{advertisement}

The Problem with Privilege: some correct assertions, with caveats

I really want to get on with other things. Seriously, I do. Which is why I want to cede a bit of ground — or at least it might seem that way to the casual observer, given all the things I’m about to agree to. It would pay dividends in furthering the conversation if you do your best not to skim before replying.

There are a number of arguments in this whole privilege debacle surrounding the so-called Elevatorgate (a timeline, for you newbies) that, while not actually rebutting the issues in question, are in themselves valid and correct. Here’s a few of them, and why they don’t address the problem at hand.
Continue reading “The Problem with Privilege: some correct assertions, with caveats”

The Problem with Privilege: some correct assertions, with caveats

The Problem with Privilege (or: cheap shots, epithets and baseless accusations for everyone!)

This may be the last thing I have to say on the topic for a while, as I’m rapidly approaching my own STFU Station having already blogged far too much on this topic. But the imbroglio continues, and so must I. For a little while, anyway.

From blacklava.net. Buy one today! (If you're privileged.)

One of the major problems stemming directly from Rebecca Watson’s Elevatorgate (a.k.a. Rebeccapocalypse) has been the rapid descent into ad hominem attacks and the use of epithets solely intended to push people out of the discussion. This is, of course, no fault of Rebecca Watson’s. Nor is it Richard Dawkins’, who came down rather harshly on Rebecca’s complaint in claiming that she was complaining about “zero bad” as compared to, say, genital mutilation. (To which point I can’t help but think, complaining about creationists slipping their nonsense into science textbooks is zero bad as compared to religious genocide, so who’s to complain about that? But that’s an aside.)

The epithets have flown from both sides, fast and thick. People like ERV in calling Watson’s public rebuke of Stef McGraw “bad form” were called “gender traitors” by the likes of Skeptifem, with whom I’ve disagreed in the past — especially during one of those many “Greg Laden is misogynist!” blowups via Isis and her crew. ERV went on to refer to Rebecca as “Twatson” thereafter, as is her particular idiom — something I like about her is that she always swings for the fences, even when I disagree.

Meanwhile, Greg Laden has been supportive of Rebecca Watson, along with PZ Myers and other big names in the atheist/skeptic community, for daring to name names — an aspect I completely agree with, given that Stef McGraw was in a public leadership position and blogged her dissent on her organization’s blog in an official capacity. I can see not giving Stef a heads-up being slightly douchey, but anything beyond that — that Stef was a “mere student” who got “shanghai’d” — is pure hyperbole and well outside demonstrable truth (a.k.a., “a lie”). Greg has posted a piece about men crossing the road or waiting for the next elevator by default so as to avoid freaking out some poor woman who might have had a bad experience in the past, and has been accused of “[t]reating women like helpless, infantile victims” and also called misandrist for his trouble. Because apparently you can be both misogynist and misandrist while trying to actually constructively suggest ways to fix a problem.

And then there’s the billion and one instances of “bitch”, “cunt”, “liar”, or “sexist pig and traitor to feminism” that Rebecca herself has received. Or the accusations that she or her supporters are “man-hating feminazis”. Or that Rebecca totes woulda boned Elevator Guy if he was an alpha male instead of a dweeb. But we shan’t go into those, because by bias seeping into this post, you’ll likely miss my point.

That point being, a lot of people have their hackles raised by this issue of privilege in the greater atheist/skeptic/scientific communities. And make no mistake, there is an issue — the fact that there is an issue is very likely what’s causing so many people to dig in their heels. It is pervasive, and it is subtle, and it is not specifically misogyny so much as merely entrenched privilege. But people really dislike it when you point out that privilege actually exists as a sociological construct, just because its existence is disputed. Nobody mentions that it’s mostly disputed in the punditocracy by people like Phyllis Schafly or Ann Coulter, mind you, but it’s disputed as surely as Rush Limbaugh is responsible for the “feminazi” meme.

Some people have written some exceptionally eloquent calls to action on how to fix the pervasive privilege problem, and believe it or not, they do not involve quotas, nor do they involve shunning or even castrating men! There’s nothing misandrist in asking men to shoulder some of the burden in rape avoidance and in helping keep women who were once attacked from having a traumatic flashback every time they see someone walking toward them rapidly. There’s nothing misandrist in pointing out that the vast majority of rapes happen by men, of women. There’s nothing misandrist about suggesting that men are capable of better behaviour than this.

And there are a few words that don’t count as epithets at all, like “potential rapist” (in the context of a woman not knowing whether she’ll be attacked), or “privileged” (in the context of someone not having the experience to understand where someone else is coming from). They might hurt your feelings to be called them, but though they are descriptive, they do not actually reflect on your character, only your situation. And the psychic trauma you experience in being called those things is nothing compared to a rape survivor’s on the other side of that equation.

There’s likewise nothing misogynist in pointing out that most of these rapes happen by men that the women know. And there’s nothing misogynist in saying that because women experience fear where men are far less likely to in seeing someone more physically imposing than them, that they should be protected in general by some simple actions that keep them from experiencing the very real psychic trauma of a flashback experience. Yes, that’s saying that women are generally physically less imposing than men. It’s also saying that women are generally less physically able to fight off an attacker. It’s also acknowledging that, as with bear attacks, women are enculturated to simply allow an attack to occur so they don’t turn a “mere” traumatic rape into a brutal murder. It’s also acknowledging that there is a power disparity in every social interaction and that the greater the power disparity, the more uncomfortable the person on the short side of that disparity will feel when facing a situation that starts out innocently but could rapidly escalate to the worst possible scenario.

Acknowledging that men are often on the large side of this power disparity is not misandry, nor is it misogyny. It’s a fact, and a sad one. For all the tips for women to avoid rape (e.g.: “Avoid entry into elevators when they are occupied by a stranger. Stand by the control panel so you can sound the alarm button if necessary.”), the tips men should follow to keep from raping someone are far more likely to be effective.

And all the epithets — the ACTUAL epithets, not the perceived ones like “privileged” — that are flying back and forth are well beneath us. But, of course, we skeptics are a passionate bunch, and some of us even enjoy being dicks; myself included. I just would have thought we’d save some of the big guns for those threats to our society that we banded together to fight in the first place. And I was really hoping that we’d band together to combat another threat to our society rooted in a very similar sort of privilege to the ones that brought us together.

The Problem with Privilege (or: cheap shots, epithets and baseless accusations for everyone!)

How to tell people they sound racist (or privileged?)

By Jay Smooth. Very nice.

Interestingly, this has some implications in a totally different conversation — how to tell people their actions or words support misogyny or rape apologetics. It’s exactly the same as what happened during Elevatorgate with Rebecca Watson pointing to Stef McGraw’s words and saying they are unacceptable in that they’re wrong and they promote misogynistic views about gender relations. Rebecca was having conversation one, and everyone turned it into conversation two.

See also the comments on this post over at Greg Laden’s.

How to tell people they sound racist (or privileged?)

The Problem with Privilege (or: you got sexism in my skepticism!)

This particular blog debacle has already been done to death pretty well everywhere on the ‘tubes. I usually find that’s about the right time for me to weigh in, so here goes. First, I need to set the stage for those of you just joining us, though I’ve already given you links to this particular rabbit hole in the past, in case you’ve bothered to click them.

Rebecca Watson attended a conference in Dublin recently where she gave a talk addressing the sexism problem that appears to be relatively rampant within the skeptic and atheist communities, a problem that, every time it’s brought up, is generally pooh-poohed by the privileged white men of the community. This is an oversimplification of course, but the talk was generally well-received. It provided examples of behaviour she experiences all too often, being objectified and sexualized at pretty much every con she attends. I’m sure her experiences are not at all out of the norm, either.

After a convention is over, there’s often a traditional follow-up called “Bar-Con” where the convention-goers socialize in the hotel bar for an inordinate amount of time. Rebecca attended this particular convention’s Bar-Con, where the con’s attendees congregated and drank and socialized and generally had a good time. At about four in the morning, Rebecca announced that she was out of steam and was going to head to bed. She left the hotel bar and got in the elevator. A man from the group, evidently an attendee, followed her from the bar to the elevator and got in with her. While she was trapped in this elevator with him, he said, “Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?”
Continue reading “The Problem with Privilege (or: you got sexism in my skepticism!)”

The Problem with Privilege (or: you got sexism in my skepticism!)

There is no larger trend of women being forced to be baby-makers

I don’t really have much more to say about the whole forcing-women-back-into-the-alley tactics of the Republican party, supported by people whose ideation of their religion includes prohibitions of abortion that are wholly unmentioned in their foundational texts. But I’m certain they’re the only parties in this world that think women exist solely for the purposes of procreation. Other instances are totally isolated.

Take, for instance, the twisted logic by which Republicans defund Planned Parenthood, ostensibly to prevent abortions, inevitably leading to more underage pregnancy when these kids cannot access contraceptives.

Take, for instance, the baby factory recently broken up in Bangkok. The Vietnamese women who were coerced or kidnapped and pressganged into having children were freed, thankfully.

Take, for instance, the vile attacks on a female reporter whose public rape in Egypt was evidently not punishment enough for practicing a man’s job while in possession of a vagina.

Take, for instance, this chaplain saying a female soldier’s rape was God’s will for the sin of not coming to church often enough. (Never mind that she’s also doing “a man’s job”.)

Take, for instance, the misogyny suffered by a woman who happens to own a pair of breasts, as though this should come as a great shock to a man of the intellectual caliber necessary to have produced the Death Wish films.

Take, for instance, the defunding of a Liverpool rape center when the numbers of people being helped are rising steadily and being carried over year after year.

Take, for instance, the demonstrable lies necessary to sustain the anti-sex lobby’s political agenda to reduce sex back to its (religiously) “rightful” role in society as a shameful act done only for the purposes of making babies.

Take, for instance, the Canadian judge’s decision to let a rapist walk because the victim “wore makeup” and “wanted to party”.

Take, for instance, Nebraska attempting to make legal the murder of abortion service providers, in a move that was recently stopped in South Dakota.

Take, for instance, the proposed Georgia law that all miscarriages should be investigated in case some of them turn out to be resultant from “back alley” abortion attempts.

These are, of course, all isolated incidents and should not be taken in aggregate to determine that any particular group of people — vagina-owners or otherwise — are under assault by society at large. Just, you know, make sure you have that baby if you happen to accidentally conceive. If you know what’s good for you. Even if you were raped, even if doctors say neither of you will survive, and even if you die from the attempt.

There is no larger trend of women being forced to be baby-makers

RCimT: Midweek Religion Catch-up

A few religion-related, pre-Wednesday links to catch you up on.

145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration promising civil disobedience against any laws that “could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples.” They even have the temerity to cite Martin Luther King Jr., because citing a black civil rights leader is a totally appropriate strategy when you’re trying to suppress women’s and homosexuals’ civil rights movements.

The Vatican plugs Twilight: New Moon, claiming it to be a “moral vacuum with a deviant message”. Um, isn’t it mostly about a sparkly fairy-vampire that refuses to bang a young girl because it would be immoral?

New proof that the Shroud of Turin is totally legit: it says so. Since that’s all the proof necessary to show the Bible is legit (you know, that it said so), the claim that the shroud says “Jesus the Nazarene” on it totally supercedes all the proof that it’s just a centuries old fraud made to dupe credulous faithful, and easily duplicable with simple techniques available to just about anyone even today.

What if Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris’ claim of being the Four Horsemen was real? I sort of have to take issue with Hitchens liberating a woman; that seems like a meta-joke and a rather low one at that, given Hitchens’ misogyny whenever he’s around Bill Maher for some reason.

I’ve talked about the Salvation Army in the past (in one of my first ever posts, in fact). Turns out there are a lot of good reasons not to do business with them, especially if you want to actually help others.

Kansas apparently has decided to “teach the controversy” — about the shape of the Earth. Okay, not really, it’s a parody, but Flat-Earthers have the same amount of evidence behind their hypothesis that Creationists do.

As though it were necessary, given the proliferation by theists of such articles as of late, here’s how to write an atheist hit-piece, by tearing down a very obvious example.

ReligionLulz asks a very pertinent question: if America’s such a “Christian Nation”, why all these fundie versions of popular sites?

FOX News prods the atheist billboard debate. And the coverage is totally fair and balanced… if you’re a theist, anyway. Always seems to be the case, doesn’t it?

And finally, the godless can quote the Bible too.

RCimT: Midweek Religion Catch-up

Vaccine moronitude

I was shocked to learn that of our office leadership team, three out of seven have decided not to get flu shots, H1N1 or otherwise, because they feel they could just tough any flu out that happens to come along. Despite repeated and concerted efforts to explain to them that that’s not the reason getting the flu shot is important — rather, immunity to the flu will dampen and slow its spread, and prevent the thing from gaining a foothold, mutating, and wrecking herd immunity — all I get in response is, “if I get sick, I’ll stay home.” Never mind that you’re infectious to others well before you start showing symptoms (and how often have you had your first cough of an illness while in a public place? Probably most of the time!). Never mind that these people are the leadership team of the site — and complain about absenteeism regularly and loudly. And never mind that they’re engaged in a concerted “wash your hands, know the symptoms, get vaccinated” campaign presently.

The first local, free (provincially subsidized) H1N1 / regular flu clinic came this past Thursday to our neighbor town, and apparently lineups were three hours long and ended in people being turned away for lack of doses. Residents from a number of neighboring communities, some as far as two hours drive away, despite having clinics soon in their own hometowns, took it upon themselves to drive out to ours and make a run on the supply. I was planning on going to the clinic on Nov. 2, but Jodi and Opal are both still slightly sick (with a cough… hmm) so it might be worth waiting til they’re feeling better. Besides, hopefully after the first one was such a giant cluster, they’ll ramp up their dose supply and hours of operation (and staff to unclog the lineups), so the future ones will be less problematic. I understand the desire to get vaccinated, but these are obviously not the high-risk folks doing this and willing to stand in the cold for three hours — just the ones that are paranoid and willing to cut in line to save their skins out of fear that H1N1 is the new plague.

Meanwhile, in the States, a bunch of news has been happening on the vaccination front. Another study powerfully rebukes the long mythologized link between autism and the ethyl mercury that, despite the frequency, urgency and timeliness of the antivax crowd’s complaints, hasn’t been used in vaccines in over a decade. And the antivax community, headed by Generation Rescue and J. B. Handley, has begun fighting back against a Wired article about the fearmongering tactics they’ve adopted — via misogyny against its author. Also devastating to not only Orac, but myself, is the fact that respected sci-fi actor Brent Spiner has been expressing antivax sentiments. I don’t blur the line between Spiner and his character, Data, as Orac does in his article — but I guarantee you that amongst his millions of followers on Twitter are people who think Spiner is an extension of his logical, emotionless character. Given that antivax sentiment is just that — sentiment, in opposition to cold, amoral science that proves vaccinations safe — there’s got to be something expressly immoral about casting unreasonable doubt on life-saving scientific research.

I’d rant into the ether more about this, but I have to go to a Hallowe’en party now. My costume has gotten a blood upgrade, and through the night, depending on how drunk I get, the tie might double as a headband per the battle-damaged Shaun in the movie. More pics will be forthcoming.

Vaccine moronitude

Big conversations elsewhere

There are two large and interesting conversations going on over at Greg Laden’s right now. One is on what to do if you somehow end up with a religious roommate, which spirals out into a discussion on whether or not you should “come out” as an atheist at all. I personally think it’s possible to be friends with theists, but I don’t know that it’s a particularly worthwhile endeavour if they spend their time preaching at you. The other is a call to dis-arms, wherein Greg and others prod a hornet’s nest by suggesting a ban on all handguns. This of course comes in short order after George Sodini went ape shooting up a gym, meaning I called it earlier when I said this would rekindle the old 2nd Amendment debate. I’ve always been of the opinion that a “right to bear arms” implied muskets, not small hand cannons that can kill multiple targets with minimal training, effort or cost.

Over at Alternet, there’s a good conversation about Sodini having read a sexist Christian author’s book shortly before going on his rampage, playing into both the misogyny and the religion angles of the story simultaneously.

All of these are definitely worth reading and commenting on, but work seems to be on fire, so I’m going to go deal with that instead.

Big conversations elsewhere

Yet another shooting rampage

Misogyny, like other mental constructs wherein there is a “superior” and an “inferior” subdivision of a given population, can occasionally have deadly effects when someone who is subjected to this double-standard thinking is mentally unbalanced. This is outright frightening. Something bothers me even more about this event than the school shooting rampages you hear about practically daily. Maybe it’s because I just joined a gym… or maybe it’s because of the novelty of the location. Either way, this is bound to cause a resurgence in discourse about gun control.

Update: Holy shit, I wasn’t expecting this to have a religious aspect, seriously. People might start thinking I have an axe to grind or something!

Apparently, according to the shooter’s online diary (Google cache as it’s been taken off the web), a pastor convinced him that one can commit mass-murder and still get into heaven:

Tetelestai Church in Pittsburgh, PA – “Be Ye Holy, even as I have been Ye holy! Thus saith the lord thy God!”, as pastor Rick Knapp would proclaim. Holy shit, religion is a waste. But this guy teaches (and convinced me) you can commit mass murder then still go to heaven. Ask him. Call him at (xxx) xxx-xxxx.

More info at Your Religion Is False.

Yet another shooting rampage