I’m late with # 6 in Surly Amy’s series. It’s David Niose, the president of the American Humanist Association, this time.
Extract:
The blogosphere has rarely been known for its high sense of decorum, but the vile comments recently directed toward women in the atheist-humanist-skeptic communities give us reason for pause. Occasional disagreements within our communities on various issues are to be expected, as are the fiery tempers that sometimes accompany such disagreements. Given our strong opinions and our willingness to stand up for what we believe, it would be more surprising if we went a lengthy time period without some kind of high-profile clash occurring. But still, the inevitability of conflict in no way justifies any kind of conduct, whether by written communication or otherwise, that utilizes violent intimidation. As atheists-humanists-skeptics, and as decent human beings, we need to do what we can to create an environment that reflects an understanding of the difference between healthy debate and threatening conduct, between mature discourse and hateful bullying.
As noted on Skepchick by others, I thought this one was a bit vague on the harassment front, but otherwise decent.
Good to see, indeed. Cross AHA off the “who’s left” list.
I am personally absenting myself from any discussions that emphasise the words “feminazi” or “mansplaining”, both of which are notionally valid ( in that both phenomena exist) but suffer from egregious mission creep in their application. I acknowledge my intellectual cowardice in this respect, but don’t apologise for it as it’s impossible to contribute intelligently to a debate that assumes ad hominems as valid argument.
You’ve got to be fucking kidding me, Steve Bowen. Lessee, the former term was invented by a far-right blowhard to tar all feminists, and likens any demand for basic human rights to be equivalent to invading fucking Poland. The other was coined to describe a particular pattern of condescension and patronizing by the gender that holds the most social power against the ones that holds less. Both sides, maaaan!
Yeah so I get that sceptics spend a lot of time arguing and fighting their corner. One of the key groups argued with are creationists and they never back down or admit they are wrong. Is it that we start to copy that behaviour when presented with it enough times? The only way to be right is to argue until death against all reason?
I’ve been involved in some healthy discourse between two quite potty anti-FtBs and Skepchick gents on a blog. They were goading me about my anonymity and they are ‘completely honest’ about who they are therefore I’m wrong somehow. So I looked them up and one is a late-middle aged IT nerd (Like me, but I’m still a youngster!) and the other is retired and over 60. I find it almost incomprehensible why two sceptical minded, reasonable people would waste so much of their life just commenting on blogs about how awful some feminists are. I’m on holiday and I found it hard to keep up with them and am flagging even though its fun taking the piss out of them. When I found they are contributors to a site solely dedicated to detailing all the wrongs of FtBs and Skepchick.org I nearly bust a gut laughing at the inanity of it all. But really it is quite sad that when they *truly* think they have something to contribute to feminism all they do is criticise and pick holes in other peoples work. Brings me back to the creationists given their raison d’etre is just to pick holes in others thinking and contribute nothing.
They are not the only two – but as the only non-anonymous ones (Assuming I believe they are who they say they are) – they stuck out as not 13 yr olds bashing away at keyboards trolling the internet. I’ve not seen anything in the Skepchick series that comes close to addressing this lack of rational thought. BTW I asked them what they thought of the Skepchick series since a lot of prominent leaders have essentially stood up on the other side to them. Apparently they are all men and as such have no freedom of speech because the Skepchicks and you lot have forced them into a corner where if they say nothing they are rapists or rape-culture promoters… So this series has no effect on their thought processes, the world is still 6000 years old you just need to be inventive enough with the evidence.
The phenomenon “feminazi” exists? Oh really? Where, who? (And have you informed David Gorski?)
Fascinating. But why would these men care? If they really think Skepchick and someFTBwomen are terrible, why would they care what we say? If they don’t care what we say (because we’re so terrible), how would we force them into a corner? If we’re just obvious loons, then surely Dave Silverman and Ron Lindsay and the others can just laugh at us and walk away.
Steve Bowen,
Feminazi is a valid term?
@_@
And you are personally absenting yourself from conversations in which this term is used? Unless, of course, you are the one who introduces it…
Is a feminazi a female nazi? Or just a feminine nazi? Please explain this term to me, for I have yet to meet one of these ‘femi-nazis’ of which you speak for myself.
I have seen plenty of mansplaining though…
thanks for absolutely nothing then.
@Ophelia – that is the thing on the one hand they denounce you all as a bunch of whiny know-nothings but on the other hand they are afraid as you have massive power apparently.
Now I apologise if I am wrong but I have been taking the piss out of them as they seem to think FtBs and Skepchick are ‘the’ or at least a massively powerful voice in the feminist movement. A typical comment is along the lines of ‘x’ has put back feminism and it may never recover, where ‘x’ may be a person or a persons actions such as crying at a conference. They seem to think that you all are leaders of feminism while saying you are idiots! I’m sure FtBs and Skepchick are high profile feminists – I really don’t know in the global context but you are in my small world – I am also sure there are lots of academics discussing feminist theory and writing lots of papers on it who may be considered the thought leaders (A friend of mine is a Dr of gender politics and is published in multiple feminist journals but has no public face beyond the university)
They have their own idea of what is ‘good’ feminism and it is generally described as strong, 2nd wave, or non-whiny feminism. You are all incredibly powerful feminists who are toting victim-based, 3rd wave, or whiny-wimp feminism and must therefore be stopped. What I see is that having a spectrum of views of what is the right way of moving feminism forward is healthy — what is not healthy is thinking yours is right and other views must be squashed.
Equating “feminazi” and “mansplaining” is just inane.
Yes, there’s some mission creep with respect to “mansplaining.” But with “feminazi,” the mission itself sucks, even before it starts creeping!
(instinctively searching for “like” button) Yes it is: Which is why I didn’t, except in the narrow sense that the appearance of either (usually both) is indicative of an argument it is pointless joining.
well, I once met someone back in the seventies who, if it wasn’t just an ad hominem, would have fitted the description of what a feminazi should be. However I was even less enlightened back then so it might be just about me.
citation needed, but I bow to your greater knowledge. If the intention of the neologism was to encompass feminists in general rather than a particularly extreme variety, then my “mission creep” statement is bollocks in this regard. It stands though in relation to “mansplaining” which I agree happens: a lot. But it also gets applied to men who make arguments about means to ends in the feminist movement, even though we agree on the fundemental principle that all individuals should enjoy equal status. Both are used as a way of shutting down legitimate argument, and even if justified on a comment by comment basis, don’t help. Sometimes when men express an opinion on feminism, they are seeking clarification not confrontation. As an analogy, a couple of years ago a Christian commenter on Daylight Atheism, posted regular naive defenses of his religion, which attracted a lot of derisory comments from many atheists. However, one or two of us recognised a pattern of enquiry which we tried to address with argument and not insult. This guy is now an atheist and a FB buddy of mine. Minds can be changed. Personally, I am already a feminist, I may not always agree with others on the best way forward, but am always willing to be pursuaded by rational argument.