Feminist hypersensitivity or masculine obtuseness?

The latest furious argument going on in the atheist community is over this panel at an American Atheists meeting in Huntsville, Alabama. The subject was what atheist groups can do to attract more women, which is a good and important question. Kudos for asking it.

Here, go watch the video before you read further. Try to see the problem that got some people rather irate.

Done? OK. Now go read what Sharon Moss and Lyz Liddell had to say about it, their subsequent clarification, and Ophelia Benson’s comments.

Listen. To. The. Women.

I’ve got a simple suggestion for my fellow men. Learn to shut up and listen. Seriously. You want women to find your organization pleasant and interesting and worth contributing to? Then don’t form panels full of men trying to figure out what women want, talking over women who try to get a word in edgewise, belittling women’s suggestions with jokes, and trying to determine how We Well-Meaning Men can give Those Women what we think they want. You are assuming an authority and presuming that it is in your power to give it to the minority, when what you should be doing is deferring to that minority and giving them your attention, letting them speak and shape your organization.

We men have the benefit of a culture that has put us in a position of default social dominance, whether we deserve it or not. There is this bias that colors our interactions with women (and vice versa), and we are perpetuating it when we patronizingly try to explain to the ladies that we want to be more attentive to their needs.

You have to surrender your attitudes. You have to SHUT UP AND LISTEN. You have to be willing to listen to a woman disagreeing with you, without dismissing her complaints as unimportant.

I don’t know why that’s so hard to get across to people. But fellows, just imagine this: a community meeting in your town is held in which a group of liberal, well-intentioned people are trying to figure out how to deal with the burgeoning population of godless folk. They have a meeting: on the panel in the front of the room is one quiet atheist and five Christians of various denominations. And then the Christians proceed to preach about the fraternity of Christ and loving their neighbor and how important it is to find these lost souls a welcoming place in the community, and they get positive affirmations from all the religious attendees, while the atheists sit, surrounded by the condescending godly.

How would you feel? Would you have any confidence at all that this group was even interested in making you a full and equal social partner?

I know what comes next. You’ll say the atheists in that group need to be assertive and aggressive and take some authority, and that women need to do that too, so it’s not your fault. And it’s true that women could assert themselves more, except look what happens when they do: they’re too sensitive, their concerns are trivialized, they are made light of, they are mocked, in the worst cases they are called “bitches” and “man-haters”…and it quickly becomes obvious that the men in this group don’t really want women to have any authority at all, and the women quickly realize that they don’t want to be part of this community.

So we’ll convene another panel in which a bunch of men will wonder what they can do to encourage women to participate more. Round and round it goes.

So let’s get specific. You’re organizing an atheist meeting. You want more minority participation. Don’t decide that after you’ve recruited the top ten white atheist males you wanted for your roster of speakers: do it first, make a commitment to bring in women and people of color.

You’ve got Richard Dawkins signed up? Great, he’s a fantastic speaker, he’ll bring in a lot of attention. Now go after a woman of equal assertiveness, and don’t give her second billing (if you try to say that there are no women that potent, I’m going to have to slap you hard, and tell you you have no business organizing this conference, then. And then I’ll give you a list.) Design your ads to give equal or greater attention to her, and send the message that this is important.

Do you want to consciously discuss the matter of minority participation? Whatever you do, don’t put it in the hands of a speaker or panel dominated by the majority, do not give the people who already have amplified voices a megaphone and tell them to pontificate. Tell them to shut up. That panel in Huntsville should have been all women. If the subject of women was only part of the range of topics under discussion then when it came to that question, the men should have a) shut up and let the woman speak, or better yet, b) left their chairs and invited women from the audience to sit up front for a while.

This really isn’t hard. Unless you’re incapable of shutting up.

Now I predict that the comments here will fill up with people explaining that there really wasn’t a problem at that panel, there was no raging sexism on display, etc., etc., etc., all demonstrating that it really is hard for some guys to shut up and swallow it.

Buying science

This week’s Nature has a substantial and fairly even-handed article on the unease Templeton funding causes. Jerry Coyne is prominently featured, so you know it isn’t an entirely friendly review.

Religion is based on dogma and belief, whereas science is based on doubt and questioning,” says Coyne, echoing an argument made by many others. “In religion, faith is a virtue. In science, faith is a vice.” The purpose of the Templeton Foundation is to break down that wall, he says — to reconcile the irreconcilable and give religion scholarly legitimacy.

They also quote scientists who found the Templeton Foundation fairly open and tolerant of results that were not supportive of their prejudices…but I still don’t trust them. They’re busy putting on a show of open-mindedness, and they are staffed by some competent and politically savvy people, and they know that a few Potemkin scientists with contrary results will help in their overall goal of counterfeiting scientific credibility for their religious cause.

This is especially pressing now as Republicans strain to cut science funding — do we really want American science to become increasingly reliant on funding from organizations with an agenda?

Why do physicists think they are masters of all sciences?

If you asked me about cosmology, I’d defer to physicists — I’ve read Stenger & Hawking & Krauss & Carroll, and I might be willing to say a few generalities about what I’ve learned about the process, but I’d always say you should look to the original sources for more information.

There seem to be a lot of physicists, however, who believe they know everything there is to know about biology (it’s a minor subdivision of physics, don’t you know), and will blithely say the most awesomely stupid things about it. Here, for instance, is Michio Kaku simply babbling in reply to a question about evolution, and getting everything wrong. It’s painful to watch. This guy isn’t really an idiot, is he?

Man, he doesn’t have a clue and is just making it up as he goes along.

Fundamental error: he confuses evolution with natural selection, and thinks that if we aren’t being hunted down by sabre-toothed cats, evolution has stopped. This is wrong. We currently have reduced mortality compared to our ancestors, which suggests that we are less strongly selected in specific ways, but we are still experiencing selection — some of us have been selected for lactose tolerance in the last 10-15,000 years, for instance, and sexual selection is ongoing, and in case you hadn’t noticed, there are still diseases around that kill people.

But most importantly, reducing mortality and selection allows variants to survive, increasing the diversity of forms present in the population. You could even argue that reducing selection increases the rate of evolution. Selection is a conservative force that retains only a subset of the population for propagation into the next generation, you know.

And the rest: “gross” evolution? What the hell is that? Creationists already mangle the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution, now all I need is some half-assed third category getting peddled by the ignorant. And where does he get this idea that Australia is the product of accelerated evolution? That makes no sense at all; isolation meant the populations there evolved relatively independently of forms elsewhere, not that something goosed their mutation rates.

Oh, look: somebody in the comments asks Kaku about why we only use 20% of our brains. Let’s hope the next time he answers a reader question, he’ll tell us at length what we can do with the sleeping 80% of our brains. (I use mine for fulminating at morons, how about you?)

Actually, I’d rather he tried to answer the question in the title of this post.

Goodbye, Kiribati

It’s a triumph of hope over reason, and that means the residents of the Kiribati Islands, an archipelago of tiny islands with an average altitude of 6.5 feet, are doomed. They’ve got faith, you know, but one thing they haven’t got is any reason. NPR reports on their dire situation as the waters slowly rise and the climate changes:

“I’m not easily taken by global scientists prophesizing the future,” says Teburoro Tito, the country’s former president and now a member of Parliament.

Tito says he believes in the Biblical account of Noah’s ark. In that story, after God devastates the world with a flood, he makes a covenant with Noah that he will never send another.

So while Tito does acknowledge that global warming is affecting the planet and that he has noticed some impacts, he says rising sea levels are not as serious a threat as Tong and others are making them out to be.

“Saying we’re going to be under the water, that I don’t believe,” Tito says. “Because people belong to God, and God is not so silly to allow people to perish just like that.”

Tito is not alone in his views. Of the more than 90,000 people counted in Kiribati’s last census, a mere 23 said they did not belong to a church. According to the most recent census, some 55 percent of citizens are Roman Catholic, 36 percent are Protestant and 3 percent are Mormon.

As a result, many are torn between what they hear from scientists and what they read in the Bible.

That’s just sad. They’re sure they’re safe because God doesn’t allow people to die for stupid reasons…but people do die for stupid reasons all the time.

I want to be Paula Kirby when I grow up

Ah, that feels so good…Paula Kirby really cut loose on the believers yesterday. The topic was the compatibility of religion and freedom—they’re about as compatible as religion and science.

Religion claims to set its followers free, while all the time holding them in thrall and insisting they kiss the hand of their jailer. There can be no true freedom so long as religion still keeps the human mind in shackles.

You really must read the whole thing. It’s probably not a good idea to do it at work, though, because afterwords you’ll want to snuggle up and fall asleep.

Episode CLXXII: In praise of libraries and librarians

I’m sure many of the prattling horde will agree with this sentiment: we love libraries. When I was growing up, we lived within a few blocks of the town library, and I spent many happy hours immersed in that place. Apparently Alan Moore agrees with me.

I have no idea why Death is hovering over Moore’s shoulder. I think it’s part of the atmosphere that follows him everywhere.

(via Boing Boing)

(Current totals: 11,878 entries with 1,279,436 comments.)

What should we talk about?

I’m going to be on Atheist Talk radio on Sunday morning at 9am, for a whole hour. Greg Laden is going to be interviewing me, and he’s put up a thread asking for questions. Any questions. Go ahead, make me writhe and suffer and struggle on Sunday — I don’t mind, and it’ll be entertaining. Greg also has a sadistic streak, so he’ll have more fun if he can pin me down and needle me for an hour.

I’ve got a busy weekend ahead of me, but fortunately I don’t have to travel too much this time. I’ll be speaking to the Humanists of Minnesota at 10am on Saturday at the Nokomis Recreation Center (2401 E Minnehaha Parkway, Minneapolis), doing talk radio at 9am Sunday on AM950, and speaking to the Minnesota Atheists at 1pm Sunday at the Roseville Public Library. And I think I’ve talked myself into buying a decent pair of shoes in the Big City somewhere in there. Come on around if you’re local; both my talks will be sciencey stuff about evolution and genetics, but I’m always open to random questions in the Q&A, so if Greg Laden doesn’t pick up your suggestions, you can always deliver your zingers in person.

How can so many farm state politicians fail to understand the phrase “seed corn”?

Paul Krugman has a lovely phrase to describe Republican policies: Eat the future. They are under pressure to cut spending, any spending, but they refuse to touch anything that might cause immediate pain to the electorate…so instead, anything in the budget that affects future voters is going to get the axe.

Once you understand the imperatives Republicans face, however, it all makes sense. By slashing future-oriented programs, they can deliver the instant spending cuts Tea Partiers demand, without imposing too much immediate pain on voters. And as for the future costs — a population damaged by childhood malnutrition, an increased chance of terrorist attacks, a revenue system undermined by widespread tax evasion — well, tomorrow is another day.

He could have mentioned a few other areas that can be cut, like education, and especially science. Republican voters don’t understand science, they don’t support science, so if there’s anything in the budget that makes Republican politicians salivate in a hungry, predatory way, it’s science. So you won’t be surprised at the prospects for the NIH.

Dear Colleague,

For months the new House leadership has been promising to cut billions in federal funding in fiscal year (FY) 2011. Later this week the House will try to make the rhetoric a reality by voting on HR 1, a “continuing resolution” (CR) that would cut NIH funding by $1.6 billion (5.2%) BELOW the current level – reducing the budget for medical research to $29.4 billion!

We must rally everyone – researchers, trainees, lab personnel – in the scientific community to protest these draconian cuts. Please go to [this link] for instructions on how to call your Representative’s Washington, DC office today! Urge him/her to oppose the cuts to NIH and vote against HR 1. Once you’ve made the call, let us know how it went by sending a short email to the address provided in the call instructions and forward the alert link to your colleagues. We must explain to our Representatives how cuts to NIH will have a devastating impact on their constituents!

Sincerely,

William T. Talman, MD
FASEB President

The cannibals are out there, and they don’t look like you might expect: they wear nice suits and dresses, and they go to church every week, and they are fervent in their patriotism. But they’re planning to eat the future, anyway.

It’s gonna be open season on abortion doctors in South Dakota!

I’m only a few miles away from the Dakotas — if HB1171 passes, I could put on some hospital scrubs (camouflage, you know), lurk quietly in a hospital, and when some ob-gyn pokes his or her head out, BAM, justifiable homicide.

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.

They’ve still got to amend this thing, though. There’s no mention of a season or of bag limits.

As you might guess, this abomination of a law is the product of Republican legislators and their crazy far-right-wing allies.

The original version of the bill did not include the language regarding the “unborn child”; it was pitched as a simple clarification of South Dakota’s justifiable homicide law. Last week, however, the bill was “hoghoused”–a term used in South Dakota for heavily amending legislation in committee–in a little-noticed hearing. A parade of right-wing groups—the Family Heritage Alliance, Concerned Women for America, the South Dakota branch of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, and a political action committee called Family Matters in South Dakota—all testified in favor of the amended version of the law.

Read the rest. South Dakota already has the most indefensibly restrictive set of abortion laws in the country, and last I heard, had no abortion doctors — they rely on a very few Minnesota doctors who regularly fly in to a few locations to deliver essential services. Now the South Dakota legislature is doing even more to discourage responsible reproductive health and is doing further harm to women in the state.

A Québécois poll

I got a request from the Association Humaniste du Québec to pharyngulate a poll, and who am I to turn away a mob of idiosyncratic and fiercely independent citizens? Quebec, as you may know, has been making great strides in promoting secularism, ending the nonsense of saying prayers before meetings and removing religious symbols from provincial establishments. There is still, however, a crucifix hanging in the National Assembly room. So here’s the question:

Le crucifix a-t-il toujours sa place au Salon bleu de l’Assemblée nationale? (“Does the crucifix have any business in the blue Room of the National Assembly?”)

Oui 60%
Non 36%
Je ne sais pas 4%

Singing La Marseillaise while voting is entirely optional.