Rosie the Riveter
I have been told that we in the wealthy, liberal West have nothing to fear from Islam, no existential threat, no reason to be on our guard against a force that seems, to me, anyway, an imminent threat to the freedoms that so many struggled to win. Just think of the freethinkers who were sent to jail in 19th century Britain, for speaking out plainly about their disbelief. Think of the suffragettes, who went to jail, and faced contumely, in a staunch defence of their liberties and rights as women. I can still remember a time – can you remember it too? — when radio and TV were dominated by men’s voices. If women worked in radio or TV, it certainly wasn’t in front of a microphone or camera. I recall how much offensive, misogynistic language was hurled at women who wanted to work in “men’s” fields, like engineering, science, law, and other fields dominated by men. Women were expected to observe the three Ks, Kinder, Kuche, und Kirche — how convenient for German to have three words beginning with K that summed up the whole duty of woman — though teaching and nursing and secretarial careers were open to women. Wasn’t that enough? I remember, too, how men returning from the war, took up where the women left off, sending them scuttling back to their homes after having run industry for five years, as welders, riveters, and other things that were thought to be solely the province of men. It was a long, hard struggle, and, as some have observed in the comments, there is still a long way to go. Over at Butterflies and Wheels Ophelia has let out all the stops in her campaign against the stupid, sexist denigrating language of the gutter that is used just to put women in their place, language which reduces women to their sexual parts, as though women were only warm vehicles for men to stick their willies in. So when we are talking about the subordination and repression of women in Islam, it takes in a lot of ground. These things are so deeply rooted in most cultures that it is well-nigh impossible to root them out, especially if they are written in that indelible ink called religion.
Of course, this post is not only about women; it’s about men too. Because religion doesn’t aim itself only at women; it enslaves men, too, to ideas and beliefs that come out of a distant past, which are one and all irrelevant to the way that life is lived now, and incompatible with what we know about the world. And yet religion remains enormously powerful, because, at a very early stage of human development, religion somehow wormed down to something that was at the centre of what it was coming to mean to be human. It hijacked that part of us where all our passions are met and issue as certitudes at a quasi-intellectual level, and ever since men and women have been more bound to religious beliefs and practices than they have been to each other.
Certainly, religion has had its advantages in keeping tribes and people together with a common culture, and has established guides to insiders and outsiders by means of hard to fake costly commitments, so that duty to insiders was more important than duty to outsiders, who were one and all enemies, and threats to the very being of insiders and their collective existence, call those outsiders what you will, kuffar or infidels or commies, or any number of the thousands of ways that such distinctions were made and lines were drawn in flesh and blood. Wars were fought and people horribly killed and maimed to maintain that structure of insiders and outsiders, and these ancient alignments, rooted in that very primitive part of us, are still one of the ruling structures of our world. That’s why Muslims and Serbs in the Balkans became vicious enemies almost overnight. They had worked together for two or three generations in peace, or apparently at peace, but the old rivalries between Orthodoxy and Islam, or Catholicism and Islam, or Christians and Jews were still brewing under the surface of what had seemed so civilised and restrained. The Winter Olympics at Sarajevo showed a Balkans apparently united and at peace. No uncrossable gulf led from those unremarked apparently peaceable tribalisms to out-and-out genocide, where all the hatreds and animosities and revenges of nigh on a thousand years burst out in a paroxysm of blood-letting and hatred.
So when people say to me that Islam is not a danger, I remember that it only takes a few to fire up the many, and send them on missions of the most horrible crimes against humanity. Did anyone for a moment dream that ancient Christian antisemitism, that had lain quiescent for generations, except for the occasional spiteful insults and names that bespoke contempt, would, in a few years in mid-twentieth century Europe, end up in an extermination programme that would, with deliberate foresight and planning, murder millions? People say now that, if people had read Mein Kampf with care, they should have seen it coming, but would even those who had read Mein Kampf be to blame if they did not see that Hitler’s mad dreams would lead, eventually, to Treblinka and Sobibor, to Belsec or Chelmo? And if we listen now to the mad Muslims, who say with chilling determination that there is world enough and time, and that their mission to see that Allah’s name will be sanctified with kuffar blood, until all peoples submit to Allah and worship him alone, will some day be fulfilled; can we see in these words of fanatics the deliberate murder of millions or the forcible subjugation of whole societies? No, of course not. We will only see it when it happens, but don’t think for a moment that that is not what is intended. Perhaps their ambitions are greater than their power. But their power is limited by our courage, and of that there seems to be a dearth at the moment. Will we come to recognise, in time, that those who say that the whole world must submit to Allah, are really very serious, and are biding their time until the time seems ripe?
While Islamists plan, Western atheists spend their time criticising Christianity, without noticing that, whatever else it is, Christianity is nowhere near the threat that Islam is. Christianity, for all its sillinesses, has passed through a reformation and an enlightenment, and as silly as American Christian fundamentalism and Third World Christian fundamentalism may seem, it is nowhere near the threat that Islam is slowly becoming for those nations where Islam is considered of only marginal, and sometimes, almost comic, concern. How can Islam pose a danger when they are so few? The answer is that it is easy, because a few of that few are quite prepared, not only to be rage boys, but to kill and be killed in the name of their seventh century Arabian deity, and Christians will help them. Christians have lost so much ground in the last hundred years that they are quite prepared to stand up for Muslims and Islam, hoping on their coattails to slip back into the public realm where power resides. That is why people like the Archbishop of Canterbury make supportive noises for this much maligned religion — though not nearly so maligned as Christianity — while little understanding the forces at work, and why they are willing to permit Islam to spread its poison undisturbed, declaring confidently that Sharia law is inevitable, even though they should know, from the start, that Sharia law, which is active in many places in Europe, works in direct contradiction to the laws under which all are considered to be equal. Yet the archbishop and many others seem quite happy to be complicit in undermining that crucial equality in order to accommodate a religion which, had it the power, would consign archbishops and all their followers, into a legal limbo, where all those who refuse to make a respectful nod towards Allah will be placed.
Wherever Islam has the power, it uses it. In the Netherlands city of the Hague a Dutch Muslim politician has called for a ban on dogs, which are considered by Islam to be unclean. And don’t for one moment think that the votes of Muslims will not be considered important by our politicians. In Canada Stephen Harper has made special appeals for the minority immigrant vote, and has received support from them. As Richard Dawkins said, in a speech at the Jaipur Literary Festival:
Our whole society is soft on religion. The assumption is remarkably widespread that religious sensitivities are somehow especially deserving of consideration – a consideration not accorded to ordinary prejudice. . . I admit to being offended by Father Christmas, ‘Baby Jesus’, and Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer, but if I tried to act on these prejudices I’d quite rightly be held accountable. I’d be challenged to justify myself. But let somebody’s *religion* be offended and it’s another matter entirely. Not only do the affronted themselves kick up an almighty fuss; they are abetted and encouraged by influential figures from other religions and the liberal establishment. Far from being challenged to justify their beliefs like anybody else, the religious are granted sanctuary in a sort of intellectual no go area.
In his article about the dangers posed by this sort of special sanctuary granted to religion, published at Richard Dawkins.net, Dawkins says this:
Here are two possible reasons one might offer for kowtowing to a violent threat such as was visited on the Jaipur Literary Festival last week.
- I shall give in to your demands to suppress freedom of speech, purely because I fear your threats. But don’t for one nanosecond confuse fear with respect. I do not respect you, I despise you and everything you stand for – especially given that your faith is apparently so weak in argument that it requires violent threats to shore it up.
It seems to me that there is nothing reprehensible in such a response. It is not cowardly, simply prudent, and Nick Cohen praises Grayson Perry for using a milder version of it. But the same cannot be said of the following:- I shall give in to you because I know that freedom of speech is not part of your culture. Who am I to impose Western, colonialist, paternalistic ideas like freedom of speech on your very different and equally valuable culture? Of course your ‘hurt’ and ‘offence’ should take precedence over our purely Western preoccupation with freedom of speech, and of course we’ll cancel the video link.
Nobody would express this patronising thought in quite such brazenly explicit terms, but I have concluded that it is the subtext of a great deal of the woolly, liberal accommodationism that we saw at the time of the fatwa and the Bradford burning of the books, as well as during the Danish cartoon affair. The closest approach to it that I know was the German judge who, in 2007, denied the divorce application of a Moroccan-born woman on the grounds that the Koran permits husbands to beat their wives.
While a couple of brave men at the Festival read from Rushdie’s books, since his life was under threat from Muslim thugs and could not attend — even the video link was enough to generate opposition and threats of death from the rage boys of Muslim enforcers — and are praise, people conveniently forget the cowardice that has silenced so many in the West where the threat is less immediate. Muslim censorship was imposed — a growing trend — by threats of grievous bodily harm and death. And if that does not remind us that the same thing has been threatened in the West with equal if not greater success, then we’re not doing our homework.
Religious violence, and demands from the religious, is on the rise, and yet, a day or two ago, some men who should know better, reached out a hand of friendship to the religions. Atheists themselves, they did not want to offend, and assured the religions that most of what they do, aside from the completely unfounded religious beliefs that underlie their religious project, is not only not harmful, but good, and worthy of emulation. Alain de Botton thinks we should build atheist temples and listen to atheist sermons. The religious response was predictable. Suddenly, there was a break in the clouds, and atheism was seen to shine its gladdening light on all the religious who had been so discomfited by the unapologetic atheism of the so-called new atheists. Suddenly, it seemed to the religious, who look for hope in all the wrong places, that the shrill stridency of the “new” atheism was being replaced by a kinder, more accommodating version of disbelief. But those same people who are so gladdened by this little snippet of good news, do practically nothing to rein in or criticise religion’s destructive role in the world. They forget that religion has already, by its threats, diminished freedom of expression in the West. The rage boys of Islam are just waiting for the next offence, so that they can make good their threats. And in that suspended voice lies the enormous harm that Islam has already done, and continues to do. Have Christians supported writers and artists in countries that once were free? No, they have not. When the Ayatollah Khomeini put out a contract on Salman Rushdie’s life, both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope responded with inane gibberings about offence to religion. No prominent religious authority supported Rushdie’s freedom of expression. So when I am told that I should not be concerned that Islam is an existential threat to the West, I know that they have no idea what they’re speaking about. When writers are silenced, or have to go about with bodyguards, the existential threat is present and active and real, as it is present and active and real right now. If it seems as though it isn’t, that’s because people are respecting the boundaries set by religious murderers and their leaders. And Christians, jealous of this power, remain silent. So do many others. The new atheism is all about opposing this religious threat.
Bravo Eric. This is what needs to be said. Loudly, firmly and repeatedly.
Nope, your panic is still irrational and unreasonable, and writing longer and longer posts to support it doesn’t change it. You live in Canada, right? 2% of your population is Muslim. If 10% of them are extreme, that’s 0.2%. Who are they going to fire up, another 0.5-0.8% of Canada’s population?
Yeah, people are soft on Islam… because they share you irrational fear.
Who are they going to fire up, another 0.5-0.8% ….. ?
Yes they would. And the 0.5-0.8% are going to convince another 1-2% to either fire up or give their approvals in silence. Furthermore, there will be about 0.2% of self-proclaimed liberals and secularists who will be able to convince pretty much everybody else that those 0.2% of religious nutcases speak on behalf of every single one of those who share their faith and consequently their sentiments much be respected. I don’t know about Canada, but that’s exactly what’s been happening in a supposedly democratic country like India (where I grew up) for over two decades now.
Saikat Biswas, do you mean the Hindu-Muslim problem in India? India’s got a religious extremism problem that doesn’t exist in the West. Apples and oranges.
I complain about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians all the time. It doesn’t mean I’m worried about the Jews in my city oppressing anyone here. “Oh but it isn’t the same, because…because… Muslims bad!!” Yeah, there’s a rational position for you.
Well, Improbable Joe, I knew I wouldn’t convince you, but the self-censorship that Islam has already caused in the West is cause for great concern. I’m not panicking. I’m simply stating what seems clear to me from where I sit, and if it doesn’t worry you that a great university press in the US would not even print the cartoons in a book about the cartoon controversy, then I guess you are in on a secret that is hidden from a lot of us. And when the ABC and the pope, and other religious leaders, and John Le Carré and the rest of the writing fraternity said that Rushdie had brought his problems on himself, and when people like Ian Buruma blame Hirsi Ali for her troubles, then I think we have the outworking of an existentialist threat that does in fact affect the core values of the West, which are built on freedom of expression if they are built on anything. So, no, I don’t expect to convince you that there’s something amiss, but then, you seem to find it hard to find this kind of thing a serious threat. What is it? A joke?
I doubt there are many in the West who envy the cultural and economic insignificance of Pakistan, Iran or Egypt. So I don’t see us adopting their models here. And we have no control over the version of Islam in those countries. The version they currently favor will keep those countries weak so the biggest danger they pose, as countries, is nuclear. Their ideas are insignificant. But it was probably a bad idea to let as many Arabs into the country as some of Europe did. Islam will not appreciably spread by converting Westerners from Christianity or atheism. But it can spread through fertility wars. I don’t see that happening in the USA. Politically they have no power and they will have none in the foreseeable future. OTOH, Christian Reconstructionists are already influencing our government and large numbers of Christians. It would be a mistake to divert our attention from that, IMO.
Hopefully more people will wake up to the fact that these fanatics actually mean what they say and are willing to die for it. Remember that it only took about a dozen or so to wipe out several thousands in the towers. That’s a pretty small percentage for sure but totally irrellevant to the outcome.
So absolutely nothing, IJ, would convince you that there is a religious extremism problem in Europe, for example, which sent Rushdie into hiding, forces Muslim reformers to travel with bodyguards, killed Hirsi Ali’s friend Theo Van Gogh, and left a warning to Hirsi Ali stabbed to his body, bombed the London underground, trains in Spain, tried to murder Kurt Westergaard, bombed Hebdo, and so on? And with it, has convinced the press and writers quite generally to censor what they say about Islam, but where Christianity is constantly reviled, and not a person has been harmed as a consequence. I agree that we should keep our heads, and not make something out of this that it’s not, but that there is a threat is undeniable, and it would be foolish not to take note, and work actively to thwart it, which in my very small way, I am doing. And while the religious extremism problem is more acute in India than in the West, doesn’t mean that it’s apples and oranges; it just means that it’s less acute here, big apples and small ones, that’s all, but not that it is not a problem.
Improbable Joe …. no I wasn’t talking specifically about the Hindu-Muslim problem in this context (how on earth did you infer that?). I was saying that 0.2% of Muslims almost everywhere in the world seem to get away with their threats of violence. In India, those tactics are increasingly being used by religious, linguistic and caste groups of all stripes.
And what exactly is the extent of your knowledge on India’s extremism problem that makes you think you can compare it to that in the West?
DonJindra, I’m not for a moment suggesting that we should not attend to the madcap ideas of Christian dominionsists, etc., but they are not the only problem, even in the US, and it would be silly not to face up to real threats that do exist, even if they are much less pressing than the Christian fundamentalist idiocy that seems endlessly trying subvert democracy and reason in that great republic.
By the way, I take very seriously Richard Dawkins’ concerns. Freedom is a precious but very fragile thing. We need to make sure that it stays healthy. It just seems to me silly and a dangerous assumption, that the West is not in danger from forces that would gladly diminish our freedom. The pope, for example, fired up by envy of what Islam has been able to do, seems almost as determined to undermine secular freedom as radical Muslims are. That, too, can be added to Christianity’s growing moral deficit. But still I wouldn’t ignore Islam’s overdraft.
Saikat, (#9), this is precisely my point too. Islam has always worked with that minority of extremists threatening jihad and violence, and this is mandated by Islam’s holy texts. Everyone has a duty to do so, but those who kill the infidel are particularly honoured. And if you can get them to the point of silencing their criticisms of Islam, you have achieved a great work indeed, for they are half convinced by violence that criticism is useless.
Self-censorship and accommodationism from the hippies and celebrity douche-nozzles isn’t an existential threat, Eric. It is something negative, but let’s keep things in some sort of perspective here. America is run by increasingly extreme Christians, and the largest, most expensive and high-tech military in the world has been increasingly infiltrated by fundamentalist evangelicals. It is bad enough that we’ve got a Supreme Court that seems poised to end abortion rights nationally, and state legislatures bending over backwards to restrict women’s rights, but we’ve also got home-grown Christian terrorists killing abortion doctors and stockpiling weapons for a God-blessed race war.
Further, for every example of self-censorship (which is the fault of those censoring themselves) there seems to be an example of some ridiculous anti-Muslim bigotry here in America. How do you get a foothold to destroy a country from within when you’re being discriminated against by the majority?
Eric, now feel like you’re being blatantly dishonest, as opposed to the implied earlier dishonesty. You say “So absolutely nothing, IJ, would convince you that there is a religious extremism problem” when I say over and over again “yes there is a problem, just not of the scope that you perceive it to be.” Can you try to see the difference between “no problem” and “a different level of problem than you think it is”? Please?
Your point about Western atheists spending their time criticizing Christianity while Islam is a greater threat is well taken.
We in the US, have to deal with constant Xian-based Republican political thuggery. There simply aren’t as many Islamic Americans in positions of power to represent an immediate threat. With demographic shifts this could, of course, change. The UK and England have a much more serious immediate Islamic problem to confront than we do. And Christianity is much weaker there than here.
Come on, IJ, the way you phrase it, you really seem to think there is no problem. When you say it is apples and oranges, between India and here, you are really saying that there is no problem. In India the majority of Muslims are law-abiding, peaceful citizens, just as they are here. It only takes a minority. But when you say something silly like this –
– you are just making my point. Timothy Garton Ash, Ian Buruma, Paul Berman, Yale University Press, etc. etc., do not comprise hippies and celebrity douche-nozzles. That’s just silly. And if that’s all you have to say in response, then all I can do is to dismiss the intelligibility of what you are saying. You see to have no idea of what is happening around you. But as for dishonesty, I reject the charge. You have given every sign, while speaking about the supposed “scope” of the problem, simply to ignore that there is one. Perhaps you should read Nick Cohen’s book that is recommended so highly by Richard Dawkins, because he knows there is a problem, and describes it in some detail (my copy is winging its way to me as I write this, but the reviews seem to bear me out).
I was going to make a point, but then I realized by making my point I risk prosecution by British Hate Speech laws, not because my comment is motivated by hate, but that it could be interpreted that way, and so I’m afraid I can’t write how I really feel about the subject. Britain fails to protect my ability to speak freely, and so in my opinion, Britain is dead to free speech.
And so thank you Eric for expressing what I can’t express, and I hope you and Canada and America are able to continue on freely expressing your opinions while you can.
When I explicitly say that there is a problem, and you try to twist that explicit statement into a claim that I’m ignore the problem that I’m stating exists, it is a sign of either dishonesty of blinders so enormous that they beggar the imagination.
One last time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risks_to_civilization,_humans_and_planet_Earth
Those are existential threats. How does “Yale University Press self-censoring” rank on that scale? How does 9/11 even rank on that scale? I’m talking about real, imminent threats to life as we know it, and mostly you’re talking about credible threats to individuals, non-credible threats of a takeover of the West, and Western people going too far out of their way to be inoffensive. That doesn’t mean that threats to individuals don’t exist, or that I’m ignoring those threats. It doesn’t mean that caving in to complaints of being offended isn’t a problem that needs to be addressed in strong terms.
I simply reject your assertion that any of those things constitute an existential threat. I find it to frankly absurd, like when on 9/12/2001 everything shut down for “security reasons” far away from any possible threat whatsoever. And yes, it is worse in Europe than in North America, absolutely needs to be dealt with. Still not a threat to the Western way of life.
Eric, I’m sure it was inadvertent on your part, but Paul Berman isn’t exactly emblematic of either self-censorship or accommodationism.
All those links to the Jihad Watch hate site and now a pic of Pamela Gellar as Rosie the Riveter.
I’m with Joe, you’ve jumped the shark, Eric.
Yes, I’m sorry, Saikat, I did confuse two groups. There are those who self-censor, and there are those, like Paul Berman, who criticise self-censorship. And I did mix them up in one bundle. It was inadvertent.
IJ, I’m not talking about existential threats in the sense of Wikepedia’s threat to our very existence on this planet. In that sense, atomic weaponry is an existential threat, But I am saying that a threat to free expression is a very serious existential threat to the way of life of free societies, which would in fact change them into unfree societies. And I think that that threat is a very real one, and it will be realised if we allow fanatics to silence us by the threat of terrorism, as they are in fact already beginning successfully to do. I may speak out, but my voice is very small and can be ignored. But just because Wikipedia defines existential threat in a particular way, does not say that I must follow suit; and it has been all along clear what I meant by the particular existential threat that I have in mind.
You say:
I have never once made a non-credible threat of takeover of the West. I have spoken about a process that is undermining the West’s freedoms from within. I think the process is underway, perhaps more in Europe than here, but it is underway now, and, if we listen to people like Ayan Hirsi Ali or Ibn Warraq, this is a genuine threat, and is intended by those who undertake it, to make it a genuine threat. How far they will succeed is doubtful, but not for that reason less dangerous.
As for your remark, Jim, you simply misunderstood (deliberately?) the point about Rosie the Riveter, which was simply there to mark the transition from a war economy to a peacetime economy when women were sent back to KKK. That’s all. I don’t know what “jumped the shark” means, but it isn’t complimentary, obviously. I think I am just repeating what people like Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Maryam Namazie, Salman Rushdie, Richard Dawkins and others are saying. I’m not in the Jihad Watch camp, but I wouldn’t discount altogether the basis upon which someone like Daniel Pipes rests his concerns about the effect of Islam on Western democracy. I don’t know much of Pam Geller, and do not read her stuff, unless it comes my way through other sources than Jihad Watch, nor do I have a sense of the imminent takeover of Europe by Muslims. Of course not. But that doesn’t mean that I do not find the demands of Islam for special respect in Europe and in other places both menacing and dangerous. They do not deserve it, any more than Christians do, but they have enforced, by violence, several attacks on free speech recently, and that should be of great concern to us. If it’s not to you, why are you not concerned?
I do find it really tiresome constantly repelling claims that I am a “Jihad Watch Fanatic” when, to my knowledge, I have given no occasion for this claim. But another drive by shooting like that from you Jim, and I’ll just filter you out.
I did support Joe up to a point in the other thread, but not here, I think he’s been inconsiderate and unreasonable. Eric’s fears are entirely rational and real. Where I disagree is Eric’s prescription for what is to be done. I think there’s plenty of rational discussion to be had about that.
Yes, we should be weary of Islam, we should protect our freedom of speech, and we should loudly criticize sexism, bigotry and human rights abuses in the name of Islam. And we definitely should be vigilant against Muslim terrorists.
But that doesn’t mean that Islam is an imminent existentialist threat in Western countries. It doesn’t even mean that Islam is now a bigger danger than Christian right-wing fundamentalists. Let me explain why I think it’s more likely that the opposite is true.
For example, here in the Netherlands, there are no Muslim political parties, none at all (and not because it’s so difficult to enter our political system – we even have a Party for Animals here, and I’m quite sure there are more Muslims than animals who can vote). Most Muslims seem content to vote for the current secular parties. On the other hand, there are currently no less than three explicitly Christian parties in parliament. One of them doesn’t even allow women to run for position of power, so it’s definitely not a strain of Christianity that adopted Enlightenment values . And make no mistake, this is not as marginal a party as you’d wish. In the Dutch Bible belt, this party has majorities in city councils, and what’s more important, they currently provide the swing vote in parliament on many issues for the current right-wing coalition, so they have enormous influence. It’s parties like these, and not Muslims, who are the biggest defenders of blasphemy laws and such.
Another reason that I don’t think Muslims aren’t the imminent threat people make them out to be, is that it turns out that Muslims in the Netherlands are secularizing very fast – faster than any other group. Mosque attendance among Muslims has dropped over the last decade to levels considerably below church attendance of protestants, and not incomparable to where Catholics were a decade ago (see this 2009 article from the Dutch statistics office). So we are not seeing an increase in Islam in the Netherlands, quite the opposite.
What we are going to see, and are already seeing, is a backlash against this secularization from a small subset of Muslims. But such groups have always existed – after all, much of right-wing Christianity is a backlash against secularization from a small subset of Christians. As long as we can defend our secular principles, we should be able to deal with both. Ironically, the anti-Muslim elements in politics, with their insistence that we are a “Judeo-Christian” culture, are likely to be a greater threat against secularism than reactionary Muslims.
“…it turns out that Muslims in the Netherlands are secularizing very fast – faster than any other group. Mosque attendance among Muslims has dropped over the last decade to levels considerably below church attendance of protestants….”
I had always assumed this would be the case, but it’s nice to have it confirmed — thanks for your work on this. Anecdotal evidence from Australia where I live suggests the same thing: Muslim immigrants often arrive with fiercely subversive ideas but find it hard to sustain them in the face of the obvious benefits of an open society and a secular lifestyle.
What this suggests to me is that the struggle against religious fanaticism is essentially a holding campaign: what we must do is try to keep it as ineffective as possible while education and prosperity has time to do its work.
Deen, what about the Islam Democrats? This is their website: http://www.islamdemocraten.nl/
Deen, if what you are saying is right — and it seems to be — I certainly have no reason to distrust you — then Holland is certainly remaining true to form, having been a bastion of liberty for so long. Even Descartes fled there for safety! I wonder if this is the experience in the rest of Europe? Do you know, and can you tell? But, certainly, your experience in the Netherlands is encouraging. At the same time, the recent misfortunes regarding free speech, all related somehow to Islam, are matters of concern. If I could believe that Holland is a harbinger of what is to come, I would be greatly relieved, but this seems not to be the case in other areas, such as parts of England, and enclaves of extremely conservative Muslims in Toronto. As to the danger of right-wing Christians. It’s interesting that this has developed pari passu with the large influx of Muslim immigrants into Europe and Australia, and perhaps they feed off each other. My concern is still to marginalise religion, so the growth of Christian idiocy can be in places — especially the US, and perhaps also Holland — is something to watch as well. By emphasising my concerns about Islam and its effects, I am not neglecting that other religions can have be dangerous too. I started off this blog in opposition mainly to the Roman Catholic Church and its intervention in laws governing assisted dying, and still retain that as a focus. That’s why this post is called “Let’s keep on topic for a moment longer,” because this is very much a secondary concern of mine, however real.
And here, this is another party called the Dutch Muslim Party in an article at forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailesman/2012/01/16/muslim-party-seeks-power-in-dutch-parliament/
Please take a moment to look at their alleged manifest. Seriously, no threat? Crazy.
I would like to inject a note of optimism after reading this sobering article. I run my own Arabic atheistic blog, with my readers coming mainly from within the conservative Gulf states, the main exporters, one might say, of Islam most fundamental ideology. And I can confidently state that there are quite a sizeable minority, which is both increasing in size an openness in that region.
There aren’t official figures for obvious reasons to support my claim, and I admit its anecdotal. But it is causing increasing concern among many religious figures in the area.
There is a palpable sense of awakening from the long slumber which many, within the educated classes, which themselves are increasing and spreading, point the finger of blame for the ills of Islamic nations, to Islam itself with its backward ideologies. The internet is playing no small part in this awakening.
So may be the vociferous going ons of Muslims in Europe is a reaction, not so much to the increasing power of Muslims in There, but, as Anthony Grayling thinks, the last desperate screams of a dying religion.
Nice to hear.
I agree with Egbert #16 – While there is no immediate danger of any Islamic theocracy appearing anytime soon in the west, there is a stultifying effect on free speech and expression here (UK) as a result of threat, intimidation and outright terror tactics employed by Islamic extremists – witness the recent forced cancellation of debate on Sharia Law at Queen Mary college. I don’t buy into this idiotic notion that for the sake of tolerance and community relations that we should be allowing this to proceed any further, or to compromise our ability to be able to freely criticise the religion of Islam without having a bunch of appeasers accuse us of this made up disease they call Islamophobia or racism, as though Islam were some sort of race. It’s not: it’s a dangerous religion, just like the rest of them. The silence of the moderate muslim majority in condemning such fanatics within their midst is a bit deafening too. I haven’t heard a one of them say anything about the Islamists who’ve just pleaded guilty to the terror plot to blow up the London stock exchange in the last day or so. Par for the course here.
Basees, that is, as gbjames says, great news. But remember, AC Grayling also warns what might happen if Islam or any other religion is dying; they may, he suggests, go through a characteristically bloodly fling. Religions may not go quietly into that good night.
Egbert. Thanks for the legwork. The manfesto of the Dutch Muslim Party is truly scary:
1.Criminalization of blasphemy
2.Free speech within limitations: speech that can be seen as insulting or offensive on religious grounds will be prosecuted.
3.Damage or destruction of holy texts for any religion to be criminalized by law.
4.Members of the party can also be non-Muslims.
5.Women and men are to be seen as equal under the law.
6.The party is to be based on the Islamic principle of Shura
7.All troops must be withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan
8.Turkey must immediately be made a member of the EU
9.Support to Israel must be stopped
10.Zero-tolerance for all drugs, including marijuana (currently tolerated under Dutch law)
11.No bans shall be set against the current practice of importing poorly-educated women as brides for Dutch Muslim men
Well, that’s peachy then. Nonetheless, Deen may be right about secularisation. However, in my experience, religions don’t secularise well, and they function, I think, at a very primitive level of consciousness. I watched in disbelief as the liberal Anglican Church I knew began its regress to evangelicalism. I think it may have made the church smaller, but not less passionate. And privileging religion in the way suggested would be to live in a theocracy.
@Eric:
I don’t know the statistics for other European countries, but I suspect that they would be similar. After all, as far as we know, increasing education and prosperity levels have the same predictable effects on religiosity everywhere.
Yes, there are enclaves of extremely conservative Muslims in many places, and I’m sure they are some in the Netherlands too, but the point is that they don’t necessarily pose a larger threat to the mainstream society than the enclaves of extremely conservative Christians that have been there for much longer, and in much larger numbers. It’s just that the latter don’t make the news much – we’ve had them for ages, we’re used to them, we’ve learned to ignore them, so it’s not news, there’s no sensation there. These new, foreign Muslim wingnuts, though, they are news. I think the perceived imminent danger from Muslims for Western society is to a degree due to this sort of distortion from the press.
That said, all the attention conservative Muslims are getting from the press does mean Muslims can have a disproportionally large impact on the national debate about freedom of speech etc, and we should definitely be critical of that.
Actually, Christianity is still shrinking here, except in places like the Bible belt. What is on the rise is basically nationalism, where a generic Christianity just gets lumped in with the other “traditional Dutch values” we’re supposed to defend (although they’re always otherwise rather vague what values they’re talking about exactly).
Deen, thanks for this (# 31). Two comments and not necessarily opposed to what you say. First, while Christian conservatives can be a danger to freedom, they have seldom (except for a few anti-abortion extremists in the US and Canada) resorted to violence. Indeed, most Christians seem to think of democracy as a Christian invention! But Muslims not only resort to violence, their holy texts call them to it. And there are disturbing cases of violence, such as the threat to people at Queen Mary College in London by a terrorist who threatened participants in the lecture with death, saying that he knew where they lived. Apparently he was greeted outside by his companions, which makes the threat credible. And there have been a few two many occasions when threats have been made to authors and publishers, like Irshad Manji, or Hebdo, for writing books that challenge conservative Islam, or for offending the sensibilities of Muslims. So the danger of terrorism is not altogether over, and it is having a dampending effect on free speech. Some people whom I respect are concerned, and so I do am concerned. Religion, I think, is a dangerous force. The recent address by the pope to the American bishops is an appeal to the bishops to be more intrusive in political and legal affairs. That, to me, is a bad sign. The Roman Catholic Church is the greatest threat, after Islam, to freedom. It has imposed restrictions on women’s freedom in a number of countries, including Poland, and it is something we need to be concerned about, that institutions like the Roman Catholic Church, and Islam (which is awfully hard to pin down), do not abridge our freedoms, because once they are lost they are very hard to get back. Religions, in general, are power seeking organisations, and they do not respect boundaries. There were reasons why the act of succession in Britain ruled out Roman Catholics. I think there are still good reasons for doing so, because the Roman Catholic Church has played a particularly intrusive role in the politics of Britain. Britain does not need a most catholic majesty, and the royals must recognise that this would be their downfall (or at least I believe it would be).
@Egbert: the Islam Democraten are a local party, I was talking about national parties, I should probably have been more explicit. No Muslim party has ever participated in a national election at all, let alone gotten any seats in parliament.
About the Dutch Muslim Party – they already tried to get support for running in the last election. They failed miserably. The moderate Muslims didn’t need them, and are happy with the secular parties, while the Fundamentalists thought they were way too liberal (Eric already mentioned that they consider men and women to be equal – the horror! – but they also explicitly reject Sharia in their manifesto – not that Forbes or most other news outlets will tell you that). So that party isn’t going to get anywhere either anytime soon. By all means, criticize them for the scary stuff they do promote, but in many aspects, that party is actually considerably more progressive than the Christian party I mentioned before, the SGP, which has far more support and has real political power right now. There is no way I can consider the Dutch Muslim Party as a bigger threat than the SGP.
Deen, did you honestly write ‘progressive’ oh lord! And you’re ignoring the other parts of their manifesto. I can’t take you seriously, sorry.
Sorry, close tag fail – emphasis was supposed to end after “right now”. (It’s closed now. Eric)
Egbert, to be fair, I think what Deen is saying is that, for a Muslim party that expects to get Muslim votes, it is progressive. Progressive is relative to the group. If they consider men and women equal, and do not accept Sharia as the basis of law, then, from the point of view of orthodox Muslims, they are wildly progressive. Also, Deen is speaking about who actually has political power, and saying that the Muslims won’t have it anytime soon, but that some conservative Christians already do.
@Egbert: I wrote that they are more progressive than the SGP, not that they were progressive on the whole. You did read the original full manifesto, I hope, not just the Forbes article? Did you also read the SGP manifesto? I stand by my judgement that the SGP is worse.
And I’m not ignoring anything. Did you miss the bit where I said they promoted some scary stuff?
Tremendous post, Eric. I don’t agree with all your points, but this is very insightful in toto.
That Islam is and existential threat, in the sense you described, is evinced by what Egbert and clod said about freedom of speech in the UK (or the UK and England as GBJames would have it — ?). At least there is some political pressure to remove a prohibition against “insulting” language from one piece of legislation. But what happened at QMC is quite deplorable. And the more often such action succeeds in stifling debate, the more it will happen, whatever the law says.
Even if that threat were not significant, what’s done in the name of Islam is quite sickening, whether it’s terrorist attacks, “honour” killings, wife beating, or simple denial of equality for women, and demands a continued vocal response.
This is not hateful of Moslems, only of what some Moslems do. This is not hateful of Islam (how can one hate a fiction?), only the evil that Islam makes good people do.
We need to remember Jefferson (“I have sworn on the altar of God …”) and Popper (“If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant…”) and ignore all complaints of how shrill and strident we might be.
/@
Just a small correction and an addition to the first paragraph of my note above. I meant to say: there are quite a sizeable ATHEISTIC minorities …
Eric, religions, Islam in particular, due to its bloody nature, will not go quietly, regardless of what we do. You do realise that I’m sure. In fact, there may even be a case to say that the spread of “shrill” atheism may drive it to be more violent in its resistance to go to its final resting place: the library archives.
I do class myself, proudly, to be on the side of the “shrillists”, but a violent end is an eventuality we have to recognise and accept.
Reading again my last comment, I realised I was just repeating, unnecessarily, what had already been said. This is the result of doing too many things at the same time, and not paying enough attention to anyone of them. Sorry Eric.
Basees, welcome to the shrillists! (Not that I have any proprietary claim to it!) I think I do understand that have reason to be sure (ie, that Islam will not go quietly). I don’t think other religions will pass peacefully away either. But go they must, if this world and all its peoples are to achieve some sort of peace. I am fascinated by what you do, though I cannot read the Arabic to follow the conversation, though one video spoke eloquently of the deadly silence that follows mass murder. It is headed “Live Leak”. What does it record? (I did, by the way, assume that you meant sizeable atheist minorities.)
Basees, no need to apologise. I do it all the time, I’m afraid. This is the age of multi-tasking. It would be surprising if we did not miss things as we flitted from one to the next!
I would quibble with this. Islam isn’t a fiction any more than Catholicism is and both are worthy of contempt. But there’s no point in hating Allah, Yahweh, or Quetzalcoatl.
Eric, I have been running my blog actively for about two years now. Its modelled on PZ’s, Coyne’s and your analytical style. Its aimed at the more informed/educated sector of Arab Muslims. The very sector which is fuelling atheism in Arab society.
That terrible video purportedly records Taliban fighters executing Pakistani soldiers. I can’t speak Pashto, which I assume is the language being spoken in the video, so I can’t say what is being said. But I caught two Arabic words being directed at the soldiers by the Talibans in the first minute of the scene, and the whole speech sounds like an accusation. The two words are:
Apostate and apostates
That tells you what crime those soldiers were executed for.
Excellent post again Eric. And with which I largely agree – really a question, I think, of “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” – a lesson that recent history should have impressed on all and sundry even if it apparently hasn’t.
However, as an aside only as I wanted to address more important aspects later, while I am certainly supportive of Ophelia Benson’s campaign and of many others against “stupid, sexist denigrating language of the gutter that is used just to put women in their place” [I must read her book Does God hate women? and your recent post on it as well], it still seems to me that, in some cases at least, “the ladies doth protest too much”.
For example, I noticed awhile back that Greta Christina – no weak sister or slouch in the battle for women’s rights – acknowledged that some claims of misogynism are entirely bogus. And Rebecca Watson posted that “Reddit Makes Me Hate Atheists” – a somewhat questionable conclusion in itself – during which she characterized those who caused that conclusion as “assholes”. And with which I agreed and went so far – feeling bold that day – to further characterize them as “pricks” – the perpetrators being entirely “men”, although I use the term loosely and with some embarrassment if not shame. But the point is that characterizing one or several individuals as particular parts of the human anatomy – a case of synecdoche – in no way justifies concluding that anyone is asserting that all who possess that component happen to be similarly deserving or are the target of the implied opprobrium.
While I certainly think that people can get carried away and use such terms to the point where they are empty of any meaning, and that they may not always be appropriate for any number of reasons which needed to be addressed on their merits, to insist that they never be used or never have any applicability is a bridge too far, counter-productive, political correctness run amok, and tantamount to opening the door to something like a “language police” – the very antithesis of the free speech that we – including Hitchens – have been championing.
But to the essence of your post:
And if that does not remind us that the same thing has been threatened in the West with equal if not greater success, then we’re not doing our homework.
Agreed. And curiously I think – and some Muslims agree with some chagrin – that the case of the Muslims who shut down the planned discussion of Sharia at the Queen Mary College by Anne Marie Waters with physical threats was a serious tactical mistake on their part: asking “who gave these kuffar the right to speak?” has provided, I think, a rallying cry for those prepared to say “We – this democratic society – gave them that right”, and has provided the impetus for the planned “Free Expression Day”. Time to draw a line in the sand.
So when I am told that I should not be concerned that Islam is an existential threat to the West, I know that they have no idea what they’re speaking about.
Absolutely. Although, as I think Basees noted, there is some indication that many Islamic nations are starting to take some efforts themselves in “pointing the finger of blame at Islam”. Some interesting sites supporting that, including the International Center for the Study of Radicalization and a New York Times article which has some interesting facts from a UN Arab Human Development report.
@ gbjames (& I notice you’re l.c. here!) I’ll concede that “fiction” wasn’t the most apposite word choice, but I was being pressed to attend to something else irl! (Although, in a sense, all fiction is real.) But it is fictive, its scripture and dogma created entirely by imagination. And while it’s as worthless and as unworthy of respect as Christianity, I still don’t feel hate towards Islam (or Christianity) per se.
/@
@Ant Allan: Yeah. I prefer the word “contempt” because “hate” somehow seems loaded with something my Catholic grandmother would have tied up with the deity. But they seem pretty much equivalent in the dictionary. In any case, whatever the word-of-disapproval is, targeting it at imaginary entities makes would be a waste of energy. If I had a dollar for every time a believer said to an atheist: “Why do you hate God?” I’d… well, you know.
This post and conversation have been clarifying for me. It might be useful to make at least some broad distinctions among the different kinds of threat that have been discussed, because it seems as though different places are in danger to a different degree – the terrain of threat is not flat.
1) Islamic Theocracy – does not seem to be a threat in the West, and what I had usually taken “existential threat” to mean from the Republican party and the rightwing media here. I still have family who tell me that if Obama gets a 2nd term he’ll have a chance to unleash his Secret Muslim Agenda and we’ll all be living under federally enforced Sharia by 2014 or so. I think it may be this kind of nonsense that makes the phrase “existential threat” seem so crazy and weird to me and Improbable Joe coming from you, Eric – I can’t speak for him, but it’s definitely in this crazy “our country will cease to exist and we’ll all be slaves of Muslim overlords in the new country founded on sharia” context that I’ve heard it used. In the US I’m much more worried about Christian encroachment into the actual state power structures.
2) Hate-Speech Legislation – speech insulting or denigrating religions or religious groups becomes illegal. I don’t foresee this becoming a problem in the US, but apparently it is already a problem in the UK? Nonetheless if it were to happen in the US it would chill free speech in a hurry and it would cease to be recognizable as the country that so valued free speech.
3) Free speech remains the law of the land, but some speech is threatened by violence. I think this is probably the most important of all, and there’s a kind of an orthogonal gradient formed by the degree of violent threat on one hand and the degree to which the state powers are willing to actively protect free speech (and if they aren’t, I suppose it matters whether it’s due to sheer indifference, lack of funding, or most disturbingly turning a blind eye toward “deserved” violence). I think it’s this last one I’m most worried about here in the states. It was nice to find out that police were escorting Jessica Ahlquist at school at least.
There are plenty of memes in our culture about the tradeoffs of active protection, though – I remember in high school hearing “does a white supremacist group deserve taxpayer-funded police protection if it wants to hold a rally on the streets of Harlem, or should they have to pay for whatever protection they get?” pretty often.
The latter two categories seem to spill over into each other in interesting ways. What to make of “Free Speech Zones” we have in the US, where a group of protestors has to stay in a prescribed area to protest a political gathering of some sort? I do sometimes worry about other forms of hate-crime legislation, like making the murder of a gay person or black person by someone not in those minority groups a “worse” form of murder, because the principles are similar enough to prior restraint that they could start to leak into curtailment of free speech. I have similar misgivings about treating religious terrorism separately from criminal law. This won’t be popular around here, but I’m afraid I think the idea of a burqa ban is similar enough in contour to banning hate-speech that I have some seriou discomfort with it.
Do you think it’s possible or useful to tease this out further?
Wow – sorry for the long post! It looks longer on the page than it did in the “leave a reply” box.
What with Free Expression Day in the UK in a week and a half, I’m tempted to hop on a plane from Milwaukee. But I just returned from England and the costs do add up!
… It’s also probably worth noting censorship and silencing that happens due to exercise of authority at non-state levels, e.g. universities.
@ Basees That’s an interesting blog, although Google Translate is not quite up to the job! (What are the “creatures with 600 suites” — بمخلوقات ذات 600 جناح، — ?) By the way, I really like your “Why am I atheist?”/“Why am I rational?” post!
/@
Improbable Joe (#2),
You live in Canada, right? 2% of your population is Muslim. If 10% of them are extreme, that’s 0.2%.
That seems to be a very questionable assumption. For example, Ibn Warraq in his Why I Am Not a Muslim has it that:
The term “Islamic fundamentalist” is in itself inappropriate, for there is a vast difference between Christianity and Islam. Most Christians have moved away from the literal interpretation of the Bible; for most of them, “It ain’t necessarily so.” Thus we can legitimately distinguish between fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist Christians. But Muslims have not moved away from the literal interpretation of the Koran; all Muslims – not just the group we have called “fundamentalists” – believe that the Koran is literally the word of God. [pg 11]
Although that seems not entirely correct as the Pew Forum report on religion indicates that, at least in America, only 50% of Muslims think the Quran is the “Word of God, literally true word for word” while some 36% think it is still the “Word of God, but not literally true word for word” – no indication which words in particular qualify as “non-literal” and, in any case, likely to be a somewhat academic difference if push came to shove. And that is quite similar for “Evangelical Churches” and “Jehovah Witnesses” [59/29 & 48/45 respectively].
But a crucial difference is that the “holy” books of the latter pair aren’t insisting, as the Quran does, on active jihad and that:
47.4 “When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives”
And that is only one small tip of a very large and odious iceberg of totalitarianism. Don’t know if you’ve ever heard of the book titled Les Versets douloureux [The Painful Verses – an interesting review here], but it is about a rabbi, a priest and an imam discussing the more “problematic” verses in their respective “holy” books – although I note that they are all men and I expect that a knowledgeable woman could give them all a blistering earful from woman’s perspective that they probably have no idea of.
But it seems to me that Islam is the far more problematic religion as it is the one which explicitly rejects the principle of the separation of church and state and explicitly rejects the commitment to equal rights regardless of race, creed or sex. Not to mention a whole raft of other principles crucial to the operation of democracy. Looks to me like allowing further Muslim immigration into Western democracies is tantamount to creating fifth columns, to clasping vipers to their breasts. Seems like a problem we can very much do without.
Ant Allan, yes I realise Google Arabic-to-English translator is quite messy. But unfortunately this is the only web sites translator I’m aware of. The “creatures with 600 wings” (not suites but wings, as in birds) refer to the arch angel Gabriel, who is believed to have 600 wings according to the Hadith (Muhammad’s saying). The more wings you have, the faster you travel. Makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?
Why I’m an atheist post, is one among other posts written by readers who left Islam for agnosticism or atheism, talking about their experiences. Its a very good way to encourage people to come out of their closets. I got that idea from PZ Myers blog, but I didn’t have the number I was expecting.
Thanks, Basees! Strangely, Google translates جناح alone as “wing” rather than “suite”; why the difference in the phrase, I wonder. I guess this also has the sense of “a wing of a building”, yes? And maybe it’s the context — Google doesn’t expect anything to have 600 wings of flight! (Sorry to stray so far OT, Eric, but language fascinates me.)
And my apologies for overlooking that that was a guest post. I liked it nonetheless. While I can’t dispute that I’m an atheist, that encompasses just a single idea, and I self-identify as a (philosophical) naturalist and (secular) humanist, which provides a fully-rounded, positive worldview.
/@
I am an islamophobe and proud of it.
Steve Beck (#56),
I think “Islamophobe” has an unfortunate connotation of “an irrational fear of Islam” when I think there are a great many very good reasons to fear it.
Although I don’t think that that fear should be allowed to induce any form of catatonia or apathy, but it should lead us, if not to an implacable resolve to extirpate it root and branch, then at least to a stark awareness of the dangers it poses to the core principles of democracy and reason.
ABC,Eric!
I like it.
I think Steersman is right about “Islamophobe,” but what is the right word to describe someone who dislikes Islam?
Phobias are irrational fears. Being afraid of Islam is not irrational.
Eric,
You might enjoy this youtube video by Pat Condell, he did in 2009, which only echo, in his brilliant and passionately direct way, what we’ve been discussing over the last week. Funny how nothing much has changed over the last few years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4FpTvp0tgs
“The ladies protest too much”?
Jeezis.
Egbert (#61),
“… clouds of self-righteousness [00:43] …” Yes!
While I haven’t listened to it all yet, it seems to me that the facile support from far too many for the burka in the name of “multi-culturalism” is predicated on a profound and dangerous ignorance about the dimensions and consequences of Islam.
But maybe the recent “honour” killing here in Canada will be the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back in forcing some necessary changes to various laws and attitudes. Although as I think Eric and others have argued, when one’s “holy” book condones violence towards women and when that book is believed to be literally true – particularly in the case of Islam – then that justifies laying a large portion of the blame for those types of killings at the doorstep of the religion itself – as I have argued on Islamic Awakening, probably with not much success.
But, in passing, as I have now been banned there for not being properly deferential towards Allah [i.e. their beliefs] I might suggest that you – and others – might want to try rattling their cages on that and other topics as well.
Ophelia Benson (#62),
“The ladies protest too much”? Jeezis
Cheeses swept ….
Though I hope you noticed the prior “in some cases at least” and managed to get past that phrase into the supporting arguments. While I haven’t yet read your co-authored book – Does God Hate Women? – I am certainly ready to concede the point in large part due to the recent discussions and cases surrounding the burka and women’s plight in Islam. But my point is that I think there are a few problematic dimensions and aspects to feminist dogma – not that I am at all familiar with all of it – that require and call for some criticism. And that shouldn’t be discounted or discredited by being characterized as misogyny.
Steersman, I’m still somewhat torn on the subject of banning clothing. I don’t see how banning the burka changes the values of a religion that is fundamentally opposite to liberalism. But what it might suggest is that a process of integration within liberal cultures might help change those values instead. It is perhaps that Islam can’t integrate within liberal cultures due to the policies of mass immigration and multiculturalism combined, which has created such a problem in Europe.
Steersman – seriously – don’t disagree with women by calling them patronizing names. That’s a bad start. You made it *more difficult* for me to take seriously what you said, by starting with the stupid put-down.
For the “substance” of your bizarre tangent -
“While I certainly think that people can get carried away and use such terms to the point where they are empty of any meaning, and that they may not always be appropriate for any number of reasons which needed to be addressed on their merits, to insist that they never be used or never have any applicability is a bridge too far, counter-productive, political correctness run amok, and tantamount to opening the door to something like a “language police” – the very antithesis of the free speech that we – including Hitchens – have been championing.”
Do you think the same applies to epithets like “nigger” “wog” “Chink” and “kike”? Do you use those epithets, do you defend their use?
I’ve never seen you do either one. I’m guessing you don’t do any of those things. If I’m wrong, then that’s a different discussion.
But if I’m right – you agree with the social custom of avoiding a few highly charged epithets, without thinking that’s “political correctness run amok.” I’m just saying the custom should cover sexist epithets too, and that for many people it already does. I don’t think free speech requires the use of highly charged epithets. I don’t think highly charged epithets should be illegal, obviously, but I think they should be socially taboo.
Or to put it another way: you call me or any other woman a bitch or a cunt and we’re done. It seems quite simple, really.
(And calling us laydeez doesn’t help either.)
Got to agree with Ophelia’s point here Steersman. Why, I wonder, do you feel the need to defend those who use epithets upon women which not only have a high emotional valence, but are also normally reserved for those who want to use crudity to hurt and offend? What purpose does the use of this kind of language serve? And why should it be given any more room in discussion than the words that Ophelia mentions, words like ‘nigger’ or ‘wog’ or ‘kike’ or whatever? Putting women down by using the language of the gutter to speak about them is not only unnecessarily uncivilised, it is a discussion stopper, and why would anyone concerned with reason want to stop discussion? As Ophelia says:
And I agree. Why would anyone carry the conversation any further after that? In fact, it would be incumbent on a reasonable person, male or female, to leave the discussion at that point. When I said, above, that
I was saying that I agreed with her and that this is a campaign worth fighting and winning, both for the unbelieving community and for women generally. Why would anyone think differently? I simply don’t see the point. You have a beef with feminists? Argument is always better than the abusive language of the gutter.
Also, ironic use of such epithets is fraught with misunderstanding and a weird mixture of good and ill will; I think such use is probably socially reserved for insiders. I can’t help but squirm when I hear someone talking about the women who produce the “Godless Bitches” podcast as “The Godless Bitches,” or who want to show solidarity by saying something like “I’m proud of my sister – she’s a total ‘Godless Bitch.’” Ditto the recent “evil little thing” epithet, which is now available on ironic T-shirts and so forth. I don’t think I’m alone in being rather incapable of discerning when the context would be appropriate to congenially call a close woman friend an “evil little thing” as an ironic badge of honor in reference to Jessica Ahlquist. I usually avoid any such references unless it’s in the company of only very close friends who already know my position, but it’s easy for a misunderstanding to lead to resentment and heartache.
Egbert (#64),
Steersman, I’m still somewhat torn on the subject of banning clothing.
I’ll agree that it is a decidedly sticky wicket with no end of problematic nuances. Leading the hit parade is the question of whether or not the women in question have decided to wear the burka of their own free will or whether it is a consequence of indoctrination – “oppressive psychological manipulation”. But as our courts generally use “balance of probabilities” as a guiding principle I think we are entitled to conclude the latter is probably the case and to legislate accordingly.
Interestingly and apropos of that I notice that France has jailed a Muslim woman for wearing one in public – good show I would say. But I’m quite happy to see that they are prepared to draw the necessary line in the sand on that and on several related issues, something that other Western democracies should be emulating.
In addition there was a case not too long ago here in Canada where Elections Canada insisted that in the polling booth and facilities burkas are verboten. And one might reasonably argue that banks have a justifiable right to similar protections.
Ophelia Benson (#66),
Steersman – seriously – don’t disagree with women by calling them patronizing names. That’s a bad start. You made it *more difficult* for me to take seriously what you said, by starting with the stupid put-down.
Not quite sure what you’re referring to there as I didn’t use any gendered insult. And if by “stupid put-down” you meant the “methinks the ladies doth protest too much” – as suggested by a subsequent comment – then you should know, as you no doubt already do, that it is a paraphrase of Shakespeare with a perfectly reasonable and credible meaning – and of some general and specific applicability. Unless you think that Greta Christiana erred in suggesting – as I noted – that some claims of misogynism are bogus.
I don’t see what good it does to further shame a woman who wears a burqa or who has had been made to wear one by jailing her. I think there could be a way to do something similar by allowing businesses not to serve anyone who has her (or his) face covered – similar to the “no shirt, no shoes: no service” rule – rather than an outright ban. Part of the problem for me is that it’s unclear for the purposes of a ban whether the burqa is an instrument of Islam or a symbol of Islam. Would we be OK with banning crucifix necklaces? Nun habits? Secular humanist pins and pastafarian hats? I would not trust legislators to make fair decisions here.
Steersman – of course I know that – but why say it? Why make an issue of women saying something? Why treat it as weird that a couple of women talk? It was All Men on this thread until I said something – why did you feel a need to mark the fact that women somewhere said something?
And for that matter why did you ignore everything else I addressed to you?
Honestly. Talk about unconscious male bias.
Another Matt (#73),
I don’t see what good it does to further shame a woman who wears a burqa or who has had been made to wear one by jailing her.
Seems like a good point. Maybe the person who should be jailed is the husband or father who insists that the woman wear it. Or the imam of her community.
I think there could be a way to do something similar by allowing businesses not to serve anyone who has her (or his) face covered – similar to the “no shirt, no shoes: no service” rule – rather than an outright ban.
Agreed. Although that may still take a law to make that legal.
Part of the problem for me is that it’s unclear for the purposes of a ban whether the burqa is an instrument of Islam or a symbol of Islam. Would we be OK with banning crucifix necklaces? Nun habits?
Maybe a reasonable argument, but it still seems that as a society we have to draw the line somewhere. Would you be ok with someone wearing shackles? Slavery is, of course, no longer legal – at least in Western democracies, although the evidence isn’t quite so clear for Islamic countries. And as the burka very much seems to be an instrument of Islam whereby it enforces the second-class status of women – virtual slavery and mandated and justified by the Quran itself – I think a very good case can be made for using the law to penalize someone as a method of putting an end to that rather odious situation.
Ophelia Benson (#75),
Why make an issue of women saying something?
Largely although not entirely because Eric made a somewhat passing reference to your “campaign”:
Over at Butterflies and Wheels Ophelia has let out all the stops in her campaign against the stupid, sexist denigrating language of the gutter that is used just to put women in their place …
I certainly don’t disagree – as mentioned – with that general campaign and am willing to support it. What I objected to was the generally categorical nature of his comments; I find there are generally very few, if any, absolutes and I get apprehensive at any suggestion or claim that one is.
Why treat it as weird that a couple of women talk?
I don’t; more power to them – more, the merrier. My point was whether what they talk about – their protests – were entirely valid or not and whether there was any call or justification for characterizing the criticism of them – as a recognizable group or subgroups – as misogyny.
And for that matter why did you ignore everything else I addressed to you.
I responded to your post #67 about half an hour ago but I see it is still in moderation [#74] – probably because of a link to the Economist as all of the other ones are to Wikipedia; sorry – I may repost it shortly.
Ophelia Benson (#67),
[Repost of #74 to remove link; Eric, please delete one or the other as you decide appropriate; thnks]
Do you think the same applies to epithets like “nigger” “wog” “Chink” and “kike”? Do you use those epithets, do you defend their use?
Depends on the circumstances and the context. At one end of the spectrum, are you going to support those who wish to remove “nigger” from, to sanitize”, Mark Twain’s Tom Sawyer? [(http://)www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2011/01/sanitising_huckleberry_finn%5D And while I can’t offhand see any circumstances that would justify the other epithets, “nigger” may have some general applicability to those – white, black, brown or green – who happen to be particularly obsequious in bowing to authority. Or invokedas “a metaphor for the victims of an authoritarian society.” Stereotypes – and their use in ridicule – can have some significant and salutary benefits.
I’ve never seen you do either one. I’m guessing you don’t do any of those things.
No, generally I don’t, largely because I haven’t actually run across that many circumstances that call for them. While I too certainly “don’t think free speech requires the use of highly charged epithets”, that doesn’t mean that I don’t think that there are hypothetical and actual circumstances that would at least provide some justification for their use – regardless of whether they are taboo or not. As I attempted to argue in the case that Rebecca Watson described and that I referred to above.
Or to put it another way: you call me or any other woman a bitch or a cunt and we’re done. It seems quite simple, really.
I’ll keep that in mind. But that seems tantamount to a “My sex, right or wrong” type of philosophy; to the perspective that “Any insult of any sister is an insult to all of us”: rather problematic and untenable I think.
Steersman – come on; pay attention. Disputing something I said is one thing; saying the ladies protest too much is another. Why couldn’t you just dispute something I said WITHOUT MAKING A POINT OF THE LAYDEEZ?
You can’t really be so dense that you can’t see why that’s insulting. Surely you’re just not paying attention.
It’s the difference between marked and unmarked. Men talk – no one says “the gentlemen are rowdy this evening.” A woman says something – “Oh oh oh oh, a woman talked! The laydeez protest too much haw haw that’s Shakespeare.”
It’s so fucking exasperating. This whole long page packed with men talking and it’s only the woman who gets treated as an aberration.
78 was in reply to 76, not 77.
Steersman, it wasn’t held in moderation for any reason except the number of links, and because I was doing something else. But this, I’m afraid, is just silly:
It’s a matter of three things: (i) good manners, (ii) relevance, and (iii) whether you want to have a conversation or stop it. Religion is a conversation stopper. So are sexist epithets. The rest of your post is irrelevant to the question about carrying out purposeful and useful intellectual discussions. This shouldn’t need to be said, but apparently some men still haven’t got the news that women are equal, and should not be reduced to sexual parts. The attempt to do this is simply a conversation stopper, an insulting one, and an attempt to put women “back” in their place. Well, I have news for you. They’re half of the human race, and they simply don’t deserve to be treated by men as though they were merely sexual appurtenances of men.
Forget the hypothetical circumstances. They’re irrelevant until they come up, and then both men and women will know that they are relevant. If they don’t, they aren’t. It’s a matter of being conversational equals. Golly, I didn’t think this was a point that would still need to be made. The church is way ahead of you guys on this. What’s the matter, got held up in evolution somewhere?
77:
Really. I call bullshit.
““nigger” may have some general applicability to those – white, black, brown or green – who happen to be particularly obsequious in bowing to authority.”
But that’s not the question. The question is, would you use it? You say you don’t because you “haven’t actually run across that many circumstances that call for them.” I don’t believe that. If you did run across such circumstances, would you say “you’re a real nigger”?
I think you’re kidding yourself, at best; at worst you’re just plain bullshitting.
Ophelia, our notes crossed. I agree. It’s bizarre that this should still need discussion. Anyone who still thinks there’s something to discuss is simply not paying attention!
Deep breaths.
Thanks Eric. This stuff gets under my skin something fierce! :- )
Ophelia Benson (#78),
Disputing something I said is one thing; saying the ladies protest too much is another. Why couldn’t you just dispute something I said WITHOUT MAKING A POINT OF THE LAYDEEZ?
I think we’re talking at cross-purposes or I wasn’t clear enough or you missed what I said in #45:
… it still seems to me that, in some cases at least, “the ladies doth protest too much”.
Please note that I said “ladies” – plural, not singular, not directed specifically at you. In addition I explicitly referred to some additional cases which, I thought anyway, supported my general thesis that not all claims of misogyny are justified for which I made a general reference to comments by Greta Christina, the specifics of which is in the following:
But I’ve certainly seen accusations of misogyny or sexism that I thought were bullshit. (Porn wars, anybody?) And I don’t expect people of any gender to just silently accept any and all of these accusations without question.
Now. If an instance of misogyny is being discussed, and you genuinely don’t think that the instance really was misogynistic or sexist… by all means, say so.
But, to reiterate, my intent wasn’t to discuss a specific instance but a general policy, the “conventional wisdom” of, for want of a better term, “sexual politics”. All I was doing was suggesting, as per Christina’s carte blanche, that not all accusations are credible. Although I was suggesting that gendered insults can have some relevance and pointed to Watson’s post as providing some justification.
This whole long page packed with men talking and it’s only the woman who gets treated as an aberration.
Sorry again if you think that comment was directed specifically and solely at you: it wasn’t – I think I made some reasonable efforts to clearly indicate it was a comment on generalities predicated on Eric’s comments on the topic.
Ophelia Benson (#81),
But that’s not the question. The question is, would you use it?
Yes I would and I have, although not the “c-word”; I called the guys – and I use the term loosely – who gave such a hard time to the woman that Rebecca Watson was talking about a bunch of “pricks”.
But my point is that I don’t lump myself in with them because I happen to be male, nor do I think that Eric or any other male here is going to be terribly offended because I’ve used that “gender epithet” to refer to a bunch of, supposedly, men.
Oh god. Steersman – you’re not even trying.
For the third time: there was no call to make that stupid hackneyed haw-haw remark about ladies protesting AT ALL. Whatever the content, whatever your argument – the dumb jeer at women was superfluous and sexist.
And you again answered the wrong question: the question was ‘would you use “nigger”.’
No of course men don’t much mind hearing other men called pricks, just as white people don’t much mind hearing other white people called honkies. NOT RELEVANT.
Furthermore
AAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHH!
I’m back. SIWOTI. It’s maddening.
Look, Steersman – 81 –
————
Really. I call bullshit.
““nigger” may have some general applicability to those – white, black, brown or green – who happen to be particularly obsequious in bowing to authority.”
But that’s not the question. The question is, would you use it? You say you don’t because you “haven’t actually run across that many circumstances that call for them.” I don’t believe that. If you did run across such circumstances, would you say “you’re a real nigger”?
————-
Got it? That’s 81. You answered by saying you wouldn’t say cunt but you would say prick. The question was ‘would you use the word “nigger”?’
Maybe I should say something sneery about gentlemen not answering the question.
Another Matt #73, makes a great point about the jailing of a woman for wearing the burka. This makes a daft situation even worse, since the law in its own muddled and tricky way was meant to protect muslim women, but instead a muslim woman is the one punished for wearing totalitarian fashion.
This shows you how utterly absurd and slippery the law can be.
Steersman, you’re not paying attention. Calling men pricks is not the same as calling women cunts. Women are objectified by men all the time. It’s as though men have a right to objectify them. But this very seldom happens to men. It’s the objectifying, reducing, marginalising language that matters here, and the objectifying that men do to women all the time is simply out of place in any context where ideas are the issue. I can’t understand why you don’t seem able to see this, and I can understand why Ophelia throws up her hands in despair. You have to see it in social and cultural context. Think of how women are objectified in Islam, and then now think of it in Christianity or other religions. Then think of how they were objectified by being shunted off — still are — into low paying, menial work, “women’s work”, then see how language that objectifies them as sexual objects further insults and denies their intellect. I cannot think of a situation in which any of these epithets can be relevant, and no situation in which “methinks the ladies protest too much” is relevant, and Ophelia was quite right to emphasise the “laydeez” aspect of the saying. It’s one thing in Hamlet, it’s another thing when it’s a putdown of women, which it always is. This kind of language is like drive-by shooting, It’s dangerous, unwelcome, and foolish. I’ve watched threads developing over at Butterflies and Wheels on this topic, and I cannot for the life of me understand why people bother even to argue the point. It’s simply time for men to get it into their heads that conversations are equal, and sex or gender doesn’t enter into it. We can talk and argue ideas. We don’t need to put the emphasis on sex, sexuality, or gender roles, and certainly not in such a way as to marginalise.
Egbert, I don’t see the point. Who would jail a woman for wearing a burqa?! Of course that would be stupid. What you would do is fine the men who force their women to dress this way. And fine them again if need be, and make it clear that imams and others have to learn that women are free in a free society, whatever their damned religion says.
And this applies to other religions as well. It is a scandal that the Roman Catholic Church’s rules apply mostly to women, and yet women have nothing to do with making the rules. It’s stupid, patriarchal and unjust, and people are frightened into compliance by idiotic ideas about punishment after death. No one should be able to teach a child that.
I don’t know the best way of regulating these things, but I do know from someone who has lived amongst Muslims in Canada how oppressive this is, not only for the women involved, but also for women who live nearby. There must be a way of making it clear that these sorts of practices are unacceptable in a free society. We complain, and rightly complain, about the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, and then we allow it to take place in the midst of a free society! It’s a mad idea, and it makes us look stupid and hypocritical. If we stand for freedom, then we may simply have to force people to be free in certain respects, so that no one can be bound in those respects.
Again, thanks, Eric.
There was an absurd (but telling) outburst of this kind of thing on Facebook yesterday – Jessica Ahlquist posted a wonderful hilarious picture of herself doing the emoticon
: D
Really funny because instantly recognizable. Almost at once some guys started saying she’s hot, she should post at “Sexy Atheist.” Rhys Morgan pointed out how creepy that is – and it was World War III. On and on they went, saying we were prudes, bores, over-reacting, blah blah blah. Rhys was a “white knight” – Rebecca Watson had some choice things to say about that.
We won in the end. :- )
Steersman: There’s this old saying about what the first thing to do is when you’ve dug yourself into a hole….
gbjames,
Probably good advice and entirely apropos ….
Steersman, consider the following hypothetical. If some woman said of some men who said stuff “methinks the boys doth protest too much,” is it not obvious there is something wrong with that? That would infantilize the men speaking, marginalizing and diminishing perceived worth. It implies they are not fully worthy of having their opinions considered for some reason. Note that it wouldn’t matter in the least whether the woman intended for that to happen, it would still be the result. This is similar to what you did with “methinks the ladies doth protest too much.” It may not infantilize, but it does marginalize and diminish perceived worth. “Ladies” has connotations to it that are not all positive. Think “I’ve got the vapors” when stressful situations appear, or “a lady never raises her voice,” or any similar bullshit. That you claim the statement wasn’t addressed at Ophelia specifically, but rather was more general, doesn’t help your position at all, as you’ve simply painted with a very broad brush indeed.
I will still say that calling men “pricks” is bad, but not nearly in the same league as calling women “cunts.” Not sure if that means I’m disagreeing with you or not, Eric. I DO get a little twitchy and offended if someone calls men “dicks” or “pricks,” or anyone for that matter. Both to avoid hypocrisy and to avoid painting all men with that brush, it should be avoided. But it doesn’t approach the level of “cunts,” for the reasons you give.
Eric (#90),
Steersman, you’re not paying attention. Calling men pricks is not the same as calling women cunts. Women are objectified by men all the time.
Maybe. I’ll give it some further thought but it certainly seems analogous to me.
But the facts of the matter are that there are perfectly reasonable definitions for the words that have nothing whatsoever to do with any objectification, nothing that I can see, but I guess my sensibilities aren’t as finely tuned. Specifically:
prick – Vulgar Slang, A person regarded as highly unpleasant, especially a male
cunt – Offensive slang, a mean or obnoxious person [presumably female]
Unless you can convince American Heritage and the other dictionaries to change their definitions I can see no reason for concluding that the use of the words necessarily means any insult towards the associated groups or any other members of it: I hope you notice that the definitions do refer to the individual person, not the group.
Some serious conflation going on there, I think; some not very precise thinking.
But I really think we – lads and ladies – have a tendency to go off half-cocked, if not “protest too much”, because we’re not clear on the definitions in play – an example of which is “religion”, one definition of which – a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion – justifies the argument that atheism can be so characterized. We definitely have a tendency towards allowing our emotions to get the better of our reason – which shows some similarity with Muslims getting their knickers in a twist over some cartoons. All of which is related to the point I’ve been trying to make.
But, as mentioned, I’ll give the topic some further thought ….
Eric, if I understand the laws in France correctly, if a woman is caught wearing a burqa or niqab, they are subject to a fine and are required to take a citizenship course; they are jailed if they refuse. If anyone forces someone else to wear a head+face covering they are subject to a much larger fine and a prison sentence. I can agree with the latter rule, and maybe even compulsory citizenship courses, but I just can’t get behind jailing women for this, or shaming them in public. Maybe if the purpose of the law is for security – to keep faces open for security cameras and witnesses – but as I suggested in a reply to a previous post of yours, I think someone wearing this:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7381660-man-wearing-furry-winter-hat-and-scarf-over-face.php
or this:
http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4026/4702975510_da20c83da7_z.jpg
would face similar fines under the law. A further complication – there would need to be exceptions for people with a medical condition that requires that they cover in the sun, and also there ought to be an exception for people who have suffered disfiguring facial injuries that want to cover when they appear in public. As you said, there must be some way to make it clear that these sorts of behaviors are unacceptable.
Think of this analogy: if you meet a woman with a bruised face, the proper question is “who did this to you and do you need help?” – and if she needs help there needs to be a very reliable public service available to help her. It would be unconscionable to levy a fine for appearing in public with a bruised face. Same deal if she were slashing her own wrists – it doesn’t do to make attempted suicide a punishable offense, but ample help should be available if she wants to pursue it. There’s a very sticky point where we might force mental-health treatment, but that seems extreme for head covering. There would of course be huge political resistance (at least in the US) against setting up an “escaping from religion” public service, so this kind of thing would probably need to be a dangerous form of charity work for it to gain any traction outside of passive online communities.
I’ve said more than enough on this thread, but there is one side point – we should all be very very careful not to use phrases like “their women” in these contexts, as easy as it is to slip into that kind of language.
Eric, I know! But I’m afraid that is the problem with using the law for social engineering or the moral good. Steerman’s source (comment 71) is to a chat forum and not a news source, so I’ve no idea if it true.
Again, I share your sentiments, but it’s what is to be done that troubles me. The law, strictly, ought to be used only to protect victims, not punish them.
This reminds me of laws that are used to ban prostitution, which actually endangers prostitutes more by forcing them onto the streets and into the criminal world.
BTW, there are plenty of Muslims in the town where I live, and I’ve seen some wear the niqab.
Steersman (#96), there is an analogy here that I won’t deny, but I think, despite the plain dictionary meanings you provide, the resonance is different in each case. I don’t approve of, nor would I like to be called a dick or a prick. But in a world where women have been, and still are, very often, objectified sexually in a way in which men have not been, and where being objectified in this way implies that the person is somehow of lesser value as a human being, and less competent than men in ways that count in the context of intellectual or other pursuits once reserved for, and very often still thought of as the province of men, the use of these gutter epithets is an immediate reminder of a world that we hope is receding into the past. But it won’t, if we don’t simply exclude such conversation stopping language. Quite aside from all that, the use of this kind of language in most contexts now is reasonably thought of as sexual harrassment, and that should be enough to put a stop to it.
In the US, February and March are respectively “Black History Month” and “Women’s History Month.” Throughout these two months we have observations like this from the right-wing media: “It’s black history month and next month is women’s history month. Can you imagine the rage among liberals if we had a white history month or a men’s history month?” What they never seem to understand is that every month is white history month and men’s history month – this is what privilege looks like. It’s for similar reasons that “cunt” is worse than “dick” – it just has far more serious connotations because of the years of privilege that back it and amplify it. However – and I want to be really careful here – critics of feminism also sometimes say that what is “really” going on is that “a man can take it if you call him a dick but a woman can’t take it if you call her a cunt,” and so I think it might be good to try never to give that impression with our language. Connotation is the whole game.
With “our” language? But it’s not “our” language, is it – not if “our” is supposed to mean all of us. That’s the problem with Steersman’s rush to mark the gender of the laydeez who spoke. In Steersman’s world there’s “our” language, the men’s, and then there’s the laydeez’ language, which consists of protesting too much. The whole point – whether Steersman has the wit to recognize and admit it or not – is to marginalize perceived outsiders; to make them feel like intruders in a boys’ club.
And it’s not about being able to take it (or not). It’s about refusing to put up with it.
Also…I can’t help wondering if Steersman has been living in a refrigerator for the past 40 years or so.
Pingback: How not to marginalize women | Butterflies and Wheels
Ophelia Benson (#86),
No of course men don’t much mind hearing other men called pricks, just as white people don’t much mind hearing other white people called honkies. NOT RELEVANT.
I really, honestly and truly don’t see why that is not entirely relevant.
I can see that there is some difference between insulting someone who is a member of the same group that I am a member of and insulting someone who is a member of a group that I am not a member of. But that, I think, is largely irrelevant as the salient feature of the gendered insults – defined in my previous post (#96) – is that they are directed at persons and not the groups – men or women – which the persons themselves are members of. Really seems to me that some women are working from a different definition from men such that they construe an insult of any woman to be an insult of all women. Maybe that highlights the problems of using different definitions of words – enough to start inter-galactic wars ….
But I suppose that one might reasonably argue that the labels and what they connote are the source and cause of the supposedly “highly unpleasant” or “mean [?] and obnoxious” attributes to be associated with the person. But even if that is the case – maybe a sad commentary on our attitudes to sexuality, but regardless, then the implied opprobrium seems to be equally distributed so I can’t see that who is the “insulter” and who the “insultee” has much relevance at all. Actually seems to be a bit of a red herring to insist that it does.
Got it? That’s 81. You answered by saying you wouldn’t say cunt but you would say prick. The question was ‘would you use the word “nigger”?’ [#88]
Ok, I’ll concede the point that the cases are not directly analogous and so one can’t be a stand-in for the other. Although I think you were the one to suggest the equivalence to begin with. In any case, that seems to be largely because “nigger”, even its broadest terms, is defined as a “disparaging term” for a member, all members, of a “socially, economically, or politically deprived group of people”: intrinsically pejorative even if some implied connotations are less broadly critical of the group and more so of some members of it. While, on the other hand, the gendered insults – at least by the definitions I’ve used above – are explicitly not at all condemnatory or critical of the entire group, but only of one member of it.
Maybe I should say something sneery about gentlemen not answering the question.
You could if you wish and I wouldn’t be at all offended or hurt – sticks and stones, you know.
Particularly as it doesn’t seem a particularly credible argument since the cases aren’t really analogous: seems there is only one gentleman who didn’t answer [correctly] the specific question you had in mind, as opposed to more than one lady [and more than one gentleman] who is, apparently and arguably, protesting “so passionately about [accusations of misogynism] being true that people suspect the opposite of what [they] are saying” – at least apparently so and in some cases.
Although I will readily concede that the evidence looks pretty damning. And that there are some plausible examples of “an excess of zeal” hardly detracts from the mountain of examples that the prosecution has to justify its case. Which, to be clear, I really and truly wasn’t arguing against.
Eric (#99),
Steersman (#96), there is an analogy here that I won’t deny, but I think, despite the plain dictionary meanings you provide, the resonance is different in each case.
Ah! Progress!
Although I think your use of the word “resonance” is seminal and highly problematic and thereby hangs a tale or two. For example you may know that about 1940 the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapsed largely because the consequences of resonance:
The bridge’s collapse had a lasting effect on science and engineering. In many physics textbooks, the event is presented as an example of elementary forced resonance with the wind providing an external periodic frequency that matched the natural structural frequency …
Most definitely an important part of society to be building bridges of one sort or another, but one must question at which point resonances and the structural elements which lead to them are invalid or problematic. And as Another Matt argues in a previous post (#100), “Connotation is the whole game” – which becomes a rather slippery slope indeed showing, as it does at least in my view, some problematic similarities with the subjective connotations engendered by cartoons of Muhammad and in other such cases of “blasphemy”.
I don’t approve of, nor would I like to be called a dick or a prick.
But I think the point is that you aren’t offended – I assume – if some other man is called that. Nor are you likely to have been offended that Rebecca Watson called a bunch of “men” “assholes”. And might have even been supportive – as I am – of Watson for doing so. Really a sticky wicket I think, the question as to whether an insult directed at one member of a group should be assumed – connoted – to be an insult directed at all members of the group. Seems in some cases that is justified, but in other cases not.
For a while I thought we had a case of an innocent offense that, having been pointed out, was followed up by an attempt to pretend no offense had occurred. Sort of the old non-apology apology. But now I’m come to think that the tenacious refusal to recognize that there is a hole and that the shovel is no longer a useful tool, borders on pathological.
Dude. What you said was offensive. Period. Arguing endlessly that it wasn’t, or that someone else is offensive, too, or that somebody elsewhere thinks someone is oversensitive, is not elevating you among your peers. You are managing to eliminate any sliver of dignity that might have remained for covering your shame, to use a slightly religious-sounding metaphor.
The gendered insults – no; they function exactly the way “nigger” does. Don’t kid yourself.
The saying about sticks and stones is utter bullshit. I despise it.
I really don’t need Wikipedia on the quotation; I understand it perfectly well; I know the play more or less by heart. The quotation is not at all relevant to the discussion. (It was never meant to be a universal bromide. It’s a terrible irony, because Gertrude is describing the character in the inner play who corresponds to her, so she’s giving herself away, or seeming to. Like most lines in the play it’s packed with ambiguity. Yet people trot it out just to say “she’s shrill and strident.” That’s stupid.)
I think you’re being a huge pain. I think you should just say “oops, I didn’t mean to say women talk too much.”
Heh. I cross-posted with gbjames. Quite so.
Steersman (#102). Now, I think, it is appropriate to say that you really are reaching. You are, that is, protesting too much, and it does become tiresome. I think GBJames has it nailed down pretty securely. You can’t make things right by going on protesting that, in some sense, you are justified in your use of language. The best thing is, as you seemed to have recognised awhile ago, that once you’re in a hole, digging down further doesn’t get you out. Oh, yes, and in re “sticks and stones” and so on. It is not true, and it is probably the worst possible thing to say to children. How many kids have killed themselves in desperation, I wonder, because words hurt far worse than sticks and stones?
See this harrowing long article for some examples of those kids -
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202
Ophelia Benson (#105),
The saying about sticks and stones is utter bullshit. I despise it.
Funny, seems a religious fundamentalist here has pretty much the same opinion. An opinion, one might argue, that motivates the current blasphemy law in Ireland. Strange bedfellows and all that …
Eric (#107),
Oh, yes, and in re “sticks and stones” and so on. It is not true, and it is probably the worst possible thing to say to children.
But we are not fucking children Eric. Presumably, although I wonder. You talked about talking about ideas and that, in effect, Muslims should grin and bear any criticisms of their religion because, well, people shouldn’t let their feelings get in the way of their reason – you know, serious conflation and all that.
That some people might get offended over some criticisms of their position or those of people who might share some of their attributes should in no way preclude a rational assessment of those positions. Insisting that because someone has taken offense at some “harsh words” the import of the argument is nullified seems a rather dangerously slippery slope to be embarking on. People might want to do some further in-depth reflection on a recent Jesus & Mo ….
Steersman, one difference is that it is possible to argue a Muslim out of Islam, but to argue a woman out of being… Look, there’s no content in “woman” that makes a woman’s arguments more or less worthy of consideration in a rational conversation. With religion, the content of belief is precisely what is at issue. There is no good analogy for “sexist” with regard to religion.
Much of this problem is that people of a given religion see their religion as identity rather than a set of beliefs and practices. I’m not sure how easy it is to dismiss this – to dismiss it outright and say “I’m attacking your ideas, not you” seems near enough to “hate the sin, not the sinner” to warrant some concern. Anyway, see http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/beyond-the-sacred/
Calling women cunts is a different category from calling beliefs wrong or delusional or stupid.
And my point is precisely not that I’m “offended over some criticisms of my position”; it’s that I’m annoyed that you introduced your criticisms of my position with a random arbitrary pointless jeer about women talking too much.
Ophelia Benson (#102),
Calling women cunts is a different category from calling beliefs wrong or delusional or stupid.
I think you’re missing the point. Calling one woman a cunt – or one man a prick or an asshole which this compendium, by a woman no less, argues is applicable only to men – is most emphatically not to call all women or all men those terms. Just out of curiosity and in passing why aren’t you raking Ms. Watson over the coals for the use of “assholes” to describe some “men” who were particularly odious? Or the woman who was the author of the above compendium? Indignation tank running low? My sex, right or wrong?
And my point is precisely not that I’m “offended over some criticisms of my position”; it’s that I’m annoyed that you introduced your criticisms of my position with a random arbitrary pointless jeer about women talking too much.
Again, it seems to me that you are conflating a criticism of your position – and that of a number of others – with a criticism of all women. Not at all the case. I was quite specific that the case in question, as far as I was concerned, was the characterizing by some women of all criticism of women as misogyny.
This is reminding me of the Black Knight scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Golly, Steersman, are you going to spin this out to the crack of doom?!
We are dealing apples and oranges here, as Ophelia points out. Sure, religious people are going to have to take a few lumps. Commit yourself to certain beliefs about reality, and you’ve got to expect to have someone come along and say it just ain’t so. But calling people pricks and cunts and assholes has a different valence altogether. Just because some religious people can’t separate the personal from the objective is neither here nor there so far as this discussion goes — which you will keep twisting and turning so that you think you’ve got a plausible advantage. But what you’re really doing is digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper. Pretty soon we can put an cover over it, and raise a stone with RIP in big letters as a warning to others who think to go this way.
And will you please just forget about the “laydeez protesting too much.” This is really tired. When you first raised it it had distinctly misgynistic valence. Now it’s just tiresome. You really must learn to let things go when you’ve played out so much rope, before you hang yourself. You’ve been dangling there for several posts, and nothing is going to get you off the hook now. It’s a situation, I’m afraid of diminishing marginal returns, and in that case, throwing more money at it will just lead you to lose exponentially more. In other words, this subject has had its day.
Eric, you said “You’ve been dangling there for several posts“. I think the correct noun may be “days”.
And unfortunately, this side-conversation has distracted from the main conversation in regards to Eric’s original post… but maybe that one played out, too.
By the way – do I get a prize for having the 100th comment?
Steersman (#113): Are you being deliberately obtuse? Calling any woman a “cunt” is insulting all women because you’re using a gender-specific term as an insult, and one, moreover, that is implicitly a synecdoche sexually objectifying all women.
/@
Another Matt (#111),
Steersman, one difference is that it is possible to argue a Muslim out of Islam, but to argue a woman out of being…
Seems a major stretch to me to argue that my case is predicated on trying “to argue a woman out of being a woman”.
But an interesting article – thanks; will take me some time to chew through it. Although I think the closing paragraph is entirely apropos:
The importance of blasphemy is in providing a language of power. To decree certain views, certain ideas, certain practices, even certain thoughts, as taboo is to demand that certain forms of power cannot be contested. The importance of the principle of free speech is, on the other hand, in providing a permanent challenge to the idea that some questions are beyond contention, and hence in acting as an ever-present test to authority. Its importance is in insisting that nothing is so sacred that it cannot be questioned or debated. Once we give up the right to offend or to blaspheme, once we accept the idea of a sacred space, whether religious or secular, then we erode our ability to defy those in power. Human beings, as Salman Rushdie has put it, ‘shape their futures by arguing and challenging and saying the unsayable; not by bowing their knee whether to gods or to men.’ [or women]
Ant (#118),
Steersman (#113): Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Actually I was born that way – part of my genetic inheritance, part of what Steven Pinker referred to as the “Twinkie Defense”, over which I have no control, being entirely a creature of determinism …..
Calling any woman a “cunt” is insulting all women because you’re using a gender-specific term as an insult, and one, moreover, that is implicitly a synecdoche sexually objectifying all women.
But, to answer your question, no. I really do find the logic and premises not at all clear or credible and betraying some features of “conventional wisdom” and dogma. If you think that that word insults all women – a view that at least some dictionary definitions would seem to deprecate, a point that Eric seems to have conceded even if he seems subsequently to waffle on it – then maybe you can explain – please show your work – how the “assholes” that Rebecca Watson used to characterize some “men” does not insult all men if not all persons.
I was going to fall silent, in courtesy to Eric, but since Steersman isn’t…
Kenan Malik didn’t mean, in that final para, that the principle of free speech requires the free use of racist or sexist or ethnic or anti-gay epithets. Kenan is no more inviting Steersman to call him a Paki than he is inviting Steersman to call me a cunt. Epithets are not a good test case for free speech.
Steersman (#120): Because:
• It’s not gender-specific. (Re men only, of course.)
• There’s no synecdoche.
• There’s no undertone of sexual objectification.
• It’s a clear metaphor for something that’s a source of or full of shit.
/@
Ophelia Benson (#121),
I was going to fall silent, in courtesy to Eric, but since Steersman isn’t…
I was going to fall silent, in courtesy to Eric, but since Ophelia isn’t …
Kenan Malik didn’t mean, in that final para, that the principle of free speech requires the free use of racist or sexist or ethnic or anti-gay epithets.
Do you, perchance, have some personal communications from him to justify that contention? (the phrasing of which suggests that what you mean by “requires” is “allows”) Any evidence at all? While I haven’t read the entire article yet, on searching I couldn’t find any references to “profane”, “profanity” or “epithets”. In which case, tentatively anyway, I’ll have to conclude that that contention is only your own idiosyncratic interpretation which you are, of course, entitled to, but that, of course, doesn’t mean that anyone else has to subscribe to the same view.
Kenan is no more inviting Steersman to call him a Paki than he is inviting Steersman to call me a cunt. Epithets are not a good test case for free speech.
Of course he isn’t “inviting” me or anyone else to use epithets; he is not at all, I would expect, arguing that free speech “requires” the use of epithets – a “use it or lose it” philosophy, I guess. Seems to me he is arguing that there really are no limits to free speech – at least among adults – that it “allows” virtually everything. And since we all, apparently, seem to qualify in that regard, let me ask you, who is to decide what are the limits of free speech? The Ayatollah? The Pope? You? Hitchens?
And relative to the last you might want to refer to one of his talks, since you apparently haven’t yet seen it or taken it to heart, that Eric thoughtfully pulled together [January 4]. And one of the salient points he made was with a quote of Rosa Luxemburg:
Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently. [3:20]
And given the evolution in various court cases over the years on the topics of profanity – Lady Chatterley’s Lover and Catcher in the Rye for examples, I think – and pornography – I see even Rushdie argues “pornography is vital to freedom” – I would say the use of various epithets is well within scope of that principle.
Although there are still the practical issues of whether such epithets have any validity or credibility or relevance or weight, but those can be addressed on a case by case basis. Reminds me of the comedian Lenny Bruce on the unreasonable and unfortunate power we give to epithets by making them taboo [Wikiquote]:
Are there any niggers here tonight? Could you turn on the house lights, please, and could the waiters and waitresses just stop serving, just for a second? And turn off this spot. Now what did he say? “Are there any niggers here tonight?” I know there’s one nigger, because I see him back there working. Let’s see, there’s two niggers. And between those two niggers sits a kyke. And there’s another kyke— that’s two kykes and three niggers. And there’s a spic. Right? Hmm? There’s another spic. Ooh, there’s a wop; there’s a polack; and, oh, a couple of greaseballs. And there’s three lace-curtain Irish micks. And there’s one, hip, thick, hunky, funky, boogie. Boogie boogie. Mm-hmm. I got three kykes here, do I hear five kykes? I got five kykes, do I hear six spics, I got six spics, do I hear seven niggers? I got seven niggers. Sold American. I pass with seven niggers, six spics, five micks, four kykes, three guineas, and one wop.
Well, I was just trying to make a point, and that is that it’s the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness. Dig: if President Kennedy would just go on television, and say, “I would like to introduce you to all the niggers in my cabinet,” and if he’d just say “nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger” to every nigger he saw, “boogie boogie boogie boogie boogie,” “nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger” ’til nigger didn’t mean anything anymore, then you could never make some six-year-old black kid cry because somebody called him a nigger at school.
Steersman: Some people can’t take a hint even when delivered by a two-by-four to the head. Your bullheaded refusal to accept responsibity for a stupid comment, and insistence on turning up the stubborn knob to 11, has removed any vestige of respect you might have retained. Your comments are offensive to women and an embarrassment to men; most of all to yourself, although you are apparently incapable of recognizing it. I find it truly remarkable that you would do this to yourself.
gbjames (#124),
Steersman: Some people can’t take a hint even when delivered by a two-by-four to the head.
If you mean your comment about stopping digging, I saw it and acknowledged it but I’m not obliged to think it particularly relevant or to agree with it.
Your bullheaded refusal to accept responsibility for a stupid comment …
I assume you’re referring to the quote or paraphrase of Shakespeare’s. In which case I certainly accept responsibility for having made it and I’ll certainly concede that you have a right to think it “stupid” and that you may even have a few, if questionable, reasons for thinking so. But absent some credible arguments which have not at all been forthcoming I’m not obliged to agree with that assessment – and I don’t.
Your comments are offensive to women and an embarrassment to men …
I figured that the modus operandi in these here parts was that being offended – as in the case of religion in general and Muslims in particular – was not sufficient reason to cease and desist or to nullify the reasons for the criticisms or comments. And likewise relative to the Shakespeare quote, particularly when the Wikipedia article on the phrase clearly pertains to both men and women. And further that there is nothing in the article to suggest that using the phrase relative to women is even mildly offensive to them, much less likely to start World War III.
Seems to me that the taking of offense in both cases is just blowing smoke or making mountains out of molehills at best and self-indulgent and dishonest at worst. All in aid, apparently, of largely evading the question I raised in the beginning, relative to the immediate case, of whether gendered epithets were appropriate in some circumstances or not. While I’ll concede that the case for them is somewhat tenuous at best, the fact that they are used frequently against men suggests to me that they should also be applicable to women.
I find it truly remarkable that you would do this to yourself.
Do what to myself? I figure all I’m doing is trying to pursue a particular line of argument for a number of what I think are entirely valid and cogent reasons to see whether it holds any water of not. That some people wish to take umbrage doesn’t seem to have much bearing on whether it does and only suggests that those doing so – lads and ladies – are protesting far too much. And which suggests in turn, by the dynamic of the phrase – at least in its colloquial interpretation, that there is some justification for thinking that there is some validity to the argument. Although, of course, I could be wrong.
Hmm… I think you must be pretty close to the Mohorovičić discontinuity by now…
/@
I’ll just remind you, Steersman, that this whole line of discussion began with your response to what I said in the original post, which is this:
Now, despite the fact that I find many of your comments meaningful and helpful, the entire line of discussion that you have chosen to take on this is simply a dead end. You say, in your latest, that:
The trouble is that you have ignored what everyone else has to say along the way, and have really just repeated yourself over and over and over again, until the point of the discussion is moot. I mean, get real. Your first response to what I said originally, included this:
But, first, you have given no reason for suggesting this, especially since your ‘the ladies doth protest too much’ is really just a driveby shooting at women in general. This is precisely what is wrong with your whole approach. This is not that epithets are appropriate from time to time, and when a bunch of men are acting like pricks, then it’s time to tell them so. And while I don’t like this language any more than I like the language of assholes, there are times when some dismissive language is in order. But when men are doing the classic thing and acting like men on the make, and treating women in diminishing ways by sexually objectifying them, then perhaps that’s an appropriate accusation.
However, those few cases aside — and with men doing the usual patriarchal thing and objectifying women in sexual ways, they are sometimes not few — there is simply no reason, in intellectual contexts, to use sexual epithets, or to suggest, as you did, without question, that women are somehow less responsible and can be dismissed as a class, by quoting Gertrude (from Hamlet) regarding an actress in a play which, as Ophelia points out, rebounds upon her, for she herself was protesting too much, overcompensating, we would call it now, because of the thoroughly ambiguous nature of her own actions. But this is subtle and nuanced. Your use of it was heavy and beside the point. Time for you to realise that you have been protesting way too much all along — you’re overcompensating, because you’ve really gone to extremes in this discussion, and I think you know it, and you’re trying to reestablish some credibility. Well, you won’t reestablish it by continuing further. It simply is time — I’ll say it one last time — for men to give up their sense of sexual privilege, and recognise that bringing sexuality into discussions like this one is simply irrelevant and unwelcome.
The part of my comment to which you were responding was precisely to say that it’s time that men lost their sense of privilege, a sense that is taken in Islam to extraordinary lengths, but is still in evidence in our own society, despite the partial liberation of women. And you, insistently, have been trying to put women back in their place as either madonnas or sluts, and it really is a bit rich for you to suggest, at this point in the discussion, that you are only trying some ideas on to see if they hold water. They don’t, and it’s high time for men to learn that they don’t, because this matter has a way of sidetracking discussion in the most awful way. There is no place for this kind of language in the atheist (or, if it comes to that, the religious) blogosphere, and by playing to religious prejudices as you have been — since it is the religions that have been patriarchal all along — you’ve really let the side down in my opinion. As I said, the churches, or, at least, many of them, have got to the point where women are involved in ways that emphasise their humanity and equality. It’s time other people learned the trick as well. When the question of women’s ordination came up in the Church of England, newspaper headlines read “Sex at the Altar”, because people hadn’t yet learned to make the separation between women and sex. Women can be doctors, lawyers, engineers, biologists, truck drivers, army officers, pilots, and so on, and there they work as professionals, just as men do. It takes an effort for men to make the separation, and if we can only get over the hump that you seem to be still climbing over, we’ll find that we can treat each other as equals without sex coming up in any form at all, and we’ll learn that our sexual feelings and presuppositions don’t need to sidetrack every discussion.
So, let’s put this whole matter to bed now, for, if you haven’t got the point yet, you never will. Take GB James’ hint, and stop while you’re behind.
Just b4 the thread’s put to bed Eric, I hope you won’t mind if I bring this piece, by Pakistani blogger Omer Kamal Bin Farooq to everones attention as a marker for a smidgeon of hope, perhaps, amongst all the gloom. Note especially the comments. Encouraging.
http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/10096/dawkins-made-it-to-my-sociology-class/
Also, the cancelled talk at Queen Mary College is to be rescheduled. The administration is furious that it had to be abandoned and are going to make sure it goes ahead.
Eric (#127),
Just a short note – “before putting this topic to bed” – partly to thank you for conceding – apparently – my somewhat secondary point that gendered insults have some applicability, unfortunately most often to “men” – something I think women – and supporters – should be using more often. Some men, and maybe a few women, are even more “obtuse” than I, supposedly, am and the “nuclear option” is sometimes necessary to get their attention.
But, given my various comments in support of women’s rights – here and on Islamic Awakening, where the echo-chamber effect on that topic at least is much less pronounced and the argument is much less popular, and in a great many other venues, I don’t think you have a credible argument for lumping me in with misogynists of any sort.
In addition, I think that both you and Ophelia are relying on a “subtle and nuanced” interpretation of Shakespeare as literature that I was never “privileged” enough to acquire and was obliged to rely on the colloquial interpretation which I was at pains to clearly define and point out – Aesop’s fable of the fox and crane springs to mind. But I won’t belabor the point any further – here at least.
clod (#128),
That is very good news indeed; thanks. A couple of very moving comments leaped out at me:
But for a Pakistani teacher to be able to show his class something this controversial is a gigantic step in itself.
The path to our renaissance is difficult and dangerous but it is these little steps that make a difference. Little things like the incident when a black woman, Rosa Parks, refused to sit at the back of a bus and became the symbol of the civil rights movement ….
The situation in England is, of course, quite a bit different, but maybe the event at Queen Mary’s College will have consequences similar to the events described above.
All right; if you’re going to, I will.
Just one tiny factual correction, because the inaccuracy is SO annoying. Steersman, #123 -
Ophelia Benson (#121),
“I was going to fall silent, in courtesy to Eric, but since Steersman isn’t…”
I was going to fall silent, in courtesy to Eric, but since Ophelia isn’t …
Not true. I stopped talking after Eric’s “this subject has had its day.” Steersman didn’t. The parallel isn’t.