Read Amanda Marcotte on Sam Harris and Penn Jillette. And Adam Lee doesn’t love Richard Dawkins anymore. You know, I’m getting a little bit tired of hearing self-appointed Leaders of Science, Skepticism, and Atheism repeatedly saying sexist bullshit, and then getting indignant and rather than retracting the sexism, getting loud and defensive and macho and insisting that declaring women to be intrinsically less critical is just rational, or that calling them ‘cunts’ is necessary for little girls to be able to appreciate great literature someday. It makes me uncomfortable. I think it does real harm to the advancement of critical thought and atheism.
Clearly, the best solution is to complain about the critics who call my attention to uncomfortable realities, especially those who harshly condemn rather than make excuses. If people would only ignore it when Great Thought Leaders say stupid and repugnant things, we could more easily keep on believing that they are enlightened and wise. It would also improve everyone’s opinions of those reporters, who seem awfully rude. Everybody wins! Well, everyone who matters, anyway.
If they’d just shut up, atheism could take over the world, making it brighter, safer, cleaner, and happier for well-off white men. It might be a sexist, racist kind of atheism, but that’s a small compromise to make to create a better place for the people who deserve it most. And isn’t that what this movement is all about? Advancing the movement as is for the sake of the movement itself, and the people who started it?
Maybe it would help if renamed the Atheism Movement the Cynicism Movement, ’cause that seems to be what it is enhancing best right now. At least for me.
Yep, it’s just one big back-patting circle of people who are convinced they’re smarter than everyone else. They don’t actually care about social problems, they just want to use them as a cudgel to beat religion (especially Islam) with.
PZ: I’d like to know what you think about Sam Harris’ apparent shift in excuses from “It was just a joke” to allusions of biological differences between men & women ( Quoted here: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/09/16/the-offense-industry-on-the-offense/ )
I’m more concerned that it does real harm to women.
It’s been said, probably more eloquently, in another thread … but I feel like I could make more headway and more common cause on issues that really matter to me with spiritual or religious people who are just DECENT human beings rather than some of the atheists that think the same way I do in this one particular area. These leaders are proving that one of their foundational premises, that faulty thinking in one area (religion/gods) indicates or may lead to faulty thinking in others, is pretty damn tenuous. The compartmentalization that they have to go through in their own minds is stunning, to get to some of the things they’ve spouted….
I just wanted to delurk and say this because I can see how upsetting, frustrating, rage inducing, disheartening and disappointing this mind boggling anti-feminist shitfest is, and right now it must seem not much good has come from years of fighting.
Months ago I commented on a post that “pulled a pin” and said something that at the time I thought was reasonable but it really wasn’t. It was wrong and it was piss poor, and this got pointed out to me and even though I was on the right side of this great rift I realised I was still woefully uneducated and just plain wrong about a lot of stuff. I was complacent. So I apologized and decided to just shut up and listen and stop talking about stuff I clearly didn’t understand as much as I should. So I read this blog several times a day, and I shut up and I listen.
And finally, I think I get it now, I get the stuff I was unforgivably missing even though I thought I was standing on the right side with you all along. And that’s down to you guys, down to PZ and the commenters here.
So I want to say thank you and that even though I’m just one anonymous reader who has learned and changed there are almost certainly more like me, and a difference is being made, and even if the despicable arrogant asshats at the top aren’t listening, this change is clearly coming from the bottom up. People are listening.
OK, you can go back to hard nosed disbelieving horror and justifiable rage now. I’m listening.
…for the sake of the greater cause of not believing in God, AND NOTHING ELSE! For the sake of advancing a “movement” that these same people tell us cannot and must not ever engage with any other of the world’s problems no matter what. That’s not a greater cause, that’s literally the smallest possible unit and very nearly meaningless.
The Catholic Church called. They want their excuses back.
Shorter Harris:
“I don’t have anything against women it’s just that they really are inferior to men”.
If people would only ignore it when Great Thought Leaders say stupid and repugnant things, we could more easily keep on believing that they are enlightened and wise.
If you squint just right, or maybe close your eyes all the way, you can “see” them still wearing imperial pants, not just showing their ass….
(Yes, it’s a fairy tale reference.)
How come the louder one of these “leaders” protests that they’re actually the sane, smart, sexy, non-sexist in the equation, the less it’s believable? Penn Gillette’s smarmy, condescending lecture on why his use of “cunt” is actually good for his little girl just about made me hurl.
@2/Sagar Keer
I posted this on another thread. Harris claims the estrogen vibe comment was a joke and “spoken in a tone that acknowledged its silliness, also got a laugh”.
Well, luckily for him there is a video
@2 Sagar Keer,
That’s an interesting quote from Harris. Is the use of the word “bell curve” getting to be one of those triggers that reveals that what someone’s about to say next is really, really stupid?
I’ll admit that I managed to get through HS, college and grad school without taking any statistics courses, to my current shame. But even I know know that, if there are bell curves of two different groups superimposed on one another, and the average on one curve is a five or six units or so higher than the average of the other curve, that still means that probably 90% the areas under both curves is completely the same (and someone who actually has taken statistics can tell me where to go to find the actual math on this). So if you pick a random point from curve A and a random point from curve B, the odds that the value for one is higher than the value for the other are very close to 50-50, right?
Whenever I see one of these jerks making a bell curve argument, I like to imagine them challenging a female boxer to an arm wrestling competition and expecting to win, because men on average have higher upper body strength than women.
Actually, I just like visualizing that mental image of what would happen.
I think I may have discovered the problem. It’s acronym-related.
We thought they were the leaders of Science, Skepticism, and Atheism.
In fact, they were the leaders of displaying their Atheism, Science, and Skepticism, in much the same way a bonobo does.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-cruT9-Pd0″>Here’s a video</a>
Produces:
Here’s a video
One of the things that always annoyed me during my blogging times was when some troll would randomly bring up Dawkins. I’d always point out that he’s not the atheist pope, and I’m not amendable to letting them go off on a rehearsed rant against quote-mined Dawkins when they should be talking to the atheists who are actually present. That was when I liked Dawkins.
Ever since he started deepening that hole he’s in, I’ve felt obligated to simply state “Dawkins does not speak for me” the next time it happens. I have this sickening feeling I’ll be saying it to a lot of atheists, not just theists.
Jimmy_Blue @5, thanks for delurking to share that. I remember going through a similar process, recognizing my own lack of understanding and then recognizing the need to step back to listen and learn. It is a worthy process, to be sure. I hope you are delurked for good and that you will share what you continue to learn along the way.
Amanda Marcotte’s takedown of Penn had me giggling when she explained the contextual use of “unwashed asshole”
Fwiw, let me plug her podcast. It’s great, but occasionally the unwashed assholishness she talks about will make rageblood squirt from your ears.
@dereksmear @10: Thanks for the video. So Harris is not only lying, but an insufferably bore.
@Marcus Ranum @16: Marcotte is brilliant, and even better on Harris.
CaitieCat wins the thread.
I hadn’t seen this before, from the satire site Daily Mash: ‘Dawkins Now Just Telling Random Strangers Why He Hates Them’, from August 21 of this year.
Maybe keeping three points in mind would clarify some things?
1. The whole point of New Atheism is that it’s right wing, while the real issue in culture is bigotry, including religious, racial, national, sexual, and most of all, class.
2. Bigotry is a social problem and won’t be cured simply by correcting the bad thinking of individuals one at a time. For one thing, individuals never have the pure form of the disease. Nor do they have the power to create a problem all by themselves. And bigotry won’t even be cured by verbal formulas.
3. Atheism as a negative position is insufficient and the real issue in philosophy is the division between reactionary idealism and skepticism or scientific materialism.
I’ve fought that battle with a racist troll, trying to tell him that even if racial genetics did cause the small difference in the IQ results he cited, it’s still no reason to judge any particular person by race: There’s always going to be large individual variation, so you can’t tell a person’s competence by their race. They likely could be an above-average member of a minority or a below-average white.
Of course, the paper he cited said the same thing and despite what he claimed it said, it noted that the tests were unable to separate social, cultural, and economic factors from genetic ones. Which meant his citation acknowledged it couldn’t demonstrate what I was asking him to demonstrate.
The comments on that Guardian article. Why oh why did I read them?
It’s possible, generally. But after looking at your three points, no that’s not possible.
I didn’t know we had even decided what New Atheism is or how it differs from Old Atheism. And you know the whole point?
But you say it’s right wing. Is that so? When and where did the right wing atheists plant their flag? I’d love to hear the story.
Whatever. I’m not a part of that. So what am I? Who exactly are you talking to here?
(Also, “most of all, class” — that might be the most suspicious part of this.)
No clarity here.
So things are not “simply” going to happen one way, because they are not simple and do not have one cause. Okay. No surprises yet. I fail to see how fighting religion in all its forms implies only working at the level of individuals’ beliefs, while doing nothing politically or having no other broader social impact.
And I don’t know what a “verbal formula” means.
Not clear.
Philosophers have lots of issues. (You can take that however you want.) It’s not clear to me which you think this is, because the way it’s put is so garbled, or why it supposedly matters so fucking much. Anyway, they do deal (at least occasionally) in facts. Facts are real issues. So, the fact that gods don’t exist is a real issue. QED.
stevenjohnson2 @20, to your point #2: You’re right that it won’t be cured one individual at a time, but that’s why it is so important to call out Harris and Dawkins in particular. Because they are movement leaders, their bigotry can influence others. Conversely, by publicly calling them on their bad thinking we have the potential to reach those they influence. By shaming their bigoted claims and methods — like we shame creationist claims and methods — we can use their fame against them to amplify the debate to hopefully sway the larger culture.
@CaitieCat, #19
Your link didn’t work for me, so here it is:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/dawkins-now-just-telling-random-strangers-why-he-hates-them-2014082189774
“everything about your shoes sickens me”
I particularly like that one.
Well, when you’ve admitted that the explanation is “those differences come from biology or culture”, then no, you can’t say anything if what you’re saying is “those differences come only from biology”.
Waffler, thank you, was on my phone, notoriously hard to post links there. Appreciate the assist. :)
Yeah, an outside view of Dawkins really puts the lie to Michael Nugent’s claim that only PZ and FtB are hurting atheism.
Seriously, have these people never talked to a plain old progressive theist? Maybe it’s just me, but whenever I mention I’m an atheist, the immediate response is “Like Richard Dawkins? That guy is a total asshole.” My stock response (seriously, he’s so commonly hated by non-atheists that I have a stock fucking response to this) is “Yeah, he is, but likely not for the reasons you think.” They usually change the conversation then because he’s such poison. Now, I don’t mind the aggressive stance, obviously, but let’s stop pretending the man farts rainbows that cover atheists in a fine coating of popularity dust compared to PZ.
You know, there was a time when I was sad that I was in Continental Europe, far away from most of you, from this bulk of a movement, not able to go to conferences because of transport and money and life.
Then all this happened, and I’m still sad that I’m so far away from many wonderful people I got to know in the meantime. But holy fuck, I wished that continental drift worked a bit faster. Ain’t no ocean wide enough and surely not the Channel.
Cripes, I feel like a psychic. Guess who’s looked into the testosterone/aggression link, what the Y chromosome does, and the difference in bell curves between men and women? Lil’ ol me. If you’re interested specifically in the Y, keep an eye out for a comment I made elsewhere (which might still be stuck in the mod queue).
“If people would only ignore it when Great Thought Leaders say stupid and repugnant things”.
Since they supposedly became great thought leaders because they said smart and wise things it would make sense that saying stupid and repugnant things would get them ignored.
@brucegee1962 #11. Bronze Dog #21: I pointed Harris at this analysis of why simplistic peak-to-peak differences in population distributions are often not terribly useful in my response to his article post on his Facebook page. I don’t know if he will read it (unlikely) and even if he did, if ti would matter, since presumably he’s already had statistics classes that should have already told him all this. I honestly can’t believe we’ve (well, some of us) reverted to naive anthropometric biological essentialism in various fields after the racist anthropometry of the 19th and 20th centuries was so thoroughly discredited, but here we are. I strongly support all undergrad science degrees requiring a good History of Science course that examines the cultural contexts of the production of various scientific methods and knowledge and the influence they have had on scientific discourses. The use of supposed science to support sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. social norms has a long history, and if all scientists were aware of the fact that bad, bias-reinforcing ‘science’ has been incredibly common despite the controls of the scientific method that try to mitigate motivated reasoning and faulty experimentation/analysis by biased researchers, they might be more careful and question their own findings more, especially if they comport with existing social norms.
Jimmy_Blue @5
Thanks for that awesome comment. And well done. Truly.
+++
I tried reading Michael Nugent’s post on how horrible it is that PZ is attacking prominent atheists and skeptics personally… Funny thing, though, it sounded a lot like he was doing the exact same thing.
Not a word, though, on any of the assholishness or criminal activity that may have warranted such personal attacks. And the comments… *sigh*
I have to say I’m with Giliell on this one. 100%. Hurry up, continental drift.
Don’t feel bad; either Harris did the same, or he didn’t remember any of the content.
Yes, of course, a zillion study populations show significant gender differences on a zillion variables. Precisely because of that, it’s absurd to pick one difference (women are more nurturing on average, according to whatever measure) and claim sans evidence that it must be responsible for another difference (women don’t like Sam Harris’ books as much) . There are far, far, too many confounds.
I mean, you could claim that because women tend to outscore men on certain verbal reasoning tests, they must be less tolerant of the errors and fallacies in Harris’ prose. Or that Harris’ endorsement of state violence toward Muslims must appeal to violent criminals, who are disproportionately male. But that would be stupid and offensive, so why would you?
OK, I’m officially exasperated enough to ask: When will people finally give up on the whole concept of “leader”?!?
See, when the generation of my great-grandparents wanted a leader, they actually got one. He even took “Leader” as his official title.
Bad news: the Channel is not an ocean in the geological sense, there’s no rift in it, it’s just a flooded bit of continent, there’s no plate tectonics going on in there. The only way it’s getting wider is… global warming.
Ironically, kinda like Catholics who just wish people would shut the hell up about clerical abuses…for the sake of The Church. ‘Cause that’s the most important thing.
–
iJoe:
Which only makes the irony deeper and darker.
–
a joke and “spoken in a tonedrone that acknowledged its silliness, also got a laugh”.
He bombed that one, didn’t he?
PZ:
The Charge of the Bright Brigade!
I wonder, does it dawn on them at all, that they have had years in which to execute their oh-so-benign atheist takeover? Do they know that they have been left behind to play my hole is deeper than yours!?
jimmy_blue:
I remember you from the grenade thread! It’s really good to see you again, and thank you, Jimmy blue.
@Waffler, who at any given moment may, or may not, be of the Waffler Institute:
Thanks so much for the corrected link. That was golden. Although, yes, you did pull out the best line
I wonder if pretty much anything, once it reaches “movement” status, becomes less about what the movement claims to want and more about fame and money for the leaders of said movement. I guess I’ll find out when I’m anointed as thought leader of the Combat Rock is the Most Underrated Clash Album Movement.
@37
Actually, he really should apologise to Michelle Boorstein for accusing her of misrepresentation.
Just quickly, two great references (out of many relevant choices): Cordelia Fine’s Delusions of Gender and Barnett & Rivers’ Same Difference.
-Susan Schneider, PhD
Author, The Science of Consequences
@dereksmear #10 .brucegee1962 #11. Bronze Dog #21
Thanks for your inputs people.
When I read Harris’ quote it immediately reminded me of the worn-out pseudo-scientific claims of genetic differences made by race supremacists. Including the counter-accusation that anybody who questions his statement is simply being blind to reason, when he himself offers no clear rationale.
David
Well, so now I have something to look forward to with the destruction of the climate as we know it…
not in general, but from what I’ve seen with movements in general is that they all hit a stage where they become quite conservative, usually via the absorption of large amounts of upper/middle class people with great investment in various aspects of the status quo; that used to mean absorbing religious/social conservativism (e.g. the Doldrums in the US women’s suffrage movement), but further into the 20th century it increasingly meant absorbing corporatism as well.
Some movements die from this, others manage to shake off the conservative slowdown with “new blood” coming in, while the conservative branch withers into irrelevance.
also: I’d been searching for the video of the interview, because assorted dudebros kept insisting that it would provide some context that would show that what Harris said was somehow not sexist.
Now that I’ve seen the video… what context? Boorstein’s article pretty fucking accurately recounts what he said. She’s not misrepresenting him or quotemining him; no one else who was criticizing him was, either.
By the way, Jamie Bernstein at Skepchick has a response to Harris in the form of a Bad Chart Thursday article… Sam Harris Doesn’t Understand Bell Curves
(hilarious spoiler in image form)
@David Marjanović #35:
And erosion. Those limestone cliffs aren’t going to last forever.
Is that more comforting, Giliell? ;-)
consciousnessrazor @23 Just in case you might like to know, a “verbal formula” is where someone is regarded as in agreement, or even a leader, because they say the right words on a particular issue. Atheism, saying there are no gods, is just a verbal formula that doesn’t address religious bigotry (or arguably not even most forms of superstition.) Giving children a sound education is a start. Building a society where their lives aren’t so helpless before the whims of their rulers that belief in God is a defense mechanism against complete despair will do far more than nodding in approval when someone just says “There are no gods.”
New Atheists are conspicuous for believing that while all religions are equally wrong, some are more equally wrong than others. Bonus points if you guess which religion! But if you want I’ll just think of a certain kind of atheist as 9/11 atheists. We should be all good then, right?
As for thinking the even mentioning class is suspicious, well, that’s on you.
tonyinbatavia@24 Women’s rights keep taking steps forward every time women actually start playing a larger role in society, especially when they aren’t financially dependent upon a man, or they are essential to the war effort, and so on. But as you say, there is a role in arguing against people making bigoted arguments, such as Dawkins and Harris. But the real question is how we misled ourselves into taking them seriously on anything but one issue, atheism, which is of only dubious relevance.
funknjunk@4:
That’s precisely why I no longer care all that much about advancing atheism. I’m still going to challenge theistic arguments when they’re presented to me, but it’s not overly important to me anymore. What really matters is advancing secular humanism. And there are plenty of religious people who are for that and plenty of atheists against (and, as it’s turning out, even a lot of professed secular humanists don’t seem to be all that committed to the principles of universality, truth, or fairness).
Frankly, all this wagon-circling looks to me like someone telling me I shouldn’t criticise Ayn Rand because it makes atheists look bad.
@44
Actually, Harris has suggested that there may be a scientific basis to E.O. Wilson’s belief that people of African descent appear to be innately less intelligent than white Europeans.
http://www.project-reason.org/archive/item/the_strange_case_of_francis_collins2
No, that’s not. I quoted “most of all” for a reason (and, I assume, so did you). Needless to say, this is not the thread for that discussion.
That’s because they are identical, and follow the same circular pattern. Things are this way because they are this way.
While the bulk of this thread is about Sam Harris, let us not forget about Penn Jillette, who has taken to blatantly lying about calling Lindy West the c-word on Facebook, which Marcotte cited in her article about him. Good to see that these prominent atheist skeptic thought leaders are men of principle, who stand by their words and always seek to uncover and promote the truth.
Does Jillette also advocate using the n-word so that people can enjoy Huckleberry Finn, or does that expose his dissembling too blatantly?
CaitieCat and Waffler, thank you for that Daily Mash link. Hilarious!
That article on Penn Jillette by Amanda Marcotte is amazing.
It’s just empty nonsense and hatred of women in what Jillette had to say. Strip all of the emotion out and It’s basically “I don’t like what you find funny and I’m going to point out that you are a woman!” And the only reason that it works is because there are other people like him that will go “That’s right she is a woman!” and pretend that it means something so stupid that only apes in groups could keep that going.
I can’t understand how someone like Penn Jillette and anyone that liked what he did could hate Lindy West and women like that. It was not the article or it’s content. That’s simply not possible because he never talked about it. All he did was feel about it.
Anthony K @28: for what miniscule use it is, given we’re oceans apart, someone mentioning they’re atheist doesn’t make me think they’re a Dawkstain. It might make me reluctant to mention my own beliefs past “I’m not atheist” but that’s about it. It doesn’t carry assumptions of what that person will be like.
Sam Harris is a shitty neuroscientist if he hasn’t figured out that culture and learned shit is a social issue in behavior, and I say this as someone who knows that the prevailing consensus in neuroscience is that the supposed divides Harris refers to are in fact likely more social than innate.
Of course, nobody in their right mind considers Sam Harris to be a first-rate neuroscientist.
Iyéska @40. I can’t believe I didn’t recognize who you were. What a maroon. I’ll just get me coat. It was in fact you who made me realize I needed to shut up and listen.
If only Dawkins, Harris and Jillette could get past their egos long enough to learn that simple lesson.
One thing that really gets up my nose about Harris being a neuroscientist is that, even if he’s not involved directly in the research, he must know that one of the most exciting areas in current neuroscience is brain plasticity. And he also should know that stuff that’s been learned can be a problem because, despite the fact that plasticity is what helps you retain multiplication tables and French vocab, the new mantra in this arena is “plasticity is not your friend“. Things that you’ve learned and habituated to are extremely hard to dislodge from your body of retained knowledge and habits of thinking.
He must know this, surely. And it’s not just a hypothesis, it’s our lived reality. It’s the reason why habits are hard to break regardless of whether they’re good, bad or indifferent. It is simply not possible to make up your mind that you’ve abandoned racism or incorrectly remembered atomic weights from the Periodic Table or your preference for how to set a dinner table and just move right along. You have to work at it and constantly correct yourself when you find yourself slipping into those undesirable habits or mistaken facts.
If Harris believes that these facets of brain function don’t apply to him or are irrelevant to his beliefs and his writing, then he’s kidding himself.
Matthew Trevor
If that happened to be the subject at hand, I wouldn’t be surprised if he did. He’d just have to cite his token black friend as the person whose ability to enjoy literature he was “concerned” about.
BTW, Dawkins is now calling Adam Lee a liar, citing the overwhelming evidence of “it’s obvious”
Good to see there’s plenty of people challenging him to be specific about what Adam Lee is supposed to have lied about.
exactly. I read the article; it’s basically a summary of the arguments people have been having with what Dawkins has actually SAID over the last couple of months plus.
this stuff is documented.
where is Adam lying about anything?
I swear Richard has entirely lost it.
I’m wondering, where is Jerry Coyne to defend his bros Dawk and Harris? He’s normally first in line to defend his hommies from bad people who write nasty stuff bout them.
stevenjohnson2
So Jerry Falwell, Kent Hovind, and Pat Robertson flew those airliners into the Pentagon and the WTC? Who knew? Because, as I remember it, this whole New Atheism thing didn’t start up until years after the attacks when right wing Christians, emboldened by a sympathetic Bush Administration, tried to start sneaking prayer and Creationism Into public schools again, passed anti-abortion bills at the state level, started to whip-up on GLBTs again, efc.. If 9/11 had anything to do with it, it was the Bible-beater’s attempts to conflate religiosity with patriotism in the face of a highly-exaggerated “Islamo-fascist” menace.
From there:
“Watson’s opinions on race are disturbing, but his underlying point was not, in principle, unscientific.”
So far, so good…
“There may very well be detectable differences in intelligence between races. Given the genetic consequences of a population living in isolation for tens of thousands of years it would, in fact, be very surprising if there were no differences between racial or ethnic groups waiting to be discovered.”
*epic facepalm*
That would be the case if such isolation had ever happened.
It has not! Just take a look at yesterday’s Nature to see the latest paper in a long line!
Jimmy_blue @ 62:
Not your fault, I’ve had a nym change, I was Caine back then. So, take your coat off and stay a while.
Yeah. That would be right nice. The problem being that they know they are wrong, they just don’t care.
Giliell @ 65:
Lovely, especially in light of his defenders responding with things like this:
Ichthyic (#67)
All the douchebag “thought leaders” getting called out for the shitty things they say are bringing up similar defenses of how they didn’t say what they actually did say. They have this really strong image of themselves as good, rational people with open minds who say good, rational, true things.
Years ago I wrote this set of syllogisms for how Christians superficially co-opt freethought for their dogma using bad logic, but they work for atheists like Dawkins, too, with a few substitutions.
Whatever they actually did say couldn’t ever mean what us nasty feminists and SJWs claim. We’re bad people claiming they said bad, irrational, false things, but they’re good people who can say nothing other than good, rational, true things.
A. Noyd @ 73:
And apparently, none of us actually have an independent voice at all. (See #72) It seems we have become some sort of amorphous Skepchick/FTB deathstar, leaking hivemind pronouncements.
Is what is true commanded by
GodDawkins because it is true, or is it true because it is commanded byGodDawkins?”Anyone want to explain what the fuck is up with idiots with supposed scientific training cherry-picking evidence about how human minds, and sex differences between human minds, work?
If they start using the Ingalhalikar PNAS study, don’t get me started on how stupid that is.
@David Marjonovic/70
Indeed. I also love how he moves so quickly from disgust to embracing it as a scientific truism
@Daz,
That’s not been decided yet I think. But there there sure are plenty of latter day atheoskeptic Eutyphros around telling us all about it.
There is no such population, and even if there was, the differences could consist in anything so singling out intelligence is unnecessary. This is the kind of abstract philosophical meandering only an ivory tower intellectual with no self awareness – or a racist – could make.
Oh lawd, Sam Harris has gotten tetchy at me on the twooter.
Dawkins is now all upset over this article: I was raped when I was drunk. I was 14. Do you believe me, Richard Dawkins?
In his twitter feed:
It couldn’t possibly be that a woman *wanted* to address Dawkins’s widely-held rape mythology directly and in a way he’d find harder to ignore than Ophelia’s tweets. No, HE gets to decide she’s an exploited victim. Wouldn’t his new bestie Sommers have something to say about women always getting told they’re victims?
*spits*
I haven’t even read the article yet, but from the “clickbait” headline I can already see 1) drunk and 2) 14 years old – two factors that already probably make this case a rape, legally even, whether she remembered it or not.
Pteryxx:
I’m sure she’ll be along eventually. In the meantime, Helen Pluckrose showed, with:
However, she left off all the feminism is victimizing women! stuff.
@Iyéska (#81)
In one of his books, didn’t Dawkins have some sort of CSI analogy he used against creationists who complained there’s no direct observation of (past) evolution and the fossil record is “incomplete,” and so on? Something about having video footage of a suspect going past a door in the direction of the victim’s apartment just before the time of the murder and other various pieces of incomplete evidence that added up to a case? Someone should dig that up and throw it in his face. He can waffle and wibble about how different it is when applied to the incomplete memories in a drunken slut’s head.
Urgh – massive trigger warnings for that article and the bit I’m going to quote below. Either Dawkins hasn’t bothered to read the actual ARTICLE beneath the headline and the fact it was written by one of those complain-y victim-y women-creatures… or he has, and he’s such a callous shit he doesn’t care.
(warning for graphic rape details, seriously) (bolds mine)
(really)
(also eating disorder)
—
She was conscious SOME of the time. She remembers SOME of being dragged and muzzled and SOME of the pain. So Dawkins oh-so-generously grants that, yes, that counts as a rape-rape, not like all those OTHER women.
Iyeska,somehow I don’t think Dawkins knows how alcohol intoxication works.
@80
He’s getting tetchy at someone on twitter for accusing him of advocating ethic profiling. Whenever, he denies that this is his position, I always recall this
“It is not enough for moderate Muslims to say “not in our name.” They must now police their own communities. They must offer unreserved assistance to western governments in locating the extremists in their midst. They must tolerate, advocate, and even practice ethnic profiling. ”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions_b_8615.html
Sorry, should read “advocating ethnic profiling”.
Here’s another problem with Harris and Dawkins: even when they do acknowledge the problematic influence of culture, they still accept it instead of acknowledging that it’s harmful and saying that they support changing it.
A. Noyd @ 84:
I’d love to see something like that dug up, but it wouldn’t do any good. It might be interesting to see what mental gymnastics it would cause Dawkins to do, though.
acetylcholine @ 86:
Sure he does. It’s all a matter of mythcommunication.
Daz:
:Snort: Aye, can’t trust anything from the Skepchick/FTB deathstar.
Iyeska@91, I can never figure out why some assholes want to have sex with people that they KNOW don’t want to have sex with them.
I mean, the instant I get a rejection of some kind romantically, it’s a turn-off and I move on.
acetylcholine:
It’s not about sex. That’s the first thing to learn. The next thing is a good understanding of rape culture and those who do predate. Good reading here:
Rape Culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture
Rape Culture 101
https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/rape-culture-101/
Meet the Predators
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/
Predator Redux
https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/predator-redux/
acetylcholine @93:
I’m confuzzled. Are you trying to engage in a discussion concerning rape while being ignorant of what rape entails?
It’s not about sex.
It’s about one or more individuals exerting domination and power over another individual (or individuals). They use sex to dominate and exert power.
Tony @ 95:
I seriously hope not. I still remember someone on the grenade thread saying “I thought rape was just one kind of non-consensual sex.” Aaauuggh.
Tony@95, but it seriously boggles me how they keep up enough boner to rape someone.
None of this says why they choose sex as a means of assault rather than non-sexual physical assault.
Also, tony@95, while it is clearly not about consensual sex, it does appear to be about sex in that the fundamental drive behind it appears to be a sense of entitlement TO sex, in part. In particular, in the Predator Redux article from Yes Means Yes:
“Many of the motivational factors that were identified in incarcerated rapists have been shown to apply equally to undetected rapists. When compared to men who do not rape, these undetected rapists are measurably more angry at women, more motivated by the need to dominate and control women, more impulsive and disinhibited in their behavior, more hyper-masculine in their beliefs and attitudes, less empathic and more antisocial.”
From the Wikipedia article on rape culture:
“Rape culture has been described as detrimental to men as well as women. Some writers and speakers, such as Jackson Katz, Michael Kimmel, and Don McPherson, have said that it is intrinsically linked to gender roles that limit male self-expression and cause psychological harm to men.[50]
According to political scientist Iris Marion Young, victims in rape cultures live in fear of random acts of oppressive sexual violence that are intended to damage or humiliate the victim.[51] Others link rape culture with modernisation and industrialisation, arguing that pre-industrial societies tend to be “rape free” cultures, since the lower status of women in these societies give them some immunity from sexual violence. In industrial rape cultures, women emerge from their homebound roles and make their presence felt in the workplace and other areas traditionally dominated by men, increasing male insecurities that lead to them using rape as a countering method.[39][52] Others also link rape culture to environmental insecurities, where men objectify women as part of their struggle to control their immediate environment. It is also linked to gender segregation, and the belief that rape proves masculinity.[53] Other manifestations of rape culture include denial of widespread rape,[54] institutional apathy towards the problem of rape,[55] minimization of rape cases by government officials,[54][55][56] and excusing rapists as social anomalies.[54][55]”
This has everything to do with sex and gender. It’s about power CONCERNING the realm of sex and reproduction.
This isn’t about someone being angry about racism or getting a raw deal on a house sale or whatever.
So yes. It is about both power and sex.
acetylcholine:
No. Stop this shit, right fucking now.
If by ‘this’, you mean the links I provided, yes, it does. Keep fucking reading until you learn something.
And learn to fucking quote already – use <blockquote>Paste Text Here</blockquote>
acetylcholine:
Rape involves sex, it is not about sex. Or, in terms you might understand better, it is not about getting laid or sad guy’s boners. Rape strips a person of their autonomy, it is the most powerful way to demean and dominate a person.
Fixed that for you. It is never about sex, only perceived power.
acetylcholine @97:
Can you NOT go there?
I really don’t give a flying fuck about the boners of rapists. I say that as someone who has not been raped. You comment worries me that it might be triggering to people who HAVE been raped. You can think what you want, but try to consider the impact your words could have on others, and consider keeping some of your thoughts to yourself.
acetylcholine:
I really, really, am not in the fucking mood for this. If you don’t understand that rape is not about sex, you are not informed enough to participate in this discussion. Either go educate yourself-a process that’s likely going to take longer than a few minutes (I’m thinking a few days at bare minimum)-or just stop talking.
Iyeska @101 and 102, I read all four.
Maybe you and I are using different definitions of ‘rape being about sex or not’ here.
When I say it’s about sex, I’m saying that even rape being about power and demeaning and dominating someone is still about power, derogation, and domination within a sexual context. Your articles make it very clear that part of the motivation here is a perceived entitlement to sex and/or a view of woman as sexual object or retaliation for not getting sex, in a staggeringly large number of cases. It’s clearly not a case of the sort of power-seeking that has absolutely no sexual context whatsoever.
Tony:
Already accomplished. With that, I’m outta here for now. I’ll go concentrate on not vomiting.
acetylcholine @ 97
@ 98
Be boggled. It happens. Many of us here have been raped, regardless of how boggling you find it. Many people also manage to rape without “enough boner”. Fingers, inanimate objects, etc, can also be used. Rape comes in many forms. Regardless of the genders and anatomies involved, it doesn’t always involve Teh Mighty Peen. And even when it does, there’s such a thing as a combat boner from adrenaline.
If you’re looking for some sort of intimate explanation of penises and rape, I’d suggest finding some places where that information is already compiled. Asking it of people like this–especially with many of us being assault survivors–feels voyeuristic. It’s a rather upsetting line of inquiry.
Or rather, the type of power being sought is SEXUAL power, specifically.
acetylcholine:
Great job. Your insensitivity and ignorance that you so proudly wave around for all the world to see has successfully triggered yourself. I don’t know if you woke up today thinking “I’ll trigger a rape victim”, but you fucking succeeded. I was calming down after reading a story about a gay bashing but now you’re seriously cranking the dial on my anger back up.
Try fucking off until you learn some goddamn empathy!
@108, I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, because I know it does. I’m just saying I can’t comprehend what the hell’s going on in these assholes’ minds.
@110, Tony, oh that’s very nice. You were somebody I used to respect too before you decided that discussing the motivations behind rape was somehow a topic that was off limits.
acetylcholine
Drop it. Now.
@112: Fuck you too.
acetylcholine, rape happens. So what the hell do you want to do? Have a nice little chat about rape boners? Discuss how pain, suffering, humiliation, extreme objectification turns some people on? How some people just flat out don’t care about consent or enthusiasm? You wanna delve into the sexual fantasies of rapists? Is that going to satisfy your curiosity?
This is incredibly upsetting. You’ve already triggered one person here and I’m going to walk away before I join her.
@113, 114: Oh yes because this constitutes an argument.
I have plenty of respect for PZ, but large portions of his commentariat seem to have problems.
@115, my train of thought goes something like this:
If we do not understand it, we will not stop it.
acetylcholine
You are beginning to sound like you’re asking for advice on how to go about it.
Is that your intention?
@acetylcholine #112: Ah, another person come down from Privilege Mountain. Here’s the thing: it’s not that this topic is “somehow off limits.” It’s that, while you have the privilege of treating this topic as something academic to be studied like a dissected frog, others may find your dissection of the issue upsetting, and may wish you to do it away from the dining room, thanks.
It’s not “somehow off limits” to discuss the mechanics and motivations behind rape, it’s not appropriate for this venue. It’s especially not appropriate because you admittedly need some 101-level instruction before you engage on this level. it’s especially especially not appropriate because you see people having their PTSD triggered by your callous, ignorant disregard for others, and pull out the Dawkinsian “oh I guess some topics are just off-limits.”
If you are not a callous clod, and you care about people who have experienced trauma, stop now and find the academic papers where your question has been addressed. Otherwise, feel free to complete the Dawkinsian language by referring to thought police lynch hunter PC bullies.
acetylcholine
[TW for my own comment]
Back off, now.
Do you realize how much distress you’re causing in people?
Do you realize that this is not the place for this, especially your continued lumbering on like the fabled bull, completely ignoring the feelings of those around you?
How about we talk about what makes racists hate n*gg*rs so much, huh? Was it the blackness of skin, or something not-quite-caucasian about the nose that, you know, made them want to exert power? And do you think he saimed first for the head and then the torso, or the other way around? Does it fucking matter?
We understand enough to know that it is about power, period. The tools used to exert that power can vary, but in the end, it is about power – entitlement, privilege, all that loverly stuff. Imposing it on other, non-consenting people, in a most humiliating fashion.
Teaching people that the power is an illusion and an unnecessary holdover of socially constructed and faulty systems the world over – that is how rape is stopped. Teaching people that they do not ever have a right to another person’s body, that is how rape is stopped, not by wondering in weird, squicky ways how the bloody hell does someone manage to rape another person. They do; we know this, that is enough.
Now fuck off, think a while, and for fucks’ sakes, stop hurting the people around you.
acetylcholine, you have been commenting here long enough to be well aware that one of the things we have to overcome is the reflexive kneejerk “But what about the menz!” type of response that is so common. “But what about the bonerz!” is absofuckinglutely the wrong thing to be worried about. Seriously, you’re on a thread of rape survivors worrying about the poor rapists boner!? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU!?
acetylcholine: you are having a conversation with the commentariat, not me, so you should respect their concerns.
posting pictures and videos of cats.
seems Jerry has decided for the moment to avoid the headache.
apparently, the first time I mentioned this, it was ignored, so I’ll say it again.
When you have people actually TELLING YOU what they are thinking and why, why on earth would someone choose instead to rely on an argument from a probability distribution?
If I’m going to study a population of fish for the first time, sure, I’d want to rely on what the literature has to say about them… until I actually begin to watch what it is they actually ARE doing, whereupon I’m going to think that far more relevant.
why are people even talking about “studies that show differences in behavior”, when you actually HAVE people TELLING YOU what they think?
seriously, just FUCKING LISTEN. women are indeed telling you what they think and why.
A discussion is a multi-party activity, and as such, like ALL social activities, requires CONSENT from all participating parties. You broached the topic and you were rejected. CONSENT was not given to continue with, or even begin, the discussion. If consent is not given, then the topic becomes off limits FOR DISCUSSION, in this PARTICULAR venue. It may be alright in another venue, at another time, but NOT HERE. Because CONSENT for the social activity of DISCUSSION was NOT GIVEN.
All further output from you after CONSENT WAS NOT GIVEN is NOT “discussion”, it was you attempting a lone status display, trying to compel others to submit to your will and acknowledge your primate dominance of the group hierarchy by acceding to your desires in preference to their own. It became the human equivalent of throwing a tantrum and flinging feces about, while pounding tree branches and beating your chest.
Actyl-
Not true. If we understand it, that won’t stop it. We already understand it. It’s a desire to show power over someone, to take, and to control. “Oh, you don’t want to have sex with me? Well tough shit, it’s happening anyway because I want it and I’m in charge and no one gets to deny me what I want.” Sex is but a medium of expression of the desire to control. It is NOT the purpose of rape. It is the method of rape.
Even if we didn’t understand it, we’re still capable of stopping it, or at least significantly decreasing it, by working to change the culture and tell people that such behaviour is absolutely unacceptable, and to inform people of just what rape is. It works. It’s been proven to work.
Knowing how they keep blood in their penises is not going to do a single fucking thing with regards to stopping rapes from occurring.
@116: Callous assholes don’t merit a thoughtful response. Stop with the bullshit or go away.
TRIGGER WARNING
acetylcholine @112:
So now you don’t respect me. That doesn’t bother me terribly, but I find it completely ridiculous that you stopped respecting me because I said something critical of you. In fact, I think it’s asinine. Let’s go back and look at what I’ve said, now that I’ve had half the day to calm down, because thanks in part to you, I was fucking livid earlier:
First of all, that last part should read “…triggered someone”. I was referring to Iyeska whom you triggered. I didn’t preview my comment, which is my fault, though as I mentioned I was royally pissed the fuck off. I said that you were insensitive bc you were discussing the boners of rapists in a thread about rape where at least one commenter has been raped. Your interest in discussing rapists’ boners is not productive. It leads to nothing. Why? Because rape is not about sex. It’s about power. Rape is the tool used to exert power. Moreover, now that I’m a bit more level headed, I can point out that rapists aren’t always men (though they often are). Also, male rapists don’t need to use their penis to rape someone. They can use their fingers to penetrate a vagina or anus. They can force someone to perform oral or anal sex, and they can perform anal or oral sex on someone else. They can use objects like steel rods to rape a victim as well. A penis, whether hard or soft is NOT needed to rape someone. Along with the fact that you don’t understand that rape is not a sexual act, you don’t seem to understand that rape can be performed by women, by men whether they are erect or not, and by anyone who chooses to use a foreign object of some sort. The fact that it boggled your mind how a rapist could become erect shows that you lack much understanding of rape.
My pointing out all of this (granted, this is a much more elaborate explanation than I offered earlier) is sufficient for you to not respect me?
Oh the fucks that I do not give…
Well this part is true. You did succeed in triggering a rape victim. I called you out for this. You did this by insensitively discussing rape, and not listening to people who understand the subject more than you do, and by insisting you were right, when you very much are NOT. If you’d educated yourself on the subject-and you need more than a wikipedia entry on Rape Culture that I’m not certain you fully understand to do so-you might comprehend better. Instead you waded into the deep end of the discussion when you belong in the shallow end.
Somehow, me calling you out here has caused you to not respect me as much.
Did I mention the fucks that I don’t give?
Perhaps you don’t respect me because I told you how your comments made me feel.
::The hills are alive with the sound of a queer shoop singing “IIIIIIIIIII Doooooooooont’ Giiiiiiiiiiiiive Aaaaaa Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck!”::
This last bit is really just a restatement of my earlier point that you triggered Iyeska through your insensitivity combined with your arrogance in discussing a subject you don’t have adequate knowledge of.
Perhaps you lost respect for me because I once again restated that you were an insensitive asshole.
I. Don’t. Give. A. Fuck.
If you’re going to be the kind of person who wades into discussions on rape, spewing the bullshit you do, shining a light on your own personal ignorance, refusing to listen to people who damn well know better than you, AND triggering a victim of rape, I gots to tell ya: I don’t want your respect.
Incidentally, at no point did I ever say that discussing the motivations behind rape was off limits in this discussion. What I actually said was:
Just like I’ve said to many an anti-feminist who cries like a newborn babe when criticized for calling a woman a *C*n*t*–you can think what you want. You can say what you want. I’m suggesting that you think about what you say and consider whether you OUGHT to say it. In a thread where rape is under discussion…a thread that is not dedicated to answering 101 level questions…a thread with at least one (and likely more) victims of rape…more care and consideration ought to go into the words you type out across the screen. I’m asking you to think before you type. I’m asking you to be more empathetic, not less. I’m asking you to consider the impact your words could have on others and weigh the choices you make against that impact.
Because of all that, you’ve lost respect for me?
You must not have had much to begin with.
Definitely more than one rape survivor on the thread – I’m in that most unpleasant census box too, and though I won’t name them, I’ve seen at least two other people posting in this thread who’ve mentioned their own histories at times.
So, definitely more than one. At least four that I know about. Thanks for taking that on, Tony, I was in no shape to say shit, after that horrifically insensitive jackassery.
CaitieCat @129:
That reminds me, I forgot to mention in my dressing down of acetylcholine–the fact that discussions of rape are often triggering for many people. It behooves people to be doubly cautious when discussing rape for this reason. If you don’t understand why trigger warnings are important, or what it even means to be triggered, I don’t think you ought to be discussing anything more than Rape Culture 101, and that’s not the topic of this thread.
For acetylcholine, who really ought to have stopped at #93.
(warnings for my entire comment taking the ‘boner’ discussion head on)
—
The answer’s right in front of you, in that basic 101-level reading, but you’re just not *seeing* it because you’re looking so, so hard for something “sexy” about rape. There is nothing “sexy” about rape. To the extent you think there is, that’s how deeply the mythology has gotten into your head.
From your #99:
Why is anything sexy about this?
Why is anything sexy about this? (No, it’s not BDSM. When you ask for a consensual, safeguarded play scenario with rapists, they don’t want it.)
Why is anything sexy about this? People *should* be inhibited by whether their partners want the sex or not. (In fact, that basically was your original question.)
In this context, that means believing men should be controlling, competitive, powerful, making all the decisions, that sort of thing. Why is anything sexy about that *except* within the absolute bounds of consent?
Yeah *that* really sounds like a great sex partner. Not.
If that’s not clear enough about rape *not* being motivated by a desire for sexytimes, I refer you to my standby article on male-on-male rape in the US military. (Source)
Does this incident sound like wanting sex was a motivation?
They were showing him who was in charge.
And finally, because it’s both the answer to your original question, and what Dawkins, Harris, Randi and all the others are defending with their callous dismissals of alcohol-wielding acquaintance rape by predators as something that just naturally happens when women are just confused and really wanted it.
Fugitivus – You know what consent looks like
When I said people need to learn to ignore Dawkins etc. I didn’t mean just ignore when they said something sexist. I meant ignore them completely.
Dawkins is a troll. He used to troll the British establishment and the CoE and now he is trolling us. And his current schtick is essentially being the apologist for the Jimmy Saville types of the Atheist movement. And he keeps getting invited back to speak for much the same reason Jimmy Saville used to keep getting gigs at the BBC.
Of course it is easy for me to say this because I never really held Dawkins in high regard. The first time I took notice of what he was saying was when he was attacking Stephen Jay Gould. And it was really obvious in that case that Dawkins was a jerk and a bit of a charlatan and Gould had his number.
Phillip Hallam-Baker @ 132:
I don’t give a shit about Dawkins, I was an atheist long before he came onto the scene. What you’re proposing is utter bullshit, though. Ignoring trolls doesn’t work. Don’t Feed The Trolls Is Bad Science.
Also, has it occurred to you that those of us who get to deal with sexism every day of our lives are not in a position to just ignore the shit Dawkins is spreading about? Do you not understand that he is actively shoring up misogyny, anti-feminism, and victim blaming? It must be nice for you to be able to ignore all that, but the rest of us? We can’t afford to do that.
Stupidity not refuted is stupidity considered stupidity accept. When your opponent considers silence acceptance, you won’t ever win, nor will you show third parties the error of the trolls way. Which is why it doesn’t work. And it is a force keeping patriarchy in place. No criticism, the status quo is fine. Show evidence otherwise.
Perhaps the simplest way to phrase things is: The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.
Acetylcholine, I am not a survivor and I have never even come close to having to personally deal with that kind of shit. And even I was disgusted with your initial comments and your continued belligerence and indignation did not help.
Phillip Hallam-Baker, ignoring Dawkins isn’t going to make him go away. And Dawkins holds a lot of influence. He is the face of atheism, he is leader to a large and vocal fanbase (and that fanbase also includes other leaders of atheism!), and he is one of the major players recruiting and still influencing the ideas and attitudes of new atheists. He needs to be actively opposed. Silence is tacit approval. People will hear silence and assume there is no issue and people will continue to flock to Dawkins while we bite our tongues, and Dawkins will continue to poison the well to ensure his fledgling atheists will hate all Social Justice Warriors, and will ensure that his fans are remain actively opposed to feminism. Apathy solves nothing.
Phllip Hallam-Baker @132:
Dawkins is far worse than a troll. He’s an arrogant, sexist twit with a great deal of power and influence in the atheist community. When he speaks, many people listen. What he says, many people believe. He gives credence to the views of misogynists and anti-feminists everywhere, because he is one of them. That’s why so many of them are flocking to him. He validates them. He’s not trolling for the lulz. He’s saying what he honestly believes, and what he believes in this case-on the subject of rape and feminism-is vile.
I contend that ignoring problems is what has created this rift in the first place. Ignoring the reports of sexual assault and ignoring the women who report the abuse rather than risk impugning their rapey buddy is a huge problem that needs to be addressed. Telling people they should just ignore RD is simply being dismissive and willfully blind at this point. No thanks, I will not ignore that the leading voices in the atheist sphere are shitstains on humanity. 10 reasons you should stop being so irrationally upset about your hair being repeatedly set on fire
Tony @ 137:
Dawkins is a privileged, classist, sexist with heavy undertones of white man’s burden. The damage he is doing is considerable.
Tony, I think Dawkins does actually believe what he is saying, but he is ALSO trolling for the lulz. Honestly, that is true for most trolls nowadays. It’s easier that way. Presenting your “honest” opinions in the most persistent, aggravating, and offensive manner possible is just so much easier than making up false offensive opinions you don’t hold and trying to act as if you do. You get the same reaction either way and the former requires far less intensive thought and requires no acting skill. Why bother with aspiring to be an internet Stephen Colbert when it is far easier to be an internet Rush Limbaugh?
Tethys is dead on. Ignoring the problem about rape culture and harassment and such is exactly why Shermer got away with being a fucking serial rapist for as long as he did. Ignoring the problem is what has allowed Sam Harris and Dawkins to pretend that they aren’t the condescending misogynists that they have only relatively recently revealed themselves to be. Ignoring the problem resulted in Hitchens getting little to no pushback for his sexism and racism while he was alive, since it was just How He Was, and he was on Team Atheist so we could just let it slide, of course! Ignoring the problem has given us a swarm of male atheists made in the image of our leaders: privileged little shits actively opposed to campaigns for positive social change that isn’t exclusively about atheism. Ignoring the problem lets it fester. Lets it grow. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
“Anyone want to explain what the fuck is up with idiots with supposed scientific training cherry-picking evidence about how human minds, and sex differences between human minds, work?”
This is why this shit is not just horrible but dangerous. These guys run around screaming about how “scientific” they are, how “skeptical”….and yet on display over and over again – WHEN their preconceptions are brought to light – they defend their ignorance and bias – with cherry picking and dumbing down of the literature on gender or race or whatever they are called out on.
It’s NOT SCIENCE.
It’s EXACTLY what the creationists do.
There are tens of hundreds of reasons women don’t jet set to conferences and buy lots of books… lacking money chief among them. Being caretakers for kids and the elderly – when no one else will do it… because men are jet setting to conferences…
Is there day care at your favorite conference?
ugh.
Their “leadership” is purely accidental and needs to be rescinded.
People like Dawkins make the world more dangerous for women. Full stop.
We cannot ignore him – as he has hundreds of thousands of fan boys that spread across the net and do his dirty work for him…day in day out.
Cityzenjane:
Truth. Dawkins is also making the world more dangerous for men and children,* it’s full service bad.
*Men and children get raped too, and no one needs Dawkins’s bullshit about rape, nor do any children need his crap about hell teaching being worse than molestation.
It’s good to see you again, Cityzenjane!
Yes, very much so Iyéska – I am sorry for that, deeply.
And nice to see you too!
Dear Mr. Jillette,
I have some terrible news about you that I think you should know. I realize this will be upsetting and I strongly recommend that you be sitting down when you read this. Mr. Jillette, this grieves me more than I can possibly say but I have to tell you: Contrary to your belief, your shit does actually stink.
-Richard Dawkins
Huh. Might want to listen to that lump in your throat about now, Prof.
Replying to cervantes in the Alison Smith thread here. I’m replying because this thread’s much less active now.
cervantes #19:
(emphasis mine)
That’s an argument against there being some sort of wiring-based rape default. Many more people buy into various myths about rape (including many survivors of it) than there are predatory rapists. Rape is conflated with the very concepts of sex and masculinity and some people learn to rape because of it. And because of the protection of those rape myths, they get to practice it, find friends and supporters of it, and get better and better at it, too.
Along with the 101-level references above, see Zvan: “No One Doubts or Denies”, The Recent Literature on Rape Myth Acceptance
acetylcholine, #109,
Think about what you’re saying here. IS there such a thing as “sexual power?” What the hell could that possibly be?
And I hope this will help drive the point home as to why what you’re doing is incredibly insensitive: Would you sit in a room with parents whose children were kidnapped and academically try to open a discussion about the motivations behind child kidnapping?
I personally have nothing against your curiosity on the topic. I disagree vehemently with your premise on the notion of sexual power, but if you want to research motivations for rape, I recommend not to do it here.
This “sexual power” concept has really bothered me so I want to say more. How can sex be about power? Is wanting to hang out with a friend about power? Is listening to music about power? Is walking in a beautiful park about power? Those are things I would liken sex to if I had to come up with comparisons. Hell, at its “basest”, I would say sex is like the desire to eat when hungry (or even bored). But at no point is it about power or authority.
That’s EXACTLY the reason for rape culture: This extremely callous and disgusting widespread belief that sexuality has to do with authority, domination, or power.
Can someone please explain to me how sexism or misogyny can in anyway be inferred from Sam Harris’s “I’m not the Sexist Pig You’re Looking For?”
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/im-not-the-sexist-pig-youre-looking-for
Nothing he says in that article is the least bit sexist or misogynistic. Some of what he says might be considered dismissive which I think even Harris cops to but being dismissive of the point a woman is making isn’t the same as being dismissive of the point the woman is making because she is a woman.
The Penn Jillette comment is probably sexist (if it can be established that he wouldn’t normally use that epithet towards a man also). Although not being a woman I can imagine that being called a khunt by a man can seem sexist although it isn’t necessarily a sexist comment if the commenter uses that word for its phonetic capabilities rather than in reference to the slang term for a woman’s genitalia (obviously if it is likely it will be inferred to be a reference to the slang definition it should be used with caution).
Still, I have no idea how the Harris piece shows him to be sexist. I think you really have to want him to be a sexist to find the sexism in his piece.
ideator @ 151
Let me Google that for you.
Gee, ideator, the blog under that thread would be sanitized for obvious reasons. That you aren’t skeptical about that says something about you. But looking elsewhere in SH’s talks and writings, it is obvious SH doesn’t think women are the equal of men.
@ ideator
You, like so many before you, are trying to define “sexist” as actively, consciously holding the belief that women are inferior. That’s not what it means. It means you’re succumbing to stereotypes and unconscious biases in a way that has a cumulative effect of disadvantaging women. What Sam Harris did in his original comment was assume innate biological differences between genders despite not only having no evidence for that claim but also in the face of vast evidence that we socialize girls and women to dislike confrontation.
He did not clarify anything in his subsequent blog post. He gave lip service to the effects of culture and socialization but then promptly spoke of sexism as though it’s completely distinct from psychology and the fact that women are expected to sacrifice their careers in order to have families.
This is not how language works. The words you say don’t mean what you want them to mean, they mean what your audience understands them to mean. You can very earnestly be thinking of unicorns and rainbows or how much you enjoy its phonetic capabilities as you utter the c-word; you can’t separate it from its baggage in the wider culture. The fact that you feel this is a compelling argument is ample evidence that you are not qualified to judge if something is sexist or not.
@Nerd of Redhead
1. I’m not sure what you mean by “the blog under that thread would be sanitised (Australian spelling) for obvious reasons.” I’m assuming you are referring to the blog-post that Harris posted in response to the hatchet job Michelle Boorstein, the Washington Post reporter, did on him. I’m also assuming that by sanitised you are implying that Harris, in his response, has manufactured a “nice” version of his exchange both with Boorstein and the woman he spoke to after the event. And by “nice” I’m assuming that you think that Harris has excised words such as “bitch” and “cunt” etcetera, or perhaps just a patronising tone, he might have used but has washed out of the post so as to paint a better picture of himself. For this you can cite no evidence. Harris has explained, to the best of his recollection, what actually took place. Boorstein, as far as I am aware, hasn’t refuted his version of events.
2. Don’t feel it necessary to be rude : your words “that you aren’t skeptical says something about you.” My post wasn’t.
3. I would like to see some evidence that Harris, in his writing and his talks, obviously doesn’t think that women are the equal of men. I’ve yet to see or hear him say, in print or in person, Harris make sexist or misogynist statements.
—
@Seven of Mine
1. Sexism: prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
That’s the definition of sexism in Google. It seems a pretty reasonable definition of what most people would understand it to mean. I don’t see how Harris comes close to exhibiting those tendencies in both his explanation of what happened at the Boorstein event. She made factual assertions, he called her on those assertions, and it seems Boorstein didn’t like that, which created tension in the interview. I’ve yet to read where Sam Harris has said anything that would suggest that he holds views about women that are prejudicial, stereotypical, or discriminatory against women, either in his blog post or his writing in general, much less trying to disadvantage women. You are imputing behaviours to Harris that aren’t evident.
2. Harris talks about the possible effects that testosterone has on men that might make his seeming combative form of atheism more popular with men as opposed to women. He doesn’t suggest that women can’t think critically or reasonably nor that they can’t be atheists only that his acerbic style of interlocution perhaps appeals to men more than women possibly because of the different biological hormones that men and women have on their psychological structures “on aggregate” which he then goes onto give examples of what he means. There are definitely biological differences between men and women though. Generally speaking because of the different hormones that men and women have, men are generally physically stronger and taller than women, and it possibly has an effect on psychology too particularly in how they naturally interact.
He doesn’t say that women should have to sacrifice their careers to raise a family only (and this is how I took it) that in general, women possibly aren’t as well represented in the higher echelons of public and private institutions because for the most part they do end up being the ones, at least in America (and here in Australia too), taking significant time off to have children and nurture them. This is what he said (more in the form of questions):
“I am well aware that sexism and misogyny are problems in our society. However, they are not the only factors that explain differences in social status between men and women. For instance, only 5 percent of Fortune 500 companies are run by women. How much of this is the result of sexism? How much is due to the disproportionate (and heroic) sacrifices women make in their 20’s or 30’s to have families? How much is explained by normally distributed psychological differences between the sexes? I have no idea, but I am confident that each of these factors plays a role. Anyone who thinks disparities of this kind must be entirely a product of sexism hasn’t thought about these issues very deeply.”
I don’t think he could be clearer. And non-sexist. He then goes onto talk about how women are disproportionately the subject of violence from men and why this is part of the reason he feels that women should be able to carry hand-guns to balance the ledger with their physically stronger antagonists (I’m pretty anti-guns so I don’t necessarily agree with him on this but it’s certainly true that if a woman is in a violent relationship or being attacked on the street then a gun would even things up, so perhaps he is right).
3. It’s true that words can have different meanings and associations for different individuals and groups and so we should be cautious when using words that might be easily misinterpreted but in Jillette’s case we don’t know if when he thinks someone has said or written something he thinks is stupid he ordinarily calls them a “stupid cunt” regardless of whether the person saying the stupid thing is male or female. He possible should have chosen his words more carefully. Perhaps he did want to reduce the female writer down to the sum-total of her genitalia. We can’t know for certain. Assuming that what he said was sexist though is to automatically compel unnecessary outrage.
I might be being semantic but there is a fair amount of dissociation between words and their meanings at least when it comes to profanity. I have a dick but if someone tells me to “stop being a dick” I assume they are telling me to stop being an idiot or a jerk and not that I should cut off my dick. Likewise if someone tells me to “fuck off” I assume that they aren’t telling me to sex off somewhere. If someone says to me, “you’re such a cunt,” I assume they don’t think I am literally a vagina, more that I am being an extreme asshole. The word “cunt” though, I freely admit, is problematic seeing as that there are definitely men who would say it to a woman for the very purpose of reducing her down to the sum-total of her genitalia in an effort to demean her or intimidate her. But mostly I think people use that word because it is a strong profanity, not to toss the image of a vagina out into the ether.
And that’s about all I got.
@Nerd of Redhead
@Seven of Mine
I wrote a response to both of you in the one post. In responding to Seven of Mine’s argument regarding language I used profanity. Instead of saying the D-word or the C-word or the D-word (the male alternative to the C-word – yes, I do realise that the D-word is nowhere near as strong-sounding) I used the actual words in inverted commas believing as I do that to seriously discuss these kind of profanities without actually using them is to infantilise language. That is to say, I used the actual words in a serious discussion about them.
Why am I telling you this? Well, because I responded to both of you in the one post I suspect that the post wasn’t published (or maybe it was red-flagged because of the use of profanity and might still be published after a moderator has checked it) because of this. My response was quite lengthy though so I really can’t be bothered trying to re-iterate all the points I was no doubt incoherently trying to make but the main thrust was this: I can’t say for certain whether Harris isn’t a sexist or that he has never said a sexist thing in his life (I’m sure at some stage he must’ve, most of us blokes have no doubt said something casually sexist at one stage or another over the course of our lives) but from all the things I’ve read and heard from Harris (which is quite a lot) I have never detected either a conscious or sub-conscious or sublimated sexism in what he was talking about.
When he talks about biological differences between men and women – and there definitely are biological differences between the sexes – I’ve never detected that he was subjectively saying that one characteristic is better than another only that there are differences and these differences may determine behaviours as much as cultural influences do.
Harris is one of the most forceful public opponents of the subjugation of women by religious doctrine. One of his most critical attacks on Islam, as practiced by a large portion of Muslims across the globe, is its subjection of women to different standards as determined by the interpretation of religious doctrine in and of itself. To think that he actively supports the equality of women only up to a certain point, that certain point being where his reason somehow kicks into allow for a biological determinism to favour men over women, I think is, in my opinion, a complete misreading of what Harris proposes in general.
And from all that you can only imagine how much longer my other post was ha ha.
Um, that should read – F-word, C-word, D-word – not, D-word, C-word, D-word.
Do they really determine behaviour that much?
I’m female, which means I’ve got those strange, non-critical “estrogen vibes”… but I’m perfectly willing to critical the shit out of Sam Harris’ stupid, and sexist, remarks.
Oh, women don’t like to be critical (and thus, do critical thinking) because of hormones, not because we’re taught from a young age to not argue with authority, to defer to men, to be non-confrontational, and if we dare to disagree with men we are often insulted using very gender-specific slurs, and even run the risk of physical violence. I mean, the latter part of that sentence couldn’t possibly have anything to do with it. Nope, it’s aaaaall biology, because biology makes women into strange, unknowable alien beings that don’t do critical thinky.
And of course, being told stuff like “you don’t like it because estrogen” totally wouldn’t put off a lot of women and make then want to have no part of movement atheism or read the books of those authors. Nosireebob. Nothing about that is at all a problem, because estrogen vibes.
ideator, my guess is that you don’t see sexism in anything he said because you’re a bloke, in which case you’ve never been on the receiving end of sexism, never will be, and don’t actually have a clue what you’re talking about.
Harris is no more interested in combating misogyny in his own culture than Dawkins is. It’s all OOOH LOOK AT THE EVIL MUSLIMS shit with these guys, among others, when it’s not just a bludgeon for feminists.
Protip: don’t tell women what is and isn’t prejudice against us, that affects us all, and that we live with lifelong.
@Rowan vet-tech
I took Harris’s point to mean not that women can’t think critically or think critically but they might be less enthusiastic of his confrontational acerbic style i.e. his style of argument might put women off.
I agree the “estrogen vibes” comment was strange and from the video posted near the top of the discussion it sounds flat and antagonistic but that video is from a phone from one angle with poor sound quality. I’m prepared to accept Harris’s explanation of it. You are free to take it as Harris being unconscionably sexist. If he was being self-deprecating or ironic it surely wasn’t taken us such by a lot of people but that doesn’t prove Harris had malignant intention. If you think he’s sexist then things like that will definitely confirm your opinion. Again, that is your right but I think it was mistaken.
And the link I posted of Harris’s explanation of the whole event clearly elucidates that he thinks there are cultural influences at play, he doesn’t deny those things, when speaking about the subordination that women have experienced throughout history but then as an example he talks about the massive under-representation women have at the pointy end of public and private institutions and asks some rhetorical questions about why that might be: sexism? culture? women taking time off to rear children? He answers by saying that he thinks that it is likely a combination of all those things.
This extract from Harris’s blog post is pertinent I think:
If you want to ascribe an underlying sexism to what Harris advocates for then I’m sure there is little I can do to persuade you otherwise but even if I were to agree that Harris saying something like “estrogen vibes” is sexist, which when only reading it or seeing it out of context it certainly could be taken that way, it is surely a long-bow being drawn to suggest that Harris is a sexist or misogynist or a proponent of sexism or misogyny in the totality of his being.
I would hate to think that all the stupid things I have said and done in my 37 years on this planet are a true indicator of my underlying character. It’s easy to apply bad motives to the whole of a person’s nature on the back of the dumb/stupid/inconsiderate things they might have said or done. This is a superficial way of trying to understand other people though in my opinion. An opinion you are free to ignore or disagree with no doubt.
Gads, the temerity of some people is astounding. I should not be surprised at the pattern of an endless line of clueless dudes who enter threads and ignore the previous threads and hundreds of comments in favor of “splaining to the little ladies how they are clearly mistaken because dudely dude doesn’t think thing X constitute sexism. Life on the female setting is a sexist sundae with sexist whipped cream and a sexist cherry on top but how could we possibly think we recognize sexism? /eyeroll
@ ideator
<blockquote it is surely a long-bow being drawn to suggest that Harris is a sexist or misogynist or a proponent of sexism or misogyny in the totality of his being.
I explained to you in the first paragraph of my response to your first comment that, when we say sexism, we’re not generally talking about someone actively harboring conscious beliefs about the inferiority of women. We mean that they’re succumbing to unconscious biases which have the cumulative effect of disadvantaging women. I recommend you ask for a refund on all that straw.
Do us a favor. Next time you post, I want an actual scientific explanation of “estrogen vibe”. While you’re at it, do the same for “critical posture.” When you’re done with that, provide us with a scientific explanation of how the “estrogen vibe” impacts one’s willingness to take a “critical posture.” If you can do that while adhering strictly to established scientific knowledge and without riffing on demonstrably false stereotypes, I’ll consider your claim that it’s possible for “estrogen vibe” to not be sexist.
@2kittehs
Good grief! Where have I told women what to think or feel? I’m merely stating that it isn’t beyond the realm of all possibility that it is a mistake to believe that Sam Harris isn’t a sexist or misogynist.
And yes, I am a man. Well man-ish. Maybe half-man, half-boy. At least the disturbing lack of facial hair would suggest this. But just because I am a man who disagrees with what some posters, who happen to be women (I think some of those I’ve been arguing with have identified themselves to be women), isn’t the same as telling women what to think. I honestly don’t think Sam Harris is a sexist. I think it’s a mistake to label him as such. I’m not going to agree with something that I honestly disagree with.
You are free to think Harris is a purveyor of sexism but I think this assumption is wrong. I’m not telling women who disagree with this to believe it because I say it because I’m a man and women should just listen to me because of the fact that I am a man (well, man-ish, as I said). I’m trying to offer an explanation as to why it is wrong to think that Sam Harris is a sexist. You are free to dismiss what I say as you see fit but I’m not telling anyone they have to do anything or think anything.
As I have said repeatedly, you are all very welcome to disagree with what I’ve written but I can see that no minds will be changed by our exchange (mine included) so rather than run around in cerebral circles tiring our brains out endlessly for little intellectual gain I’m going to leave it there. I wish you all well. So long.
Why thank you for explaining that to me, as I, a woman, cannot possibly see sexism that a man might be blind to because no man is ever unaware when he says or does something sexist because he’s a man and has testosterone and I, a woman, am forced to live with the horror that is estrogen that makes it so that treating me like I’m a child incapable of understanding things to be totally okay.
Sod that for a lark.
I also love your Freudian slip in the second sentence, making it echo what we’re saying.
Also, why the ever loving fuck do you have a problem understanding the idea of UNCONSCIOUS sexism. You know, sexism that you ARE NOT CONSCIOUSLY AWARE OF.
Please stick your flounce. Also, please listen when many women tell you that a statement is sexist towards women. We’re not making it up for fun. That you yourself agree that ‘estrogen vibes’ was odd should be a giant red flag that maybe, just maybe, what your hero said was a bad thing. You know. Maybe.
Ideator@154
Me too. I’m prepared to accept Harris’s explanation … as yet another indication he doesn’t know what he’s talking about in this area. I’m also prepared to accept that there’s no malice involved. Why? Because to be malicious he would have had to think about it for a few seconds.
His statements indicate one thing and one only. That he’s never thought about these matters at all. Unless you count repeating and mindlessly regurgitating general cultural presumptions about women that a self-proclaimed critical, skeptical thinker should be ashamed of.
It wasn’t really a flounce. I just became aware that my mind isn’t likely to be changed, nor are the minds of those I have been arguing with. Therefore it makes good sense that we not waste each other’s time in an argument that is likely to exasperate everyone further and end up in the grand scheme of each of our lives to be one of the least significant or memorable experiences we’ve ever had. I realise even that might sound patriarchal through being an assumption but it is more a complement to each of your reasoning and critical thinking capabilities that I have inferred from those capabilities that you have had far more enjoyable experiences preceding this exchange as well as far more enjoyable experiences awaiting you in the future.
Surely I wasn’t being unreasonable in thinking this.
I note that you explicitly have avoided the idea that maybe women are more likely to be able to see sexism in action than men.
Do you also think that whites never say something they don’t realise is racist when they say it? Are people of color just being uncharitable when they point out something as being a racist statement? Do you honestly think they wouldn’t be more aware of racism and its effects than a white person like myself could ever hope to be?
ideator @161:
This would be you not understanding sexism. Here’s some Libby Anne:
Note that Harris doesn’t provide evidence for his opinions of women. He just asserts “because biology” as if it’s self apparent.
I’m curious to know how Harris would explain the lack of representation of People of Color at atheist conventions. Is it more of a ‘white thing’ to him? Or would he not go there, realizing, rightly so, that such a view would be an unproven, racist assertion? So why does he assert biological reasons for the lack of representation of women-especially without evidence to back up his assertions? Isn’t he supposed to a rational, logicky thinky guy?
Keep digging that hole, ideator. You’ve ignored everything women – you know, the ones who are on the receiving end of misogyny and sexism – say, in order to tell us in your oh-so-considered, dudely manbrainz way that hey, we just might be wrong, we just might have no idea what we’re talking about. You seriously think you’re NOT telling us how to react, what to think and feel about this latest shit from Harris, when we cop this sort of BS all. the. fucking. time?
Piss off, and take your ridiculous notions and hairless face (which btw has fuck-all to do with anything) with you.
@ ideator
You’re assumption that we’re assuming shit is noted. We’re not assuming anything. Here’s what’s going on:
1) Harris claims X causes Y which “just happens” to fit perfectly with prevalent stereotypes and cultural biases.
2) We say there is no data to indicate X causes Y but plenty of data which demonstrates that stereotypes and cultural biases heavily influence Y.
3) Therefor there is no reason for Harris to claim X causes Y unless he’s drawing on stereotypes and cultural biases.
4) Assuming things about groups of people based on stereotypes and cultural biases is bigotry by definition.
5) Therefor Harris is bigoted.
Ugh “You’re assumption”. *cringe*
Your assumption*
You must be blind and deaf. There are no real proven differences that are significant, and you provide no evidence for them. No evidence, your ideas are dismissed for that which is evidenced. That there are bigger differences within a sex than between the sexes in the way the mind operates at a high level.
Harris presupposes differences. That is sexist.
And what isn’t sexist about that? And what is the evidence, not the presuppositions, to back up that claim? That is Harris’ and your problem. All talk, no links.
Typical flouncing of an evidenceless fool who won’t listen. You, like Harris, need to shut the fuck up and listen to women, not mansplain to women.
Minds here are changed with evidence, not your unsupported words. Which is all you have. You need to shut the fuck up and listen. Which you are incapable of doing. Your problem, not ours.
Just so you don’t think I’m ignoring all of you. I understand your points of view. Most of them are well-reasoned. I will say I’m not ignoring what you have to say, nor that women aren’t properly more sensitive or alert to instances of sexism, nor that Annaka Harris is so spellbound by her husband’s allure that she wouldn’t see it necessary to speak up and tell her husband that she was offended by his casual sexism, nor that there are no sexist atheists, nor that women and ethnic minorities aren’t under-represented at atheist conventions, nor that by my defending Harris being called a sexist that somehow that must imply that I am also sexist by virtue of disagreeing that he must be so because “estrogen vibe” even if sexist should not be the consideration of his totality, nor that it is without possibility that I might be mistaken about Harris and even myself, nor that by not addressing every single point each one of you has raised might make me seem dismissive, nor that “estrogen vibe” might cause offence, nor even that Harris might not have argued his case as best he could have.
I have conceded that his “estrogen vibe” comment could be taken to be a sexist dig. The women of this forum obviously think so, I’m not arguing those who did think it was sexist didn’t think it was. I’d even concede that Harris might have mounted a more eloquent defence, especially as for those of you on here he seems to have mounted no defence at all. I look at the totality of what a person says and does and I absolutely disagree that Sam Harris is a sexist in the fullest sense of that term. You all think otherwise. I don’t deny you’re right to feel or think that way. If you honestly believe that he is a sexist then I respect and acknowledge that this is what you think and/or feel. I think differently and I think that you are wrong. I don’t know differently but I do know that you don’t either.
@Nerd of Redhead
Manners are free.
It is. QED, Harris is a sexist.
What part of this is a rude blog don’t you understand? And what part of being overly polite makes you evidenceless ramblings of nothingness more intelligent?
Ideator, either provide links to evidence to back up your claims, or time to fade into the bandwidth. You have nothing to offer to anybody without evidence. Your wordy worthless views are laughed at.
@ ideator
Define “fullest sense of that term” and then quote someone saying something that matches with it. If you can’t do that, then shut the fuck up. Nobody is interested in this hyperverbose form of “just sayin”” bullshit you’re indulging in right now.
So is actually supporting your claims with something other than your word.
Yet another indication that you, like Sam Harris, have no idea what sexism is. Sam Harris has shown clearly that he is not willing to be educated on the matter; are you? To use “cunt” as a term of abuse, whoever it is used to, is not only sexist but misogynistic: the implication is that women’s genitals are dirty and despicable, and that it is particularly insulting to compare a man to them* – as you note, calling a man a “cunt” is much more insulting than calling him a “dick”.
* Note that “dick” or “prick” are hardly ever aimed at women – can you spend a few minutes thinking about why that might be, ideator?
Yeah, nah, as much as y’all are very charming people and lovely to be around I think I’d rather go swim in a tub of my own vomit. Oh, looky there. A tub. Full of…. my own vomit. Laters.
P.S. Google hormones and psychology maybe.
Another indication that you, like Sam Harris, have no idea what sexism is. Sam Harris has shown clearly that he is not willing to be educated on the matter; are you? To use “cunt” as a term of abuse, whoever it is used to, is not only sexist but misogynistic: the implication is that women’s genitals are dirty and despicable, and that it is particularly insulting to compare a man to them* – as you note, calling a man a “cunt” is much more insulting than calling him a “dick”.
Ah, I’ve just seen Mr. Manners’ #179. What a charmer.
* Note that “dick” or “prick” are hardly ever aimed at women – can you spend a few minutes thinking about why that might be, ideator?
ideator:
The women in this thread aren’t the only ones who think Harris is a sexist shithead. See my gravatar? Guy here. Sam Harris is a sexist shithead. Nice to see you ignored my comment @168 which quoted Libby Anne and explained quite well how and why Harris is a sexist fuckwit.
I’ve no idea what the fuck that’s supposed to mean. We all live in societies where sexism is the norm. People have varying levels of sexist beliefs, and a great many, like Sam Harris, refuse to confront those beliefs. Hell, Harris acts as if he has none (which is ironic given the sexism he’s put on display). So nice of you to excuse his sexism because the totality of his being is not dedicated to being a sexist fuckface. As if anyone has said that.
You continue to deny that Harris is sexist, despite the fact that sexism is defined in part as:
Harris has demonstrated attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. He has sexist beliefs.
Fuck, your must live in the river of denial. You probably don’t think he’s an anti-Muslim bigot either.
Oh gee, another whiny little fuck that can’t handle coarse language.
Can we burn the Tower of Civility to the ground? At least until such time as these fools can use it wisely?
Yet another indication that you, like Sam Harris, have no idea what sexism is. Sam Harris has shown clearly that he is not willing to be educated on the matter; are you? To use “c***” as a term of abuse, whoever it is used to, is not only sexist but misogynistic: the implication is that women’s genitals are dirty and despicable, and that it is particularly insulting to compare a man to them* – as you note, calling a man a “c***” is much more insulting than calling him a “d***”.
* Note that “d***” or “p****” are hardly ever aimed at women – can you spend a few minutes thinking about why that might be, ideator?
I’m amused by Mr. Manners’ #179 – what a charmer, eh? And what an ignorant numpty, with regard to the fact that psychologists are no more free of sexist assumptions than anyone else, and no more able to achieve the impossibile feat of determining what gender differences in psychology, if any, would exist in a non-sexist society.
Male chauvinist pig. Now, look in the mirror. That is how evidence is presented, not look it up for yourself, which is intellectually dishonest and downright lazy.
@ ideator
Are you laboring under the delusion that you’ve insulted anyone other than yourself here?
Right after you Google a) stress and hormones and b) neuroplasticity.
Well, ideator, I’ll contribute some vomit, since your mealy-mouthed defence of sexists and misogynists is nauseating. I’ll even toss a bucket of cold cat piss your way if you want a shower. How ’bout just fucking off now, eh? Nobody here’s interested in being charming to assclowns.
Oh look, ideator really did continue to ignore things that were said and apparently really can’t understand the idea of subconscious sexism. Because in ideator’s world, one must actively consciously think of women as inferior to ever do anything even remotely sexist because reasons and ‘I like Sam Harris’ and “I don’t want to contemplate the idea that I’ve ever done anything sexist because then I’d feel like a bad person”.
Uh, not that Dawkins was ever nice about it, but he was fully right when Gould wondered why no new phyla have evolved since the Cambrian Explosion and Dawkins pointed out that’s as silly as looking at an old oak and wondering why it hasn’t grown any really thick limbs in the last 100 years – ranks like “phylum” don’t exist in nature, as Gould’s argument assumed.
The problem now isn’t that Dawkins is a jerk about what he says. The problem is what he says.
And, for the record, I’m not aware of a single case where ignoring trolls or bullies made them stop. In my ample experience, for one, if you don’t hand them your attention, they’ll come and wrest it out of your hands.
BZZZT! Misunderstanding.
Sexism is not a personality type, and it’s not something you’re born with. It’s a collection of ideas one has picked up at some point – noticing it or not – and happens not to have consciously examined and refuted so far. It’s no different from believing turtles can get out of their shells or birds’ knees bend backwards or that bulls get upset by red stuff or fish don’t feel pain (because, hey, they don’t scream). It’s not some kind of contradiction to be a nice and/or smart person and to be sexist.
…as mildlymagnificent already said in comment 165.
As is, so often, the case, people seem unable to recognize sexism or misogyny unless it’s a dude in a fedora shouting “ooh I hates those wimminz” like Yosemite Sam. Similarly, unless a white person is using the n-word or wearing a hood, it’s not racism. Only the extreme examples are actual examples, everything else can be excused or ignored.
Apologies for the repetitions – my #180 and #182 failed to appear, and when I realised why they had not appeared (got held in moderation because of the inclusion of a specific word), I assumed they wouldn’t turn up, and reposted.
To those asking about Penn Jillette and the n-word, here’s your answer:
https://storify.com/anneymarie/penn-jillette-and-the-c-word