Weird, isn’t it, how shocking it is to see a Big Name saying something that isn’t stupid?
It’s such an easy concept to grasp, that large crimes don’t nullify smaller ones, but it’s surprisingly rare, and surprisingly gratifying, to see the wealthy and privileged actually express it.
I have just stubbed my toe but it doesn’t hurt because someone has had a leg off in Angola.
Louis
I saw that exchange
Dear Muslima par excellence. Good for him to notice and oppose
Here’s a question to the big ragu: If you think people shouldn’t complain about smaller evils because bigger evils exist, why are you complaining about what some guy has tweeted?
twits like the Big Ragu are sad people who want to use the fact that awful things happen to excuse their stupidity. “Golly, no one should complain about me since I don’t do the worst I can. indeed, I should be lauded for not being a complete violent asshole.”
sigh.
In related news, Richard Dawkins is still terrible.
So, Big Ragu, how much oppression has to occur elsewhere to justify someone being horrible to you here?
That doesn’t justify it you say?
…and now you know.
Now, now, PZ, it’s not like you never forget this: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/06/20/the-threat-of-misandry/
“In related news, Richard Dawkins is still terrible.”
irisvanderpluym: If I am hearing you right, you’re saying that Dawkins believes old white guys are the best. The problem with this assumption is the context. Dawkins was refuting the critic for saying he is only supporting a bunch of old white guys. So he was arguing what is wrong with a bunch of old white guys. When asked the question did he really believe old white guys are better, he immediately answered no. He did follow it up with a challenge, but from what I have seen of Dawkins this is his normal way to engage in constructive conversation. If she had answered him with examples that don’t fit the old white guy image I am fairly certain that he would have acknowledged it. And it is this slight but specific misunderstanding that makes him seem condescending or arrogant. How many times have you said, “It’s about what I said, not what you thought I said.” I see nothing terrible here, besides remember when he was talking to the creationist lady who just wouldn’t get it. He had an immense amount of patience to still tried to talk sense into her, even though she was completely oblivious or ignoring his argument. And to the question he posed here are my answers. Shakespeare doesn’t strike me as the greatest poet ever, I was always an Edgar Allan Poe fan myself. When it comes to composers I am torn between Beethoven and Bach. (But if you want to get away from old white guys Mozart fits the bill). And for scientists I admit Einstein is quite the genius, but I can’t really say that of any of the scientists I could pick would be the best. They are great at some points and fail at others. Even Einstein made the god of gaps argument.
@8 Wes Aron
Even if I were to grant Dawkins the benefit of the doubt, that’s a completely idiotic way of answering that question, especially over twitter.
Simon Pegg became far more aware of the power of twitter and social media after he used a twitter mob. He seems to have caught on quick to the whole ‘responsibility’ thing.
Also, women are raped everywhere. Sexism is a problem everywhere.
And? It’s not like there isn’t rape HERE. In my state reports go as high as ONE IN THREE women will be sexually assaulted, and all are harassed. I mean, fuck, how many studies and reports have we seen at this point that rapists are bolstered by micro aggressions and transgressions and shitty behavior in other men? They are all part of the same misogyny.
I’m glad Simon Pegg seems to have a head on his shoulders. I am always relieved when the people who make culture I like are decent human beings.
*for various states of here. Me, the US, Pegg either UK or the US, depending on what he’s filming, I’m sure.
Chie Satonaka beat me to the punch.
Somewhat OT: yesterday I happened to read two pieces of news on the same newspaper. A guy who shot an Egyptian* waiter is facing a 15 years sentence for attempted murder. The waiter got a flesh wound and survived. A Chinese* guy has been condemned to NINE years for covering his wife with glue and setting her on fire, for which she will be permanently disfigured. As far as I can tell, no one talks about the incongruence. I wouldn’t, if I had not been reading this blog for years.
There is a fascinating bit of popular lore saying that a fish cannot see water.
*
*when someone involved was not born in Italy, expect their “nationality”, which will actually be their place of birth regardless of actual citizenship, to be fondly noted over and over again, in loving, fetishistic fashion.
GUys, the issue is not with us not knowing that you can do worse. We know that. The issue is that, contrary to a lot of evidence, we still firmly believe that you can actually do better.
@irisvanderpluym: it seems to me that equality is all about giving equal opportunity, praise and criticism to people, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation or age. Measuring their accomplishments depending on these factors, on the other hand, looks like the thing that can possibly discredit and undermine the idea of equality.
In our times the prejudices seem to diminish. In my news feed, for instance, there are as many women biologists as men. None of them, regardless of sex, may yet compete with Darwin. Hopefully a hundred years in the future women’s work will occupy more places in such lists.
PS well, at least Dawkins did include one Jew in the list.
So I went back to the Everyday Sexism twitter thread, and “the big ragu” made that comment while @EverydaySexism was in the midst of getting HUNDREDS of reports from women who’d had men masturbate at them in public (some were as young as 11 when it happened). So let me just add: Fuck you, big ragu. THAT IS ALSO SEXUAL ASSAULT.
He did follow it up with a challenge, but from what I have seen of Dawkins this is his normal way to engage in constructive conversation.
That tired lame excuse again? That excuse gets trotted out like clockwork every time some asshole says something offensive and dead wrong, and makes an ass of himself — “[I/He] was just trying to start a conversation.” That allows the dead-wrong asshole to take credit for all the more intelligent commentary that debunks his original stupidity.
If she had answered him with examples that don’t fit the old white guy image I am fairly certain that he would have acknowledged it.
You’re “fairly certain” based on what, exactly? Do you have any examples of Dawkins being civil and honest? I’ve seen plenty of examples of him being neither.
Wes Aaron:
That is what he was responding to. He can still read, can’t he? “[…] I would be sure to include only old white guys.” (My emphasis.) His response: “Old white guys”? Who then would you choose […]”, the implication being that he would only choose them. The word “only” means only. He will not in any way counter that, defuse this concern, or in any way clarify his position if it isn’t the stupid fucking bigoted one it seems to be, by coming up with an example of a white dude (or several) who he would choose and arguing that into the ground. He’s apparently not willing, or it doesn’t even occur to him, to think of some non-old-white-guys who he would want to include. That’s because Dawkins is a fuckton more stupid than a lot of people give him credit for. Having a lot of flowery rhetoric at his disposal is not a fucking substitute for intelligence.
And if somebody else doesn’t do that for you, then fuck it: no acknowledgment needed. What’s important is a load of not-even-remotely-constructive rhetoric, of holding up Shakespeare, Schubert and Einstein as three people who are somehow supposed to be representative. Also, they were not able to have such successes because of the privileged status granted to them as white dudes. He of course doesn’t even have to say that last claim out loud, but presumably it’s true or else his argument is total shit. But it is total shit. So don’t fucking defend it. It’s too early for this bullshit.
That right there is fucking ridiculous.
Marginally related:
How many people, as kids, were told by their parents to finish dinner entirely, cuz “we mustn’t throw any food away, people are starving in China, so eat it all.”? NEVER explaining how eating that food will feed those starving people in China. Never extrapolating that maybe us eating all the food is _causing_ all the starving, elsewhere in the world. …~…~…~… Seems to me that this kind of scolding, in childhood, leads to the kind of thinking that small horrors can be brushed aside to address the bigger horrors that exist elsewhere in the world.
I see this kind of thing, in many different issues. EG pollution: “litter is no problem when NYC dumps shiploads of garbage in the sea” , “smoke from my wood stove don’t matter compared to that factory over there pumping a steady stream of smoke from its giant smokestack”. Sexism: “don’t complain about cat-calls, in ~cough~ they’d rape you.” etc. etc.
TL;DR, “(gotta) Fix the biggest problem FIRST, then fix smaller problems.” and also the “equivalent~”:
“Don’t fix small problems, until *after* the biggest one is fixed!”
Glad to hear that about Simon Pegg, I like him.
Also, to me, being a “good person” means (among other things) doing what you can in your sphere of influence. I do not see how anyone can take the Dear Muslima argument seriously. Especially since it’s a free pass for complacency in almost every behavior, since almost everywhere in the world there will be instances where conditions are even worse (~”Somalia and North Korea, therefore I don’t care about anything”). Well, supposedly there are.
Isn’t “striving for the better” part of how many people like to think of themselves?
I knew there was a reason I liked Simon Pegg so much.
I.E.@big ragu: He mentions being whistled at in the street. Women don’t complain about being whistled at in the street. The complaint is about what happens when you refuse to respond to being whistled at in the street or when you are a prepubescent child and some grown-ass man is doing that at you (this started happening to me when I was twelve) or otherwise feel threatened by the whistler. In his haste to diminish he gets it wrong, of course.
@#20-#21
Thank you for saying this.
It’s an excuse for apathy, is what it is. It’s just another way of saying he doesn’t care how women in this country feel about how they’re treated bc hey!,it’s worse somewhere else.
(Of course, since those other places are very far away and nothing there directly affects him in the slightest, I’m pretty sure he doesn’t give a shit about women in Pakistan or India either.)
Sure. And you know what? A polite invitation for coffee in an elevator with no unfortunate sequelae – even if it was a pass – isn’t sexual assault or sexual harassment or rape or mysogyny either.
[Whoa, wow. I haven’t heard that bullshit since I cleaned all the slyme out of the comments here. You know, Watson did not accuse anyone of rape…only of discourtesy. It’s you assholes who inflated Watson’s video into a crime against humanity. –pzm]
You may not get that. 99.9% of the people here at FTb may not get that. But the rest of the world gets it. And Dawkins was correct to call all you on it. All you hysterical pearl-clutchers hellbent on hyping the elevator non-incident into something it was not.
You all lost perspective. And Dear Muslima was a well-dosed good-natured corrective. But, of course, all you gentle, kind, lovely folks can’t stand any criticism. And the rest of the atheist blogosphere watched with mouths agape as your reaction to the Dear Muslima letter broke every hyperbole scale to smithereens.
Just look at the severely fucked-up narrative you all have been weaving for the past year about Richard Dawkins. Look at it! Richard Dawkins is an asshole! Richard Dawkins wants us to “shut up shut up SHUT UP!!” Richard Dawkins is an idiot! Richard Dawkins is “still terrible!” Richard Dawkins should be boycotted, disinvited… he should lose his job.
Do you all realize what a pariah you have all become to the atheist movement? Do you? You are an embarrassment. We all look at this snakepit – the Pharyngula comments section and a few others – as if viewing a car crash.
Think back on all the important voices of atheism you all have alienated over the years. It’s pretty much all of them at this point. All because you feel so fucking justified, so self fucking righteous that you can’t even brook criticism without killing the messenger. PZ’s useful idiots.
[Obsession with elevatorgate? Check. Standard slymepit tropes? Check. Misrepresentation and dishonesty? Check. Bye, gingerbaker. Crawl on back to the ‘pit. –pzm]
@ gingerbaker
I don’t suppose it would do any good to ask you to demonstrate that this is an opinion anyone here actually holds, would it?
I think we should just move on and pretend gingerbaker never really happened.
Seriously, what random nonsense.
Preview fail.
1. You really need to update your bullshit.
2. Yeah, a man specifically ignoring an explicitly stated desire to be left alone isn’t transgressive or misogynist at all.
3. Shut the fuck up already.
How can using extreme comparisons put anything into perspective in a “well-dosed” fashion? The water is not hot because it’s not boiling? And what is good-natured about that?
Btw, I like Richard Dawkins (still), if only because he was one of the biggest influences in getting me where I am right now (I even got here because he mentioned Pharyngula in the edition of the Selfish Gene I own). Does not mean one cannot take offence at some of his behaviors/utterances. I also do not think anyone here believes him to be evil through and through as you seem to imply. Everyone is aware of his merits.
Oh and if you say
which collective might you be referring to?
Thank you, Simon Pegg. You’re making the world a better place.
Ginger Baker:
Somehow, you seem to have not noticed that Egate isn’t the topic of this post. Use of the Dear Muslima tactic isn’t an excuse for you to attempt a derail. Also, your attempt to paint everyone else as useless, over emotional wimmin isn’t helping.
Evidently you have never had any sexual harassment training. It can be considered as sexual harassment, if it is unwanted, unexpected, and not-appropriate for the moment. All three came into play during elevatorgate. Prove otherwise with solid evidence.
Dear Gingerbaker, please read Simon Pegg’s second tweet. And after reading it, I want you to think about how you would feel if your mother, sister, or daughter was placed in an uncomfortable situation with a man and she did not know his intent.
The commentariat chez Ally Fogg, perhaps? Gingerbaker is a regular there.
Urgh. I know you mean well, but can we please not do this “women only deserve not to be sexually harassed by virtue of their relationship to a man” thing?
I just wish Pegg didn’t use the name of a sexual organ as an insult. “Jerks” would have worked just as well. Apart from that, I’m glad he responded the way he did.
Gingerbaker won’t respond. Xe pulled this same drive by at Ophelia’s place, too (see “So it turns out that they’re all about us after all”.)
Note the confabulation about what Elevatorman actually said. Note the elisions of context, specifically that her ‘fascinating presentation’ was explicitly against the kind of behaviour elevatorman displayed. Note the unevidenced appeal to popularity.
Given a global proportion of 2%, ‘pariah’ is probably not a term atheists want to be tossing around.
And, of course, it’s not enough that an unwanted sexual proposition be unpleasant in and of itself. It has to have “unpleasant sequalae” to qualify as harassment.
Nobody ever claimed that it was rape or sexual assault. Nobody; not Rebecca or anyone else. The fact that you’re trying to pretend that we did paints a big fat LIAR tag right on your forehead.
On the other hand, it may constitute harassment, given that the incident occurred right after Rebecca had spent the whole evening talking about how she didn’t like that sort of thing.
Finally, whether it counts as harassment or not may be argued, but the fact that this dude decided to completely ignore her stated wishes can certainly not be taken as unrelated to the general misogynistic tendencies of our culture.
Given the you’re taking the comment “guys, don’t do that” and pretending that it’s an accusation of rape, I don’t think you should talk too loudly about hyperbole.
If people don’t like what he’s saying, is it unreasonable for them to stop going to his talks or buying his books? If people don’t agree with his opinions, is it unreasonable for them to want to invite speakers that better represent them?
Who’s saying that? I must have missed that. Do you have a quote for that?
Messed up the blockquote, apologies.
SallyStrange:
Yes. It must have assault or rape to count, and of course, those don’t count at all if you don’t go straight to the cops.
lol I thought he was referring to dick pics.
I stopped following him on Twitter because of his use of the c-word, but even with his use of the d-word above, I think I’m going to give him another chance.
@34. Truth! But sometimes people will give up bigoted ideas if they become personal.
borax:
When it comes to ginger baker, don’t be holding your breath. As for using the ‘what about your mother/sister/wife’, people are remarkably good at compartmentalizing. See the video here, and note where the boy says “yeah, it’s insulting girls, but not my sister!”
Oddly enough, Gingerbaker, being a brilliant science writer doesn’t stop Dawkins from being completely blinkered in other fields to the point of having horrendous tunnel vision on social issues. Sadly, of course, he appears to have no idea how blinkered he is.
It’s funny (well, it’s ridiculous and pathetically sad) that still, even now, there are people like you pretending that the coffee-in-the-lift business – unpleasant and intrusive as it was – was the crux of E-gate rather than the disproportionate response (by many many orders of magnitude) to the extremely mild exhortation “guys, don’t do that”. The disproportionate response is what it’s about, you silly fellow. And here you are, doing it some more …
I actually have him to thank, indirectly, for having found my way here too, however-many-years-ago. It’s such a misuse of his place in the spotlight to see him shooting himself in the foot … over and over and over again. (To get an entire issue arse-backwards once may be regarded as a misfortune; to make a habit of it looks like I-couldn’t-care-less-ness).
@ borax
I tend to think it does more harm than good because it’s appealing to bigotry to try to talk someone out of bigotry.
Ah, Gingivitis Baker–proving that a human can survive with an absolutely flat EEG. Dude, no one has accused Elevator Dude of rape. However, approaching a woman in an enclosed space from which she cannot escape is CREEPY. Creepy is not good.
Dude, I wonder if it is possible for you to conceive of a number small enough to represent the extent to which I care about the esteem of dude-bros like you.
#42 If he was this is the first I heard of it. All I know is what PZ posted. I follow too many people on Twitter now.
Next time someone gives this line you should follow them about for the next few hours repeating everything they say in a mocking voice. Afterall it’s not rape or murder so it should be just dandy.
@47 I have found that if someone gives up a prejudice it tends to open their mind. My father overcame his homophobia because he cared for his gay niece. Now he supports equal marriage.
@45, I’m probably just hoping and wishing a little to much.
So by the “logic” of the the big ragu, since LGBTQI people are getting harassed, beaten, and killed in other countries, we can’t complain that here in the US there is no workplace protection for us.
Does he think there’s a hierarchy of oppression, where we have to eliminate the worst examples of sexism and misogyny first, and then move down the list? Who created this list? Who’s maintaining it? How the fuck are we supposed to know that all rape in the world has been eradicated? I mean we’d have to know that before we can move on to other forms of sexism and misogyny, by his “logic”, no?
****
As for gingerbaker, that fucker can fuck right the fuck off.
borax @ 52:
My nym is Inaji, please use it. It’s really nice your dad overcame his homophobia, however, for every person like your dad, there are 20 of his opposite. Gay and Trans* kids get kicked out of their home every day. Many of them are forced into ‘pray away the gay’ camps. Many of them are isolated with no support. Many of them are murdered. Many of them commit suicide.
To steal from Terry Pratchett, Personal isn’t the same as important, so you aren’t really going to be hitting a lot of home runs with the personal approach. As well as the points Seven of Mine made, many families are utterly toxic (mine was), and that approach can not only fail, but backfire in a spectacular manner. I’ve seen the ‘what about your sister, etc.’ approach used a lot here, and a fairly standard response is “well, my sister wouldn’t play victim!” or similar.
borax @ 51
What you’ve said here is that you’re willing to throw everyone else under the bus in exchange for the odd person who comes around when it becomes personal for them.
Sexual harassment “here” and rapes “over there” do not come from different sources. (As if there aren’t both in both places.) They both come from dehumanizing contempt for women. Defenses like the above are absurd, really, because if the problem “here” is actually so trivial, then doing something about it is also trivial. (And if the solution isn’t trivial, what is the justification for calling the problem trivial? That people who don’t experience it can shrug it off?) People like the big ragu don’t want either to be solved if they have to adjust their own thinking and behavior. The way it really works is that the more people like the big ragu dig in and refuse to do their part, the worse the problem gets, both “here” and “there.”
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
@gingerbaker (#24)
Since you obviously missed this the first time I posted it in response to your idiotic lie, let’s try again: You cannot “politely” proposition someone who has made it clear that she doesn’t want to be propositioned. It’s automatically rude to override someone’s wishes for the sake of your own gratification.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~
faustus (#50)
Trouble with that is it doesn’t come close to simulating the menace behind sexual harassment or the despair that comes with knowing most people are going to support harassment over the target’s right to be left alone. (“Can’t you take a compliment?” “I wish someone would pay that much attention to me.” “Well, you’re encouraging it, wearing things like that.”) It might only teach the person you’re copycatting that sexual harassment is just as inconsequential as they assumed.
Inaji @ 54 said:
Ineed, many people, when presented with the “what if it was your mother/wife/sister/daughter” argument will invoke their female friend/family member who totes thinks it’s flattering when strange men make lewd comments at them in public.
borax:
Not to pile on here, but you appear to be assuming that your personal experience (and I’m very happy to hear that your father overcame his homophobia. I don’t want to diminish that in any way.) can be generalized. If having a close relationship with someone who is part of an oppressed group leads to a person being less bigoted, there should be evidence to point to. Anecdotes (as nice as they can be) aren’t evidence. Wishful thinking (as seen in your #52) also isn’t evidence. Don’t get me wrong, I *wish* it were true. But have you ever asked yourself if it *is* true?
Inaji
Don’t forget the 4 male witnesses…
Oh, so THAT’s why he’s so invested in being a stupid piece of shit about Rogers.
Glad someone finally took out the trash…
@ A. Noyd
I agree that is not nearly as bad as sexual harassment. My point was that if that was enough to drive the apologist of this behavour crazy, then maybe they will think twice about such a foolish comment. The fact that it is nowhere near as bad strenghtens the point; if even this trivial level of annoyance cannot be dismissed by the “there are bigger fish to fry” defense, then you are committed to opposing all harassment.
That I had. Of course, two were adult males who were raping, plus, at times, four other males who were witnessing/participating/being victims.
Don’t think that would count.
And no matter the witnesses, it never counts. Unless the witness is a middle-class to wealthy white cis-gendered, heterosexual Christian male.
This shit gets old. Only penis-in-vagina is rape or sexual assault. The only harassment possible is physical harassment. Women can ‘tell’ who is safe. Others have it worse, so be happy with your oppression. Stop talking about rape and assault and harassment, it scares people away. And good ol’ Gingerbaker is just the foecal frosting on the fudge filled cookie.
ogvorbis
Hey, ask Molineux. We totally can. And because we’Re collectively stupid we go for the abusive assholes every single time.
Giliell:
Sorry. I meant that in terms of the asswipes who say, “Your date raped you? Well why did you go out with him?” I let my mind wander off of Inaji and your exchange and didn’t make sense. Sorry.
I don’t follow Twitter and so I have some trouble following (understanding) this dispute. Is theBigRagu saying sexual harassment is OK because rape happens? Or is he saying that being whistled at in the street is a minor thing, approaching trivial, to complain about?
I think the latter point of view has some merit. I don’t buy the argument that whistling at an attractive woman is inherently wrong, any more than chatting up a woman in a bar is inherently wrong. The wrong comes in when either of these behaviors leads to something threatening. Therefore I’m not wiling to condemn theBigRagu’s comment on its face.
not wiling ===> “not willing”
Ogvorbis
Don’t apologize
I got you, I was just adding my own cynism to the heap
*hugs*
caseloweraz @ 65
Read a bit of this Tumblr and then get back to us with your assessment of exactly at what point being whistled at by a man you don’t know becomes threatening.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and make an assumption: caseloweraz is probably heterosexualm, cis-gendered and male. Why do I think this? Because he assumes (see my clarification in comment #64) that a women can tell whether or not that cat call or wolf whistle will lead to something threatening. How is she to know, caseloweraz? Seriously. How is she to know? Which wolf whistles, or cat calls, or chat-ups in a bar will lead to her being raped? or murdered? In other words, I think some privilege is showing.
Even if nothig bad ever came of being whistled at, after being informed time after time again by countless women that it’s fucking annoying it should be clear that whisteling at women is indeed a bad thing.
Unless, of course, you don’t give a fuck about how the woman feels about this, which leads us back to misogyny, which was kind of the starting point…
Just in case you missed it up there, gingerbaker has been banned.
caseloweraz:
See, I’m different. I think whistling at women is wrong. Our culture sexually objectifies women and treats them as things that exist for the sexual pleasure of men. Whistling at woman doesn’t treat them as a human being you wish to interact with as an equal. All it is is the equivalent of saying “I want to fuck you”, but without words. And women are tired of men doing this. I’m tired of men doing this. Women are not objects. Women do not exist for the benefit of men. Women are human beings, just like everyone else, and they deserve to be able to participate in society to whatever extent they choose without people treating them like they’re things to fuck.
Also, chatting with a woman is different that whistling at them. Chatting isn’t inherently harassing, no (it becomes that the minute a man ignores a woman who wishes to be left alone). Chatting can indicate a desire to get to know a woman as a person. Whistling is not conversation. There is no point to whistling other than to convey sexual desire on the part of men. Women get that all the fucking time.
Why don’t you buy the argument that whistling is inherently wrong? Have you given thought to the reasons men whistle at women? Have you given thought to the treatment women face in society and how whistling is yet another example of how women are denigrated? Have you *listened* to women? Also, you’re effectively telling women that being whistled at is no big deal. You’re really going to try to tell women how they should interpret their experiences? That’s a shitty thing to do.
Please give some serious consideration to *why* women don’t like being whistled at. Don’t look at it from your biased perspective.
PZ:
Thanks for that.
caseloweraz, what you don’t seem to realise is that when a man whistles at you in the street that is threatening. You cannot know if he is going to get angry with you when you fail to respond in the way he wants, and you cannot know – if he does get angry – what form that anger will take.
You have no idea how wonderful, how refreshing it would be to be able to walk out of your front door and know that you are going to get to just. Walk. Down. The street. Minding your own business. And that the men you encounter are going to mind theirs.
faustus (#61)
It’s not like most of them don’t already get upset at ridiculously trivial things. Amanda Marcotte frequently does posts about the trivial complaints of the more venerated misogynists. There’s already plenty to point out if it worked to show them their hypocrisy. Really, the problem is they don’t care about what happens to certain classes of “others,” no matter their own situation.
Except, they do care about being shamed for it, so maybe the best thing to do is be relentless in that.
QFT. I still believe there is a time and place where private talks could be more effective, but the average asshole won’t be participating in those anyway.
caseloweraz #65
Then shut the fuck up!
If the view has merit, then this whole discussion is a very minor thing and you shouldn’t voice your disagreement with anyone here. The fact that you even posted here means that you understand why the position you defend is bullshit.
Either it’s okay to complain about “minor” issues or it isn’t. Pick one and follow through. If you don’t shut up, don’t expect us to.
caseloweraz
Of course it’s not ‘inherently’ wrong. Whistling is just dandy. Just peachy. Whistling at a dog, why there’s nothing inherently wrong with that. Whistling at a woman is also not inherently wrong. It’s a simple action. Society has been rather permissive of it, so it’s been given a free pass. But there is discernible wrong. Which is what everyone else, here in the world where ‘morals’ and ‘ethics’ aren’t just buzzwords, is saying. But hey, you don’t want to condemn a person using a strawwoman complaining about simple whistling in order to dismiss the travails of women in society as they navigate the constant threats of their daily world, all because someone else has it worse. So tell me, what isn’t there to condemn about that?
caseloweraz:
I’ll take a teeny tiny leap here and guess you aren’t a woman. As for the rest of your shit, I’ll add my loud voice to LykeX’s @ 77: Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Brought to you by the intense weariness caused by the sheer amount of you assholes who will do and say anything to excuse systemic sexism.
caseloweraz
To reiterate, whistling is not inherently wrong so, like, when there’s no context and no elucidation on how whistling affects someone, why it all seems rather silly! Har har! Good one, ragu, what a knee-slapper! Except the opposition to @everydaySexism by Ragu wasn’t limited to just being whistled at. They dismissed the WHOLE thing. So focusing on just the “whistling” aspect is futilely clutching at straws. So, honestly, what the hell isn’t there to condemn about this? Why does whistling even fucking matter? Why wouldn’t you go beyond the face of the comment? What is your grudge with feminism, caseloweraz?
That slightly reminds me of a recent post I read. Not exactly the same as what happened in the OP, but I think people here will enjoy reading it. He’s not as big a name as Simon Pegg granted, but Dan O Brien who is one of the main writers at cracked.com, recently decided to take his story bartender off the internet.
http://thisdanobrien.tumblr.com/post/90030223993/the-bartender-will-disappear-on-july-1st
caseloweraz:
That’s your trouble cupcake, YOU don’t see anything wrong. But when it comes to defining harassment, only the victim counts. Your intentions are irrelevant to how your actions are perceived. If they are perceived as unwanted attention, then it IS harassement.
One more reason to love Simon Pegg!
@ A. Noyd
You are right ofcourse; they will bleat out how much of a sceptic and atheist
they are, rather than listen to any counter-arguments. It is a shame as anyone
open to reason, and not a total arse-head, can get this point in seconds.
Whistling may not be inherently wrong, but in the situation that we’re talking about, it’s contextually wrong.
When you’re whistling at strange women, you’re taking pot-luck at whether you’re whistling at someone who will take it as a compliment, someone who will feel harrassed by it, or someone who will show no outward sign but will seethe inside. Let’s say the chance is 50:50 which way it will be received: you will be pissing off half of the women you meant, in your lunkheaded way, to compliment. Why would you want to do that?
If it were 50:50, and if pissing someone off was the exact complement of paying them a whistling compliment, you may as well have done nothing for all the good and bad will you’ve generated. But it’s my impression that in fact the ratio of pissed-offedness to compliment is much greater than 1:1, and that people who you piss off with your whistle are pissed off to a greater degree than others are complimented. The harsh from a whistler can stick in your head all day, whereas the buzz from a compliment rarely lasts long.
So, you hear from various places that whistling isn’t welcome, but you refuse to give these reports the weight of the occasional woman that… well, what do they do that makes you so sure that they feel complimented? Do they give you a neutral glance over the shoulder? Not report you to the police? Give no sign at all that they heard?
NelC:
When I was much younger, I got whistled at a lot, usually by men driving by in cars. What’s the point of that, exactly? All I can relate are my own feelings and thoughts on the whole thing. It didn’t come across as a compliment, whether or not that was the actual intention. It did make feel like a dog (as Throwaway mentioned upthread), and it came across to me as conditioning.
Conditioning to make me feel lesser. Conditioning to make me think that any compliment from a man was just all that, and I should be grateful. Conditioning to make me respond like a dog, thankful for any attention at all. Conditioning to make me think I was little more than a fine ornament walking down the street. Altogether, whistling at a woman is dehumanizing and viewing a woman as object, not person.
I have no doubt at all that a whole lot of men have never given wolf whistling a second thought, and consider it harmless flirtation. Those men seriously need to think. Wolf whistling is a prime example of something most men would dismiss, therefor never stopping to think what that action means, nor how much it helps to prop up everyday, systemic sexism.
So yes, wolf whistling is a small thing. It is a small thing that adds to the massive heap of sexism. It’s also a small thing that people should be willing to think about, and as it’s no big deal, it shouldn’t be a big deal for a man to stop doing it.
Well Raging Bee here are a few of the examples of Dawkins not being rude or judgemental. The first one is the creationist lady (I couldn’t remember her name at the time of my previous response), Wendy Wright. And the second was Dawkins on the Bill O’Reilly Show and yes not only does he keep his composure but he is very on point with his responses. And given that Bill O’Reilly interviews are about antagonizing his opposition I think Dawkins handles it with grace.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AS6rQtiEh8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ
In all the debates I have seen with Dawkins and in the many interviews this is a common misconception. If you take the time to watch a bunch of British people argue this is the general way many of them talk. 2+2 debates are examples of this, but also watch talk shows that are British an you see a lot of the same.
Oh and one last thing the Arab world was the center of science and philosophy. Algebra began at this time so why couldn’t their be great Arab scientists as well?
And consciousness razor: Mozart died at the age of 37, he never was an “old white guy”.
Wes Aaron @ 87, Mr. Dawkins is not the topic of this post. If you wish to carry on and not derail this thread, please take it to Thunderdome, which is an open thread. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to ensure that women get sidelined, once again. Thanks.
Please take this nitpicky shit to Thunderdome.
“Wolf-whistling.”
Why is it even called that?
Because men are wolves and women are their prey?
Yeah, that’s SUPER complimentary.
It’s just one of the many ways that patriarchy has to remind women that we are little more than cows who dispense sex instead of milk.
And all the admiring stereotypes of women, which generally revolve around nurturing and kindness and whatnot, are just reminders that we are little more than cows who dispense babies as well as milk.
To Inaji: I meant no offense. I was simply responding to those who had responed to my response of a post that caught my eye.
If stating the facts is nit picky then I will politely disagree.
As for the subject of this post and the many I have read. There seems to be a polarity problem. For a short background I grew up in the LDS religion until 13 when I realized that I no longer believed the religion but liked the social interaction. The LDS religion is like many others and very misogynistic in it’s teachings. I also grew up on a farm so I was used to people speaking their mind and not carry about how PC they were. Somehow through all of it I also managed to know who George Carlin was and had listened to him from about the age of 7 or 8. Also watched a lot of Monty Python sneaking out and watching British TV including Benny Hill and many other shows that were shown late at night. The polarity problem comes from the different backgrounds people have grown up in as well as have their social group in. Usually when it is a bunch of guys PC goes out the window but they will call you out without care for your feelings and ridicule you if your acting like an ass. As for bunch of females I don’t have as much experience with hanging out with groups of them but they tend to be similar but there are subtle boundaries that if crossed, you’re out.
First of all, anytime anyone for any reason treats another without regard for their race, sex, and looks, they represent themselves as ignorant. Men or women embarrassing the other with sexual innuendo yes I have seen both and it is not as uncommon as some might think. For a woman it can be empowering showing that she is every bit as tough as the men (which among men this is usually met with appreciation or acceptance, however for the person subject to this that may very well not be the case). Or for a man it can be an attempt to make himself look confident (or hide that he is feeling vulnerable and it usually comes at the expense of other). Even if the reason behind their actions is to the individual as not having ill intent, it doesn’t justify doing so. When you act like a bigot you are being a bigot. It is up to the individual to recognize this, nobody else can do this for them. But ridicule at ignorance is a strong motivator for people to change.
gingerbaker is a long-time cowardly drive-by commenter. Nice to see that he’s finally been shown the door.
Another Simon Pegg quote is appropriate here.
Thank you, Professor Oblivious, for repeating that inane bullshit. But you seem to believe I would have any reason to contest that fact. Did you know that Schubert died at 32? Apparently not. If Dawkins thought age-at-death is the relevant interpretation, maybe that should have been his “refutation.” It’s a winner.
It was 31, not quite 32. I bet someone could nitpick the fuck out of that, if they felt like it.
Okay so neither was an “old white guy”. It is twitter nit pick the hell out of it if you want. I was simply pointing out that it doesn’t prove that he is a bad person or only believes old white guys or white guys are the only ones who can amount to anything.
SallyStrange:
Yep. It’s just grand to be reminded, in every way, that we’re prey. Or, as you noted, something to be properly domesticated. Either way, it highlights just how much women are viewed as lesser beings.
Well, I now know how to get attention on blogs — on this blog, at least.
To those (Seven of Mine and others) who mentioned or pointed me to cases of males brutalizing women, what part of “leads to something threatening” in my comment did you miss? Of course the wolf-whistle can lead to a rejected man attacking the woman who rejected him, if he thought the whistle was a proposition and the woman had no right to refuse. Any other interaction between a woman and a man could lead to the same result. Is this a reason to condemn those other sorts of interactions as inherently demeaning or threatening? I don’t believe that it is.
I got a very strong pushback against my approval of wolf-whistling on two grounds: 1) that the object of the attention feels objectified; and 2) that many women feel it is inextricably associated with a culture which privileges males to do whatever they like with women.
These are both valid reasons to object to being whistled at, obviously. And the dislike of it has had an obvious effect; I haven’t heard it done since the 1960s, which (I realize on reflection) is when my attitude toward it arose.
To NelC (#85):
This is the best explanation. Good points all.
caseloweraz @ 96
Which part of me asking you to let us know at exactly what point it becomes threatening did you miss? Does it become threatening before or after he actually turns violent? If it’s before, what’s the magic indicator we should be looking for? If it’s after…well…fuck you.
Throwaway (#80): To reiterate, whistling is not inherently wrong so, like, when there’s no context and no elucidation on how whistling affects someone, why it all seems rather silly! Har har! Good one, ragu, what a knee-slapper! Except the opposition to @everydaySexism by Ragu wasn’t limited to just being whistled at. They dismissed the WHOLE thing. So focusing on just the “whistling” aspect is futilely clutching at straws. So, honestly, what the hell isn’t there to condemn about this? Why does whistling even fucking matter? Why wouldn’t you go beyond the face of the comment? What is your grudge with feminism, caseloweraz?
Why wouldn’t I go beyond the face of the comment? Because I couldn’t see beyond the face of the comment. I don’t follow twitter. If I missed the substance of the issue, that’s my bad for not investigating further (as in asking about it here) or not keeping silent (as LykeX recommends.)
So where, other than Twitter, can I read the discussion between Simon Pegg and the big ragu?
Irrelevant bullshit by a bullshit artist. You mistakenly appear to (not)think that only physical attacks are harassment. Harassment is ANY unwanted attention, including wold-whistles. Try studying sexual harassment sites run by those teaching it, like HR departments.
Then why mention at all it is OK and innocuous, unless you wanted to troll and start a fight.
But guiiiiize, what if we strip an action entirely of its context? What does the action do then? Isn’t it inherently harmless if we remove it from the real world and stick it in a sterile thought-chamber, away from intention and effect? I mean, no one ever encounters it that way, but what if? What if? What if? That’s the important thing here. Answer meeeeee!
A. Noyd:
Yep, same as the bog standard rape apologist, who wants to play the scenario game forever on end.
Now, now A. Noyd, we don’t want to strip it entirely of its context. We have to always keep the wolf-whistling dudebro’s context in mind. After all he has rights, donchya know. And needs! And feelings! Delicate ones that get very bruised if anyone suggests that his opinions are unwanted. We must always keep that in mind.
Seven of Mine (#104)
Whoops, you’re right! It’s the sterile thought-chamber of safeguarding dudebro sensitivities. And, as you note, such tender sensitivities they are.
I got a very strong pushback against my approval of wolf-whistling
From ‘why is this offensive’ to ‘I approve’? Dude, if you’re donning the pretense of the objective just-asking-questions guy, you have to be scrupulous about not admitting that your real argument is “but I like whistling at pretty ladies!”
The part of the pushback you’re not admitting is that wolf-whistling is, as is manifestly obvious from the phrase, actually about objectifying women. It is, as someone already pointed out, exactly the same thing as telling a woman “I would like to fuck you.”
Re BadRagu, guys like him would shit if you used the same argument against atheists. Why are you complaining about the Creation Museum or some kid being forced to say the Lord’s Prayer in his podunk high school when there is REAL OPPRESSION in the world, and people are literally being tortured and killed for blasphemy or apostasy, boo fucking hoo, why are we even talking about what some dumbass school board in East Lower Jesusville is doing?!
caseloweraz: @EverydaySexism doesn’t just catalogue wolf-whistles. Wolf-whistles are not the end-all, be-all for the topic of everyday sexism. Many differing stories are committed to the project. Didn’t you notice that the tweet used the implication of wolf-whistle was inherently harmless (as is your contention, as well, apparently) compared to “real” suffering, thus @EverydaySexism was not a worthwhile project or resource for venting? Did you even click to find out what @EverydaySexism actually tweets about? Or, was maintaining your ignorance the only way you could keep up this silly charade that you don’t actually see what’s going on, “so what’s the big deal with wolf whistles anyway? Sheesh, ladies… give a guy a break!” The writing is actually on the face of the tweet and on the face of your comment.
caseloweraz: Just for your benefit, this is the point where you can say “Oh yes, I see where I was wrong about the context of the tweet. You are so right throwaway. It doesn’t actually have anything to do with wolf-whistles at all. Silly me! How in the world could I make that inference from such a dismissive tweet! Especially when I don’t even really need to know anything about tweeter or whatever it is that they were using. I’ll try to be more careful in evaluating these situations in the future and do some research before I start digging holes!”
Or you can just keep digging.
NelC:
There’s another factor weighing heavily against whistling at women: that isn’t done in a vacuum. When a man whistles at a woman to signal his attraction to her, he’s doing it as a member of a society that already sexually objectifies women. Even when the whistling is done as a compliment, it’s still judging a woman’s appearance. If whistling were the only example of men objectifying women, it might be different, but in the US, objectifying women happens all the time, every day. I lean towards whistling at women being inherently wrong so long as everyday sexism is a reality.
****
caseloweraz:
You said something people disagreed with. You can do that on any blog and you’ll likely get critical responses. Are you surprised? Did you not think this was the case?
I’m only 38 and I’ve heard it a few times in the recent past.
****
As for EverydaySexism, I find it an illuminating and horrifying read. The first time I read the stories, they drove home the ubiquity of everyday sexism and my privilege.
Don’t use this as an excuse. Just don’t. There are a lot of people here who were around in the ’60s and before (I’m one of them), and we’ve managed to keep up. All you’re doing is justifying your attitude toward something which doesn’t affect you, and you don’t much seem to care about those who are affected.
Oh yes, the lip-smacking that men tend to prefer these days is a huge improvement.
You know, when they’re not just whipping their dicks out in public and masturbating while staring directly at you.
What? It’s a compliment, right? It COULD be totally innocuous, you know, if you give everyone alive total amnesia about everything except how to eat and walk.
But Sally, whipping my dick out isn’t inherently wrong. It’s only wrong when people notice and object to it!
Clean-up, please. Some vicious, empathy-deficient parasite has vomited their spam on the thread.
LykeX – spam reported.
So, if a context-free man wolf-whistles at a context free-women in a forest and no-one hears it, does it still make a sound?
Anri:
That would depend on whether or not the forest was context free.
I have an example of an interaction with a man on the street that is positive:
One day a few months back, I had just gotten off my light rail stop in Phoenix, and was walking the block or so to work which was at the time on 12th st and Washington. Anyone familiar with the downtown area knows that section is a bit shady and weird.
I had put on a dress that day, done my hair, and put on makeup, and was feelin’ fine. As I was walking down the otherwise-empty sidewalk, I saw a man in an orange vest standing a few feet ahead and above me, to my right, on the light rail platform.
He saw me walking toward him, and gave me a great, big, smile, nodded his head as I got close, made eye contact, and said, “Well, hello there, ma’am, you look very nice today!”
I replied: “Why, thank you!” and gave him a big grin back. He nodded his head again (if he’d been wearing a hat, I bet he would have tipped it!) and then went back to fiddling with his phone.
I continued to pass by him, and it occurred to me that this interaction was quite nice, and not at all threatening.
And I have been considering why this is:
First, he didn’t stare or leer at me, and he didn’t stare at my chest or rear or any other part of my body — he made eye contact with me. Second, he gave me a big, open smile, rather than a leer. Third, he didn’t make any move toward me, or really any move at all; his body language remained relaxed and non-threatening. I didn’t look back, and perhaps he was looking at my rear as I passed, which is okay; I did get the feeling that if I had turned around, instead of leering, he would have smiled and made eye contact again.
It was really one of the VERY few comfortable interactions with a man on the street, and it was all in his facial expressions, body language, the eye contact, and his comfortable non-changing posture that indicated no threat. The fact that it was a sunny day probably helped (it’s harder to make eye contact at night, for example).
It still makes me smile when I think about it. And I think the eye contact and his body language were what made the interaction pleasant rather than threatening.
marilove:
Thanks for sharing that story. I really wish this were the norm, rather than the exception.
This part is striking. It seems to me that he engaged with you as a human being, rather than an object.
Tony!:
Yes, exactly. It felt like a normal interaction with a fellow human being, just like I would have at a grocery store or something. And I didn’t feel like he was objectifying me — I was in a very good mood, already smiling, and practically skipping because it was such a lovely, sunny, not-hot day. It was like his comment was directed at my whole person, including the positive energy I was projecting. Sometimes I war my personality on my sleeve, and he caught that, I think, and the big grin was an acknowledgement that hey, we’re both enjoying this lovely day, and don’t you look nice and happy today!
Marilove, that was a really nice story. I’ve had a few encounters like that in my life, and it’s amazing how wonderful it feels to be treated like a human being. It’s also damn sad that those types of encounters aren’t the majority.
You know, if a man wants to acknowledge me on the street, I’m more than okay with eye contact, a friendly, open smile, and a nod! I wish more men simply did that. And if you aren’t able to make eye contact, then don’t say or do anything at all.