The Minnesota Republic is another of those fringey conservative student newspapers that get surprisingly well funded by the Republicans, and aren’t at all representative of the campus as a whole. This one is on the Twin Cities campus of the University of Minnesota, and they get enough money that they’re bringing in a couple of well-known speakers to discuss an issue of concern.
That issue is feminism.
And to discuss it, they’re flying in two people. Guess who? Hint: they’re not well-informed experts. They have more of a reputation as anti-feminist ideologues. Try to come up with the two worst names you can imagine.
Yep. It’s Milo Yiannopoulos and Christina Hoff Sommers! If you’re in the Twin Cities next Wednesday, you could pop in and listen to two loons tell each other lies.
The Minnesota Republic is pleased to host Milo Yiannopolous and Christina Hoff Sommers as they interview each other about the awful topic of contemporary Feminism.
Having failed to find a single member of the University of Minnesota’s Gender, Women & Sexuality Studies Department to debate Milo on the (supposed) virtues of modern, third wave, “quantum superstate” feminism, we are delighted to announce that Christina Hoff Sommers will be joining Milo on stage for this event!
This event will be held in Cowles Auditorium in the Humphrey School of Public Affairs. REMINDER: This event is free, unticketed, and will be seated at a first come, first served basis.
This event will be free and open to all members of the public.
Well, phenomenal. I look forward to future disinformation events sponsored by the Minnesota Republic. Perhaps they could bring in Kent Hovind and Ken Ham to discuss the awful topic of contemporary evolutionary biology? Or perhaps Christopher Monckton and Tony Watts to discuss the awful topic of contemporary climate science. A double bill of Bill Donohue and Bill O’Reilly to discuss the awful topic of contemporary atheism would also be enthralling.
But Wednesday the 17th? I think I’ve got an appointment then. Oh, yeah, I’ll be grading exams from my first-year students. Suddenly, that looks far more appealing than the alternative.
I actually guessed the names, unfortunately. Does this mean that I am in tune with modern anti-feminists?
Aaauuuuugggggh. Maybe I’ll just go slam my head into some concrete.
That would actually be more fun than attending this lecture.
Misuse of the word “quantum” makes me want to build some purely newtonian based evil robots to go out and wreck vengence on those who misuse the term. Alas, I can not figure out how to program the robots without (real) QM.
Yiannopolous, from all appearances, is a hack. I have no desire to hear him speak. But Sommers is a serious thinker and scholar. Why ridicule her? And why would you dismiss so cavalierly an opportunity to listen to a dissenting view?
This kind of thing bothers me quite a bit. Feminism is a political movement and it’s illogical to compare it to biology, climate science or atheism. No one, as far as I can tell, is arguing about the end result: equality. There is a bit of disagreement about how to get there from here. So what exactly makes Sommers a “loon”? That she disagrees about how to get there?
Furthermore, are we this insecure in our views that we have to actively avoid listening to opposing viewpoints? If Sommers is so “fringey” then her ideas should be fairly easy to refute (despite her being taken seriously by the NYT, WAPO and WSJ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers). I am highly skeptical of anyone who backs down from a political debate or an exchange of ideas.
Garden-variety christian apologetics are easy to refute too, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to sit in on every “COME AND GET US ATHEISTS” lecturer our christian groups bring in.
The physics department at UMTC should whip up a tabletop graviton detector, and see the mini-black hole level egos and ignorance can be detected during the meeting.
Quantum superstate feminists? Do they run through doubleslits to create interference patterns? Or spin in two different directions at once? Also, what is the quantum of feminism called, then? A Feminismon?
Penny L, #5
Just like Scalia!
Read this first as “just like Scalzi” and was puzzled. I mean, Scalzi’s not an academic, but he is quite a bit more capable of creating a coherent philosophic or sociopolitical argument than Sommers.
Gah, blockquote fail… Sorry.
Penny L:
My, my. You would think that, seeing as you can’t think your way out of a wet paper bag. Here, go do some reading, and don’t come back:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Hoff-Sommers+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Ffreethoughtblogs.com%2Fpharyngula
You know, if I brought someone to campus and every person in the field they were supposed to talk about gave excuses from ‘I have to grade midterms’ to ‘hell no’ to participate, I would wonder if maybe they were whatever the humanities equivalent to ‘quack scam artist’ is in the sciences.
(Though part of me wonders if you can get Sommers and Yiannopolous to have a heated argument about something. Which sounds far more interested in affirming to each other and the audience that feminism has gone exactly far enough in this Enlightened Age, and things like the continued pay gap or rape culture are liberal lies spread by an amazon conspiracy that wants to persecute straight, white cis-men.)
Anyone who uses “quantum” should be forced to explain the details of Einstein’s falling out with Heisenberg and the others at the 1927 conference. If he/she fails the penalty is having to watch the 1980s TV “Comedy” Dorf On Golf.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHAHHAHAHAHHAAHHAAHAHAHAA!!!
Penny L @5:
Because PZ has read what she’s had to say before and thinks she deserves ridicule. Why else?
How silly. You’re assuming PZ hasn’t already read about Sommers’ views. He has. And he’s blogged about her before.
The point wasn’t to compare feminism as if its the same or similar to biology, climate science, or atheism. PZ was clearly stating that having Christina and Milo-two ill informed “experts”-speak on the issue of feminism would be like having other ill informed “experts” speak on other subjects. How can you not see this?
Who is this ‘we’?
And again, why are you assuming PZ hasn’t already listened to Sommers’ views?
You’re appealing to her popularity as an argument for the validity of her opinions? Really?
And *again*, you assume PZ is unfamiliar with Sommers.
Tony! @ 17:
Oh, not just that, but citing newspapers, two of which are conservative shill rags, as if copy in newspapers is so very, um, scholarly.
You mean automatically distrustful.
Why doesn’t it surprise me the least bit that Penny would think Sommers is a “serious thinker and scholar”?
Re: prae, (#8):
Excellent question. I was thinking that, if the audience is really, really lucky, the two might interfere constructively and manage to actually say something worthwhile and sensible. More likely they’ll interfere hilariously* or destructively, resulting in even more toxic rubbish than either could produce on their own.
*MRAs can be fun as long as you manage to block out their sincerity (and pretty much everything else).
Also, what debate? What exchange of ideas? Has PZ been challenged by Sommers to discuss feminism and i missed it?
@18 Caine
Well, you say “conservative shill rags” but Penny says “reputable repositories of serious scholarship”.
@20 komarov
I wonder if Milo will eventually say something so disgusting and wrong during that shitfest, that Sommers will find it imposible to pretend she is not horrified. Or more, terrifyingly, she might agree with everything…
The similarities between the creationists’ dodges and these anti-feminists’s dodges are pretty compelling. I’m sure they’re not the same people but it’s as if, oh, I dunno, a bunch of people who learned religious misogyny in their childhoods stepped away from the religion and forgot to drop the misogyny.
No matter how thoughtful and serious one party is in such a debate, there is little point in hearing them argue with someone who just spouts nonsense, expecting non-sequiturs to score them “points”.
Antone who strings together a phrase such as is not worth even listening to.
Yep, totally a serious thinker who deserves no ridicule at all.
My first reaction was that a case of contagious belly bug could not happen to a nicer group of people.
Then I thought: If they spent the whole time puking and shitting themselves, who would notice the difference?
I am highly skeptical of anyone who backs down from a political debate or an exchange of ideas.
You’re presupposing that what you’re seeing is a real exchange or ideas, or even a debate.
I think that’s one reason I’m comfortable with saying “I am not interested in hearing what the other side has to say” – for one thing, the premise of an “exchange of ideas” brings in the false middle fallacy, namely that the other side has ideas worth exchanging and that the truth is somewhere between the two positions. Sometimes the truth is only on one side and “exchanging ideas” is just an opportunity to accept rehashed propaganda from someone who is demonstrably wrong. In the case of creationists – I wouldn’t debate a creationist unless they agreed they would present new arguments and evidence because all of the last 2000 years of creationist’s arguments has been pretty thoroughly demolished.
With anti-feminism it’s the same thing. Before airing an “exchange of ideas” I’d want to know if I’m just going to be arguing with a strawman based on the ghost of Andrea Dworkin, or if I’m going to be having a serious conversation with someone who at least acknowledges that inequality is not good, and therefore social justice is a consideration — but it wouldn’t be much of a debate then other than “how do we go forward from here?”
The “anti SJW” types I have engaged with in a few gaming forums say that “SWJ” are ruining stuff. And I ask them whether they favor unfairness and inequality? No. Ok, next step… What -exactly- are you objecting to?? It’s a lot like debating christians and when you dig into their epistemology they get all vague and wooey. As soon as you turn your back they are worshipping the bearded guy in the chair. Anti-SJW types can be hard to pin down about what, exactly, they are “anti-” and that ought to tell you something: they have a belief system they know is embarrassing so they don’t want to articulate it. They’re arguing against the ghost of Andrea Dworkin, who said they were naughty boys for funding a system of oppression that produces pornography. Whoah.
I’m eagerly awaiting the next seminar: dating tips from Bill Cosby and proper child care with guest speakers Josh Duggar and Gary Glitter.
Well, their argument is simultaneously a particle of bullshit and a handwave so it could be worse.
Marcus:
No. Penny L was being snide about
because Penny L is an authoritarian idiot who thinks Hoff Sommers is a fuckin’ scholar and deep thinker, and of course no one from the Gender, Women & Sexuality Studies Dept would want to debate Milo or Hoff Sommers because, because, well, they are cowards and don’t have anything to say, not really! After all, if they had anything, they’d jump at the chance to debate, oh my yes! Naturally, it wouldn’t have anything to do with the sheer amount of near-fatal eyerolls that swept through the Gender, Women & Sexuality dept.
Honestly, this little bit from the announcement says it all:
@Caine:
of course no one from the Gender, Women & Sexuality Studies Dept would want to debate Milo or Hoff Sommers because, because, well, they are cowards and don’t have anything to say, not really
Yup. It’s somewhat reminiscent of the way christian apologists like to debate research scientists – not professional debaters, and not specialists on apologetics. Its as if they’re afraid to debate someone who actually knows the topic, or something.
Hey, our NBA basketball team would like to challenge your math department to a game of pick up ball. Huh? Why didn’t we challenge your basketball team? Oh, they didn’t reply to our email fast enough, they’re probably afraid to engage us.
Wouldn’t it be a fine thing if the Gender, Women, and Sexuality Dept issued a challenge to Milo? He seems to think he’s qualified to debate this issue; he must be very knowledgeable, etc.
Er, made from a particle of bullshit and a handwave? Trying to get the particle/wave duality joke to work but having trouble with the scale.
Richard Dawkins, is that you hiding behind a pseudonym?
Well, for starters, she’s willing to appear with Milo. Note that she’s not debating him–she’s just co-hosting the talk. That should be enough to disqualify her.
Debating Milo is about as good a use of your time as debating the time cube guy or Alex Jones.
You’ll walk away feeling tired and annoyed from their stream of nonsense, and they’ll feel more legitimate because you gave them the time of day.
Jake, stick with the first one. (I liked it) Argument or photon, in this case both have about the same amount of … substance.
Here’s me using an argument from authority: Dawkins endorses Sommers. And by ‘endorses’ I mean ‘retweets positively’. I… well, that pretty much clarifies things for me. In the meantime, I’m going to try and figure out how I can achieve this quantum superstate, because it sounds pretty awesome.
Penny L @5:
Hmmm, how did I put it? Oh, yeah:
Not only that, but on the FB page for this event, the organizer refers to CHS by the title bestowed upon her by Gamergate, “Based Mom.” Yeaaaah, I think we know how much serious scholarly thinky stuff will be going on here.
I came up with Vox “Historical Verisimilitude” Day and either CHS or Anne Coulter. Score me half a point.
As for Penny L, when I want to know the latest developments in evolutionary biology, I don’t go to a debate between a representative of the Discovery Institute and a representative of BIOLA.
When I want to know something about flaws in feminism and/or women’s studies, I read Jennifer C Nash on Black Love and Post-Intersectionality. I don’t read anything by Milo Yiannopoulos.
The problem with “I wont attend because it looks good on their CV but not on mine” is the audience then isn’t shown an alternate view point. Many of them probably have never seen actual rational discussion of the points. They just see the blathering of the politically crafty.
Good grief, DanDare!
If your stature is really such that it would not look good on your resume, then of necessity you must be getting other opportunities to get your message out.
Also, there are these new-fangled things now, I think they call them interwebz? It turns out that the hip kids in the know can do something that allows them to – and correct me if I’m getting this wrong – “Go Ogle” pretty much anything.
Those folk who are genuinely interested in the perspectives of the Gender, Women & Sexuality Studies faculty at UM(TC) can, I am assured by 13 year olds who claim direct knowledge of the workings of these interwebz, type in something like “university of minnesota Gender, Women & Sexuality Studies faculty” and within moments gain access to a list of such faculty. Moreover, if one has some reasonable facility with Khoisan languages, apparently one can then use that list to Go Ogle a list of publications by those faculty. And then, with another Khoisan consonant, actually read the content of the publication itself!
Now, you and I may not be fluent in any of the many Khoisan languages and their “clicks” which are so integral to modern societies and their interwebz. But because of the marvelous utility of “clicking”, many young whippersnappers have mastered it. And not just the twitter young-uns, but the twittest of the twits! Given the ubiquity and utility of this novel application of an African innovation, it’s entirely possible that many if not most of the attendees at a Milo Yiannopoulos interview (if honestly interested in feminist opinions and not simply present to enjoy some in-group hostility against an out-group) have access to even more information about feminism than could be communicated in a 2 hour feminism/anti-feminism debate.
An outrageous thought, I know, but a 16 year old I know that describes himself in relation to some woman named “Ruby” who invariably transports herself via locomotive assures me that this is very possibly true.
Should these wild-eyed, Khoisan-fan, upstart youths be correct, then it is reasonably possible that your concerns about access to information, as certainly correct as they may have been in our salad days, may be obsolete in these vegan years.
DanDare:
The other problem, though, is that even if you show up to debate them they still win . That’s the rub. Just like with creationists, they have no legitimacy but they have an excess of smarm and dirty debating tactics. They are master manipulators, adept at getting their hooks into the credulous, at oozing a false veneer of credibility. They appeal to biases and baser instincts, meaning that they can bluster freely and only pay lip service to anything resembling “reason”. Go there to oppose them? Unless you are a skilled rhetorician and ready to deal with their specific brand of nonsense, you will either lose or fail to win enough for it to have any real effect. And they get to walk away saying “look at how they took gamergationism seriously enough to come and debate it!”. Leave them to their own devices? They get to call you cowards, and have an unopposed public masturbation session. They can probably try to weave a narrative of censorship or political correctness and so forth as well.
Heads they win, tails you lose.
(Oh, and if the college itself takes away their podium, that is another way in which they can turn it all into a victory and crow about censorship and the oppression of conservatism! “The only winning move is not to play” isn’t even true here! There is no winning, period.)
@beforebe4Bfor:
Well, I’m not sure that follows the form of your metaphor. Can you let others play without playing yourself?
I suppose not with GTW, but I have found allowing conspiracy cranks to crank each other in private doesn’t appear to increase the percentage of the population that experiments with cranking. Sure, I wouldn’t want to 18th amendment the crankily-inclined and their manipulable rods of iron – that would likely be bad. But I don’t see too much harm in applying the medical model doctors in the US employ today: look down on them from afar as physiologically and psychologically deficient unless and until they buy upgraded insurance or gather up some cash and come to your office begging for help.
“Hello there, legitimate thinker, isn’t it terrible how feminism supports the eating of one’s own young, as a bear or weasel might?”
“Why, yes, genuine journalist, but I think it far worse that they enslave unicorns in order to provide their milk.”
“Golly! What kind of monster would do such a thing?”
“Feminists, GJ, feminists. Lead by the almighty Feminor, who studied at the feet of Hitler himself, they rampage across the land, despoiling our wholesome communities, and building industrial developments on greenfield sites. They are a menace indeed!”
“Indeed, thank you for this edifying information, LT, thank you very much.”
A public debate is a very good method to settle the question who’s the better public debater. It has very little merit when it comes to finding out whose positions are better founded.
I know, I know, that is hard to believe for people who think that you can learn about complex subjects in the time of a minutes infotainment show (adds included), but seriously understanding feminist theory, philosophy, positions, the different fractions and approaches takes some fucking time and commitment.
I appear to have numbers turned off…
Again:
A rare opportunity to miss them both at once.
Yeah, no, but seriously now, Sommers is co-hosting a talk with Yiannopoulos on the awful topic of contemporary Feminism, and we still get an arsehole claiming that she is a legitimate, serious, scholarly thinky person. This is Dawkins’ kind of “feminism”, the kind where you do fuck all that might be even tangentially called feminism, but spend a great deal of time and effort disparaging and undermining feminism.
Hmmmm…smells all legitimate and shit…
Penny L
Sommers feels that teaching young boys not to be assholes is a “War on Boys”. From interviews I’ve heard, she makes the assumption that the way a majority of boys acted when she was growing up is the natural state that should be encouraged in all boys. Basically, she’s assuming a conclusion and using it as the premise.
That is not very serious thought.
As the kids say, fixed it for you.
So… is third wave* quantum superstate feminism even a thing that they’re referencing here? Or is that just something they’ve put in there so their credulous unskeptic fans will see it, nod to each other and say, “see? ‘Quantum!’ That’s a word that wrongthinkers use,” and feel better about themselves?
*And seriously, I realise there’s been no official declaration of a new wave, but does anyone really think we’re still in the third wave now?
I guess we’d better check with the Official Feminist Supreme Leadership Committee… Please pass the enquiry to your cell leader, who will communicate it up the chain of command and relay their response to you.
I’m in the Twin Cities, I have that Wednesday free, but I’m already on hypertension meds.
Having to witness that much fuckery in one room would fucking kill me.
And to anyone claiming that we have to listen to the other POV: We have. Milo’s a shit excuse for a journo; CHS writes and speaks her putrid thoughts all the time. WE KNOW THEIR POV. We just think it’s the shits.