(Found on a site called The Cephalopodiatrist. I wish I’d thought of that name.)
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
I’ve been slacking. I haven’t been fighting the War on Easter with the fervor I should. Bill O’Reilly has identified our open hostility to Easter already.
Gosh, I didn’t realize that our assault on Easter was a linchpin of our plan to get abortion on demand and free drugs, or I would have engaged in the battle earlier.
I was also amused by O’Reilly’s statement that “Easter is a good holiday, you don’t have to believe in Jesus…” Does he realize that that is a wonderfully secular statement?
Hooray! We’ve already won! Check your mailboxes for your free packages of cocaine and marijuana!
(via Kick!)
Any other fans of the facebook page, “I fucking love science”“? Probably. There’s over 4 million of us, there must be a little overlap.
The author of that website casually ‘revealed’ her identity on twitter recently (in quotes, because she hadn’t hidden it and didn’t consider it a major issue), when a whole bunch of her fans suddenly noticed…hey, she’s a woman!
Elise Andrew, an English blogger living in Canada, posted a link promoting her Twitter feed on her I Fucking Love Science Facebook page, which has more than 4.2m fans.
"I got Twitter! I figured it’s about time I started exploring other social media. If you’re on there, can you Tweet me some science people worth following?" Andrew said.
The post provoked an onslaught of comments discussing her gender and looks. "F.ck me! This is a babe ?!!" wrote commenter Can Durace. "holy hell, youre a HOTTIE!" wrote Douglas Pistone Linares.
Lou Forbes said: "you mean you’re a girl, AND you’re beautiful? wow, i just liked science a lil bit more today ^^"
You know, where I work (in Science!) well more than half the students are women, and with our recent new hire, more than half the biology faculty are women. Heck, a majority of the computer science faculty are women. We picked every single one of them on the basis of brains and talent, and that’s what deserves notability, which is also the case of Elise Andrew.
Why should anyone be surprised when a science enthusiastic turns out to be a woman? Those comments say a lot about the biases of the commenters, that they assume it would be unusual for a scientist to be female, and that somehow their ‘hotness’ should be a factor in the appreciation of science.
We keep talking about making appropriate responses to sexism — not just those of us who are strongly pro-feminism, but even the regressive thugs on the other side will say that, although we’ll argue about what level of response is appropriate. But this is where I lose patience every goddamned time: apparently no response other than silence and submission is acceptable.
We’ve all seen how “guys, don’t do that” was turned into cause for outrage. Here’s another instance: Adria Richards was at a tech conference when, during a presentation that was about women coders no less, a couple of guys behind her started cracking suggestive jokes.
The guys were clearly in the wrong. They were being rude, distracting, and trying to assert their dudely privilege in one of the few moments granted women during a conference dominated by men. So Richards turned, snapped their picture, and tweeted it to the conference organizers, asking them to handle it.
This was a measured response. It wasn’t a blast of anger, it was a request that the conference enforce its code of conduct. It disrupted the meeting less than a couple of chattering smart-asses did. This is exactly what we should want people to do: polite confrontation through appropriate channels.
The conference organizers also did exactly what they were supposed to do: they called the two men aside and asked them to stop and behave themselves.
I assume the two men also reacted appropriately. There are no tales of angry shouting or rejection of the admonishment. I charitably presume that they were chagrined and a little embarrassed, nothing more.
This should have been the end of it: a happy story of a minor breach of manners handled by grown-ups who moved on to do their jobs professionally. Lessons learned all around; don’t disparage or harass minorities (women were only 20% of the attendees), trust the organizers to manage hiccups smoothly, deal with problems through official channels. Except you know more happened or it wouldn’t be news.
A whole bunch of otherwise uninvolved people completely lost their shit. This is ridiculous.
But instead, the internet decided to throw one epic fucking tantrum. First, one of the men pictured in Richards’s photographs was fired from his job (his company was one of the sponsors of PyCon). Richards did not call for him to be fired, nor did she celebrate the decision, according to this post. Nonetheless, Richards’s company SendGrid—NOT the company that fired the dude—was subject to a DDoS attack courtesy of 4chan (their express purpose was to “ruin her life”). She’s also been subjected to the usual avalanche of violent harassment and rape threats that descends upon any woman who dares to criticize male-dominated tech culture (see: Sarkeesian, Anita; also everything else ever). Sidenote to tech dudes: GET A FUCKING GRIP.
SendGrid subsequently fired Richards.
Firing one of the men over a brief incident of inappropriate behavior: totally inappropriate and excessive. That would only be reasonable if there were far more severe breaches of courtesy.
4chan getting involved: disgraceful. Launching a denial of service attack against Richards’ employer: what the fuck is wrong with these people?
Worse: Richards’ employer, SendGrid, caving in to extortion and firing her. I hope she’s considering legal action. That was incredibly craven.
Worser, appallingly disgusting: the violent reaction by some assholes.
Richards has been called practically every name under the sun. Some Twitter commenters demanded she kill herself. A 4chan user allegedly released Richards’s personal information. But few reactions were more disturbing than this one, sent to her Wednesday evening: a photo (blurred but still NSFW) of a bloody, beheaded woman, bound and stripped, with the caption “when Im done.” Next to it was a home address and phone number, ostensibly Richards’s.
And of course the usual slymepitters are crowing over all this on twitter, taunting via the #ftbullies and #wiscfi hashtags, as they always do. This is the kind of behavior they love to applaud.
This is the heart of the problem. We can build all the protocols for reasonable responses we want; women like Adria Richards can use them; responsible people can implement appropriate reactions.
And then, beneath it all, lies the festering sewer of rape culture that rises in rage at any damned uppity woman who dares to speak out against our very own homegrown Taliban.
And one last bit of insult: the conference organizers retroactively revised their code of conduct to exclude public shaming.
Public shaming can be counter-productive to building a strong community. PyCon does not condone nor participate in such actions out of respect.
Cowards. Just remember, ladies, decorum must be maintained, and the proper young woman will be meek and silent in the face of offense. The men can’t build a strong community if women keep speaking out publicly.
I wonder how many women will now think twice before complaining about asshole behavior at their job or at a meeting? If they’re inhibited, congratulations, scumbags: you got what you wanted. On the other hand, maybe we’ll finally reach a critical mass of outrage, and the next time some dudebro starts with the sexist shit at a conference, a dozen people, men and women alike, will rise up and tell him to grow up or get out.
I know I’m even less inclined to let casual smears slide now. I hope you feel the same way.
All the scientists and naturalists out there crying foul on behalf of the desert need to hang their intellects up for a moment and spend some time in their hearts for a while.
I get the best rebuttal yet to my piece taking down Allan Savory’s “green the deserts by filling them with cows” pseudoscience.
(And remember, when you hang your intellects up for a moment, to heed Joan Crawford’s timeless counsel.)
Top of the list: bankers. Did you know this?
Both bankers and their once free-spending wives are suddenly becoming familiar with the art of thriftiness.
That’s part of some money-saving tips for bankers, which is full of rage-inducing suggestions. They aren’t applicable to you or me, for instance, because among them are such jewels as “sell the second home” (I haven’t paid off the first yet! Also, yes I know I’m privileged to be able to afford just the one), fly coach class (yeah, I almost always do), have the wife do the ironing (really, the sexism in this article alone is grounds to start the revolt), take cheaper skiing trips, and here, my very favorite:
The more money you have in your pocket, the more you will want to spend it. “Stop carrying a wedge of cash around with you,” said the ex-Goldman banker. “It reduces the temptation to tip people so much.”
Screw the people poorer than you are!
Gosh, I actually agree with this:
If marriage is just the emotional bond "that matters most" to you — in the revealing words of the circuit judge who struck down California Proposition 8 — then personal tastes or a couple’s subjective preferences aside, there is no reason of principle for marriage to be pledged to permanence. Or sexually exclusive rather than "open." Or limited to two spouses. Or oriented to family life and shaped by its demands.
Isn’t it true already that marriages are often not permanent?
The marriage breakup rate in America for first marriage is 41% to 50%; the rate after second marriage is from 60% to 67% and the rate in America for 3rd marriage are from 73% to 74%.
Also, less than half the households in the country are husband-wife pairs, and of all households, less than 30% have children. So isn’t it a little weird to define all stable relationships by a minority’s preferred lifestyle? It’s about time we faced the fact that personal relationships are complex and diverse, and it’s not just to demand that a marriage always involves sexual exclusivity, or children, or just two partners, or partners of different sexes. By one of those requirements, I’m currently unmarried!
The authors of that article are lawyers and right-wing think-tank trolls, though, and they’re actually arguing against gay marriage. This is their bizarre conclusion:
Redefining marriage would, by further eroding its central norms, weaken an institution that has already been battered by widespread divorce, out-of-wedlock child bearing and the like.
But by their own admission, marriage is a decaying institution, yet they can’t blame that on gay marriage at all — that’s a recent innovation, while traditional marriage has long been a bastion of state-supported abuse, casual transience, and ungodly decisions by the partners to not have children.
Maybe recognizing the different forms marriage can take, rather than trying to shoehorn people into roles they may dislike, would actually revitalize the institution.
But what would I know. We had our 33rd anniversary this last weekend; maybe the only thing holding it together has been the formal and traditional requirements of our heterosexual wedding vows?
Nah, I don’t think so.
Everyone is talking about Lucy Meadows. Who was she? Just some schoolteacher in the UK. But Richard Littlejohn: he’s a big name. He publishes books and columns and gets his words spread all over the country.
Lucy Meadows was ignored by policy makers…but Richard Littlejohn has clout. We should pay close attention to Richard Littlejohn.
Lucy Meadows was a transexual. Richard Littlejohn was proudly and flamboyantly cis and heterosexual! He has spent years reinforcing his dominant sexual status by railing against poofters, dykes, and buggers. It’s one of his obsessions. Did Lucy Meadows ever have a public forum in which she could suck up to the expectations of a patriarchal society? No!
Lucy Meadows, after all the torment, finally killed herself. Well, we don’t have to worry about her anymore. But notice: Richard Littlejohn is still loudly alive! In fact, his employer, the Daily Mail, has been so friendly and protective that they went into the archives and helpfully deleted all of his past columns in which Richard Littlejohn abused and threatened Lucy Meadows for her crime of identifying as a woman.
So I ask…what about Richard Littlejohn?
More specifically, I’d ask the UK media: do you still hire Richard Littlejohn?
Why?
Whoa. There’s way too much effort being put into parsing who said what. Stop. Step back. Go back to the original list of suggestions — it’s a good list. Read it and think about it and ask yourself whether any of your behavior on the threads violates any of them — and if it does, don’t take offense, don’t try to make excuses, set it behind you and tell yourself to do better next time.
This isn’t about judging or rebuking anyone — it’s about growing to do better and be better. OK? You don’t have to obey every word, but do try to take McEwan’s list seriously.
Atheist men wondering what they can do to change this dynamic: Start with not engaging in misogyny yourselves. Ex: http://bit.ly/16xrGQ8
A safe space for women doesn’t mean you get to be nasty in explicitly misogynist ways to women who aren’t “on your team.”
Also: Institute a zero-tolerance policy for misogyny in your comments. No slurs, no misogynist narratives, no questioning women’s agency.
Simply not having to encounter not being called a cunt in your comments sections isn’t good enough. My humanity isn’t a debatable issue.
Read this on why debating “women’s issues” as an abstract exercise is some rank bullshit: http://bit.ly/16xsCUC
And read this on how to effectively and safely communicate with women about women’s issues: http://bit.ly/Ygajwt
Don’t play devil’s advocate. Let me reiterate that. DON’T PLAY DEVIL’S ADVOCATE. That is not compatible with a safe space for many women.
Don’t appropriate or ignore women’s lived experiences. Let women be the experts on our own lives.
Don’t treat women like a monolith. Or any subset of women. Not all atheist women think the same way about any issue.
Don’t only listen to the women whose opinions support your perspective. If there is disagreement among atheist women, pay attention.
Recognize that there are privileged women in the atheist movement who may collude to marginalize non-privileged women (and men).
Extend opportunities to women in your space — as contributors, as moderators, as guest posters. Support female atheists with links.
CHALLENGE OTHER ATHEIST MEN ON THEIR MISOGYNY. Silence is not good enough. It isn’t neutral: It signals tacit support.
When you allow female atheists do the lion’s share of challenging misogyny, you’re reinforcing the narrative women are a “special interest.”
Don’t accuse women of overreacting when we are merely reacting. Don’t accuse us of being oversensitive; maybe you are not sensitive enough.
Don’t imagine that being a man makes you “objective” on sexism. It merely gives you a different perspective, not greater objectivity.
Listen. Listen listen listen listen listen. Listen.
And if you’re not willing to make the effort to make movement atheism more inclusive, don’t pretend that you are. Be a real ally, or don’t.
See? I told you that in addition to being a creationist, Ken Ham is also one of those far right culture warriors.
During the conference, I spoke on the state of the nation and said that we are observing Romans chapter 1 playing out in the USA right now. I have heard many people say that if America keeps murdering children in their mother’s wombs (over 50 million babies since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973) and eliminating God from the culture (as by and large has been done in public schools and in the culture as a whole with the removal of crosses, nativity scenes and Ten Commandment displays from public places), then God will judge this nation. Well, I suggest that America is already under judgment, and a sign of this judgment is the increasing homosexual behavior (and the “gay” marriage issue) in the nation, reflecting that God is turning the culture over (as Romans 1:24 and Romans 1:26 describe).
I also declared at last week’s conference that the state of the nation actually reflects the state of the church. Frankly, I believe it is largely the church’s fault that the culture, from a Christian perspective, is collapsing and is coming under judgment. For example, there is so much rampant compromise in the church with its increasing acceptance of millions of years and evolution. This has led to generations of children in our church doubting and subsequently disbelieving the Bible. Today, two-thirds of them are walking away from the church by the time they reach college age. It only takes one generation to lose a culture, and we are seeing this happen before our very eyes.
The church is not influencing the culture in America as it once did. That is mostly due to the fact that the culture has invaded much of the church. Much of the church’s “salt” has become contaminated. And we know what God’s Word says about such contamination: it destroys.
But it’s not just happening in America! Our Western nations—once dominated by Christian thinking—are embracing sinful acts, such as abortion and homosexual behavior, and is now calling these evils “good.”
If you want to know where America will be in the not-too-distant future, look at the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. The churches there are largely spiritually dead (though I rejoice in the small pockets of Christian life there). All across Europe, countless church buildings have been turned into stores, nightclubs, temples, etc. Sadly, America is on the same path.
Happily, America is on the same path. But right now he and Pastor Phelps and every tinpot preacher with a load of hate to deliver sound a lot alike, don’t they?
You can understand why they cling to something as gallingly stupid as young earth creationism: they see it as all of a piece, that the eternal salvation of their children and grandchildren is dependent on not just accepting the liberal Christian view that belief in the divinity of an ancient Jewish carpenter is necessary to appease an omnipotent and rather wrathful cosmic father. Think about it: that’s a rather petty and trivial thing to hang such an essential gift upon, so there must be more. And the more that they’ve accepted is the costly sacrifice of giving up science, hating gay people, forcing their women into domestic servitude, and demanding non-stop official public piety.
Of course, I can’t help but notice that most of the people forced to make the sacrifices are not the family patriarchs.
But this is also why it is not enough to just educate people about evolution. For most people, science is just this hard, boring thing that they take for granted that someone else will do; they aren’t going to be at all impressed with accusations that they’ve abandoned science or even common human decency. They are serving an almighty LORD. They believe they have the biggest, baddest, strongest, most demanding boss of them all.
The teaching of evolution in the schools is just one tiny symptom of the real problem, and that’s why I argue that to defeat this one aspect that annoys me personally and directly, we need to confront and diminish the nasty head of the beast: religion. Tear it down, and then we’ll be able to pursue real knowledge unfettered.
And as a wonderful glorious additional bonus, we also get greater equality and a reduction of prejudice. I have no illusions that eliminating religion will lead to paradise, though — more like, eliminating religion will knock down one more major barrier to progress.
