a rapist, or >anythingside effectrationalwrong< with these people who are attacking the FTB and Skepchick bloggers.
Oh, and kacyray, your dance around the unnamed problems with Feminism is cute and all, but sir, shit or get off the pot. You sound like a passive aggressive ass with your "I refuse to name my reasons, they are however many, and the crimes to which I accuse them are vast and obvious no matter how I fail to enumerate them" schtick. Feminism isn't the Elks or something, there's no charter or secret constitution that you can take issue with. The people getting angry with your little dance are right. You either have a specific grievance that can be addressed, or you're just making stuff up as an excuse to not examine your preconceptions. Your "women like to talk on the phone, men blah blah" opinion isn't science, it's bad standup. Listen to what people are trying to tell you, they are trying to disabuse you of some really, really bad ideas. You might learn something.
As I've told my son many times, the two most powerful things you can ever admit are "I don't know" and "I could be wrong about that". From that all learning starts.
jws1
December 28, 2012 at 12:00 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed’s just fresh from surgery, and already has drama to deal with. Go easy on his ticker…
And folks on the net should do a better job of seeing fellow readers and commenters as humans. Humans they would more often than not extend a glad hand for, had they met them in person.
I would also like to see a thread exceed 200 posts, with more than a mere handful of them featuring the author at least acknowledging the possibility of having made some small or large error.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞
December 28, 2012 at 12:07 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
neuralobserver:
Your bias is showing.
PZ does not control FtB.
PZ Myers did not ban Thunderf00t.
Thunderf00t was fired, not banned. He can post at FtB’s various blogs. I doubt he would last long at Pharyngula though, with his anti sexual harassment position and his dismissal of sexism.
Ed Brayton
December 28, 2012 at 12:18 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
neuralobserver wrote:
Except none of that is true. Thunderfoot was not “banned” for “merely for expressing differing opinions” on any issue. He was removed from our slate of bloggers, not by PZ but by me. And it was because, as I’ve said many times, I did not have one single exchange with him in the 10 days or so that he was here that was not hostile and belligerent. He violated someone’s copyright, someone who is both a friend of the network and an advertiser on the network, then insulted her for daring to assert her rights. And then he launched into a huge tirade against me for telling him he can’t do that because it puts me in legal jeopardy. He simply does not play well with others. Things were only going to get worse, that was clear, so I pulled the plug. Guess what? I can do that. It’s my network. And his subsequent behavior, including using a backdoor to weasel his way back on the mailing list, after which he forwarded the content of conversations he knew he had no right to access to other people, has only proven my decision to be 100% correct. Thunderfoot is a first class fucking asshole by any possible measure.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞
December 28, 2012 at 12:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
jws1:
You may not agree with how people are talking to one another, but I have read every comment in this thread and there is no indication anyone is being treated as _not_ human. I see people debating-strongly-about a topic they find incredibly important. I see people using mean words sometimes. I do NOT see any dehumanization. As a human being, you get a base level of respect from me. That just means I think you are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. From there you can move up a little or a lot. Someone who doesn’t support equality for women, and who-through their words or deeds-opposes feminism, is not someone who gets my respect. I find any position that doesn’t support equality to be despicable.
Also, don’t be so quick to assume others would extend a hand to strangers if they met them in person. You might. Same doesn’t hold for others.
Finally, what is the significance of wanting a blogger to-specifically in a 200+ comment thread-admit any error?
Your entire comment is quite vague. Why not say what is on your mind?
WMDKitty (Always growing and learning)
December 28, 2012 at 12:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
K. Lorraine
*headbonks* You rock.
kacyray
Consider this sentence the equivalent of me barfing up a hairball on your shoes. You disgust me.
WMDKitty (Always growing and learning)
December 28, 2012 at 12:52 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Aack! tag-fail!
Ed, would you please close the bold-tag after “kacyray”?
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞
December 28, 2012 at 1:01 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And please, the substance of a message is of value, not how it is stated.
“I think MRAs are reprehensible scumbags who actively fight against women’s rights”
Vs
“I do not like MRAs because they dehumanize women”
Both the above statements give the same message. Depending on my mood, I may use either one. If I choose the former, and someone whines about my tone, they are ignoring the substance and focusing on the window dressing.
All of that is to say I find worrying about tone over content to be silly and childish.
dobber
December 28, 2012 at 1:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Redcrosse, sure you can have any reason you like for not being a feminist, but rejecting a belief in the need to struggle for equality based on not liking a few people who were upset with misogynists is as flimsy and transparent as gossamer. If you can understand why POC get angry at racists, you might like to think about why some women get angry at people who are sexist. Their very humanity is being undermined. That sure makes me feel a bit ragey.
susans
December 28, 2012 at 1:07 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well said, Ed. Thank you.
jws1
December 28, 2012 at 1:11 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Tony:
I was just offering a reminder to avoid being nasty. I guess I just assumed bigotry would fall under that category by definition. I was giving air to a hope I have for behavior in forums like this.
I don’t assume others would extend a hand. That’s why I included “more often than not”.
By “author” I meant the author of an individual comment.
jws1
December 28, 2012 at 1:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Tony:
You are right. Those two statements do say the same thing. However, I think perhaps you are mistaken in a practical way. Ignoring tone might turn out to be naive, in that it denies that persuasion can be delicate, given certain audiences. Go repeat those two statements in (insert suburban district) and I’m willing to bet that you’ll “win” more “hearts and minds” with one of those two statements. Repeat in (insert coastal city) and I’ll wager the other statement is favored.
Tone does matter. I wan’t more people to realize that it’s not a valid argument against feminism and atheism to assume there is no grounds to be angry. But folks with good substance can come across as cocksuckers that noone wants to listen to.
redcrosse
December 28, 2012 at 1:44 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@dobber. I clearly said I reject the label of feminist, I do not call myself a feminist, because I don’t want to be associated with such behavior as on these boards by others who go by that label. I do NOT reject the belief in the need for the struggle for equality. You might like to think why some people support your goals, but don’t want to be associated with your movement.
Again. That broad brush assumption you just made is exactly why I do not wish to participate in these threads.
dobber
December 28, 2012 at 1:46 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
JWS1
And other people are turned on by passion. In righteous anger, I can feel the justness of the cause and the hurt of the victims, while their arguments persuade me intellectually. Nothing has turned me onto feminism the way pharyngula has. And for women and LBGT people, there feels no safer place that one in which people will fight tooth and nail against your oppressors. Count me in the audience that has stayed for years because they are not delicate with male supremacists.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar
December 28, 2012 at 1:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Funny, redcrosse, that you are whining about a broad brush. Your paint strokes looks like they have been applied with rollers.
dobber
December 28, 2012 at 1:55 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I should add that no liberation has ever come about by being sweet to your oppressors. Those who demand this as a condition for supporting a just cause are just trying to silence the oppressed. So: no, I will not be sweet while you are trying to decide whether I merit equality.
redcrosse
December 28, 2012 at 1:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Janine, dobber accused me of rejecting the struggle for equality because I don’t like the way some feminists on the internet argue. I said I don’t go to those threads, and that should be ok. It’s endless attacks over minor disagreements like this.
Why are you attacking me? I am defending the fact that I do believe in equality, I just don’t want to call myself a “feminist” to people IRL for fear of association with abusive comments such as on PZ’s boards. Just like I’m being attacked now.
Christ on a cracker, I don’t think my comment warranted your attack of “whining.. rollers”
redcrosse
December 28, 2012 at 2:00 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@dobber and everyone else. Knock yourself out. Be vicious and cruel and mean and loud. Shout down misogynists. I do not disagree with that. I don’t expect you to be meek or sweet to people who are trying to silence you. I just said why I don’t want to call myself a feminist, and why I don’t go to those boards and participate.
I am not an enemy damnit.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar
December 28, 2012 at 2:15 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You call that an “attack”?
You really are a delicate hothouse flower.
redcrosse
December 28, 2012 at 2:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That comment is intended to incite indignation. Why do you do that? Do you think I am a bad person or do you just want a fight for its own sake?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar
December 28, 2012 at 2:34 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I do not want a fight. I really do not want to have anything to do with you.
dobber
December 28, 2012 at 2:37 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Indignation is also incited by injustice. Why do misogynists do that? And why do you blame those who are incited? You feel upset now. Imagine how you would feel if people were fighting to ensure your kind of people were not treated equally. Imagined if they walked away in disgust at you because you were upset by that. And because you were upset they decided to not support your case for equality. I can also see you are worried about being a bad person. Don’t let that fear stop you from looking at your beliefs in case you find something wrong. Instead let it work for you. Find out a bit more about feminism and why women get angry at sexist people.
Freodin
December 28, 2012 at 2:39 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Can’t we all just get along?
thatrage
December 28, 2012 at 2:46 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
1. Noone (sic)? Speak for yourself, pal. I’ve lurked around this shit for years, and I listened, and I was convinced. I’m not impressed by above-it-all Vulcan posturing and mewling faux civility and I doubt that such things would have been terribly effective at getting me to notice my own blind spots and consider my own privileges and prejudices, and I know damn well I am far from the only lurker with the same story; they always pop up in these threads eventually.
This is only to address the “practical way” in which you believe persuasion should be “delicate”, about which you are definitively mistaken at least for some significant subset of people (the “coastal city” people in your weird little analogy, and WTF are you even talking about when even you acknowledge the existence of plenty of people who will be more receptive to piss and vinegar?) This is to say nothing of what dobber said so well (and so much more succinctly) @224.
You are free to hang out in whatever corners of the internet you like and you are free to hang out your own shingle and enforce your own rules of tone and civility in your own corner; it’s presumptuous as shit for you to come into someone else’s corner and presume to tell them what their rules should be.
2. The fuck’s wrong with being a cocksucker?
…And yet here you are, participating.
/relurk
Janine: Hallucinating Liar
December 28, 2012 at 2:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Funny, that.
redcrosse
December 28, 2012 at 2:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Target of opportunity. Shoot anything that moves.
redcrosse
December 28, 2012 at 3:00 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed: I think it’s very important to make a distinction between those two groups, and it is sometimes far too easy to treat everyone who expresses any disagreement as though they were in the second group instead of the first.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar
December 28, 2012 at 3:07 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Words are not fists. You are not the victim of an attack.
redcrosse
December 28, 2012 at 3:34 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I am perfectly fine with having different approaches and strategies, and I agree that we have to recognize different types of disagreement. Yes, there are people out there who share the ultimate goal of equality but prefer different tactics to achieve those goals, and those people should not be treated as enemies.
I do think sometimes folks on my side have painted with a bit too broad a brush, rushed to judgment to scorn someone who is really an ally with a different view of how to achieve equality, or engaged in tribalism.
StevoR
December 28, 2012 at 3:38 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sometimes some of the commenters and some of the comments at pharyngula are witty,intelligent, informative and generally great.
Other times, other comments, ironically* sometimes even from the same people are just appalling personal abuse and nastiness.
Its the proverbial curates egg good in parts and bad in others.
BTW. The Tentacled Overlord, PZ Myers himself seems to have noticed this thread as noted here :
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/27/in-defense-of-the-commentariat/
As I’m sure y’know PZ I love your blog but cannot stand some of those who comment there and yes I know that feeling’s mutual.
++++++++
* If that’s the correct use of irony?
madgastronomer
December 28, 2012 at 3:44 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@redcrosse I figured that supporting equality would make me “an ally” but I see it does not. That’s ok too. I’d like to be an ally I guess, I’ll do it by not being sexist in my limited sphere of influence and leave the internets alone.
As allegro pointed out, it’s your privilege as a man to be able to step back and just avoid it. I’m stuck with sexism and misogyny every damn day. Pardon me if I don’t consider your weaksauce words-only support of equality not to constitute being an ally. Pardon me for expecting an ally to fight alongside me.
Just “not being sexist” isn’t enough, for several reasons. First of all, if you’re not educated about sexism — and you’re probably not — then you probably don’t recognize a lot of unconscious sexism in your thoughts and actions. So probably you’re not actually not being sexist. Is that an assumption on my part? Sure. But it’s backed up by not meeting anyone, ever, man, woman, or otherwise, who didn’t harbor some unconscious sexism.
Second, when you let sexism pass in front of you without comment or reprove — jokes told by other men, street harassment, the innocuous little things — then you are tacitly approving it, and those men think that you agree with them. It’s not enough to be passively not sexist yourself, to the best of your ability. Sexism doesn’t exist just between your ears, and it’s not in your intent. When you remain silent and let sexism pass in front of you, you are reinforcing sexism. And I bet you don’t call people out on mother-in-law jokes, or woman-driver jokes, or dumb blonde jokes, or whatever. Again, an assumption, but my experience is that guys like you who want to claim ally status for the minimum of work will loudly proclaim each and every time they’ve done it.
Don’t just claim you support equality. DO IT.
And the problem isn’t that you’re declining to go to the places, but that you’re going on and on about how conversation in an apparently small number of places is enough to put you off the label feminism, and how feminists aren’t your sort of people. You’re talking an awful lot more about your disapproval of our tone than you are about actual equality. How does that support equality, exactly?
Words are not enough. Don’t just claim you support equality. ACTUALLY SUPPORT IT. DO SOMETHING. Why is this such a foreign concept? Why is tut-tutting over tone worth your time and energy, but doing something about equality isn’t?
I am not an enemy damnit.
You are an enemy when you act like one. And you are. You are acting exactly like the guys who says this shit, and then go and say all kinds of sexist shit. And you’re still treating your disapproval as more important than equality.
@dobber #222 (and others, but that one especially)
*applause*
Wil Navidson
December 28, 2012 at 3:46 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The difference between feminism and radical feminism is really not that hard to figure out. Feminism is about gender equality, and is compatible with the male equivalent (MRM). It is focused on removing laws and practices in society that either grant special privileges to one sex, or deny rights to one sex.
Radical feminism is about gender supremacy, and it’s advocates are responsible for demonizing MRM. Radical feminism also spends a lot of it’s time blaming everything on men and is unfortunately easy to find. These 2 links took 2 minutes to find Feminist Aims for 2013 Article in national paper in the UK
The big problem I have with a lot of the FTB’s articles is not that they have a feminist “bias” to them, as that feminist “bias” is routed firmly in the positive side of feminism (gender equality). It’s that there is a strong tendency to demonize MRM.
redcrosse
December 28, 2012 at 3:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@madgastronmer fuck you. You don’t know what I do besides this thread. I have never approved or stood by hearing sexist comments from men. You don’t even know my sex anyway.
That entire post was in your head as a presumption that I do not fight and that I approve of sexism in daily life. Go to hell. Am I not capable of fighting sexism in my daily life and the extremism of you people on here at the same time?
Go congratulate your fellow ideologues. You know nothing about me. You know nothing about what I’ve done for the cause. You attack for no good goddamn reason. I did not act like an enemy here. The only thing I said was that I didn’t want to use the label “feminist” because the “feminists” I see on FtB are assholes and I don’t want to be viewed as one of them. Bourne out well by your comment.
redcrosse
December 28, 2012 at 4:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Again.
I am perfectly fine with having different approaches and strategies, and I agree that we have to recognize different types of disagreement. Yes, there are people out there who share the ultimate goal of equality but prefer different tactics to achieve those goals, and those people should not be treated as enemies.
I do think sometimes folks on my side have painted with a bit too broad a brush, rushed to judgment to scorn someone who is really an ally with a different view of how to achieve equality, or engaged in tribalism.
Stacy
December 28, 2012 at 4:18 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This crap again.
An unattributed Imgur is not evidence of anything. “Unfortunately easy to find” I’ll bet–no doubt you found it on an MRA site. It’s impossible to tell where it’s from or even how serious it is. It is ridiculous, and dishonest, of you to try and pass off such a thing–no name, or link to the source–as evidence of some widespread conspiracy to promote female supremacy. That sort of tactic is one of a number of reasons why MRAs are not taken seriously.
heddle
December 28, 2012 at 4:38 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Damn it Al, if you had just stuck with your creepy form of anti-Christianity–like approaching single moms in grocery stores to scare their children, you would only have people like me calling you out as unhinged. But no, you couldn’t leave well enough alone.
Gnumann+, something borrowed, something gnu...
December 28, 2012 at 4:38 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Wil Navidson:
Let’s look at supposed neutral source like Wikipedia
There’s no need for demonification, since the MRM even in the neutral descrition of Wikipedia is pretty demonic.
madgastronomer
December 28, 2012 at 5:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@redcrosse You don’t know what I do besides this thread.
You’re the one who said you don’t do spend much time working for equality except not being sexist.
I have never approved or stood by hearing sexist comments from men.
Bullshit. Everyone does it at least sometimes. But voicing objections, out loud where people can hear them, at least part of the time is sort of the smallest thing you can do to fight for equality. And, honestly, you probably don’t recognize a lot of the sexism that goes past you, because that’s true of nearly everyone.
You don’t even know my sex anyway.
*shrug* Women and agender people are perfectly capable of reinforcing sexism simply by remaining silent, too.
You know nothing about me. You know nothing about what I’ve done for the cause.
I know what you’ve told me. And you told me you didn’t spend much time fighting for equality. And I know how you’ve behaved, which, contrary to what you think, communicates to me that while you think you’re in favor of equality, what you do doesn’t follow through with that.
You attack for no good goddamn reason.
A) That? That was not an attack. I assure you.
B) Whether or not you like my reasons, I have them.
@somebody else whose name I can’t be bothered to find, possibly a couple of different people
Radical feminism is a school of feminist thought that holds that male supremacy currently exists, and that the patriarchy is a system of power that organizes society based on that supremacy. It is about eliminating patriarchy, not about instituting matriarchy. (Usually. That’s not to say there’s never been a rad fem who wanted to institute the matriarchy. But it’s not the aim of radical feminism as a movement.)
Radical feminism has a number of problems, notably that it is heavily freighted with racism and transphobia, among other issues, but for fuck’s sake, at least get the definition right.
Also, it did arise out of the second wave of feminism, because the first three waves of feminism are classified first by era and second by what issues they are responding to, and the founding feminists of radical feminism are second wave feminists.
joachim
December 28, 2012 at 5:03 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I LOVE THE SMELL OF ATHEISTS BASHING EACH OTHER IN THE MORNING1
kacyray
December 28, 2012 at 5:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If anyone is serious about wanting to know what it is about feminism that I see as the problem and why I won’t identify with the movement despite the fact that I do support full political and social equality for all… I’d be happy to have that conversation somewhere outside the echo chamber. With anyone at all. I’d also be happy to listen to counterpoints and alternative points of view on the topic.
Just have to tell me where and how.
I don’t know if it would violate some forum norm to post an email address here, otherwise I’d do that.
I am not unwilling to give the issue the attention it merits, or to consider alternative viewpoints. This is just not a good place to get into such a detailed and nuanced topic, for many reasons.
lancifer
December 28, 2012 at 5:45 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
MRAs?
Hmm, Magnetic Resonance Angiogram? Probably not.
Medical Reimbursement Account? Doesn’t seem to fit the context.
Multiple Regression Analysis? Nope.
Mutual Recognition Agreement? Nah.
Men’s Rights Activist? I think we have a winner.
What an obscure group to be referred to with a casual abbreviation. Such is the jargon of feminism I guess.
kacyray
December 28, 2012 at 5:45 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Whoa… it appears that if you click on my handle it takes you to my FB page.
So if you want to have a serious conversation outside the echo chamber…. you know where to find me. No bashing, no tribe, no nonsense… just exchange of ideas.
Gnumann+, something borrowed, something gnu...
December 28, 2012 at 5:52 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Your “thoughts” being semi-recyled garbage that’s transparent in the light of day is just one reason.
lancifer
December 28, 2012 at 5:59 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
MRM? I just deciphered MRA and now this.
Men’s Rights Movement?
Maureen Brian
December 28, 2012 at 6:23 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ 240,
We can be 99.98% certain that you did not read that piece in the Guardian and that, if you did read it, you did not understand it.
Congratulations!
madgastronomer
December 28, 2012 at 6:32 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@lancifer
Since every group develops its jargon based on its needs, you might like to think about how often feminists end up talking about men’s rights activists that we need an initialism for it. Maybe it’s because they regularly turn up in feminist spaces to harass us, or indeed harass us wherever they happen to find us, and are actively out to do us harm…
Gnumann+, something borrowed, something gnu...
December 28, 2012 at 6:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Lancifer:
Yup.
I prefer MRA myself (and the “A” is leaning more towards “asshole” than “activist”, since it covers more), but used MRM in this case since it was the term used by the person I was speaking to (and also the title of the Wikipedia article I linked to.)
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
December 28, 2012 at 6:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@redcrosse:
You can’t just say you are a feminist ally. You have to show it.
So far, I haven’t seen much to say whether you are or aren’t. You spend a lot of time talking about how people on PZ’s thread criticized you and called you anti-feminist. You defend Kacy Ray. You also spend a lot of time talking about how much of an ally you are and damn us for thinking otherwise.
Patrick from Michigan (Yes, that one!)
December 28, 2012 at 7:21 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Mr. Brayton,
I tip my hat.
When they are talking about you. You are doing something right.
Just remember, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Besides all that, it makes for some awesome blog content. :D
kacyray
December 28, 2012 at 7:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gunmann @251
I don’t expect too many folks here (particularly you and Kathryn) to venture outside the security of the tribe. For you to be on your own, having to do your own thinking and actually discussing ideas rather than just engaging in the obvious approval-seeking (which is all you currently offer) wouldn’t be much fun for you, would it?
After all, what good is snarking if all your friends aren’t around to pat you on the back as you beam with pride at your own cleverness?
Much better for folks like you to just continue snarking at anonymous blips in a comment section. To have a real conversation with a real human being with a real identity might be a bit intimidating. You’re best off just staying here.
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
December 28, 2012 at 7:34 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Kacy Ray:
Katherine.
Gnumann+, something borrowed, something gnu...
December 28, 2012 at 7:55 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s Gnumann thank you very much, and Gnumann+ for the likes of you (and because of the likes of you).
Actually, after a very long period of spouting canards and seeking the approval of my tribe,I did venture out, sought the evidence (sort of, I kinda had to do it to do my job at the time). After some time, it transformed me from a MRA to a feminist. Without actually any pressing need for approval-seeking (it lost me some friends though, but in retrospect I’m pretty well better of without them).
Now, enough about me, let’s talk about you:
Either you have something that can stand the light of day, or you don’t. Evidence so far points strongly towards don’t.
The thing here is that I’ve no interest in speaking to you. I’m not a one-to-one missionary, psychologist or coach. You’re only useful as an object lesson, and if you insist that any of that marvelous substance you claim to have only can be revealed in private – you’re no use at all.
Unless of course you’re actually willing to consider the facts and the evidence, but you kind never is.
.
kacyray
December 28, 2012 at 8:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I never said that any conversation had to be private. I have invited everyone to click on my handle and initiate conversation. My identity is public. Does this sound like the behavior of someone who is afraid of daylight?
The problem with this forum is that each day new blog posts render each conversation “old news” after a very short period of time. So every conversation, regardless of how relevant, engaging, or compelling, fizzles out after 24-48 hours. That’s the first problem.
Second is that it’s tough to keep one line of thought going when I have to constantly battle misrepresentations of my position coming from all over the place. To wit: when someone like Queer Tony @178 says “And screw cordiality when you are saying women do not deserve full equality in all walks of life.”, I am forced to either spend time addressing that distorition or deal with the reality that someone is going to read it, believe it, and then base further commentary on it.
These are only a couple reasons that this forum isn’t conducive to in-depth, extended conversation about important topics.
But it is noted that, while you claim to be an advocate for the feminist movement, you’ll only voice that advocacy from the safety of this echo chamber and have no interest in engaging those who might have other ideas as to better ways to truly advocate for women. How convenient.
It’s like an apologist who will only witness to people sitting in the pews of their church. What a bold crusader you are! Your feminist brethren must be proud.
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
December 28, 2012 at 8:34 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Kacy Ray:
I just want to address one part of your statement there. The whole “echo chamber” idea.
People tend to cluster with people who share their beliefs. It’s only natural. I like pie, I’d like to seek out other people who also like pie so that I can have good conversations with them. We may make a pie blog and talk about pie. We won’t like to hang out with people who abhor pie, call pie-lovers names, and turn every conversation about pecan pie into a shouting match about how cheesecake is a superior dessert. When a person comes on with a discussion about how cheesecake is superior and more people like cheesecake without any actual evidence and use of bullshit science to justify their beliefs, the pie-lovers may all try to argue that their opinion – without facts backing it up – is merely an opinion and not worth their time.
Is that an echo chamber?
Gnumann+, something borrowed, something gnu...
December 28, 2012 at 8:39 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If you don’t like the format, why the fuck are you here? Redcrosse and yourself seem to be the only persons who appriciate your presence. And your facebook page is hardly a more relevant platform (but moves things over in your editorial domain. hmmm… Why would you possibly want that).
When your position is “I don’t agree, but I won’t tell you why” you have to expect that people occationally fill inn the blanks. Especially when you come off as none-too-honest and spouting antifeminist canards we’re hard a dozen times before.
So, when other people try to ferret out you position which you hold under lock and key, they are mischaracterizing you. On the other hand, you have this magical insight in what I do and don’t? Try the other one buster, it got bells on it.
wolfhound
December 28, 2012 at 8:46 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oh, please, Ed, not you, too! I have stopped reading PZ’s blog and many others because of this topic. While I know that nobody will miss me (and I’m sure to get a chorus of “don’t let the door hit your ass on the way outs” from the more thuggish posters), I really would rather be able to read your blog without it being peppered with the same divisive crap that prompted me and others to stay away those other sites.
Gnumann+, something borrowed, something gnu...
December 28, 2012 at 8:49 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Wolfhound:
Would you mind telling us why it is Ed’s rather mild statement here that’s divise crap, and not Al’s huge turd?
dobber
December 28, 2012 at 8:50 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kacyray, the conversation hasn’t fizzled. You can still back up your claims. We haven’t forgotten. Be as deep as you like. The empty snark is just not satisfying me.
Gnumann+, something borrowed, something gnu...
December 28, 2012 at 8:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
dobber:
After checking his facebook page, I very much doubt he can. Not in any way that makes sence outside his mob at least. (A mob of libertarians is the right collective noun, right? Me no inborn English writer…)
rorschach
December 28, 2012 at 8:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You’re getting confused now. Pharyngula is the echo chamber, remember!
A minor nitpick here, if I may. While your statement is generally true, I don’t think it applies to blog commenters on FTB, or Pharyngula in particular. We don’t share beliefs, but many of us share a belief in truth and evidence, and some of us share some common political, social, cultural values. But belief is for religious people.
Atheists and skeptics had a movement based on shared beliefs(or the lack thereof)once, until we found out that half of them are sexist pigs, and/ or have the skeptical and reasoning skills of cane toads.
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
December 28, 2012 at 8:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@rorschach:
But the real question is: do you like pie?
Abrassart Jean-Michel
December 28, 2012 at 9:01 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hello:
Ed Brayton wrote:
“If you really think that Rebecca Watson or any of the others he names hates men, you cannot possibly have met them.”
Can’t we said that about most people on the internet? There are terrible people on the internet (trolls & co.), but if we meet them IRL then they are quite nice? I don’t see what’s Ed Brayton’s point here. Nobody says that Rebecca Watson must “hate men” IRL, after all she was married with a man a few years back. I don’t really care how she behaves IRL, if she’s a good friend, if she was a good wife to her husband, or if she says something quite different IRL than what she says online (but if she does, why the discrepancy?). But anyway, what’s Ed Brayton’s point? The problem that we see are not about how she is IRL, but how she behaves online.
So Ed Brayton’s argument is really weak, if not completely beside the point. I’m sure most christian apologists (like William Lane Craig) must be good friends IRL. So what? Should we stop criticising them because of that? Don’t think so.
Skeptically yours,
JMA
dobber
December 28, 2012 at 9:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There is no collective noun; they are all individuals.
Ed Brayton
December 28, 2012 at 9:09 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
wolfhound wrote:
Really? Seriously? I respond to someone criticizing several prominent members of the atheist community by claiming, falsely and absurdly, that they hate white men, and I’m the one being divisive? If not being divisive means not responding when people in our movement parrot Rush Limbaugh, then I guess I’m being divisive. But that’s fucking moronic.
dobber
December 28, 2012 at 9:09 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Abrassart Jean-Michel
But they are still Christian apologists IRL, right? Because that’s the point.
Ed Brayton
December 28, 2012 at 9:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Abrassart –
The idea that their behavior online suggests that they just hate white men is still idiotic and ridiculous.
rorschach
December 28, 2012 at 9:15 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Humble pie only for this one. I know that I know little, but at least I try to learn. Which is more than those who complain about the tone on Pharyngula ever seem to do.
I have met Rebecca Watson IRL and she is nice. I have met slymepitters and they were not. So where exactly does that leave your argument?
Please elaborate. Where has Rebecca Watson “behaved online” in such a way as to alienate you or offend your sensibilities?
Thank you, I needed a laugh!
savagemutt
December 28, 2012 at 9:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And please stop writing about religion too. That’s also divisive — that whole “separation of church and state” thing. And evolution as well. Its just too controversial.
Also, I don’t like Duke basketball.
Please stick to rainbows, unicorns and chocolate.
EllenBeth Wachs
December 28, 2012 at 9:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Silly us! We have gotten it all wrong! Despite the title and the content of Al’s video, he has commented on it now correcting the thousands that have misinterpreted his clear and concise wording that, “no, he is not equating Freethought Blogs with a cult”
Huh
kacyray
December 28, 2012 at 9:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gnumann @263
Because people like you are just so warm and welcoming. I can’t resist.
I answered this question in my first few comments. I’m very interested in the cultural battle regarding reason vs faith, very intersted in civil rights, very interested in first amendment issues, domestic policy, civil rights, etc. Ed offers a daily pot luck of articles on those issues. Unlike you, I can accept that I agree with someone on 98% of the issues while disagreeing on the other 2%.
Yes, and I’m sure redcrosse has learned, as I have, that if you had your way there would be no one in here other than those who you agree with in full. If only you realized what that says about you.
I only offered that up as an option, for reasons I’ve already described (but feel free to fill in your own reasons and ignore the ones I’ve articulated. Why break character now?) If you have a better place – one that can support extended dialogue without the distractions, let me know. Doens’t have to be any forum of mine.
Yes, but I would expect them to at least keep in mind that it is THEY who are filling in the blanks, and not me. You seem to keep forgetting that part.
I don’t hold my position under lock and key. I’ve expressed it here on many occasions (just ask Gretchen). The fact that I don’t feel like typing every single nuance over and over again into a comments section that will fade into history within the next 24 hours does not mean I’m unwilling to express my position – it just means I’m unwilling to repeat effort and energy I’ve already expended.
That’s why I prefer to talk in a forum that will have a bit more permanence than this. No forum is “permanent”, but some have longer-lasting visibility than others. Gmail works really well because everything is archived. I’ve had a 3 year dialogue with my fundamentalist uncle, and I’ve found myself having to run quick searches on many occasions in order to demonstrate to him that I didn’t say what he claimed i said, or that I actually DID tell him something he claims I didn’t tell him, etc… It helps to be able to document the dialogue.
Again – I just offered my own FB page up as an option. I’m happy to dialogue in any forum that is more conducive to extended conversation.
Noted: You’re the only one with the privlege of speculating on my motives, not the other way around. Got it.
ildi
December 28, 2012 at 9:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Marcus @45:
It’s 1980s, not 1980′s
(couldn’t resist)
Ed Brayton
December 28, 2012 at 9:52 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
EllenBeth-
Yes, where could anyone ever get the idea that he was calling FTB a cult? I mean, other than from the fact that he titled his video “An Atheist Cult: Those Radicals From Freethought Blogs…” I can’t imagine how I got it so wrong.
imback
December 28, 2012 at 9:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A bazaar of libertarians, maybe?
Gretchen
December 28, 2012 at 9:58 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hey Ed, I used to say all of the time in undergrad and grad school that if studying religion academically didn’t lead to anything fruitful, I could always become a cult leader instead. But you’ve gone and done it first, damn it! Do you need, like, a vice cultist in charge of brain-washing?
Ophelia Benson
December 28, 2012 at 10:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well this is futile, but all the same – neuralobserver @ 199 said -
That is not what happened. I did not “conflate” (I think you must mean “inflate”) what Shermer said into an example of his full-blown, unrepentant sexism. The column was not about Shermer. It was about stereotypes about women, and their relationship to women & secularism. What Shermer said was an example of such stereotypes. That’s all it was. Most of the column had nothing to do with Shermer.
kacyray
December 28, 2012 at 10:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@262 Katherine
Your comments are noted and understood. I get it, that like-minded people tend to congregate. But take Gnumann’s comment @263 “Redcrosse and yourself seem to be the only persons who appreciate your presence”
Now, if you agree with that statement (as I do), then this should answer your question. The difference between a congregation of like-minded folks and an echo chamber is that the former group welcomes the injection of dissenting views (or at the very least, doesn’t oppose them), while the other has no desire, no tolerance, and no capacity to handle them.
And by “no capacity to handle”, I mean an environment where “I disgree” is seldom heard and “You’re a stupid fucking idiot” (or some variation) is heard frequently.
If you look through this thread alone (not counting the few others I’ve been involved in before) you’ll hear a lot of “You have no argument”, “your argument is pathetic”, “why are you even here”, “you’re just a woman-hater” etc… but you will not find many “I see where you might be coming from, and here’s why I disagree”.
This is a consistency that I find here, not just toward myself, but toward any dissenters. Take an honest look at the treatment that I and redcrosse have received in this thread alone. It is a microcosm of the general atmosphere in the comments section.
Have you noticed that I haven’t hurled a single insult? I don’t think redcrosse has either. Have you noticed I haven’t dismissed anyone’s argument out-of-hand, that I have tried to answer all questions thoroughly (unless they’ve been answered elsewhere), and done all I can to articule a dissenting view dispassionately? Have you noticed how that effort has been received?
You probably don’t, because you are one of the culprits. But I think anyone who had no skin in the game, and who isn’t familiar with this particular culture, would see it right away.
Anyway, that’s why I call this an echo chamber. I’m pretty confident that it’s an accurate description.
dingojack
December 28, 2012 at 10:06 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gretchen – isn’t that conforming with the patriarchy’s stereotypes?
Why should a women be relegated to doing the (brain)washing?
;) Dingo
julian
December 28, 2012 at 10:07 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
wtf?
I dislike redcrosse. Prissy and annoying.
But why the fuck are you all attacking them like this? You don’t know any them about them. You’re extrapolating from a few comments and taking the worse possible reading of them about their life. You can all go fuck yourselves. Jesus, what a bunch of assholes.
I’ve asked this same question to several people. No solid answer yet. They just default to how wonderful things used to be and how we’re destroying the movement.
SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius
December 28, 2012 at 10:09 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’ll tell you why I have zero interest in the “your tone is alienating potential allies” argument.
If you can’t handle me or some other feminist telling you to step up your game, then what ARE you going to do when confronted with a real live misogynist? Who are, as you probably don’t know since the entirety of your “activism on behalf of women’s equality probably consists of lecturing feminists about how they’re doing it wrong, usually not polite to feminists.
I really don’t want anyone on my side who is capable of being alienated because of a few mean words from his supposed allies. Those kinds of “allies” are worse than enemies. You think they have your back, but then you turn around and they’re gone, or they’re aiming their criticism at YOU because you weren’t a perfect Vulcan feminist activist can allowed your anger over the ongoing, millennia-old oppression of women to shine through. Fuck that shit. And fuck redcrosse and kacyray and anyone else trying to promote this stupid argument as if it were based on reason instead of emotional inertia and the feeling of discomfort as your privilege ebbs away.
Ed Brayton
December 28, 2012 at 10:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gretchen –
Send me your resume and let’s talk.
kacyray
December 28, 2012 at 10:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
When I say “(or at the very least, doesn’t oppose them)” what I meant was that while they may oppose the ideas being introduced, they at least don’t oppose the introduction of those ideas.
Raging Bee
December 28, 2012 at 10:15 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
So no, I don’t think you get to now say “I just want to be left alone, I never did anything to you people.”
Didn’t the Southern secessionists say the same thing in 1861?
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
December 28, 2012 at 10:17 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Kacy Ray:
I’ll admit, as a whole, PZ’s crowd tends to be a little crass in their speaking – but attacking the tone of the argument without addressing the argument for its merits is tone trolling, and is not appreciated. Yes, we tend to say “you’re a fucking idiot, here’s why” rather than “I disagree, here’s why.”
The reason you haven’t heard the “I disagree and here’s why” stuff is because you haven’t presented a cogent argument. You’ll quickly learn from, mostly PZ’s blog, that we appreciate and encourage contrary views. However, we only appreciate those views if they’re backed up by evidence and facts. So far, I’ve yet to see any evidence that you’ve presented that discusses your views.
Let’s go with the one I started arguing with you about – the nurturing v aggressive trope. You presented a simple statement, paraphrased: generally women are more nurturing and men are more aggressive. You didn’t back this up with evidence, and when presented with contrary reasoning – that most of that comes from social cues and being ‘boxed’ as I said – you didn’t respond at all to that line of thinking. You merely reiterated the exception to the rule caveat you added.
As far as your claim you answered questions thoroughly, no you have not. Answer this question, repeated several times by several posters:
You mentioned an underlying agenda of feminists that disallows you from agreeing with them, what is this agenda?
Deen
December 28, 2012 at 10:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@redcrosse and others who don’t like to apply the label “feminist” to themselves, here’s what you need to understand about why that makes us suspicious of your claimed support. You see, what you’re saying is that you believe the stereotypes about feminists (they’re too angry/too dogmatic/whatever) that came from anti-feminists, and you point to a couple of sites that you don’t like to confirm your bias. What you don’t do, is investigate whether the stereotype is correct -at most, you’re looking for more confirmation in responses you don’t like. You seem to rather want to continue to believe the stereotype, instead of believing the people who try to explain the stereotypes is wrong, and that it would be better if you’d help combat the stereotypes instead. So, considering you appear to be more willing to believe anti-feminist stereotypes than feminists, should you really be surprised that we doubt your claims of being an ally?
In this way, you’re exactly like agnostics who don’t want to label themselves “atheists” because they believe the stereotypes of atheists (militant/dogmatic/fundamentalist/whatever) pushed by Christian apologists. They too will be able to satisfy their confirmation bias by pointing at certain blogs or comments or people they don’t like. They too refuse to listen to atheists explaining why the stereotype is wrong, let alone help atheists combat it. And they too are confused why we’re suspicious about their claims of being allies.
TLDR: We recognize the stereotypes you use, we know that they’re pushed by our opponents, and we observe that you believe those sources over us, so we naturally question your status as an ally.
kacyray
December 28, 2012 at 10:23 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sally, there’s nothing wrong with a minimum expectation of respectful dialogue.
You have to have some serious social dysfunction to criticize someone for expecting a minimum degree of respecful human interaction from someone with whom they’re trying to have an adult conversation.
You’ve clearly lost sight of the fact that there are people on the other end of these keybaords. At least I hope you don’t talk to people in real life the way you talk to people here.
I only recently learned about the phrase “tone troll”… apparently that’s a term that was manufactured by folks who, like yourslf, forget that they are talking to people.
But what’s most important to point out is that my expectation for a minimum standard of decorum has nothing to do with my argument.
I can deal with your level of dialogue, be assured. But don’t complain when I point out how childish you act.
Raging Bee
December 28, 2012 at 10:30 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m opposed to feminism because I believe that it has some flawed premises… premises that are not fully disclosed by statements such as…
They’re not fully disclosed (or even mentioned) by you either. And we wonder why we question your motives?
pacal
December 28, 2012 at 10:37 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I just don’t get it. When this crap started c. 1 1/2 years ago I thought Rebecca Watson had a point but that she was exaggerating. Her comments were still restrained and pretty level headed. What I was not prepared for was the sheer mammoth size of vicious hateful misogyny that burst forth. Whoa!! What an eye opener that was! I realized that not only was Rebecca Watson right but that if anything she had underestimated the extent of the problem.
Since then repeated clashes have reinforced this impression.
What I don’t get is all the tone trolling that as gone on. It appears that rather than discuss misogyny we get people going on and on about the tone. Anything to avoid discusing misogyny I guess.
redcrosse
December 28, 2012 at 10:37 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Deen, You see, what you’re saying is that you believe the stereotypes about feminists (they’re too angry/too dogmatic/whatever) that came from anti-feminists, and you point to a couple of sites that you don’t like to confirm your bias.
You people are excessively mean, no matter who says it. Just look at what happened to me here. This is a group of people I would never want to associate myself with. I didn’t -go- to PZ’s blog. I -stayed away-.
soul_biscuit
December 28, 2012 at 10:38 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
This. When asked for examples of what about feminism is distasteful to you, you waved your hand at other commenters’ posts, without any explanation of why you consider those examples part of feminism or why they taint feminism for you. I imagine this conversation would have been more productive if you’d been up front about your position.
MissMarnie
December 28, 2012 at 10:40 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@kacyray
And some of us are saying that there’s nothing wrong with a minimal expectation of equality which is what this whole topic is about. You want respectful dialog, we are looking for equal respect everywhere else. We’re tired of being told we aren’t asking nicely enough, that we aren’t protecting the feelings of individuals who make statements we’ve heard before and that simply serve to suggest that we’ve gotten all we deserve to get and we should quietly accept it.
kacyray
December 28, 2012 at 10:45 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raging Bee @294
Just because you haven’t heard it doesn’t mean I haven’t said it. In my comment @188 I said:
You can take issue (or not) with the premises of feminism with which I disagree that I have articulated during this converesation, but goddammit you can’t say I haven’t articulated any! All you can do is ignore what I’ve said and then chalk it up as some sort of moral victory when I refuse to expend the effort of either re-typing it or directing you to it.
It’s frustrating to take the effort to articulate a position or answer a question, only to be told three comments later that I haven’t offered an argument or stated the premises with which I disagree. I don’t mind typing these things out… but I damn well do mind having to type them out over and over agian and then keep on doing a Ctrl-F so that I can direct everyone else to them.
Don’t mistake my reluctance to re-state my position as a reluctance to state it in the first place. When you talk to someone who clearly has their fingers in their ears, it isn’t very convincing when they pull the fingers out and say “But you haven’t said anything!”
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
December 28, 2012 at 10:52 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@kacyray:
And we did adress that. You used a bullshit evopsych argument to back up your claim.
Raging Bee
December 28, 2012 at 10:52 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You have to have some serious social dysfunction to criticize someone for expecting a minimum degree of respecful human interaction from someone with whom they’re trying to have an adult conversation.
Oh, come off it, boy — you’re making idiotic, unsupported, and long-discredited assertions, and we’re pointing out that your assertions are dead wrong. You’re getting all the respect you deserve, and this conversation is as adult as we can be when talking to someone who insists on acting like a fool.
So cut the pompous whinery about our tone, and stop pretending you’re being misunderstood by a mob of Philistines.
julian
December 28, 2012 at 10:55 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Please stop trying to force people to identify as feminist. It’s disrespectful to them and dismissive of the not so great relationship feminism has had with a lot of minority groups and rights.
kacyray
December 28, 2012 at 10:56 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
MissMarie @298
Intersting.
I realize this is a tangent to the converstaion… but your statement does intrigue me.
Question: Are you looking for women to have equal respect in the realm of competition? (in other words, do you disagree with the ubiquitous seperation of women’s competition in sporting events, such as WNBA, WPGA, WPBA, seperate standards for female chess players, etc..)? Would you advocate for the seperation of men and women in competative events to be abolished based on the idea that women are just as capable as men, or at least ought to be considered on a case-by-case basis?
Maureen Brian
December 28, 2012 at 11:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kacyray,
Has it ever crossed your mind that you are disrespectful to feminists?
By your attempt to dominate this conversation even when you have nothing to say, by your ready recourse to stereotypes, by your attempt to base your arguments (sic) on something you claim to know but won’t clarify for the many who ask, you show total disrespect to Ed and to everyone else.
You are rude. After considerable provocation, we reply in kind. As my long-dead Dad used to say, “Fair dos!”
Now, have you got something to add to this conversation or not?
Gretchen
December 28, 2012 at 11:04 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Okay, I’ll put my gun down. It’s not the most effective means of brainwashing, anyway.
Michael Heath
December 28, 2012 at 11:06 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raging Bee to Kacyray:
I agree. At some point when a crappily constructed argument is devastated, like Greta Christina, Gretchen, and a few others immediately did to kacyray’s argument, someone with integrity and the ability to adapt after their defects are pointed out would concede and adapt to a better argument. So ridicule if they continue to blah, blah, blah is a justifiable option, or ignoring them; especially when the person arguing in poor form is also essentially thread-jacking the blog post.
abb3w
December 28, 2012 at 11:06 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oooh, this is a lively one. I’ll have to wade through more carefully, later.
@56, Ed Brayton:
There’s differences in degree. However, there’s also differences in the shallow shortcuts that people use. For some, the main shortcut is “The person of Authority has spoken; authority is correct; therefore, the authority is right” … and then proceed to social signal support of that position, to help bolster that authority. For others, it’s “I am right more often than most people; therefore, I am probably right here”… and proceed to signal that.
But I’ve ranted on the Dispatches comments and Pharyngula’s about RWA versus SDO before, and in particular on how some of the commentariat struggles look to be a conflict between low-RWA/high-SDO males being perceived as a threat-group by high(er)-RWA/low(?)-SDO females among contemporary Western atheism, making for some turbulence in the social front. An attempt to go over it again seems likely to be lost in the current frenzy, but I’ll once again plug the work of Dr. Robert Altemeyer… even though the third link leaves this likely to be held up in moderation.
abb3w
December 28, 2012 at 11:09 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hm; typo in my HTML. Let’s try search links one and two again.
MissMarnie
December 28, 2012 at 11:10 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@kacyray #303
What on earth does any of that have to do with respect? I’m talking about a woman saying “don’t do that guys” and being barraged with rape threats and having people assume she hates men for even suggesting that someone’s behavior seemed a little creepy. I’m talking about the fact that women earn less and men, and people will say things like “well, that’s because women choose lower salaries so they can care for kids.” I’m talking about the fact that 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted in her life yet only the very smallest fraction of rape cases are ever convicted. I’m talking about how assumed gender roles hurt men who don’t fit the male ideal of “masculine” and hurt women who don’t fit the ideal of “feminine.” I’m talking about how these strict gender roles make it so men who DO want to be the nurturing type face discrimination when they want paternity leave or aren’t the primary bread winner. I’m talking about how all these gender roles paint trans individuals as subhuman and worthy of disdain. These are issues that are important and matter and are at the heart of feminism. Feminism is not about making women the best. It is about rejecting the idea that you have to fit a particular, societally approved, pre-define gender role. It’s about tearing down the biases that hurt people simply for not fitting an arbitrary standard.
So no, I’m not going to get into a conversation of NBA versus WNBA. It’s a completely irrelevant topic.
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
December 28, 2012 at 11:24 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Kacy Ray:
I’ll bite your ridiculous WNBA v NBA bullet and say, sure. Why not. Open the NBA to women, open the WNBA to men. There are some women who would kick so much ass at men’s sports (I’m convinced that the Williams sisters could mop the floor with a good number of the male tennis stars.) And in addition, there are some men who are not good enough for the men’s sports but would be good in the women’s leagues.
Of course then you’d have to change the names of the leagues, but that’s easily done. The point is that you can’t put men and women into boxes and say all women everywhere should be banned from playing in men’s leagues or fighting on the front lines, usw. Only things having to do with actual biological functions (I dunno… porn?) should have limitations of who can do what.
MissMarnie also re-addresses the part of the argument you’ve failed to address – gender roles are terrible. Boxes are terrible. Using these general assumptions about a person solely due to their gender is a terrible way to bestow rights and privileges. And this isn’t just about women, it’s also about men. It’s things like your evopsych bullshit about nurturing women and aggressive men that people use as evidence to deny women equal pay. It’s the gender role of a woman who needs to have children denying women the right to choose what she does with her body. It’s about men being tormented for not being sports nuts or not being athletic or maybe a bit feminine.
Gender roles are bullshit.
TCC
December 28, 2012 at 11:24 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
MissMarnie@309: Well said.
kacyray, while I’m not really that entrenched in these feminist/anti-feminist (non-feminist?) fights, I have known enough feminists and know enough about feminism to know that you are not accurately describing what feminism is. When you talk about feminism being in favor of eliminating all putative differences between the sexes (which introduces another problem altogether), you are unequivocally wrong. There might be feminists out there who do advocate for such a thing – you can find self-professed atheists who say they believe in a god, too – but that doesn’t make it a part of feminism writ large. What others have said about confirmation bias seems to be quite applicable to you; at least, I can’t think of any possible cause for you having such an incredibly skewed view of feminism. Perhaps you ought to reconsider your trenchant opposition to feminism as a movement.
Gnumann+, something borrowed, something gnu...
December 28, 2012 at 11:25 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kacyray:
That still doesn’t answer the question: Why are you here if you consider the format useless?
Interesting strawperson you got there. Did you build it all by yourself or did you get some help? It’s more a case of “If just the blithering idiots everybody disagrees with would leave us alone, we would get around to discuss more interesting things.”.
As you’ve yet to show that you’re anything but a distraction, I can hardly recommend any distraction-free alternative, can I?
You really do. All you’ve put up in this tread (except – “no there is something else that makes me not agree”) is some vague gender-essentialism. Which you failed to answer for at the merest whiff of opposition. Also, the only other thing you’ve revealed in this tread (via your facebook page) is your libertarianism.
And yet here you are, demanding that others feed you. As soon as you’re asked a question you clam up, but everybody else should answer your half-formed questions in you mind. Do you really think your behaviour is anywhere in the vicinity of a respectful conversation?
Ah, I see, you perceive “respect” as “lack of insults”.
So, is this why you can’t see how disrespectful and insulting your behaviour here has been?
You can’t really deal with the level of dialogue here. If you did you would be able to make your position and your arguments clear. And understand that insults are not the prime expression of disrespect.
No, you really didn’t. You never asked “Gnumann, what do you do for feminism outside this” (Though you did kinda ask “Gnumann, have you ever considered the validity of my point if view?” – To which you got an answer, which you haven’t really commented (unless I missed something).)
On the other hand, you were asked repeatedly to clarify what the fuck your problem with feminism actually was, and why you couldn’t accept the most common accepted definition. Your only answer was a half-chewed antifeminist strawperson we’ve heard a hundred times before.
So, do you mind telling us why your behaviour here hasn’t been utter disrespectful from the start and deserve anything but scorn?
Kevin
December 28, 2012 at 11:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Exaggerating? Watson was exaggerating?
She factually reported an incident that happened to her, and then said, “guys, don’t do that.”
Where in the fucking hell do you get an idea that she was exaggerating anything about the incident?
She never said she was in fear of being raped. She never said the guy was a rapist or a wanna-be rapist. She never even said the guy was just a moronic lame-assed pick-up artist. None of that. She said, “this guy invited me up for coffee while we were in the elevator…guys, don’t do that.” Jesus fucking Christ, she was buying the guy a clue.
Fucking hell, you people are fucking moronic idiots who cannot even be arsed to go to the original source and look at what was said, when it was said, and how it was said before forming a completely fucking wrong opinion.
It was NOT REBECCA WATSON’S FAULT, you fucking idiot.
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)
December 28, 2012 at 11:35 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Janine:
Please stop attacking the nice antifeminist. His feelings, which are of the utmost importance, are being offended.
Anthony K
December 28, 2012 at 11:41 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m sorry, are you not getting enough handjobs for your thoughtful contributions?
Let’s review them, and I’ll give you a few good yanks.
Brilliant! Just brilliant! Wonderful. So, should we start building a men’s ark to preserve the sex? Do go on.
Another potential Nobel-winning contribution. Have you considered writing a paper about how we can just do away with all of that messy experimental design business, with those annoying controls and whatnot, and just pretend that the observer-expectancy effect (among others) doesn’t exist.
Shall we keep going? Have you gotten off yet?
Gnumann+, something borrowed, something gnu...
December 28, 2012 at 11:41 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Who has done this in this tread?
And feminism is not a thing you know. “Feminism” doesn’t have poor relations with anything other than “antifeminism” since it’s a (very loosely defined) ideology. Not an actor with it’s own agency.
Some 2. wave feminists have admittedly poor relations with a lot of groups, stop trying to force me to identify with those, thankyouverymuch.
Anthony K
December 28, 2012 at 11:42 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Right. So the next time you think about writing something as blatantly fucking moronic as “In fact, I hear that males will eventually be phased out. So much for being the privileged sex”, ask yourself if that’s really a respectful contribution, or maybe just consider shutting your damn fool fucking mouth.
thebg
December 28, 2012 at 11:46 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@redcrosse – I used to hold your position. However the weight of thousands of blunt comments forced me to rethink two of my most dear irrational beliefs, both firmly entrenched from a privileged point of view.
1) Style is positively proportional to quality of argument.
I used this as an offensive tactic (purely in my own head) to keep scary feminists and their arguments in a subjugated position to support my fantasy that I could claim feminism on my own terms. I constructed a forensic meet around the ftb comments sections with me as the judge so that I didn’t have to do any self-reflecting.
It is not a forensic meet. It is not primary school. It is not even a polite dinner party where decorum may trump offense. It is a mostly unmoderated public square where unsubstantiated, irrational and dangerous beliefs foisted upon the ‘public’ as truth can be expected to be shouted down. There are precious few such spaces in this world.
2) Shark attacks are an underlying sign of a personality disorder.
When a commenter would drop by and make what appeared to me as a casual comment and then get thoroughly pummeled I would get turned-off. In order to justify this to myself I concocted the notion that the meanies were simply not of my stripe, had a tic that could not be controlled or were simply swimming in circles out of boredom waiting for the first whiff of blood and then getting high from the kill.
The reason I took this position is embarrassingly obvious, my own privilege had been pricked. The unlucky fish being rent asunder could have been me, had I dared to venture out from the school. By extension I had been swimming with a philosophy I had claimed to disavow. My own cognitive dissonance was the root of my offense, not the words being used in the thread.
I have no idea if the comment threads are filled with people I would befriend in real life or not, and what’s more it makes absolutely no difference. I am a single data point that the approach taken by ftb to encouraging active and open support of feminism in this community has provided education that has resulted in real and personal change.
redcrosse I would encourage you to stand again under the banner of Feminism and be proud to throw in with this lot. Perfection is not the price of entry, only introspection and willingness to learn.
EllenBeth Wachs
December 28, 2012 at 11:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@280 Ed, I know!
He has responded to that very question posed by pointing me to his quote in the video, “I hesitate to refer to Freethought Blogs as a whole…” but then he proceeds to do so at great length for the rest of the video.
MissMarnie
December 28, 2012 at 12:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@kacyray
You know that feeling you have right now? The one where you know that everyone around you thinks that what you have to offer to this conversation is likely to be of low quality and they aren’t going to take your points as seriously as you’d like? That feeling right there? You earned that. But you know what? That is the feeling that millions of people feel, all the time, who haven’t earned it. People of color, women and LGBT individuals are all treated like that, day to day, as a default. It is an exception to be among people who value their opinion as much by default as the straight, white, cisgender men who hold most of the top positions in government and business. That’s what feminism is about. It’s not about taking anything away from anyone, it’s about breaking down those biases that subtly favor one group over another for no good reason.
And you know what? I have biases. I catch myself thinking in ways that can be subtly harmful to others. I work hard to catch these assumptions and change them. The only way to change is to hear what people are saying and stop making their experience about you.
kacyray
December 28, 2012 at 12:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gnumann
LOL! And I will take you seriously on this, guy who authored comment #312.
I’m sure that you have fought a noble fight against whatever forced I initiated that have forced you into this seemingly endless dialogue in which you clearly have no interest in participating.
Because that wasn’t the question you asked. You asked why the fuck I was here. Ask a coherant question and you have a better shot of getting the answer you’re looking for.
The answer is – this comment section is good for short-term, brief exchanges. Not for extended converstaions. How have you not understood this yet? I’ve explained this at least three times already.
Alright, now you’ve lost all credibility. I’ve done nothing *but* answer questions. You are clearly not equipped to have this conversation.
Take the rest of the day off.
Anthony K
December 28, 2012 at 12:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Tell us more of these things you, in fact, heard.
redcrosse
December 28, 2012 at 12:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@thebg, “2) Shark attacks are an underlying sign of a personality disorder.
When a commenter would drop by and make what appeared to me as a casual comment and then get thoroughly pummeled I would get turned-off. In order to justify this to myself I concocted the notion that the meanies were simply not of my stripe, had a tic that could not be controlled or were simply swimming in circles out of boredom waiting for the first whiff of blood and then getting high from the kill.
The reason I took this position is embarrassingly obvious, my own privilege had been pricked. The unlucky fish being rent asunder could have been me, had I dared to venture out from the school. By extension I had been swimming with a philosophy I had claimed to disavow. My own cognitive dissonance was the root of my offense, not the words being used in the thread.”
This is exactly what I see and I am thoroughly turned-off (I’m sure to the care of no one here). I know that’s how it is on Pharyngula and now here, so I avoid those places and don’t want to be associated with people like that, i.e. will not call myself a feminist (which makes me anti-feminist apparently). The meanies are indeed “not of my stripe” as I said far above. The fish being rent asunder *is* me here and others. This is no group I want to throw in with.
Can I ask you to clarify the bolded sentence? I can follow the rest but that part is where you lost me. 1) You recognized that you could have been the unlucky fish had you strayed from the school, and 2) by extension you had a philosophy you claimed to disavow? I don’t follow how you got to 2 or what the philosophy is.
kacyray
December 28, 2012 at 12:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
MissMarie @320
I don’t think you know exactly how I feel right now, but I can help you relate.
Close your eyes, and imagine going into an MRA blog comment section and trying to make the case that you are a feminist, but that doesn’t make you a man-hater.
Now imagine trying to explain this for two days, during which you patiently and politely attempt to state your case, only to be met on *all sides* with insults, mockery, and accusations that you won’t answer questions, can’t make a cogent case, saying stuf that “we’ll all heard before”, etc..
Imagine that scenario… knowing that you’re in there and you’re doing all the right things – not being vindictive or insulting – just making your case. And eventually you would say to youself, “You know, I’ve been as patient as I can. I’ve tried to speak to these people like adults. I’ve tried to answer their questions, and engage in an honet exchange of ideas, but there absolutely no hope for these fuckers.”
Now open your eyes…
Now you know exactly how I feel right now.
dingojack
December 28, 2012 at 12:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
kacyray – Well you;re doing all that except the bit where you state your case effectively and with actual creditable evidence.
Do that and perhaps you’d be getting somewhere.[IMHO].
Dingo
Gnumann+,who should not under any cirumstance be referred to as "gunman"
December 28, 2012 at 12:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kacyray:
The question I asked was:
Gnumann+,who should not under any cirumstance be referred to as "gunman"
December 28, 2012 at 12:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ my 326:
Bah! Borkquote!
The last bit’s mine, now.
MissMarnie
December 28, 2012 at 12:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@kacyray #324
Actually, if I were to do just that, I’d be called a, gendered slurs, threatened, told to go back to the kitchen and make a sandwich and asked to show my tits or leave. What I wouldn’t find is anyone actually having a conversation about my individual points.
What you see as an attack, is adults emphatically disagreeing, in the same way you might disagree with a creationist who would come here and try to carefully and thoughtfully explain why they think you are wrong about evolution. At some point, you get tired of pascal’s wager. You get tired of irreducible complexity. You get tired of the ontological argument. Do you really think you owe it to every last creationist to explain, with patients and kindness, why their arguments are wrong? At some point do you get fed up with rehashing the same points with someone who can’t or won’t acknowledge all the evidence? Who insists that defining “theory” incorrectly, makes his argument valid?
That’s how you sound to me. You want to ignore evidence, you want to redefine, “feminism.” No matter how rational you think you are being, if your premise is simply wrong, I’m not obliged to accepted and I am free to call it BS as I see it.
PatrickG
December 28, 2012 at 12:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@kacy:
You still haven’t answered my question from way up. The post with links it got moderated, so I’ll try just two links:
Who Uses Cell Phones the Most While Driving. “60% of the men interviewed used cell phones without a headset while driving, compared to 53% of the women that were interviewed. When asked about how often they use cell phones while driving, 50% of the men said they use cell phones daily compared to only 32% of the women.”
STUDY: Connecticut women less likely to violate cell phone ban. “In 2011 alone, men received nearly 16,000 tickets while women got only 13,690.”
Again, the previous comment got held up in moderation due to the number of links. Could you substantively address this? You previously claimed that women talked on the phone in supermarkets more than men, and that this was similarly evident while driving. Your original argument was:
I claim you’re wrong, on the basis of the linked studies (and the ones that didn’t make it through moderation). Therefore, I claim your inference of differing psychologies and social needs cannot be supported by your claim. I further claim that your claims, since based on incorrect data, are most likely due to consciously or unconsciously held beliefs that are not based in reality (i.e. bias).
I should note that cognitive bias is something all humans are susceptible to, and that this is most definitely not intended as a personal attack. Rather, I hope to convince you through argument and data that your position in the quoted section cannot be defended.
I await your response.
kacyray
December 28, 2012 at 12:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ah yes, you’re right. That’s what I get for not actually scrolling up and referenceing. You got me.
But thanks for focusing on my error… now you probably need to get back to the busines of convincing yourself that I don’t answer questions.
Gnumann+,who should not under any cirumstance be referred to as "gunman"
December 28, 2012 at 12:34 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kacyray:
And yet you haven’t paused one second to reflect why.
Your scenario omits a lot of details.
Are man-haters an actual wide-spread phenomenon in society with strong and rich traditions and political influence?
Does MissMarie in her scenario actually make her case, or does she just bluster inn, spout of a couple of questions, then deny the validity of the answer without any good reason, then serve a couple of well-know man-hater canards? All while demanding respect without giving any? Does she refer to a facebook page where she identifies with a political ideology widely known to be man-hating?
Gnumann+,who should not under any cirumstance be referred to as "gunman"
December 28, 2012 at 12:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
kacyray
I’m not the one arguing against the consensus on this one.
tomh
December 28, 2012 at 12:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kacyray:
This is just not a good place to get into such a detailed and nuanced topic
In other words, I can’t list a few of the secret and hidden goals of feminism because … there are none? I’m sworn to secrecy? I’m full of shit? Take your pick>
thebg
December 28, 2012 at 12:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@ redcrosee 323
Sure. Apologies if I overly strained my analogy. Also I had no intent to project my own experiences on to you.
I would never consider myself an MRA, but I found that I took offense at the evisceration of some MRA arguments, and then pretended my offense was due to the tone of the argument, and not the fact that I had been exposed to hold a similar belief, or be inclined to argue in a similar vein.
This generaly took the form of agruments where someone agreed with a topic but then switched to why edge cases also effect men, or tried to expose a feminist viewpoint as wrong by hypothesizing the most extreme and illogical caricature of the original statement/post.
I’d suggest that there is no such thing as a feminist ‘ally’. One either is or isn’t. In my case, the notion that I could espouse the concept of equality but choose to not be called a feminist was simply cover for me to hold anti-feminist views and feel self-righteous about it. And using tone of argument or deciding that certain people weren’t my type as the justification for that position is simply entenching my privilged position.
I feel I may not have sufficiently answered your question, though I would like to ask you to further define “people like that”, or with what stripe of feminist you would associate. To lay my cards out, that particular question is me wondering aloud if it is truly a pure disagreement over style or if there isn’t substance that puts you off.
PatrickG
December 28, 2012 at 12:47 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@kacyray:
I assume that was directed at me, though without a name reference it’s difficult to tell. This is a very active thread, and I certainly wouldn’t assume that you saw every single post or had time to respond to it. So I reposted my question, and this time you did respond (I think, maybe that was at someone else).
If #330 was directed at me:
First, my repost wasn’t very good at framing the questions. Thus, I’ll ask two:
- Given the data/studies I linked, can you further defend your argument of psychological/social differences based on cell phone use by gender?
- If not, can you provide other supporting evidence?
Btw, I’m not focusing on your error, I’m focusing on your argument. I see an error in it, and have presented a counterargument with sources to support my position.
If your lack of substantive response is because of my tone, I don’t know how I could possibly have done more to engage only your argument. I’m genuinely curious what your statements of psychological and social differences are rooted in. Whatever else you want to say about FTB, this is very much a blog network that depends on evidence-based arguments and links to supporting data. If you think others aren’t doing that, then bring in your own data and sources. If that’s something you don’t wish to do, then I’m really at a loss. To the best of my knowledge, Ed isn’t running a philosophy blog* here.
Whether or not you choose to engage is your call. But if you’re not actually going to answer my questions, I don’t have to convince myself that you don’t answer questions.
* Yeah, I went there.
Gnumann+,who should not under any cirumstance be referred to as "gunman"
December 28, 2012 at 12:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I disagree with this one. A lot of people are in reality allied to feminism without self-identifying as a feminist. Granted, this is usually either because of ignorance of what feminism is or another set of priorities. I think it’s wrong to ascribe these people the label of feminist.
You’ve got one thing right in my opinion though, the people claiming to be allies of feminism almost invariably aren’t.
thebg
December 28, 2012 at 1:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gnumann+, yes that is better stated and captures the intent of my comment.
Raging Bee
December 28, 2012 at 1:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And this is one of my big problems with feminism… to tendency to believe that “social equality” and “political equality” must somehow manifest themselves into “equality” across the board, blurring any distinction between the sexes, as though none exist and it’s all in our minds.
Feminists aren’t “blurring” the differences; they (or maybe I should say we) are pointing out that, once you get past the obvious physical differences, the overwhelming majority of what remains are the result of nurture, not nature. And yes, that includes your “men are aggressive, women are nurturing” bit — women can be aggressive without growing dicks (just ask the US and some other armies), and men can be nurturing without growing tits or wombs. That’s not a “flawed premise” of feminism, that’s an observable fact that feminists get needless heat for pointing out.
So yeah, I can stand by my statement that you’ve consistently failed to describe even one of those “failed premises” that allegedly make feminism so bad in your eyes.
Raging Bee
December 28, 2012 at 1:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Another thing about feminists allegedly “blurring” gender differences: have you noticed it’s feminists who have been trying to get society to recognize certain differences that need to be better reflected in law? Like fighting for the right to take maternity leave without getting fired, or the right to choose whether or not to get pregnant. So yeah, this “blurring the differences” talk is crap.
Gnumann+,who should not under any cirumstance be referred to as "gunman"
December 28, 2012 at 1:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Actually, that’s one right feminists in my neck of the woods have fought to equalize, and succeeded. The period might seem absurd to USians though: One year shared between the parents (paid) then one year each (unpaid).
kacyray
December 28, 2012 at 2:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
PatrickG,
I’m at work right now and a bit caught up, but I will try briefly to answer your quetion
I was not attempting to prove anything. I was asked for some evidence that there are essential differences between males and females, and I used an example from my own observation.
If it turns out that, by some miraculous coincidence, that I just happen to be seeing all the women who talk on their cell phones while shopping or driving, and I never see the men who are doing it… then I’ll make that concession. But it doesn’t change the fact that my entire life has been one straight barrage of evidence that females are much more consumed with their social identity, and cultivating their social connections, than males (as a general rule). I was using the cell phone anecdote as an example.
To even question the reality that females (as a general rule) are more consumed with their social identity and social considerations than men, you’d almost have to walk around with your eyes, ears, and brain shut off. And it is THAT difference I was attempting to illustrate. It’s an essential difference.
Do I have stats available right now? No. But in fairness, I haven’t asked for any stats to confirm that sexism or misogyny exists. Some things should are so obvious that no one in their right mind can question them.
I don’t think it matters so much *why* these gender differences exist – whether they are “essential” or derived from external social and cultural factors. The fact that they exist is a reality.
Do you know that there are different criteria for female chess players than male players? For them to earn their Master titles (Master, International Master, Grand Master) they have to meet a much lower bar than men do. There is one woman (Judit Polgar) who is a Grand Master among men. She’s the only woman ever to achieve that.
How is this relevant? Is the fact that women can’t compete in chess, which is a purely intellectual game, at anywhere near the level of men a product of their essence? Is it a genetic thing? Cultural? Social? What difference does it make? It’s a reality, and because it’s a reality, the governing body of chess awards titles to females based on lower standards.
The Marine Corps physical fitness test, which I run every year, has lower standards for women, making it easier for them to get promoted. Anyone here want to argue for equality on that front? Be my guest… male Marines have been doing it for years to no avail.
The fact that there are differences is undenyable. I’m shocked that it is even believ questioned… although i guess I shouldn’t be.
allegro
December 28, 2012 at 2:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s a diversionary tactic to justify continued beliefs that women simply don’t deserve equal rights and respectful treatment as human beings with full agency. It’s the same argument used to perpetuate minority inequality or the mistreatment of any “other” one wishes to deny agency. Women/minorities/”others” aren’t as smart, aren’t as capable, aren’t as fill-in-the-blank, using evo-crappola as some proof of differences that make equal rights just silly talk.
But pointing that out is just mean and rude.
allegro
December 28, 2012 at 2:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The question isn’t that there are differences, the question is “so what?”
kacyray
December 28, 2012 at 2:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Raging –
Another problem I have with feminism is the failed recognition that the alleged “social inequalities” women suffer are mitigated – almost always in excess – by social inequalities they enjoy.
Now, here’s what’s about to happen: you’ve asked me to name one of those “mysterious” premises that seperates me from feminist ideology. Now I’ve named (another) one.
Now what will happen is that demands for me to justify this position will come from all directions. But that is a HUGE conversation to have, and this is NOT the right place to have it (for reasons I’ve described).
Then my reluctance to address such an enormous issue in this forum will be thrown back at me as a refusal to back up my position. But I am not attempting to back up or prove my position, I am only attempting to describe it.
That’s what happened earlier on in this thread (when I described feminsist refusal to recognize obvious essential differences between the sexes), and I’ll bet you a plug nickel that’s what’s about to happen now.
I am describing my position, because you asked. But this platform is not well suited for the deliberation of that position.
Watch. Here it goes.
Oh, and another thing that will happen is that I will still get accused of not having offered up any argument. Even though that’s not what even I’m trying to do.
eris07
December 28, 2012 at 2:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
kacykray:
This is the problem with evopsych or at least this sort of evopsych which I see being claimed here. Suppose I conducted just such a study and the results were exactly what you predict: far more women than men talking on the phone. My results do not support your conclusion. They don’t really support any explanation at all, only show that women are more likely to talk on cell phones in stores in the region I surveyed.
I could use this same data to suggest any explanation. Maybe women are more comfortable with technology than men or prefer phones to speaking face to face. Or that they are better multitaskers and can talk and shop at the same time. Or that evolution has primed men to hate speaking in public places because making noise would give away the locations of ancient warrior ancestors and scare away their prey while hunting.
Arguing that women do activity X more than men (and I’m only assuming the cell phone claim is legit in order to make an example) proves stereotype Y and is clearly because of rationalization Z isn’t science. But it does do a good job of revealing your own bias, and those biases can lead to real harm to real women in the real world.
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
December 28, 2012 at 2:20 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Kacy Ray:
Math is haard!
Gretchen
December 28, 2012 at 2:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
kacyray said:
And you people are reluctant to call this man a feminist ally! For shame.
allegro
December 28, 2012 at 2:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
LOL There it is! Women get free drinks on Ladies Night!
The rest of your post is just a preemptive excuse why you won’t/can’t support your premise and to prove how mean we are to ask you to. We’re supposed to take you at all seriously? LOL
Anthony K
December 28, 2012 at 2:27 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Rape in the US military: America’s dirty little secret
What a benefit! Those lucky duckies don’t have to pass the physicals that the male marines do.
Gnumann+,who should not under any cirumstance be referred to as "gunman"
December 28, 2012 at 2:28 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Except of course, you’ve yet again to actually describe what “social inequalities they enjoy” actually is. Or in any way establish that they outweigh the sum of male privilege.
Ooooh – lemme guess:
We’re at:
Free drinks!
Gatekeeper for causal sex!
Child custody after divorce!
and let’s not forget the most important female privilege at all:
Men holding doors!
I’ve got a song for you
tomh
December 28, 2012 at 2:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Kacyray:
Another problem I have with feminism is the failed recognition that the alleged “social inequalities” women suffer are mitigated – almost always in excess – by social inequalities they enjoy.
This is hilarious. You can follow this outlandish assertion with over 200 words explaining why you can’t elaborate on this, but you can’t use a dozen or so words to name a few of these inequalities that women enjoy.
SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius
December 28, 2012 at 2:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yes, there is something wrong with that expectation, and here is is: respect must be earned. I’m under no obligation to respect those who would treat me as a second-class citizen, and I’m under no obligation to respect those who are stupid or lazy enough to be duped by the lies pushed by those who would treat me as a second-class citizen.
Esteleth has eaten ALL the gingerbread! Suck it!
December 28, 2012 at 2:40 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Citation needed.
And how is a social inequality enjoyable in and of itself?
Being kept in padded and artfully decorated cages is not made okay because the cage is padded and artfully decorated because it is still a goddamn cage.
WHAT are the benefits that women enjoy as a result of social inequality?
Also, care to explore how most of said benefits are actually those belonging to some women (usually women of the dominant race, class and religion, and those who have men who don’t hate them nearby willing to support them)? Subtract the perks of being a member of the dominant classes from the experience of being a member of an oppressed class, and the ugliness of the kyriarchy is laid bare.
kacyray
December 28, 2012 at 2:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gretchen, i will never be allied to the feminist cause. And I didn’t say I was.
What i said was that, based on the phony descriptions provided by yourself and the rest of the tribe here, I am.
But we know know I’m not, and we both know it’s because the description you provided was never honest to begin with.
I support complete political equality for all. I support complete social equality for all. I oppose sexism in either direction. But that’s not enough to make me a feminist, is it?
You know it isn’t. Because you aren’t honest about your motives.
I think my point is made. Clearly not received, but made. Good enough for me.
Gnumann+,who should not under any cirumstance be referred to as "gunman"
December 28, 2012 at 2:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You know, even thought there might be some reflection in your monitor, you aren’t really talking to yourself.
laurentweppe
December 28, 2012 at 2:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ok, There are two things which need to be said about that.
.
First Thing:
.
There are, indeed, in the dark corner of the internet, creepy über-tribalistic self-proclaimed feminists.
These are jargon-obsessed manic creatures who use the feminist lingo as a litmus test.
“If you don’t -in every possible situation- speak Exactly like us, then you are not one of us, and everything that isn’t us is an ennemy“.
.
Bullies who fancy themselves clever because they invented some twisted variation of feminist theories which they use to justify their thinly veiled bloodlust
“So you say that trying to make porn and prostitution illegal is a pointless endeavor? I know what you really are: you are a racist wanabee who loves to see women in bonds and who would already have committed several rapes if not for fear of prison! I’d love to see you thrown in a prison to be raped by an inmate, that would teach you your worth my little rapist wanabee”
.
Authoritarians who, behind their pretense of being the only real paragon of progressivism are always enthusiastically professing their support for the latest despotic policy or law that supposed to protect women by crushing everyone’s freedoms.
“This new anti immigration law will curb down the number of dangerous foreign men braiwashed by their patriarchal foreign culture infiltrating our lands and threatening to harm our daughters with their genital mutilations and child marriages”
.
Retrograde control freaks who keep on imagining increasingly complex and pointless ritualistic behaviors that men should adopt to show the world that they don’t intend to hurt women around them in any shape or form (as if mysoginists when incapable of mimicking that)
.
These creatures really exist, these creatures sometimes manage to swim upward toward less muddy waters, including around here, and these creatures are really capable to give feminism such a bad name that people with feminist convictions sometime refuse to be called feminists because they don’t want to be mistaken with these freaks.
.
So maybe a few unlucky commenters tried to open their mouth when a More-Feministerest-Than-You freak was in the vicinity and since blood attracts sharks was eaten alive. That is absolutely possible and that’s a pity..
***
Now on to the second things which needs to be said:
***
Feminists, radical feminists, angry vengeful feminists who never heard about the “flight” in fight or flight response:
These are Totally Different Animals: they share next to nothing with the freaks I just depicted.
.
I’ve known quite a few feminists in meatspace. I’ve been raised by feminists, I avoid as much as I can non-feminists so I don’t spend my days with the urge to strangle some halfwit happy to live in a world where competition is rigged in his favor.
.
Feminists can be many things, good and bad: they can sometimes be loud, they can be obnoxious, they can refuse to listen, they can be needlessly agressive and frankly, given how badly the world has treated them, I’d say that most of the blame for this rest on the world’s collective shoulders,
.
But I have never met IRL a feminist who was disgusting and despicable like the “More Feministerest Than You” freaks which dwell in the net’s cesspools.
.
The “Feminism sucks because I’ve met online a crazy bitch who said she was the most feminist woman evar” argument needs to die. In fact, it needs to be flayed alive in public, burned to death, its ashes put in a rocket and the rocket sent toward the Great Attractor.
Gretchen
December 28, 2012 at 2:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
kacyray said:
It would be if it were true, you idiot.
But your status as being in favor of everything good and opposed to everything bad is somewhat tarnished by your tendency to support bad things with, you know, every other statement. I’m sorry to break this to you, but you don’t get to say that you’re not a racist but you wouldn’t be able to stand your daughter dating a black man and have people believe both.
kacyray
December 28, 2012 at 2:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Esteleth @353
Check my comment #250. If you really want to have a conversation, feel free to let me know. I’d be happy to go down all those rabbitholes.
Otherwise, as much fun as it is chatting with all you sweethearts, I’ve got a weekend to get to.
Anthony K
December 28, 2012 at 2:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
And just imagine: instead of crying like a fucking wanker about how meanly you’ve been treated, you could have just provided some evidence for your claims.
You fucking suck as a human being. You really, really, do.
SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius
December 28, 2012 at 2:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s not a miraculous coincidence, you dope, it’s a well-known phenomenon of cognitive psychology. And you want me to treat you with respect? Educate your damn self. Gullible fool that you are.
I think what you are trying to say is that feminism is, in reality, reasonable and supported by evidence, and you are opposed to it for spurious and false reasons. We already knew that. I hope you realize it someday.
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)
December 28, 2012 at 3:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
kacyray:
Are you being deliberately vague?
What are these social inequalities you are talking about?
What are the social inequalities that women benefit from?
You haven’t presented evidence for anything you have said. Personal anecdotes such as “I see more women on cellphones than men, and I am going to draw a conclusion from that self selected and highly biased small sampling” are. not. evidence.
thepint
December 28, 2012 at 3:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
*HEAD DESK*
Yes, because ladies nights with free well drinks and comp’d entry before 11pm at some night clubs totally makes up for glass ceilings in professional industries and making less than your male counterparts for doing the same type of work. Essentially, what Esteleth said about gilded cages still being goddamned cages at #353. And “alleged social inequalities”? When actual, verifiable evidence exists of said social inequalities? This is getting extremely tiresome just to read, I can’t imagine how people have the stamina to keep trying to engage with this level of ridiculous obtuseness.
PatrickG
December 28, 2012 at 3:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Since I don’t know you, I can’t possibly evaluate the accuracy of your observations. But you have heard of selection bias? Confirmation bias?
Since I linked you information that seems to directly contradict your lived experience, does that mean you are conceding that women do not, in fact, talk more on their cell phones than men, either while driving or in social situations?
Again, your lived observations aren’t much of a data set to work with. For instance, it’s been my experience that men are much more likely to join political parties and show up to meetings. That’s a statement of observation. Now, beyond whether I’m actually reporting accurately, I haven’t said anything about why that might be so.
Actually, it’s been my experience that men are just as consumed by social identity and considerations. So we’re at a stand-off here. You perceive one reality, and I perceive another. The difference is I’m not claiming to know why my reality works that way. The most I’m claiming is that perhaps men and women interact differently in public, and that maybe that’s socially conditioned. We can examine that!
What we can’t examine is your insistence that it’s “just the way things are”.
You’re right. Claiming without evidence that women are inherently different from men in social activities is obviously a ludicrous claim, and can be dismissed as such.
Then why are you so insistent on not examining why these differences exist? Why do you keep insisting that they just are.
And women are bad at math, right?
You do know there are books on this subject. Here’s a fun study explaining the discrepancy between men and women in top-level chess through population sizes.
And some women, like Judit Polgar, simply refuse to play in the women’s tournament.
And here’s where I completely and sharply disagree with you. You ask the questions I would ask, and then say “What difference does it make?” In a world where women and men are not equal, not even being willing to acknowledge that these questions matter indicates that you’re definitely not a feminist, and definitely not an ally.
These questions matter. If you want a world where there is no governing body giving out “lesser” awards, perhaps we should answer those questions of genes/culture/society. If you’re not willing to do the work, you have no ground on which to complain about anything.
You know, many people have acknowledged there are real physical differences between the genders. Many, many people. Right here in this thread. I’d have to search around Rodda’s blog, but she has several posts on the changes in fitness tests. One of the fun facts is that women tend to do better than men in endurance tests — shouldn’t we make men come up to their level? Why aren’t we making men compete at the same level there? The unfairness!
There are indeed differences. Nobody is questioning that. What we’re questioning is your explanations for why those differences exist. You seem to be completely unwilling to answer that question. In fact, you say the explanations don’t matter.
Gnumann+,who should not under any cirumstance be referred to as "gunman"
December 28, 2012 at 3:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Anthony K
Have you seen his facebook-page? He self-identifies as a sorry excuse for a human being. (Which makes me very curious about what he mean with “social equality” – but getting a honest answer from him is far harder than squeezing blood from a stone – so I’m not gonna try).
physphilmusic
December 28, 2012 at 3:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
LOL at the feminists who ridicule their critics as being irrationally thinking that feminists hate men in general, when at the same time they automatically assume that MRAs or even people who aren’t feminists hate women in general.
PatrickG
December 28, 2012 at 3:07 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That sounds like a great exit line, to me. You don’t agree with us, and we don’t agree with you, so….
physphilmusic
December 28, 2012 at 3:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Here’s a fun study explaining the discrepancy between men and women in top-level chess through population sizes.
Funny that someone professing feminism would actually quote that study. It explains the differences between men and women in chess as being due to the “bell curve tail”, a kind of explanation which got Larry Summers fired because he admitted he considered it a possibility. You should repent of your misogynistic sexist bigotry of even considering linking to that despicable study!
Gnumann+,who should not under any cirumstance be referred to as "gunman"
December 28, 2012 at 3:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Another one who can’t quite grok the definition of “feminism” (and by extention “antifeminism)?
SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius
December 28, 2012 at 3:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I can’t see a compelling reason to be an MRA if you don’t hate women. That is what it’s all about, after all–not advocating for men’s rights, as is claimed–they never actually do that–but about tearing down the progress women have made so they can preserve male privilege.
I think people who don’t call themselves feminists are often tacitly supporting hatred of women, usually out of ignorance. Same thing I think about people who don’t positively identify as anti-racist, pro-gay rights, etc. It really isn’t possible to be neutral in this fucked-up world. Some people don’t call themselves feminists because they prefer to identify as womanists or whatever, but that’s a completely different ball game.
But I’ve never claimed that all people who don’t identify as feminists are all active, deliberate misogynists. I wonder if any feminist ever has. Hint: I don’t actually wonder this.
Gretchen
December 28, 2012 at 3:30 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
physphilmusic said:
Yeah, how crazypants. That would be like a bunch of people who oppose racism ridiculing their critics as irrationally thinking that they hate white people, when at the same time they (the opponents of racism) automatically assume that self-declared racists or even people who don’t oppose racism are racist.
PatrickG
December 28, 2012 at 3:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Oh for fuck’s sake, you ignorant twit. Have you even heard of this thing they call statistics? Or are you as cognitively limited as a kitten who doesn’t understand laser pointers?
He said something about distributions! Those have bell curves in them! LASER POINTER LARRY SUMMERS ZOMG!
Idiot. The kitten has a better chance than you do.
The population sizes here matter in that fewer women play chess professionally/in competitions. Thus, for a random skill like chess playing, of course you would expect the tail end of a larger population to have a great number of individuals than the tail end of a smaller population. Now compare that completely obvious assertion to what Larry Summers did, which is that you can bell curve men and women and the curve for women just has a smaller width.
Go take a remedial statistics class before you accidentally word-vomit on yourself again.
PatrickG
December 28, 2012 at 3:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Make that “greater number”.. damn grammar.
Tony the Queer Shoop (owner of the pink cotton ball of death)
December 28, 2012 at 3:53 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment