Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland has yet another very long post chiding US bloggers for daring to criticize the important atheist Leaders. I skimmed it, because as I mentioned it’s very long, and also very wordy and repetitive. (He uses the phrase “mostly American” four times. He’s really obsessed with the audacity of us Yanks trying to talk about issues in Anglophone atheism.) I skimmed it, but one thing did stand out:
As an added nuance, in these ‘deep rifts’ within parts of mostly American atheist blogging and activism, some people on both perceived sides have targeted some women in a sexist way. Some people on one perceived side have criticised some women using derogatory terms associated with feminism or body parts. Some people on the other perceived side have criticised some women using derogatory terms such as gender traitor and chill girls.
No. That’s a very sly and very false equivalence. It’s not “both perceived sides.” The two are not remotely equivalent. Hardly anybody uses “gender traitor” and “chill girl.” That’s extremely rare; vanishingly rare. I’ve never used either one (except in the sense I’m “using” them here – to discuss their use as a red herring and false equivalence). They’re rare. Are “cunt” and “bitch” rare on the “other perceived side”?
It’s interesting that Nugent didn’t spell those out, but did spell out the ones he’s attributing to us, the ones that hardly ever appear, the ones that are so much milder. It’s interesting that he drew a tactful veil over the fact that people call us cunts and twats and bitches, while he drew no such veil over the mostly-mythic “gender traitor” and “chill girl.”
“Interesting” is perhaps not quite the right word.
Dishonest and also dishonest in a completely separate way? Michael Nugent is carrying 55-gallon drums of water for the misogynistic “side” of atheism.
If this is a ‘mostly American’ phenomenon (even though it isn’t), why in the fuck is he spilling so much virtual ink over it? Shorter Nooge: “Pipe down, you shirty Yanks, and let us global atheists get back to the business of being awesome.”
He also doesn’t bother to delve into WHAT it is about the words that causes the other side to object to them. I mean, that was his deal with Adam Lee’s article wasn’t it? He kept saying Adam didn’t say WHY the stuff was sexist.
This is the problem with Nugent’s tone trolling. “Well, both are mean words, so they MUST be equal.” It’s the same deal with people saying that the feminists’ problem with cunt is that it’s vulgar. Or the classic… “Of course it’s supposed to be insulting, it’s an insult!” It completely ignores what is wrong with the word and only focuses on the fact that it’s supposed to be insulting to the target.
What sexist connotations do chill girl and gender traitor have? Compare that to the sexist connotations of pussy or cunt or bitch. Will they come out equal?
As usual, Nugent is focused on tone rather than actual content.
I met Nugent when he was at the global atheist conference in Copenhagen a few years ago, and I wasn’t particularly impressed by his intellect – I spent an evening together with Jadehawk and David M., trying to explain to him that people who live in secular countries, might not particularly worry much about whether God is real or not. A concept which he clearly not only had a hard time accepting, but also actually understanding.
This is probably why I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and thought he might not understand the points people like Adam Lee and the FtB bloggers involved in the discussion were trying to put across.
But at one point, it became clear that it is not lack of comprehension, but rather dishonesty which drives his arguments.
I have a general rule that I prune my internet experience of anyone who allow the slymepitters free reign of their comment section. The first to go was Abbie Smith, the latest is now Michael Nugent. I won’t be wasting any time on his tweets, blog or facebook updates.
I’m somewhat at a loss as to why these guys won’t just realize they are making asses of themselves and stop. I wonder if this is a form of gaslighting or bullying tactic, in which the bully refuses to shut up and concede, and purposely makes poor arguments (and obvious cherry-picking, elisions, etc) and subtle or not-so-subtle digs at the opponent, belittling, etc., hoping to enrage the opponent and provoke an angry response, so that then the bully can paint the opponent as a fanatic or lunatic. Are they dumb enough to think that this will work on Benson or PZ? How long will it take for them to realize that this strategy is backfiring?
The very worst thing about this latest article is that Nugent weighs the evidence – he specifically places that nuance after describing himself contributing to Amy’s articles on online harassment, and the nature of that harassment.
Nugent is calling for right-minded people to consider the nuance of pejorative epithets which label reactionary behaviour versus pejorative epithets rooted in worst sort of violent misogyny. He is doing so immediately following acknowledgement of the context of harassment and abuse which led to the rifts.
His call for nuance requires the reader to remain ignorant of the cause and effect: if anyone was using terms like chill girl, it wasn’t to preempt being called a cunt.
To the best of my knowledge, it was ‘pitters who claimed that chill girl and gender traitor were in widespread use, repeating the terms in their accusations and “satire”. I start to wonder where Nugent gets his information – at best his understanding is secondhand and superficial. At worst, it looks as though he is parroting the ‘pit whitewash of events.
Does he not understand that Amy’s harasses are often the same people who were using derogatory terns for body parts?
(Is Nugent simply utterly prudish about language, causing him to react so euphemistically and thereby minimise the violence of the language? It may also help to explain why “civility” – in the form of polite words – is so important to him: everything is off the scale in his mind, and therefore lacks distinction. He simply cannot process the language, and therefore “fuck yourself” is equivalent to being “kicked in the cunt”.)
Nugent does it again… *sigh*
“Some people on one perceived side have criticised some women using derogatory terms associated with feminism or body parts. Some people on the other perceived side have criticised some women using derogatory terms such as gender traitor and chill girls.”
Notice something different here?
On one side, he’s not even willing to quote the words, and the other side he’s much more willing to say out loud. There’s also the extremely passive “associated” he uses for the side he won’t quote…
Wow. So, on one side you have people using words that Michael Nugent himself won’t use because he knows how sexist and derogatory they are, and on the other side you have people mainly not using words like ‘chill girl’.
Ooo. “Chill girl”. Words so offensive even Michael Nugent can say them.
Wrong again, Michael. Wrong again.
Use of the terms “gender traitor” or “chill girl” is something I take as a signal that the person using them needn’t be taken seriously. Just like I do with people who point to Andrea Dworkin or Valerie Solanas as paragons of mainstream feminist thought.
If it will make him happy, I’ll take my usual tack in these arguments and concede that I’m totally evil, just a horrible excuse for a human being. You could even claim that I’m just a cynical white knight, paying lip service to feminism so I can get laid by strange, gullible women everywhere I go (and also that I’m incompetent, since that strategy doesn’t seem to be working).
Now, how does that excuse bad actions on the other side? You are not demonstrating that anti-X is true and right and correct by demonstrating the wickedness of some guy who endorses X.
ardly anybody uses “gender traitor” and “chill girl.”
I havent heard gender traitor but chill girl was used more often than hardly ever during slymepit-gate . The most prominent post is one by Stephanie Zvan on a google search – http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/09/10/a-note-to-chill-girls-and-queen-bees/
He’s gone full tu quoque then, slyme-parasites infecting the brain stem.
Hardly anybody uses “gender traitor” and “chill girl.”
My memory on this is more that the slymepitters were accusing FTBloggers of using such terms more than anything. I don’t recall seeing anyone on this side really using those terms. Being that Stephanie’s post (as linked in #11) is from two years ago, it has perhaps been a while since those terms had been getting thrown around.
I remember exactly ONE comment on FTB (this blog, actually, and by a reader not a blogger) about ‘gender traitor,’ years ago as the great rift opened (or became visible, anyway). The two women so described have done their best to live up to the description since then.
@Radioactive Elephant #3
That depends on the context of when and where and who is using those terms. To give you an example from a diary entry I made the other day:
So is it the naughty words that are objectionable, or the sentiment of STFU behind it that’s objectionable? I can laugh at my husband and son’s naughty words because I know them well and it has to do with a private family joke. On the other hand, when I get called things like ‘rape apologist’* on FTB blogs, it is basically an attempt to get me to STFU because I’m expressing an opinion that isn’t the popular one here. It works too. So if it is the intent to silence the other person, then I don’t see one descriptor term as being objectively more objectionable than the other.
On the other hand, when I read a few comments on a Huffington post story about why women stay with their abusers. I felt dirty after less than a doz en. I clicked away. I can barely tolerate the sanitized atmosphere of many moderated blogs. When I get called names or informed that my views are too despicable to want to speak with me, I stop posting. But I don’t post at places that allow commentary like ‘cunt’ or ‘bitch’ thrown accusingly at others because for me, personally, they are worse – at least when used on the Internet by strangers.
But not everyone feels that way. I don’t think we should excuse name-calling just because the particular words don’t bother the person using them whether those words are ‘cunt’ or ‘bigot’. It seems to me that a reasonable approach would be to respect the wishes of the person you are directing the words at or better yet, don’t call them derogatory names.
Reading this over, I realize that it doesn’t really go into whether the terms are sexist or not. It’s more about perception and telling people with contrary opinions to STFU. Like the anti-abortionists use of the epithet ‘baby-killer’ for abortionists. It is a label designed to shut down conversation with the other and, if they continue talking, to persuade others not to listen because they are an evil person.
*I haven’t been called a chill girl or gender traitor that I can recall
“The Phoenix”, the Irish equivalent of “Private Eye”, ran an article on Nugent a couple of months back in which they pegged him as a tiresome self-publicist. Then, I put it down to editorial spleen on their part and was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Now? Not so much.
@Leo Buzalsky
it has perhaps been a while since those terms had been getting thrown around.
yep its usage did go down (anecdotally) but a lot of the contentious things people bring up are old , unresolved issues. (Did we stop Dear Muslima after Richard apologised for it?)
While I agree with Ophelia that chill girl is not in the same class as the other terms – it is derogatory
Since we’re going to go all nationalistic and stuff, I just want to take the opportunity to congratulate Ireland on their progressive stance re: sexism.
I hear they even allow the birth control pill these days.
@Bernard Bumner #6
I tend to think of “fuck yourself” as roughly equivalent to “kicked in the cunt” on the Internet. Can you explain why you feel there is an obvious distinction?
@15 Beth…
Proof positive that context matters. When used in an article about breeding dogs, the word “bitch” is perfectly appropriate.
When used in a years long systematic, unrelenting, overwhelming, coordinated, and vicious attack on a series of individual women targeted specifically because they’re feminists … not so much. And especially when the context includes invocations of rape, torture, and death.
IIRC, “chill girl” was coined by a woman on the other side of the rift, in order to describe herself and differentiate herself from the supposedly shrill harpy eebul feminist women who presumably are not “chill” and thus intemperate or hotheaded. In other words, it started as an anti-feminist insult by THEIR side. Then it was briefly co-opted as a sort of shorthand on the feminist side, referring to women who will gladly throw other women under the bus for male approval (or something like that). Then the anti-feminist side disingenuously decided that this was a gendered insult and totally just as bad as calling a woman the c-word, even though obviously it isn’t. So then the pro-feminist side quickly dropped the term, but it doesn’t matter, since the pitters think of this as a real gotcha or awesome tu quoque that they will trot out until the end of time even though the term hasn’t been used much since the SZ 2012 post.
@dshetty
“Dear muslima” is a very useful shorthand for a concept which would otherwise be awkward to communicate.
skemist @21: That was my recollection too, that the Slymepit coined it themselves and only got upset when pejorative use of the term eclipsed the complimentary.
The genesis of “fuck you” or “fuck yourself” is admittedly a bit puzzling. Did it ever have a sensible meaning?
In other words, dshetty@11, 17 is wrong and perhaps engaging in some historical revisionism. That said, I agree that the terms should be avoided.
I have used the term chill girl several times, as the pitters will undoubtedly point out. I refuse to apologize for it because it is not equivalent by any stretch of the imagination to calling someone a cunt feminazi whore who needs raped. There are, in fact, women (Abbie Smith and Miranda Celeste Hale are good examples) who burnish their boys club credit by being vocally anti-feminist and characterizing feminists as hysterical or over sensitive.
Does anyone here dispute that? Does anyone believe that there is not such a phenomenon?
I fail to see how pointing that out and using chill girl as short hand (yes, it is an insult, obviously) is something we are even discussing here as if it were equivalent, or provides any justification for the abuse.
Woman A calls other women hysterical liars. Observer B (me) says, “must be nice to be a chill girl and throw other women under the bus.”
Are any of you *really* going to indulge the pit on this? Are you really going to treat this as a reasonable point of contention? And, if you are, do you honestly believe that erasing that particular term from the discourse will in any way mollify the assholes? Do you genuinely—think about this before you answer—not believe they’ll immediately move on to some other justification for their aggressive INITIATION of abuse? You know, the abuse they lobbed, that gets an understandable reaction from our side?
Really?
Reminds me a bit of a Fox News (IIRC) chyron that read “‘Cracker’ vs ‘N-word’: Which is worse?” or somesuch. Kind of answered your own question there, I think.
When I was researching my Nugent post recently, I noticed that among the first hits for a lot of his claims was a blog post by Tim “Gurdur” Skellett, itself fairly old, listing the terrible crimes of PZ in particular. Specifically, I know it came up when I was trying to find the place where PZ called Blackford a “lying fuckhead,” which Nugent quoted. Skellett may not be a ‘pitter–Oolon would surely know–but he shows up a lot in those conversations.
Incidentally, just for fun, I was browsing through the old archived You’re Not Helping sockblog, to remind myself what vintage tone-trolling and language-policing looked like. Gurdur showed up in the comments of a post chastizing PZ’s naughty behavior there too. Are we quite certain that Michael Nugent isn’t just Tom Johnson? Quick, someone see if he agrees with Polly-O.
@24 Alex: “Fuck yourself” strikes me as self-explanatory, if said to a male, though perhaps it is over-complimentary toward his endowment. But yes, “Fuck you” is indeed puzzling. I’m reminded of the scene in Borat, during traffic, when he yells at the guy who cuts him off: “I suck your dick! You fuck my mother!”
And to de-rail a bit further, Ms. Benson, you refer to “us Yanks”. I always presumed you to be a Brit, or at least a UK-er. Your essays often involve British politics — are you an American ex-pat living there?
This is ridiculous. Behold the Four Horseman – four white men, two of them (50%) are Brits. Neither Hitchens nor Dawkins can be regarded as having that label by accident of geography or timing. Both are/were BRITISH in the strongest possible sense of the word, the one where it’s on the point of becoming a term of disdain, even abuse! And all four of them have surnames which originate in the British Isles.
Given the disparity in population size, then the Brits are disproportionately represented. Add to that the fact that, so I am told, the Slyme Pit is positively bursting with my fellow countrymen – gawd’elpme!
And where are the minor players in this Great Rift? Why, spread fairly evenly across the former British Empire and Western Europe. What do they have in common? They all have English as their first language or are completely fluent in it. Amazing!
It is stating the bleedin’ obvious to say that this is a dispute within Anglophone atheism. There is not a single fact in the other pan of the scales.
Addendum: I would consider ceasing to use the term only if victims of the abuse from the misogynists said it was making life harder for them. That’s the most important consideration. But be absolutely clear that I will not indulge the idea that “your side is just as bad,” and I will not make a disingenous mea culpa as if I believed I’d done something wrong or provocative enough to justify the abuse. Which, I remind everyone again, THEY INITIATED.
Responding in defense, even if it uses a term they absolutely dislike, is not abuse. Be clear about that.
Josh, Official Spokesgay@16
Fair point. I would refrain from using them because I don’t want to get in a tu quoque, but I would not tell you not to use them, since I agree that they are not true gendered slurs. I stand corrected.
Not this again?! I think I made a comment two years ago that pointed out the SlymePit used “gender traitor” and “sister punisher” more frequently that FTB. Maybe it’s time to update that:
"chill girl" site:freethoughtblogs.com: ~374"chill girl" site:slymepit.com: ~33,000
"sister punisher" site:freethoughtblogs.com: ~46
"sister punisher" site:slymepit.com: ~14,000
Weird, so the SlymePit still uses these terms far more often that FtB, and yet Nugent doesn’t call them out for it? I humbly suggest this has nothing to do with civility, but with protecting the ol’ boys network.
Josh, the only problem I see with the phrase “chill girl” is the “girl” part. There is a history of people calling grown women “girls” as a tool of belittlement or condescension. Of course, there’s also plenty of positive or neutral uses of “girl” even when applied to adults, so I don’t claim that its wrongness is clear-cut, and it certainly doesn’t rise (or descend) to the level of some of the other terms referenced in this thread.
[Snickers over his latest one-off comment at Nugent ‘s.]
I would also note (and it was previously pointed out by others first) that Nugent doesn’t seem to hold the commenters in his own blog to the lofty ‘standards’ which he apparently applies to those of us who are pro-treating-women-like-actual-people.
This is what I was getting at when I said on twitter that Nugent was like Alistair McGrath, the same false equivalences, the same presumption that anyone who criticizes the sacred object (religion for McGrath, thought leaders for Nugent) must be some kind of fundamentalist. Plus a writing style that carries all the energy and dynamism of skimmed milk
The concept of being a traitor to one’s gender dates back to the woman anti-suffragists of the Nineteenth Century. It has long gone out of fashion.
In Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale the term “gender traitor” is used of homosexual activity, or even a hint of sexual interest, but only among men.
Although the phrase seems to have great emotional heft for the forces of darkness, I am confident that anyone using it on this side of the Great Divide™ is sufficiently literate to be doing so ironically.
Personally, I like Nugent a great deal, and I don’t particularly like the demonization going on in these comments. But I do think he’s wrong. He’s gotten so caught up in his self-appointed role as the Great Moderate that he’s gone flying off the rails, and these interminably long posts reflect a lack of clarity and consistency — civility is all, substance gets the axe, and as long as slymepitters don’t use four-letter words, they’re all right in his book. So what if they call women c*nts on their forum and Twitter? So what if their primary occupation is making up myths backed with photoshopped “evidence”? They’re not saying rude things about atheist Thought Leaders.
It’s actually pretty savvy of them. Photoshopping Ophelia into bizarre images gets them a pass that they wouldn’t get from Nugent if they did the same thing to Dawkins or Harris.
I also have to conclude from Nugent’s obsession with me as the apotheosis of wickedness that there’s something personal at work here, and that I’ve rubbed him the wrong way. Also that he’s decided I’m sufficiently small fry that he doesn’t have to give me the unquestioning deference he blesses the truly big shots with.
@Beth #19
There are some stark differences, in my opinion:
1) “Fuck yourself” is non-gendered, and it isn’t even clear whether it is an exhortation to penetrative one’s self, although I suppose it could have undertones of that. It isn’t explicitly violent.
2) A kick is violent.
3) Cunt is gendered/sexist.
4) ‘Kick in the cunt’ is exclusively aimed at women, and carries not only the vitriolic intent (also found in “fuck yourself”) but also draws upon a broader context of everyday sexism and sexual violence towards women which serves to increase the menace/threat of the insult.
5) Most importantly, in this case I was making (evidently unclear) reference to the repeated use of the phrase by Slymepitters and their friends directed at Ophelia (originally: “If I was a girl, I’d kick her in the cunt”, and then endlessly recycled when Ophelia highlighted that particular piece of charming abuse).
I have never heard or read “gender traitor” used in the last decade, except by people claiming to have been the target of the phrase; I do have very vague (30-40 years old) memories of it being used in the 1970’s and 1980’s, but I couldn’t cite any actual example. “Chill girl,” of course, has made its appearance in recent years, but I think most people realize that it’s inappropriate. The people here at the various FtBlogs tend to be self-correcting with respect to those things (another example that springs to mind is the whole rusty porcupine thing). That being said, I agree with Josh@26 that the two phrases are mildly insulting at best, quite far removed from the counterpart examples that Nugent used.
FYI, there is an interesting discussion of the phrases on the A+ forums right here. I’m surprised that Michael Nugent did not reference some of the points made there, as the discussion was reasoned and fair, and it turns up on the very first page of hits on a google search of “gender traitor.” I would challenge him to find a similarly introspective thread over at the ‘pit with pitters questioning whether they should be tossing about “c*nt” and “bitch” with such joy and abandon, as they do.
Beth:
Considering the context of this discussion has always been insults across “the rift”, I don’t think ironic usage between loved ones really counts as a rebuttal?
Neither… The first is simple vulgarity, which is silly considering how often vulgar words are thrown around here.
The second is tone again. Tone tone tone.
It’s the unmentioned third. The meaning and history of the words.
PZ, he’s being criticized, not demonized. Let’s don’t get melodramatic.
Nugent’s behavior throughout the last few years, and especially recently, has led me to place him on the other side of the Deep Rift and wish him bon voyage. He’s used up all benefit of the doubt. I see nothing in him to like that isn’t overshadowed by the role he’s playing now. Hopefully, for the sakes of them as likes him, he’ll remove his head from the fetid dark hole he’s jammed it in and stop being a jackass. But I don’t really feel like building more bridges for him to burn.
@PZ #37:
I think Nugent has a point about attacking the wrong targets. If you are upset about the people calling women cunts and issuing death threats, I don’t think Dawkins or Harris has done anything like that. Many people, who apparently do admire them, issue such tweets when their thought leader is disparaged. Are they responsible for what their fans say and do?
There are legitimate complaints about their sexist assumptions contributing to the ‘chilly’ culture that is endemic to male-dominated organizations and professions. Dawkins ‘Dear Muslima’ letter was one of the most offensive things I’ve ever read in my life. But it is a different complaint from that of women being harangued into silence through the use of vulgar and personally demeaning language. Which is yet a different problem than the sexual assaults and more generally. the objectification of women as sexual bodies to be used, abused and discarded rather than living thinking beings. Theses are certainly related, but I don’t think that Sam Harris’ thoughtless remarks about estrogen vibes are deserving of the same derision and shaming as the anonymous jerks who threaten women with detailed description of their own rape or murder.
As far as allowing ‘slymepitters’ to post as long as they don’t use four-letter words, he is allowed to set the parameters on his website just as you get to on yours. Personally, I found the bile and hatred (presumably from slylmepitters) there more than I could handle. But I can’t handle your comment section either. In general, I think it’s reasonable for each blogger to set their own rules. As long as someone abides by the rules, why should he/she be banned for posting in some other forum where those rules don’t apply?
@Alex
Its a useful shorthand which is different from Dawkins is still called out for it.
@skemist
perhaps engaging in some historical revisionism
what revisionism ? I did show u a post which explicitly endorses the term and you wont find any push back about it in the comments etc (and a few scattered references by commenters) – who started it , hardly matters – the usage now is derogatory.
@Josh
I refuse to apologize for it because it is not equivalent by any stretch of the imagination to calling someone a cunt feminazi whore who needs raped.
It isn’t. But Dear Muslima is another form is hardly something we should be striving for.
who burnish their boys club credit by being vocally anti-feminist and characterizing feminists as hysterical or over sensitive. Does anyone here dispute that?
Yes – me. I do not know if these are their actual , sincerely held, views or whether they do it to burnish their boys club credit. I have no idea how you would know either and I see no reason to draw that conclusion or why it is useful to have that conclusion – it should be sufficient to prove that they are wrong – and they are.
@PZ #37
You have the advantage of knowing the man, but it is hard for me to muster charity, since I only have his words to go on in order to form an opinion.
It is very difficult not to percieve a level of wilful dishonesty in Nugent’s actions, since he tone trolls in the OP whilst hosting ‘Pitters in the comments section – even in that post where he remarks on the incivility of the hoard.
If he is mistaken or simply too wrapped up in the lofty role he has adopted, then he is also reckless and remiss in not properly assaying the issues.
I don’t think that much of these comments should be described a demonisation: these opinions come off the back of observing one voice after another adopting the same pattern of denial, closing ranks, and protecting/apologising for abusers.
Are Chill Girl and DudeBro roughly equivalent?
if not, why not?
(I don’t personally use either. This question just occurred to me.)
@Bernard Bumner #38: Thanks. I appreciate your explanation.
@Radioactive Elephant #40
My example wasn’t meant to be a rebuttal. It was an illustration of context making the difference between whether the words are offensive or not.
I’m sorry, but I’m not following you here. The meaning and history of the words is the context. To me, that renders your original point that ‘cunt’ is worse that ‘chill girl’ null and void because depending on the context, either epithet could be offensive to a degree that is dependent on the person it is aimed at. Which was the point I was trying to make.
@Beth #42
The point isn’t whether Nugent should set his own comments policy, but that he calls for civility in OP whilst hosting plainly uncivil comments. He even singles out PZ cultivating a hostile commentariat as unhelpful and divisive and part of a pattern of personal attacks and smears, even whilst he hosts a commentariat that is not only hostile, but also filled with personal attacks, lies, and smears (specifically targeted towards PZ, amongst other FTB bloggers – commonly recognised as forming one of the “sides” in this).
As for your attempts to decouple harassers, their apologists, their supporters, the merely sexist from the actively misogynistic – you can’t pretend that they aren’t part of the same problem and inextricably linked in a self-perpetuating network.
To paraphrase the immortal Molly Ivins’ conclusion in her definitive takedown of Paglia, and for a very similar reason: “Let me leap to correct this unfairness by saying of Nugent: Sheesh, what an asshole.” Gender-blind, globally applicable and all that good stuff.
dshetty:
If you’re saying that my use is equivalent to a Dear Muslima, we’re going to have to disagree. Likewise with your uncertainty about chill girl actions. Whether they’d express those sentiments that baldly or own them consciously, that is precisely the effect: Cred with the dudebros at the expense of other women.
First, a disclaimer: I am a straight white cis dude, possibly weighing in on issues I do not fully understand. Take my statements with a big ol’ grain of Privilege-brand salt.
Re: “chill girl,” I think it’s roughly parallel to “uncle tom” in meaning. I don’t use either, because they are (from my perspective) terms of use within a marginalized group. It’s not my place blunder into feminism from my condo on Privilege Mountain and tell women who among them is being helpful, who among them is not, and what their motivations are. I have my opinions, of course, and I’ve read enough bell hooks to say confidently that not everything which wears the term “feminism” is actually feminist. But it’s not really my place to start or moderate or force those conversations; I’ll just gladly lend my support wherever it’s wanted. It isn’t a slur by any meaningful sense of that term.
The evidence shows that we’ll be dismissed and vilified no matter what terms we use; for reference, see “feminist,” “privilege,” Schrodinger’s rapist,” and “rape culture” for starters. Plus, as Nugent has amply demonstrated, any language that would not be appropriate at afternoon tea with Her Royal Highness Queen Victoria. Our SpokesGay is quite correct in that we gain nothing by accepting their false equivalence. False equivalence and tu quoque are the slymers’ only tactics in these arguments; conceding them is like conceding special pleading to an IDiot.
Re: Dear Muslima, yes, Dawkins apologized for it. How many hours did he go from that apology before he was back on Twitter ranking different degrees of suffering he’d never have to experience? Implicit in an apology is that you regret doing the thing for which you have apologized, and will endeavor not to do it in the future. When you almost immediately go back to doing exactly the kind of thing you apologized for, it’s not unreasonable to view your apology as insincere.
Even if that weren’t the case, an action for which you apologized is still an action that you committed. If we’re discussing your patterns of behavior, apologizing for something doesn’t erase it from history. It’s still very much something you did, and it’s still worth considering in assessments of your behavior and character. So, too, is the apology, to be clear.
Re: Nugent’s comment section, he’s certainly free to moderate it (or not) however he sees fit. However, it’s pretty hypocritical of him to demand that other blogger rein in and take responsibility for their commenters, and adhere to certain standards of civility, when he doesn’t do the same.
“Chill girl” doesn’t sound like me, but I may well have used “gender traitor” at some point.
I’ve certainly made the comparison to “house niggers” and caught flack for it.
32. Hj Hornbeck,
To be scrupulously fair, all those hits could be mentions rather than uses.
What Nuge also conveniently ignoresis that the vast majority of ‘violent imagery’ – I scorn to call it that because it’s profoundly innacurate, but I’ll stick with it for now – was between commenters on Pharyngula. Many of the recipients were pseudonymous commenters, and many of those drive-by trolls.
The ‘pitters, on the other hand, were doing what they were doing across multiple social media platforms – Facebook, Twitter, blogs, YouTube comments etc – in order to shut down anyone talking about feminism in the atheist community. And these were people who aren’t pseudonymous; they are the well-known blogggers and convention speakers like Ophelia, Stephanie, Rebecca Watson and so forth.
There’s a huge fucking difference. If Nuge can’t see that he’s got no business commenting on the issue; if he can see it, but is choosing to ignore it then he’s a dishonest piece of shit.
Beth @42
Nobody is responsible for what other people say. However people are responsible for not condemning hateful speech coming from supporters, especially when such speech is defending the particular person. Dawkins did make a statement jointly with Ophelia admonishing supporters not to use hateful or threatening speech. However Greta had a hard time to get Harris to denounce threats. Even then Harris was silent about sexist and misogynist speech.
Ophelia Benson has written a recent post, Thou Shalt Respect The Leaders, in which she chides a UK blogger FOR DARING to argue a case against Richard Dawkins’ recent critics.
Wow, that Ophelia sure seems unfair and intolerant. I mean, chiding someone for DARING to argue the other side of an issue? Isn’t she even open to discussion, to being shown wrong if it turns out to be the case? Seems she just wants to silence any debate.
Oh wait…here’s what Ophelia actually wrote at the beginning of her piece:
“Michael Nugent has decided to defend Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer from the violence and abuse of those evil Freethought bloggers. It’s not a very even-handed account of the situation, in my view.“,
Oh, I see, she wasn’t in fact chiding anyone for merely “daring” to defend Dawkins; instead her point was that the author was not even-handed, not fair, in recounting the situation. What a misleading characterization this post began with! And if Ophelia can make the case that an author produced unfair/misleading criticisms…I’m all ears!
Ophelia, surely you would not think highly of someone so lazily mischaracterizing the substance/ intent of your criticism. Why then start this one with a similar mischaracterization?
“Michael Nugent of Atheist Ireland has yet another very long post chiding US bloggers for daring to criticize the important atheist Leaders.”
He was no more chiding US bloggers for “daring” to criticize Dawkins than you were chiding him for simply “daring” to address the criticisms of Dawkins. He was making the case that the criticisms were unfair! You didn’t even need to “skim” his article to see this: It’s IN THE TITLE OF HIS BLOG POST. And if you’d done more than skim his article, you would have seen him say the obvious: that disagreement, including with Richard, “should be expected and encouraged in any freethinking community.” And that he himself has been critical of Richard concerning recent tweets as well. Nugent’s point is that criticism is best done fairly and in good faith, as we should demand from each other.
And he made a detailed case for it. Your criticism of the section you repeat here may be legitimate. But one point of criticism I’m sure you agree doesn’t amounts to showing Nugent’s piece to be wrong. Your comment indicates his piece is “too long” to be bothered looking to see if he’s made some agreeable points, but apparently not too long to skim for a part to disagree with. This leaves the impression that you are more interested in skimming for sections to disagree with, than you are in acknowledging any merit in Nugent’s case as a whole (or otherwise). And with a paragraph plucked out for criticism, Nugent’s case is being dismissed, keeping him safely out of the “us” and in the “them” box. (Again, this is the impression what I’ve seen
of your posting style thus far leaves me).
I might not leap to this impression of were it not for the similar pattern I saw in your recent posts criticizing Sam Harris, which I found to ignore much of the substance of Sam’s writing – exhibiting at various turns unreasonable characterizations of Sam’s position, a tendency toward ignoring whatever Sam wrote that didn’t fit the view you were painting of him, and at times following quotes of Sam with apparent sarcasm in lieu of actually showing how Sam was wrong or being sexist. I came expecting to see an actual case made against Sam’s post; instead I found a reply of minimal substance comprised mostly of what looked like just playing to the local comments section.
I do remember your having produced some well-written comments and posts before, particularly regarding atheism/religion. And as a fairly new visitor to your blog (at least on this issue) I’m not leaping to any judgement that you always write in the way I’m criticizing. Given your intelligence and passion, I have no doubt you have written convincingly on the subjects of sexism. I’m only voicing disappointment with aspects I’ve noticed in what I’ve read of yours recently: this post on Nugent and the recent posts on Sam Harris.
(BTW, given the irony of your first paragraph being so repetitive while it criticizes Nugent for repetition, it would be easy for someone in “gotcha” mode to assume you’ve created a “self pwnage” mistake. But a more even handed approach would be to notice you are obviously clever and it was more likely to have been ironic. I would be nice to see a similar principle of charity at work in the case of intelligent, usually nuanced folks like Sam Harris – presume he just may not be dumb enough to believe something as un-nuanced, unrealistic and as flat out “dumb” as the worst inference you can draw from their quote.
Even from Sam’s first “estrogen” comment that circulated, given what else I knew of his writing and appearances I did not presume his position was anything like the way you depicted it in your first blog post on his quotes. His follow up “sexist pig” blog post contained the type of nuance I knew he would display. And as I said, I found your interaction with what he wrote to be minimal, mostly ignoring whatever Sam wrote that should have mitigated the sexist portrait you were painting of him.).
Deepak @ 11 – so you point out one use of “chill girl” at FTB. So what? I said it was rare, not non-existent.
I think Rebecca Watson has said that she used to call herself a chill girl. It’s not really much of a pejorative – it’s more like a political stance. Like “Tea Partyer” for instance – a pejorative only if you’re not one.
OK, fair enough.
For a guy who’s busily asserting that rifts are an American phenomenon, he sure is digging an awfully deep ditch.
It’s not even sly. I’m again astounded at the similarity to creationists.
How many times have we seen creationists try to dismiss evolution or atheists or some other thing because they can find some few examples of people associated doing terrible things? It’s another shitty little bit of motivated reasoning where the differences between the sides are conveniently smoothed over to try to make the problem go away. I could never even get anyone to link me to a place where “gender traitor” and “chill girl” were used, though I can believe someone used them. Finding people using the other terms is a trivial “challenge”.
That’s more evidence to me that he knows the difference and is choosing to ignore the differences between the sides. Has Nugent ever complained about the amount of political and social power that the religious have had in society? If so he looks even worse since he is conveniently ignoring the power of the mob, and the social power that men acting like harassers and men choosing to politically ignore other men acting badly have.
@Bernard Bumner #48
That’s a fair point. I don’t know what his commenting policy actually is, only that it’s loose enough I won’t be commenting there. I didn’t think that was the point PZ was making, but rereading it, maybe that is what he meant. Thanks for the different perspective.
Certainly, all part of the same problem and ill-considered words by ‘thought leaders’ can have unpleasant repercussions for those who express criticism of them, even well-deserved criticism. Still, I think it reasonable to allow that they have different levels of culpability. Hosting a hostile commentariate is not exactly the same as calling people ‘cunt’. Being merely sexist – something that we all admittedly are, to varying degrees depending on the culture we were raised in and the culture we participate in – is a lesser sin than being misogynist and actively working to fight back the recent expansion of women’s options in our society.
I was reaching my follow limit of Twitter anyway so unfollowing Nugent conveniently opens up a space. Mentioning chill girl and gender traitor is a big red flag for bad faith to me, the same as if people quote the line the novel The Woman’s Room about all men being rapists as if it has some deep relevance. Relatedly, I was looking for a particular family photo and was scrolling back through all of my FB photos and found a bunch of Shermer from an event in ’08. Delete delete delete!
In what universe would the leaders of the skeptic community expect nobody to question their authority?
When someone makes that demand its time to revoke their membership card.
Vaal @ 56 – I have long long experience of trying to talk about this subject with Michael Nugent. He doesn’t listen.
Ophelia,
Ok, but even if (and especially if) you have a good argument against what he’s actually said, I don’t think it’s helpful to muddy things by starting with a mischaracterization of his argument. If there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s never take a critic’s depiction of the other side’s argument. It just seems endemic to these disputes (not only to yours!) to encounter subtle or gross distortions of the other side’s position.
Cheers,
Alex @ # 24: The genesis of “fuck you” or “fuck yourself” is admittedly a bit puzzling. Did it ever have a sensible meaning?
I think Carl Sagan, long ago (I read this in the mid-’70s), wrote somewhere that “Fuck you” and its derivatives apparently come from good ol’ primordial primate dominance displays, specifically a higher-ranking male chimp (or similar simian) mounting a subordinate one to show him, and everybody else around, who’s boss. Read it as, “I fuck you.”
~40 years later, I haven’t run across a better explanation.
Pierce at #65, it’s in chapter 20 of Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, which he cowrote with Ann Druyan in the 80s.
Slymepitters are simply using the old smear tactic that Wally Smith aka Tom Johnson used : quote mine, and lie, lie, lie. It’s really indecent and uncivil for Nugent to permit these forms of attack in a space he has the influence of moderation over.
This nonsense again?
As far as I can recall, I’m one of two people who used the term “gender traitor,” the other being skeptifem (I think I originally read it at her blog). My use received somewhat more attention because I was referring to two individuals in particular. A few days later, I decided I wouldn’t use the term again because, and only because, Jadehawk pointed to its resemblance to “race traitor.” While clearly qualitatively different in that we were members of an oppressed group using the term in the same sense as “Uncle Tom +,” the superficial similarity was enough to render it unacceptable to me.
This all happened in the space of maybe three days in…2011. The context, if I recall correctly, was the first few iterations of the original pit threads or their immediate aftermath. What happened on those threads made me furious, all the more so because women were hosting and reveling in them and defending their misogynistic positions elsewhere.* Again, I stopped using the term for the reason I just described, but I have always said that the concept is valid. It’s a term for people in an oppressed group who – and I think these were Jadehawk’s words – “shit on” others in their group to gain status with the dominant group. As Josh pointed out above, this is a real phenomenon known to everyone in these groups struggling for justice and to honest observers. It’s an issue that needs to be discussed, whatever name you give it. Moreover, I applied the term correctly. Those two individuals have, sadly, done nothing to show that it was misapplied – quite the contrary. I have no regrets about having used the term other than those related to the problem mentioned above. I found tone policing irritating then, as I do now.
The suggestion, from a man no less, that my use of it was sexist or equivalent to misogynistic slurs, I won’t dignify with a response.
* I would have recommended that Nugent review those threads, but from what people have said about his comment threads I don’t know that it would help.
Xanthë @ # 66 – Thanks for the addition/correction/lesson in the fallibility of memory!
…By the way, I wouldn’t classify all anti-feminist women as [whatever-term-one-would-use-to-replace-gender-traitor]. Christina Hoff Sommers, for example, I think is an all-around reactionary. But then, what do I know? I’m Mostly American.
Nugent starts from the wrong question. He is arguing over who is at fault for the rift. A much better question is ‘is Dawkins an asset to the movement any more’. And here there are many counts against him:
1) The time wasted in the email spats that follow his latest thoughtless tweets.
2) Blackballing speakers.
3) He uses the same tactics on religious targets.
The last is a big problem for me because a lot of folk outside the movement see him as being representative of him. And when he treats Islam or Christianity or whatever with the same sort of tactics he uses against Rebecca Watson, he doesn’t exactly leave a good impression.
Now a lot of folk inside the movement probably think Dawkins bashing religion is just great. But that is not how to win the best minds over to your side.
Beth #47:
No, context is how and in what framework the word is being used. For example, in the context of your diary entry, the usage of “whore” was ironic. The meaning of the word is still a vulgar\derogatory term for a sex-worker, but the context of the word usage changed to irony instead of insult.
Since the context at hand is insults being hurled across the “great rift,” the word “whore” would still have its usage as an insult. I’m all for insults in the midst of an argument, but insults are still words, and words still have meaning. So we then look into the meaning of the word. As mentioned, it’s a vulgar term for a sex-worker. So, if you (general “you,” I’m suggesting you’d use it as an insult) referred to me as one during the course of your rebuttal to something I said that you found distasteful, you’d be linking your distaste with me and my opinion with that word. Since it is an insult, I’m supposed to feel bad to be called it. So it by default has to be bad. Now you’ve implied that sex-workers are bad, since I’m supposed to feel bad you called me one. The same goes for those insults mentioned in the post that are female body parts.
Now take chill girl and gender traitor. What are their meanings? What is their “badness” linked to? They don’t have the same splash damage, and they hardly have any history.
The issue isn’t insulting or being offensive to the target. They are supposed to be insulted. That’s kinda the whole point of using an insult. But when insulting someone, you should avoid inadvertently (I’m being charitable and saying it’s inadvertent) attacking and singling out a whole separate historically oppressed\marginalized group by suggesting they and\or a parts of their anatomies are bad and worthy of being insults.
This isn’t even getting into the history of certain words being used by more powerful group to marginalized others, which “whore” also has attached to it.
I agree that using “gender traitor” is a bad idea, but firmly agree with Dear Spokesgay on “chill girl”. Unlike “bitch”, which basically means “a woman who needs to be put in her place (right now, by me)”, “chill girl” is a term that actually has meaning (“a woman who points out how fine she is with treatment other women characterize as sexist, and how they are therefore Wrong and Oversensitive”). Azohen vey, so it’s derogatory. Well of course it is, we’re having Deep Rifts over here. But a derogatory term for a political position (such as “SJW”, “RWNJ” or “anti-choicer” [“baby-killer” is a bad example, I think: it holds additional baggage due to the violent history of the US “pro-life” movement]) just isn’t the equivalent of a gendered or racial slur. It ain’t civil, but it’s not unethical, either.
[meta]
I found the comments there remarkable enough to post a comment:
(Slymies relish the place)
SC @ 67: It was indeed your post to which I referred above (@14)
@Ophelia
so you point out one use of “chill girl” at FTB. So what? I said it was rare, not non-existent.
I don’t think the usage in a full fledged post counts as rare and I remember the term being used more than rare (I believe some even called Harriet Hall a chill girl or equivalent) –
I agree the usage >now is rare (all anecdotal including previous statement)
It’s not really much of a pejorative
I would disagree. Saying that some opinionated women do it only to earn points with the men is as offensive to me as if someone told me I have feminist views only because I want to impress women.
Its not that straightforward either – is New Atheist pejorative? Is Accomodationist pejorative? Some people on either side accept that word – Some people on either side dislike it and think its use is pejorative.
@Josh
fine – we agree to disagree.
@Tom Foss
I don’t disagree with the gist of your comment but
How many hours did he go from that apology before he was back on Twitter ranking different degrees of suffering he’d never have to experience
I don’t think these are the same. There isn’t anything implicitly wrong with ranking different degrees of suffering that they dont experience (otherwise no one would ever be able to rank murder) – Philosophers do it all the time. We do it all the time when we say we support or oppose a war. The problem with that argument from Dawkins was it was done in a stupid medium which doesnt allow for nuanced discussion , by design, and that Dawkins missed many obvious things in his ranking.
Even if that weren’t the case, an action for which you apologized is still an action that you committed.
Sure – the comment is in response to the use of chill girl was 2 years ago .
Is Nugent’s commentariat usually just a variation on the Slymepit cast of characters, or is it just when Nugent attacks PZ?
Whatever.
Deepak @ 75 – rare in comparison to the epithets directed at us? Yes, very rare indeed. The two are just not comparable.
Your comparison related to how pejorative “chill girl” is is irrelevant. The comparison is to “cunt” and “bitch” and the like – the comparison that Michael Nugent so absurdly and obnoxiously made.
@Radioactive Elephant #71:
Thanks for your explanation. Let me see if I am accurately understanding you by trying to rephrase your objection. The problem with insults like ‘cunt’ is that they have splash damage for marginalized groups, so calling someone a ‘dick’ isn’t the same because women are marginalized in our culture?
Yes, Beth, that’s correct.
Could you please stop doing this? It’s annoying – this pretending to be newly arrived from some other planet where all the customs and all the hierarchies are totally different, yet the same enough that you can (just barely) communicate with us. You’re an adult, you haven’t just woken up from a coma, you chat on the internet a lot.
I’m not interested in running a Pretend Feminism Kindergarten here just for you. You’re not this innocent or uninformed.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. Look, “chill girl” is precisely as pejorative as “faitheist.” I want everyone offended “chill girl” to denounce and condemn any and all past uses of “faitheist.”* (Come to think of it, it’s amusing how closely this response from Nugent resembles earlier arguments from religious apologists (including heddle, IIRC) about “faitheist” being dehumanizing and borderline violent. So ridiculous.)
* Alternatively, they can a) try to claim they’re equally outraged at any mildly pejorative terms used by people in subordinate groups to describe collaborators with dominant groups, in which case they should probably avoid the internet altogether, or b) go off to write an essay demonstrating a significant difference between the two.
Sorry, Ray Moscow – I must’ve skimmed past your comment. Yes, it was on this blog, but it was so long ago that it was before B&W was at FTB! I think FTB existed at the time, but I’m not sure. Our brief discussion of it was at Pharyngula, but it might have been the old Pharyngula.
Wow. The comments over there. Can someone write an article titled The 10 Biggest Myths About FTB? My only hope is that Nugent reads his own comment section, sees who is supporting him and changes his mind.
–
One this that is bothering me, those who complain that people are ‘poring over’ ‘sentence fragments’ trying to find things to be outraged about. Do they know what the fuck Twitter is? How it works? You don’t have to scour for anything, Dawkins and Harris send it right to you when they tweet. They are sometimes sentence fragments because there is a 140 character limit. Yeesh.
SC @ 83 – No, FTB didn’t exist yet. It was a month or two before FTB debuted.
Here’s the post
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/focus/
Here’s Miranda explaining why Justicar’s “Twatson” is ok as long as he doesn’t say it on her blog, and what am I doing putting up with “gender traitor”?
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/focus/#comment-97125
July 7, 2011, 5:27 p.m.
The one where you (SC) say the thing about race traitor.
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/focus/#comment-97282
yazikus – no, there’s no chance at all that Nugent will see who is supporting him and change his mind. He’s already seen that – in fact it did change his mind: he decided they had a lot of good points and genuine grievances.
He apparently believes everything they type, which is odd, because many of them post shameless lies. Several are repeatedly posting a grotesque and ridiculous lie about me on all his posts right now, and he’s not doing a damn thing about it. That’s familiar. He did the same thing in the months before the Dublin conference last year. He tacitly invites people to post lies about us and does nothing at all to prevent them or correct the lies.
Easily refuted lies, too. Very disappointing, really. I was just reading over those comment threads you posted, and it struck me, people are still having the same conversations that they were having in 2011. Except less people are defending Dawkins.
By the way, here are three of the runners-up to “faitheist”:
Because “betraytheists” is nothing at all like “gender traitor.” (The sense of betrayal was so strong, in fact, that Coyne wrote – and Dawkins and others of us endorsed – an open letter to the NCSE declaring that he would no longer support them due to their pro-religious bias and shoddy treatment of atheists. Targeting! Persecution! Witch hunt! Gnazis! Clickbait! Hysteria!) The last is also interesting in that it reveals a clear recognition of accommodationist attempts to silence outspoken atheists, a recognition that instantly evaporated when the topic turned to the attempts to silence outspoken feminists.
***
Thanks, Ophelia…I think. Reminds me of how angry I was (and was soon to become) and why. I also love – and had forgotten – the joint reference to “commenters who throw around ‘gender traitor’ or who make death threats,” in that context no less.
@Ophelia
the comparison that Michael Nugent so absurdly and obnoxiously made.
Again , i agree that one is much worse than the other – and as you point out , even Michael knows it – he can use one but doesnt use the other.
@SC (Salty Current), OM
Look, “chill girl” is precisely as pejorative as “faitheist.”
Never liked the term either – but a “chill girl” assigns motivation to the person – something that is nearly impossible to demonstrate as fact – faitheist as I understand it is merely a description that a non believer thinks there is value in faith/religion (which is a more factual statement). both might be used pejoratively but they aren’t the same.
Because “betraytheists” is nothing at all like “gender traitor.”
Oh it is – but since I believe Coyne (as well as commenters on his blog) demonstrate quite a few double standards , it is hardly a revelation.
that Coyne wrote – and Dawkins and others of us endorsed – an open letter to the NCSE declaring that he would no longer support them due to their pro-religious bias and shoddy treatment of atheists.
Its funny you bring this up – that was probably the first time I realized that there was some truth to the accusation of tribalism against New Atheists – it was odd to goto NCSE to complain about former employee views or current employees who post on their personal blogs with disclaimers that this is their personal view (like Rosenau) – to me it felt like an intimidating tactic (and I despise Rosenau’s views)
It was remarkable to me , that noone from this side called out Coyne for it.
There’s more too it than that, actually, but that’s part of it, yeah. It’s also different when white people are called “cracker” or “whitey” or whatever when compared to racist slurs.
Anyway, that is why “being insulting to the target” and “being vulgar” are not the objections to these words, but the social ramifications. “Gender traitor” and “chill girl” do not have real social ramifications. It’s not a fair comparison in either intensity or frequency of use. And it’s disingenuous to use them to paint both “sides” as equal.
@Radioactive Elephant #90
Thanks for the confirmation.
@Ophelia #80
I don’t understand your objection to my asking questions rather than assuming I already know what you or someone else means. My experience is that I’m often wrong when I make such assumptions, so it’s best for me to verify. But apparently I’ve been prolific enough to annoy you. I’m sorry.
Has anyone linked to this thread above? I knew I felt like we’d covered this ground before. What’s funny is that even in 2012 this was seen as claiming events in the past as current happenings. Should we expect another ridiculous round in 2016?
I’m glad you’re consistent. (Have you made a point of saying this when you see it used, as you seem to do consistently when “gender traitor” comes up? If not, you’re not really being all that consistent.) In any case, it’s not about what you like but what should be regarded as equivalent terms. It’s fine if you dislike both “gender traitor” and “faitheist,” but I will say that you should take note that your social position is different when you respond to them: in one case, you’re speaking to others in the same subordinate group; in the other, you’re a member of the dominant group “advising” those in the subordinate group about language you do or don’t like.
I disagree with you about “faitheist,” both in the context and intended connotations when the word came into use (the runners-up clearly indicate that people were often using it to refer to atheists who turn on, bash, and try to silence outspoken atheists while tacitly supporting the religious and cozying up to them for personal and political motives. That’s how I understood it.
But you seem confused about “chill girl.” Yes, it contains that attribution of motive, because that’s the meaning of the term. It was drawn from a woman’s self-description in the context of opposing feminists. Referring to herself as a “chill girl” was presenting herself such that misogynistic men would welcome her – she’s “chill” about their disrespect towards and abusive behavior towards women. That’s what the term means. Now, you can argue in an individual case that it’s misapplied or that it assumes motives that aren’t supported by sufficient evidence (I don’t agree that it’s nearly impossible to demonstrate, unless you’re looking for perfectly conclusive evidence), but it’s silly to object to the concept itself unless you deny that such women/motives exist.
Sorry to confuse. That comment was aimed not at you but at them.
I’m fine with your position here, too, though I disagree with it. First, the letter was about NCSE’s policies and actions as an organization, well beyond what you mention. Second, if I’m remembering right, Matzke was posting on blogs with “NCSE” in his signature, even after he’d left. Third, Rosenau wasn’t just posting arguments – he was launching fairly vicious attacks against outspoken atheists and playing host to harassers. In that situation, and in the context of the organization’s general attitude, I don’t think a disclaimer was sufficient for gnu atheists to feel comfortable supporting them. It was his right, but it was equally others’ right to be openly angry about it and act accordingly.
In short, I don’t think it was tribal or an overreaction. We disagree, but I’ll let you have the last word on that subject because I don’t have time. I generally hold to my positions at the time concerning those divides (with a few changes), and it seems you do as well. My problem is with those who refuse to recognize their blatant hypocrisy and double standards.
dshetty @89
You have a misunderstanding about what a faitheist is. The Urban Dictionary defines it as follows:
A prime example is Chris Stedman who rails against gnu atheists who don’t respect religion the way Stedman thinks we should respect it. Stedman even wrote a book entitled Faitheist in which he propped up strawmen masquerading as gnu atheists and then ineptly slaughtered those strawmen.
@dshetty:
Yes, and Dawkins spoke authoritatively without actually knowing what the fuck he’s talking about, or how his words might be received. That’s become his stock and trade in recent years–that, and expressing at-best cluelessly privileged, at-worst outright bigoted things as though they were obvious truths about the universe.
Great. What’s the pattern of behavior being supported by its citation?
I generally hold to my positions at the time concerning those divides (with a few changes), and it seems you do as well. My problem is with those who refuse to recognize their blatant hypocrisy and double standards.
By the way, I see it as entirely valid if people have changed their views, based on subsequent experience, about their previous positions/approaches. I don’t see any contradiction between my earlier defenses of Dawkins and gnu atheists in general against religious people and accommodationists and my current criticisms of Dawkins and others (I criticized them back then as well, I should note), but everyone has to judge this for themselves. Related to that, I hope faitheists don’t lazily regard Dawkins’ implosion as some sort of vindication of their earlier behavior towards him or us. On the contrary, I hope they can recognize in it the same infuriating techniques used by religious reactionaries against atheists/secularists to which we’ve long objected.
Also,
Now, you can argue in an individual case that it’s misapplied or that it assumes motives that aren’t supported by sufficient evidence
For example, last night I noted that I wouldn’t use the term to describe Christina Hoff Sommers, although admittedly it can be difficult to draw a clear line distinguishing opportunism, ideology, fear, and self-hatred.
@SC
Have you made a point of saying this when you see it used, as you seem to do consistently when “gender traitor” comes up
Not always. Sometimes realization dawns a little while later. In any case I clearly said I hadn’t heard “gender traitor” being used at all , but chill girl is (and you can see that even in this thread). I am guilty of many of the things that I might advise you against.
but I will say that you should take note that your social position is different when you respond to them
True. But then I also tell religious people how to treat other religious people. so what?
while tacitly supporting the religious and cozying up to them for personal and political motives.
If true, yes then i would consider it equivalent to “chill girl”,I see the original text only had “soft on faith” – which is a truth claim .
but it’s silly to object to the concept itself
Im not objecting to the concept – Im objecting to how you say you know. I’d say an analogy is , is a Creationist a deliberate liar? That the creationist isnt telling the truth is given – but some are liars and some are sincere.
How do we know? we cant in most cases. What , then does it give us to do anything beyond proving our facts? Whats to be gained by saying liar?
he was launching fairly vicious attacks against outspoken atheists and playing host to harassers.
I agree BUT you have to show how this affected his job. I post somewhat harsh things about religion – should it have any impact on my job? even If I work for a religious org in an unrelated capacity?
@Tom Foss
Nothing to disagree on the paragraph about Dawkins.
Great. What’s the pattern of behavior being supported by its citation?
Thats its not as rare – you can see various people who think its a justified name right here. I just gave you the most prominent one.
That people see no problem with a thing does not have any bearing on its commonality. I don’t see a problem with smoking pot, but I’ve never done it. Citing one example from years ago does not establish that the use is not rare. I know our SpokesGay uses the phrase, but I’ve seen it used far, far more by pitters as “something FtBullies say” than I’ve actually seen it said by FTB regulars.
Beth #91:
I wouldn’t characterize it as a “confirmation” as much an “it’s not that simple, but that’s part of it.” But umm you’re welcome, I guess.
I’m kind of afraid now.
What are you talking about? This comes across as more than a little condescending.
Your analogies need work. I specifically called your attention to the fact that in this case you’re a member of the dominant group offering unsolicited advice to people in a subordinate group about how they should speak to and about one another. (This is even more problematic in this case because of the long tradition of men silencing women and patronizingly seeking to impose their perspectives on women while failing to listen to women’s voices.) That is not analogous to your position with respect to religious people. Once again, I urge you to stop telling women things and listen.
We interpret people’s motives and attitudes through their words and other actions all of the time, as we must in order to act and relate to others in the world. To default to this sort of hypersketicism in this instance and demand airtight evidence before referring to people as “chill girls” is silly.
Once again, your analogy needs work, as I’ll explain below. But in response, you’ve indicated that some are liars (either fully or at some level). If we have evidence that some particular creationist is lying/ a liar, there might be a real point in pointing that out. Of course there would be no point in saying that all creationists are liars, just as there would be no point in suggesting that all non- or anti-feminist women are chill girls. But I haven’t seen people doing either (in fact I offered a counterexample), so it’s a moot question.
Also: Acknowledging and setting aside the weaknesses of the analogy,…if a former creationist pointed to indications that suggested to them that a creationist was lying, I would take that seriously. This relates to the point above about social position. People who have certain life experiences as members of an oppressed group (creationists aren’t, which is where the analogy goes wrong) generally have a better sense than members of the dominant group for interpreting the motives of others in their group. Having lived as a woman and experienced the pressures against refusing to be a “chill girl” and the rewards for being one, it’s very likely that I’m more attuned to the signs than you are, just as I might, for example, more readily spot a misogynistic troll. There have been occasions when I’ve thought Josh was being excessively hostile in his responses to comments from other gay people or about gay issues, but almost invariably subsequent experience showed that his initial assessment was right.
Furthermore, the point of calling attention to chill-girl behavior isn’t just to express our anger, though there’s that, too. It’s important because we’re the ones who chiefly bear the consequences – chill-girliness is harmful to other women. I don’t know whether saying Jaclyn Glenn is being a chill girl will lead her to look more critically at her choices, but it might open some women’s eyes to their own unrecognized patterns of behavior, which will help all of us.
No. He was a public face of an organization (disclaimer or no, his position was prominently featured on his blog, and certainly the reason Sb invited him to blog there) seeking support. Once again, I think he had the right to do so, but people have the right to withdraw their support from an organization when (especially in combination with other actions) one of its most prominent employees publicly and repeatedly disrespects and misrepresents them and offers a platform to their harassers.
Sigh. Once again, your analogies are inapt and far too abstract.
@ Beth #43
I disagree. Dawkins, for example, cannot be unaware that “Dear Muslima” functioned as permission to the gender-slurring wing of the atheist movement to continue harassing women. His failure to walk that back for the next three years allowed the climate of hate to proliferate for that entire time. It looked for one brief shining moment that he finally recognized that his leadership could help stem the flow of sewage with which atheist and skeptic women have been flooded, but then he immediately trashed his momentary request to stop harassment. He essentially doubled down on Dear Muslima again, and the gates were once again opened wide to continue the harassment unabated. I think Dawkins *is* responsible for that; what he gives tacit permission to, because of his “leadership” position, that’s what flourishes.
@Radioactive Elephant #98: No reason to be afraid. I didn’t ask for more detail and clarification because Ophelia had asked me to discontinue.
@maddog1129 #100
While you have a valid point that he certainly could have ameliorated his words, the idea that Dawkins could control what his fans said to others and was thus responsible for allowing a ‘climate of hate to proliferate’ seems a bit unrealistic. In addition, the ‘climate of hate’ has been proliferated by bloggers on both side of the rift.
Can Ophelia control what her fans have posted on Nugent’s site? Or what they may have said to him privately? It seems to me that she’s only responsible for what she herself says and what she allows in her comments section. I don’t think she deserves to be criticized on the basis of what her fans say elsewhere to others.
I think Dawkins is deliberately provocativ- in fact, I find it to be his signature style. He can certainly be roundly criticized for what he has said and how he has phrased things – as Ophelia and others have done. But I think it’s a mistake to conflate what he has said with supporting harassment in the form of calling people cunt or advocating violence against them. AFAIK, he’s not done that nor allowed such comments on his site. (I don’t read his site but I assume if they were allowed, that behavior would be mentioned here. )