Tokenism Is Not Inclusivity

When a list of Top Five atheists doesn’t include any women, you’ve got a problem.

When a list of Top Five atheists doesn’t include any women — and the creator of the list says it’s because he didn’t want to include any “tokens” — you’ve got a bigger problem.

You may have seen the Atheist of the Year contest at the Examiner, created by Staks Rosch of Dangerous Talk. There’s been a fair amount of discussion about it, largely because — in a year when discussions and debates and controversies about sexism have dominated the atheist community — there was not one woman on the list. Rosch has been widely criticized for this… but instead of simply acknowledging that this was a problem and promising to do better in the future, he’s decided to double down. He’s defending his decision: saying that he considered some women for inclusion in the list, but he didn’t deem any of them worthy, and he didn’t want to include one just to have a “token.”

A token.

His word. Used eight times, in a 677-word post. Ten, if you count the title, “Tokens or No Tokens.”

Are you fucking kidding me?

Ophelia Benson has issued a masterful takedown of this whole “token” idea, and exactly why it is so grotesquely insulting. Awesome pull quotes:

Doesn’t everybody know by now that it’s a tad insulting to attach the words “a token” to the words “black” and “female” automatically like that, as if it were simply obvious and universally acknowledged that a black and a woman couldn’t possibly be qualified?

Or to put it another way…what a rude dismissive contemptuous entitled thing to say. Newsflash: it is not the case that there are no black atheists or female atheists or black female atheists who are good enough to be nominated as Atheist of the Year. It is not the case that any black or woman so nominated would be a worthless talented zero who was nominated solely as a “token” of good will. It is the case that implying otherwise is deliberately insulting.

What infuriates me even more about this whole thing is that Rosch is citing me as a supporter of “tokenism.” I shit you not. Quote, from his recent post defending his decision:

In the comments section [at Blag Hag], Greta Christina made a case for the token nominee and that is something I will have to consider next year.

Shame on you, Staks.

At no point did I advocate making a “token nominee.” What I advocated for was taking gender into account when considering your nominees. That is absolutely not the same as making a “token nominee.” “Token” implies that the nominee is not actually qualified, but is being included solely for their gender (or race, sexual orientation, etc.). Here, exactly, is how the Blag Hag exchange you’re referring to took place:

You:

My question I guess to the female community, is would you rather I had taken gender more into account or remained gender neutral and let the chips fall where they may? I seriously would like to know.

Me:

DangerousTalk: Take gender into account. Because — among many other reasons — there is virtually no way that you can genuinely be gender neutral. We are all influenced, even if unconsciously, by sexism, including the tendency to see what men do as more serious and important than what women do. And as a result, women don’t get promoted as serious participants in society… and as a result of that, we don’t see what women do as serious… If we don’t make a conscious effort to be more inclusive of women, this vicious circle will continue forever. So please, yes, in the future, make an effort to be inclusive of women and to promote their work.

(Ditto people of color, LGBT people, etc.)

Tokenism is not inclusivity. Inclusivity means (okay, gross oversimplification here) being aware of your own biases (conscious and unconscious), and being aware of the biases of the culture you live in (conscious and unconscious), and being aware of how these biases become self-fulfilling prophecies, and making a conscious, pro-active effort to overcome them. Tokenism means patronizingly including one member of the marginalized group in question, without regard to qualifications, and without any real attempt to make deep-rooted change either in yourself or in society.

Shame on you for equating them.

Tokenism Is Not Inclusivity
{advertisement}

Why "Yes, But" Is the Wrong Response to Misogyny

“Yes, but… not all men are like that. And if you’re going to talk about misogyny, you have to be extra-clear about that.”

“Yes, but… misogyny doesn’t just happen in (X) community (atheist, black, gay, etc.). In fact, it’s worse in some other communities. So it’s not fair to talk about misogyny when it does happen in (X) community, as if it’s something special that we’re doing wrong.”

“Yes, but… (X) community where misogyny happens has some great things about it, too. It’s not fair to paint everyone in it with the same brush.”

“Yes, but… the woman/ women in question could have done something to avoid the misogyny she got targeted with. She/ they could have stayed anonymous/ concealed her gender/ dressed differently/etc. I’m not saying it’s her fault, but…”

“Yes, but… the woman/ women in question didn’t behave absolutely perfectly in all respects. Why aren’t we talking about that?”

“Yes, but… the person writing about this incident didn’t behave absolutely perfectly in all respects. Why aren’t we talking about that?”

“Yes, but… there are worse problems in the world. Starving people in Africa, and so on. Why are you complaining about this?”

“Yes, but… gender expectations hurt men, too. Why aren’t we talking about that?”

“Yes, but… people are entitled to freedom of speech. How dare you suggest that speech be censored by requesting that online forums be moderated?”

“Yes, but… calling attention to misogyny just makes it worse. Don’t feed the trolls. You should just ignore it.”

“Yes, but… do you have to be so angry and emotional and over-sensitive about it? That doesn’t help your argument or your cause.”

“Yes, but… what about male circumcision?”

“Yes, but… Rebecca Watson or some other feminist said something mean or unfair in another conversation weeks/ months/ years ago. Why aren’t we talking about that?”

“Yes, but… why is it so terrible to ask a woman for coffee in a hotel elevator at four in the morning?”

It’s depressingly predictable. When an instance of misogyny gets pointed out on the Internet, in a forum big enough to garner more than a couple dozen comments, you’re almost guaranteed to see some or all of these types of comments. It’s happening now. In case you haven’t heard, there was a recent incident on Reddit/ atheism, in which a 15-year-old girl posted a photo of herself holding a copy of Carl Sagan’s Demon-haunted World that her mother had given her for Christmas… and was almost immediately targeted with a barrage of sexualized, dehumanizing, increasingly violent and brutal comments. Including, “Well 15 is legal in many places, including my country, so I’ll only have to deal with abduction charges.” “Relax your anus, it hurts less that way.” “Blood is mother nature’s lubricant.” “Tears, natures lubricant.” “BITE THE PILLOW, IM GOIN’ IN DRY!” And including comments blaming the girl for posting a picture of herself in the first place.

Rebecca Watson and others — including Stephanie Zvan, Ed Brayton, Jason Thibeault, Jen McCreight, John Loftus, and Ophelia Benson — have been pointing out how revoltingly misogynistic this is and why. And the “Yes, but…”s have been coming thick and fast.

It’s depressingly predictable. And it’s depressing that anyone should have to explain why this is a problem. It seems totally obvious to me. But apparently, it’s not so obvious. So I’m going to spell it out. Continue reading “Why "Yes, But" Is the Wrong Response to Misogyny”

Why "Yes, But" Is the Wrong Response to Misogyny

Fashion Friday: Cat-Eye Glasses

So that whole “uglyass librarian” thing has gotten me pondering a fashion question I’ve pondered many times: What is it about cat-eye glasses?

I’m kind of fascinated by how iconic mine have become. I play it up a bit, obviously: I picked a blog banner that conspicuously incorporated them as a graphic element. But they were iconic even before that. I don’t think the designer would have put them into the blog banner if they hadn’t already been iconic. And I’m fascinated — and a little baffled — at the strong reactions they seem to evoke. When it comes to cat-eye glasses, people seem to love them or hate them. I get effusive compliments on mine on a regular basis; I’ve actually been stopped on the street by total strangers telling me they adore my glasses. But I’ve also had total strangers tell me that my glasses are horrible and seriously detract from my appearance. (One guy even emailed me out of the blue to tell me that my glasses made me look like a character in a Gary Larson cartoon. He apparently thought I’d see that as a negative thing.)

They seem to provoke oddly strong feelings. I’m sure there are exceptions — I’m sure there are many people who are entirely neutral on the subject of cat-eye glasses — but a disproportionate number of people seem to either love them or hate them. Some people think they’re the pinnacle of snarky glamour, and even find them totally hot. Others think they’re the total antithesis of glamour and hotness. A fashion item that sucks glamour and hotness right off your face.

What’s that about? Continue reading “Fashion Friday: Cat-Eye Glasses”

Fashion Friday: Cat-Eye Glasses

#mencallmethings: "pathetic attention seeker"

From Facebook:

“Fuck you Greta. You’re the troll. You posted for the sole reason of trying to bait a sexist into writing something threatening. You didn’t find one, but I dared to disagree with you, so you and your brainless followers thought ‘eh, fuck it, close enough. We’ll attack him instead.’ You’ve been capitalizing on this for months and perpetuating vicious stereotypes about both men and women, under the guise of ‘feminism’. I used to think you had something to contribute. Now I see you’re just a pathetic attention seeker who isn’t interested in anything other than stirring up shit.”

#mencallmethings

Apparently, writing professionally = pathetic attention seeking.

It’s also apparently the case that pointing out instances of hostile, entitled misogyny = trying to bait a sexist into writing something threatening. And that writing opinions about feminism and gender that this guy doesn’t agree with = perpetuating vicious stereotypes. But what’s really jumping out at me about this one is the whole “capitalizing on this,” “pathetic attention seeker,” “stirring up shit” thing. Because when professional female writers write things that a particular man agrees with, we have something to contribute… but when we say things this particular man doesn’t agree with, it’s just a self-serving attempt to get attention.

It couldn’t be that we want our voices heard for the same reasons anyone wants their voices heard. You know — because we think we have something valuable to say, something we think people want and/or need to hear. And even if we have regular readers numbering in the thousands, that doesn’t give any support to the conceited notion that we have something valuable to say that people want and/or need to hear. We’re basically just jumping up and down screaming, “Look at me, look at me, look at me!” Pathetic.

#mencallmethings: "pathetic attention seeker"

The Religious Right Vs. Every Woman on Earth: Rebecca Watson's Talk at Skepticon 4

Rebecca Watson has an incredible superpower. When she does public speaking, she has an approach that’s casual, friendly, chatty, hilariously funny, and just generally pleasant and enjoyable to listen to… and then, without you even realizing it, she slams these hard and powerful ideas into your head. (It’s a power she shares with Jen McCreight. Together, they will conquer your brain. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!)

Her talk at Skepticon 4 — on the appalling war being waged by the Christian Right on, you know, half the population — is no exception. Watch it. You’ll have a ball, and then your brain will explode with the anger and the brilliance. Enjoy!

The Religious Right Vs. Every Woman on Earth: Rebecca Watson's Talk at Skepticon 4

#mencallmethings: "uglyass librarian"

Comment posted on the YouTube video of my Skepticon 4 talk:

“Damn…now they are going to think all unbelieving women look like uglyass librarians!”

Right. And now they are going to think all unbelieving men sound like misogynist assholes.

I’m devastated. No, wait. What’s that other thing? Annoyed. Exasperated. Facepalming so hard my eyes are spinning in their sockets.

#mencallmethings

And please, unless you’re a personal friend or someone I’m having sex with, don’t try to make me feel better by saying that I’m not ugly. If I write about fashion or post the hot pic of myself in the Skepticon calendar, you can say nice things about how I look… but please don’t do it here. I’m not calling this out to garner reassurance about my appearance. I’m calling this out to show people the kind of shit women routinely deal with on the Internet. I have a thick skin, and I don’t get my feelings hurt by sexist jackasses calling me names on the Internet. That isn’t the point.

The point is that women routinely get our ideas dismissed by attacks on our personal appearance. The point is that many men value women solely or primarily for our value as ornaments, sexual playthings, and/or babymakers — and these men think that, if they can undercut our value in these areas, it’s the same as undercutting anything we say or do. The point is that this attitude is widely prevalent in our culture, and has been for centuries… and the only way to stop it is to point it out when it happens, and laugh, and talk about how stupid and repulsive and fucked-up it is.

The point isn’t that I’m not ugly. The point is that it should not fucking well matter.

#mencallmethings: "uglyass librarian"

"Be Wildly, Passionately Pursued": Women and Passivity

“Just once in life, every woman should…”

How would you finish that sentence?

In the December 2011 issue of Glamour Magazine, the editors asked three women writers to finish that sentence. And Caitlin Flanagan (To Hell with All That: Loving and Loathing Our Inner Housewife) finished it this way: “Just once in life, every woman should be wildly, passionately pursued.” She went on to recount a story from her college days, when she was courted to near-obsession by a young man she had no interest in. She gushes breathlessly about how wonderful it all was and how special and desirable it made her feel, and she pities the poor sad modern girls brazenly asking guys for their phone numbers. “I know I should have been marveling at how far girls have come,” she writes. “But instead I thought, Wow, those girls will never be pursued.”

There were so many things in this article that were so very wrong, I could probably devote my entire blog for a month to picking it apart. The courtship that Flanagan describes as “wild, passionate pursuit” looks an awful lot like what I would call “stalking.” And, of course, the very idea that there’s anything at all that “every” woman should do — other than metabolize food and breathe in and out — is just flatly stupid on the face of it. But here’s the thing that really jumped out at me about this, the thing that made me facepalm so hard it made my brain spill out the back of my head:

“Being wildly, passionately pursued” is not a goal you can work towards.

This is not a goal you can make happen. This is not a goal you can apply thought and imagination and hard work to in order to bring yourself closer to it.

This is a goal you have to sit back and hope happens to you. Continue reading “"Be Wildly, Passionately Pursued": Women and Passivity”

"Be Wildly, Passionately Pursued": Women and Passivity

Valuing Women = Ignoring Them?

Don’t you love it when religious believers go on and on about how they value and respect and treasure women… while totally ignoring the things women are actually saying?

And by “love,” I mean of course, “get totally infuriated by, but in a way that’s kind of entertaining.”

In my recent post, Why I Probably Won’t Do Porn Again: Sexism and Being a Woman on the Internet, I explained why I probably won’t be doing any porn again — even though I found it richly satisfying and hugely fun back in the days when I used to do it, and think I would tremendously enjoy doing it again now. In response, I got this comment from Aussie Xian:

I would like to applaud, you, Greta, for the conclusions you have made about porn, and how de-liberating it is; and in fact DOES NOT aid the women’s movement to achieve its aims. I would argue it only provides money to the burgeoning Adult industry, and devalues women to be only objects for self gratification and for lust expression by males. I believe women should be more than mere images for self-centred fantasy by males who wish to escape reality.

m-/

(That’s the emoticon for “facepalm” a friend of mine made up. Use it. Spread it. It’s really useful.)

Yeah. See, Aussie Xian, here’s the thing:

You keep using that word “value.” I do not think it means what you think it means.

Valuing women starts with listening to what they’re actually saying. Something you have utterly failed to do. If you had, you would have realized that in no way do I agree with your opinions, and that in fact I am passionately and vehemently opposed to them.

If you’re opposed to treating women as only objects for self gratification, I suggest you actually read and listen to their ideas, instead of spurting your own opinions all over their blog with no attention or concern for who they are as a human being.

Valuing Women = Ignoring Them?

Why I Probably Won't Do Porn Again: Sexism and Being a Woman on the Internet

I’m probably never going to do porn again.

This makes me sad. It kind of ticks me off.

I want to talk a little about why.

Last weekend, I was at HUMP!, the totally awesome amateur- and- locally- produced porn festival founded by Dan Savage. Naturally, one of the topics of conversation that came up afterwards was, “If you were going to make a movie for HUMP!, what would it be?”

And I realized: I’m probably never going to make a movie for HUMP!. I’m probably never going to publish erotic photos that are any more revealing than the pin-up shots I did for the upcoming Skepticon calendar. I used to do this sort of thing fairly often (eight hundred thousand years ago in the pre-Internet days), and I got a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction out of it… but I’m probably never going to do it again.

I think it would be career suicide.

A lot of women — women atheists, and other women — have been writing lately about misogyny, and what it’s like to be a woman writer on the Internet. They’ve been writing about the fact that, if you’re a woman writer on the Internet, you’re going to be targeted with a huge amount of sexual and gender-based abuse. At best, you’ll be called ugly and fat: criticizing women’s ideas by insulting their appearance is a tradition that goes back for centuries, and it’s alive and well today. You’ll definitely get tons of gender-specific insults, like “cunt” or “bitch.” And at worst, you’ll be threatened with sexual violence and rape — often in very explicit, detailed, gruesome language.

I will acknowledge: I personally haven’t dealt with as much of this as many other women. I’ve gotten a couple of rape threats, and I’ve gotten quite a few “You’re ugly, who cares what you think” insults, both in public comments and private emails. And yes, of course, I’ve been called a bitch and a cunt and so on. But I haven’t gotten nearly as much of this as other women have. (I’m not sure why: maybe because, while I write about feminism a certain amount, it isn’t the main focus of my writing. Or maybe because I’m just not famous enough yet. Something to look forward to.)

But I’ve gotten enough of this kind of sexist abuse — and I know enough about the sexist abuse other women writers get — to know what would happen if I started doing porn again. Even occasionally. Even just once.

I strongly suspect that, if I did porn again, it would become the one thing anyone ever remembered about me. Continue reading “Why I Probably Won't Do Porn Again: Sexism and Being a Woman on the Internet”

Why I Probably Won't Do Porn Again: Sexism and Being a Woman on the Internet