I have been following — at a distance — the dispiriting farrago of abuse and obscenity aimed at feminist atheists and their supporters. All the completely contemptuous remarks and stultifyingly offensive use of scatological and twatological language to try to get women freethinkers and sceptics to shut the fuck up. It’s simply bizarre, and, from what I can tell, quickly becoming an obsession of a small marginal group of rather crude examples of the genus Homo who seem to think they have a right to use whatever insulting language they choose. Michael Nugent has collected a number of examples of such language from the Slymepit, which I gather is, indeed, a slimepit, so far as the decencies go, and which I forbear to link here.
But it is worthwhile linking to Michael Nugent’s collection of the anti-feminist pushback that some feminist sceptics have received from a group of men whose use of language needs a bit of washing up. It’s aimed not only at women but at men who have come to the defence of the (often named) women concerned. The names in the collection have been redacted, but this is abuse directed at specific named individuals, no holds barred. So, here it is, introduced with the appropriate warning that
readers not familiar with the type of material published on The Slymepit website, [should] please be aware that [they] may find the following content to be abusive, shaming and very disturbing.
I am not going to quote any of the offensive statements here. Why do people think, just because you can throw insults at people from a distance, that it is an appropriate thing to do? And why do people think that addressing their often obscene remarks both at women freethinkers and at the men who support them is something that is within the pale of any movement, let alone one that is intended to shine the light of reason onto the human scene? The examples that I read — and I did not read them all — are deeply offensive, and should, it seems to me, be actionable. Perhaps that is the thing that will force “people” to behave with some regard for the dignity of others. Of course, these people are determined to disregard dignity altogether. It’s a matter of civility and good taste. They haven’t any.
One thing that does concern me about all this is that Michael Shermer seems to have lost the plot. He said something stupid. Ophelia Benson called him on it. But instead of simply saying, “Sorry,” and left it at that, he just had to go into a long rigmarole – he couldn’t help it, I guess — a male tic, apparently – that has a tendency to defend what he said, suggest that it was simply said as a matter of routine, because that’s the way it was when, and then pillory Ophelia for calling him on it in the first place. It makes no sense to me. Let’s get this quite straight, shall we? Women play as important a role in the freethought movement as men. Because our society still tends to be pretty misogynist, despite the changes brought about by feminism, women still get treated to a dose of misogynistic presupposition every time they appear at a conference, or every time they write something on a blog. In the wider society sexual harassment and assault are still the norm, so, of course, we expect the odd reactionary yahoo amongst nonbelievers too. To them, women are simply legitimate targets for abuse, be it physical or verbal, and they feel free to use the most barbarically sexist language in response, reducing them – there’s that male tic again – to their sexual parts, and even threatening to go on and use those parts in illegal ways, or suggesting that others do. Why are women subject to this kind of abuse? Because they’re women, I guess, no other reason being obviously on offer, except that women, if they have a thought in their brains, must be ugly, and perhaps can be abused into some state that would be acceptable to these men who did not have the good fortune of being washed away by the Flood. And here they are, living in society, and still behaving like they just came out of caves.
Any one who must resort to use of abusive language does not need to engage with the public.
Precisely! That’s why I have steered clear of this topic, thinking that this kind of idiocy would just fade away. But it doesn’t, so I need at least once in awhile to make it clear where I stand. I will not directly engage with these people. Like people of faith, they don’t think either.
Feminism is great — unless it becomes a religion in its own right, and relieves its followers of the necessity of having to think for themselves, evaluate evidence and behave with ordinary politeness. I have been abused by a feminist for suggesting that before our computer user group passed a grant for disadvantaged women and girls, we should check to make sure they actually WERE disadvantaged. That was an error in my thinking, I was informed. There was no need for evidence; women and girls were ALWAYS disadvantaged, simply because they were women and girls.
When feminists were addressing real-world issues, they had my full support. Those who are still addressing real-world issues still do. But I can understand why people — not just men — get cross when their even-handed proposals for fair treatment are dismissed as bias and prejudice. But I agree that in those circumstances name-calling is childish and undesirable; my preferred approach is simply to cut off communication altogether.
I think part of the problem is that privileged people swim in their privilege like fish in water. White males are the poster-boys of unearned privilege. It is more difficult for us to learn empathy, especially if we never leave our cocoons of privilege.
White males don’t get to define “racial equality” or “feminism” and any attempt for a WM to do so is a sign that they lack empathy, are very immature or are just entitled assholes. For myself, I have distanced myself from the atheist community online and where I live precisely because of the mean-spirited cluelessness or a depressingly large swath of the atheist population.
You don’t have to agree when a person of colour is talking about racism or when a woman is talking about sexism; all you have to do is shut up and learn something, my fellow white male.
Jon
What do you mean by “in those circumstances”? Two things you have to remember.
First, women have traditionally been kept down, and still very often are. What sounds reasonable to one person may not sound so reasonable to another, given this fact. One of the things one had to remember in the church, for example, is that women were speaking from personal experience, so they were far more defensive than men tended to be in similar circumstances. When Ophelia heard Michael Shermer’s “put down” of women and she called him on it, she was speaking out of her experience. If Shermer couldn’t see that, he should try looking at it from a woman’s perspective. After a while that sort of thing simply becomes intolerable. Put yourself in that situation. You have, haven’t you, and you didn’t like it? Now think of how it strikes women who are repeatedly, standardly, put in that situation. I had one experience of racism, in a London restaurant — only one in a lifetime! The rest of the customers in a Pizza Hut were black. We were not served. I left in a huff, knocking over a chair in the process. And then I thought how black people must feel who experience this kind of thing day in and day out. Then I understood. I didn’t like it, but I understood.
Second, in almost all circumstances name-calling is childish and unhelpful. I understand that this is commoner on the net than in face to face encounters, but it is still troublingly harsh and distasteful, and the examples collected by Nugent are very troubling. Isn’t your experience of being “abused” by “feminists” pretty pale by comparison?
Thank you for this, Eric.
Pingback: Crude examples of the genus Homo » Butterflies and Wheels
Eric,
It seems to me Shermer was just defending himself against the charge of sexism. Do you think he would have responded differently if Ophelia were a man? I don’t. For all of Shermer’s faults, sexism is certainly not among them. Let me ask you a question: if you ever felt your words were used out of context to make the claim that you were a sexist would you not defend yourself in a manner similar to Shermer’s? This seems, to me, like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
As for the other, I don’t know enough about feminism or the atheist movement to speak intelligently on the subject of behavior within those groups, but I will say that, within society as a whole, sexism does exist, it is a real problem that real women face everyday of their lives, and it has no place in the 21st century.
Regards
Re: Persto,
In regards to Shermer and his response, don’t you think that someone who spends so much time on skepticism and critical thinking should have taken time to carefully read the criticism and understand what was said before responding?
He wasn’t being accused of actively, intentionally trying to put down women. A statement of his was given as an example of something sexist. But he went on a defensive rant way beyond what he was actually criticized for. Which has been pointed out repeatedly, including in Eric’s comment above.
Personally, I expect a professional skeptic to take a little more care when defending oneself from perceived attacks before lashing out.
Good post, Eric.
“Do you think he would have responded differently if Ophelia were a man?”
We will never know will we? Why not just apologize for something that was easily taken the wrong way (if he didn’t actually mean to be sexist) and learn to clearer in the future?
Michael,
I am sure he would have apologized if he felt his words were used within the proper context. If I took your words out of context and created the appearance of sexism would you apologize to me for taking your words out of context? I think not. You would explain the proper context of the phrase or collection of words in order to dispel the idea that you are sexist. You wouldn’t apologize for being misrepresented by whoever used the quote.
Let me just say, the phrase ‘it’s a guy thing’ sounds bad, but, once you get the phrase within its proper context and Shermer’s explanation of the use of the phrase, I don’t see how this is anything other than a non-issue.
Regards
Shermer was never called a sexist by Ophelia. Can we please stop spreading that rumor?
Persto, I thought Shermer’s comments sounded sexist whether he meant them or not, in any context. And bloggers like Ophelia Benson were perfectly within their rights to discuss them. It wasn’t like she roared from the pulpit to denounce Shermer either. It was quite a lowkey analysis.
OK, Shermer’s later explanation made it sound less sexist, but that’s hardly Benson’s fault that it came a month or two later.
I think you’re wrong, and of course, I’m British. Being intellectually active about these things is more of a British thing. Not an American thing.
Does that sound bigoted of me? Forget it. Non-issue.
The phrase sounds bad, indeed. In fact, it sounds quite sexist. It also has been used to justify everything from slut-shaming women to denying them jobs. Looking at it from that vantage, can you see how the phrase can be interpreted as being sexist in and of itself? In addition, Ophelia made it clear that “Shermer said something sexist” is different from saying “Shermer is sexist”. My father occasionally said sexist things, but I never felt he treated us any differently than how he treated my brothers, and it was very clear to me that he respected women. He wasn’t a sexist, and neither is Shermer. Both of them however, said things that were insensitive, and would give the perception to outsiders, who don’t know them, that they are sexist. Micheal Shermer is held in much higher regard in the atheist community than my dad, so it’s important that he chose his words carefully. Knowing we have a problem with sexism, it’s important for the denizens of the Slympit to see that our leaders support women and are willing to decry sexism. The fuss over Shermer’s remarks came about because of his importance as a leader. My dad making such a remark would have made me roll my eyes at him. Shermer making such a remark not only makes me roll my eyes, it makes me worry if I am able to count on him to be on our side in this “war”. And his response to the criticism of his words made me feel pretty certain I can’t.
PS. Eric, “twatological” is definitely the word of the day! Love it.
Persto wrote:
“once you get the phrase within its proper context and Shermer’s explanation of the use of the phrase, I don’t see how this is anything other than a non-issue.”
You may not see it but plenty of others do. In context, Shermer made a dumb, sexist statement, and then made it worse every time he addressed the subject again. It was pathetic.
@Persto:
There is nothing in the context of Shermer’s speech which makes his sexist remarks any less sexist. I remain unconvinced that that is true. That is not calling Shermer on being a sexist, that is calling Shermer on parroting sexist ideology within his speech: that women are less prominent because of a quality which they lack. That’s the very definition of sexism, and his doubling down on it, utilizing phrasing against Ophelia which Paula Kirby has been using to trump up charges of enforcing some idea that Ophelia and others are jack-booted thugs, sure as hell didn’t help his case.
If there is anything within his speech which would contextually ameliorate the charge of sexist phrasing, then quote it and explain it.
Eric, the abuse encountered by women on the web is very similar to some of the abuse I have encountered when trying to argue the case for global warming scepticism. I agree that we shouldn’t have to cope with it, but that’s life. At worst it just shows a closed mind; at best it indicates that someone is so uncertain about their challenged beliefs that the only way they can defend them is with outrage and abuse.
You’ve permitted me to be abused on your own blog for advocating global warming scepticism; and men and women of all persuasions are routinely abused in all kinds of vile ways in blogs and forums that endorse stands they don’t believe in. It’s a problem, certainly, but it’s not specifically a WOMEN’S problem, and trying to gain an unfair advantage by pretending that it is is the same kind of self-righteous privilege-seeking that we see among Catholics and so many other religious groups.
If you want to take the moral high ground because you’re persecuted, your first task is to show that you’re more persecuted than average. I don’t think Western atheist feminists have shown that.
Thank you, Jon, for making this about you. Gods forbid that this should be about women when there’s a man in the room whose feelings and experiences are so important that they nullify all discussion of ladies’ problems.
Also thank you for the hyperskeptical dismissal of harassment towards women. Interesting use of the word ‘persecution’ there.
tomh,
I see where this is going, so let us just agree to disagree.
Regards
Perhaps the most pervasive form of abuse women in the workplace have to endure is being considered potential playthings, which is typically not even considered abuse by the men so engaged. Quite the contrary, they consider it something women should appreciate. To a guy they’ll say “What do you think about X?” but they might ask a gal, “Hey, do you want to go out on a date?” which is frustrating to a woman who has a strong opinion on X. This isn’t rare and aberrant behavior, it’s pervasive and corrosive.
While men are occasionally the targets of unfavorable physical description (Al Gore, Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are fat! Tucker Carlson wears a bow tie!) women nearly never escape derision: Hillary has boobs! Michelle Obama has a bone through her nose! Noting that Janet Reno and Madeleine Albright are old and unlovely was thought hilarious in some quarters, while their similarity to their male contemporaries went generally unremarked.
I don’t think the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of women; the evidence of discrimination speaks for itself, and even if it didn’t, the indignant chorus of men, claiming that it’s just the way things have to be, clinches the point. (I’m not talking about this or any particular recent thread, but discussions going back for years and years.)
Justice Antonin Scalia has recently expressed concern about the “perpetuation of racial entitlement” in the context of the Voting Rights Act. There also seems to be widespread anxiety concerning the introduction of sexual entitlement (otherwise known as equality) into every corner of society. Somehow, though, the restriction of privilege to white males seems at the very least not entirely up-to-date.
“the most pervasive form of abuse women in the workplace have to endure is being considered potential playthings”
Likewise men have to endure being considered potential providers and protectors, which is typically not even considered abuse by the women so engaged. Quite the contrary, women consider it something men should appreciate.
You’ve permitted me to be abused on your own blog for advocating global warming scepticism
Being abused for advocating harmful falsehoods is a far cry for being abused for being a woman and having an opinion and expressing your opinion while still being a woman.
Jon wrote:
“men and women of all persuasions are routinely abused in all kinds of vile ways in blogs and forums that endorse stands they don’t believe in.”
A silly comparison. Women are not denigrated because of stands they take, but rather simply because they are women. They are insulted, usually with sexual terms, because they are women, not for their beliefs or arguments.
Persto wrote:
“I see where this is going, so let us just agree to disagree.”
I have no idea what you are talking about, that you “see where this is going.”
For example, it would be perfectly reasonable to speak about Jon in abusive terms, referencing what must be either his gullability with regards to lies told by anti-feminists or his willful deception vis-a-vis the marginalization and oppression of women around the globe, including in the USA and Britain and other westernized, industrialized countries.
It would not be reasonable to speak about Jon in abusive terms that referenced simply his genitalia, or pressed into service pernicious and common stereotypes about male stupidity and incompetence.
Jon doesn’t grasp the difference. That is why Jon is wrong.
“Eric, the abuse encountered by women on the web is very similar to some of the abuse I have encountered when trying to argue the case for global warming scepticism. ”
Really? You’ve been demeaned for who you are, your gender? Even if that was the case it would be a non-sequitur to you. There is a very funny feminist on Twitter called @annathebot who reverses this abuse and dishes it out to sexist men, calling them stupid-over emotional-males etc. It has no where near the power when you’ve not led a life where you are routinely demeaned and put down because of your gender, hence the humour and why she gets away with it. (To a degree)
If you think you receive anything like the abuse women get online for expressing pretty tame non-controversial things then I suggest you try reading more. I’ll probably be in moderation for ever for all these links … (NB: All are unpleasant, the NSFW one is NOT Safe for Work!)
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/06/internet-trolls-online-beat-up-anita-sarkeesian-game_n_1653473.html
http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/02/02/what-is-more-important-than-peace-nsfw/
http://skepchick.org/page-o-hate/
Rebecca Watson is a great example, she said in a video (Few minutes of a 50min video) “Guys, don’t do that” as a bit of advice on how to pick up women at conferences and what not to do –> i.e. Proposition them alone in an elevator at 4am. Subsequently she has had more abuse than I’d guess you can imagine, plus lots of “skeptics” from her own community saying she is making it all up…
tomh,
I don’t think there is anything else I can add to what I have already said. So, seeing as how I am not Shermer’s ‘bulldog,’ I have no desire to get caught up in a back forth, with no end in sight, about whether Michael Shermer is a sexist or not. I don’t think he is nor do I think what he said was sexist. I have explained why I feel this way. I am sure, as your comment indicates, that you feel that Shermer’s phrase wasn’t taken out of context. That is fine, but I don’t see how there is very much room left for continued meaningful dialogue. In fact, it appears to me that the only thing left to do is say the same thing over and over and over again. I have no desire to do this, so, in the spirit of likely triviality, I bid you a goodnight.
Regards
persto – “It seems to me Shermer was just defending himself against the charge of sexism.”
That some of the things all of us, every single one of us, are thoughtlessly sexist is a daily fact of life. I’ve been involved in feminism for 40+ years and I still get it wrong occasionally – conventional 1950s upbringing and being immersed in a culture that is both overtly and insidiously sexist has an inescapable effect. I have no problem in retracting and restating whatever I say in such circumstances.
It’s telling I think that Shermer and some of the people who have commented on this see it as an “accusation”. It’s *not* an accusation, it’s an observation about a routine mis-step that anyone can make at any time. We all know how to say a quick ‘Sorry about that’ and go on to reframe our remarks. Even if we have it drawn to our attention a bit later than the occasion in question.
Wow! Talk about the flood-gates opening! I’m still trying to decide about some comments. I want to keep this discussion as civil as I can. For example, I allowed Sally Strange’s comment to stand, although I must say that I don’t think it helps to speak of anyone in abusive terms, even when they say things that you disagree with. I can’t remember, Jon, that I “allowed” people to abuse you, though I haven’t kept on top of all the comments all the time, especially regular commenters here. Someone made a completely off the wall comment about you on this thread which I have not approved, one that was unnecessarily abusive.
This whole area of discussion (if it can be called that) is obviously highly flammable, and arouses almost hysterical as well as demeaning responses. One of the things that seems very clear is that it is hard for many men to appreciate women’s perspective on these things. For instance, the whole thing seems to have been kicked off by Rebecca Watson, who merely remarked that hitting on a woman alone in an elevator late at night is not appropriate behaviour at a conference. I think it would have been left at that if the issue hadn’t then been magnified by others who took offence at a fairly moderate remark. Male vanity was invoked, and the matter took on a life of its own, mainly because, so far as I can tell, men simply do not understand women’s feelings about situations like this. But when you bear in mind that sexual harassment and assault are very common experiences of too many women, the men who responded as they did to Watson’s original concern simply misunderstood the context, and have gone on doing so.
Some people have raised the issue of my leaving Free Thought Blogs in this connexion. The reasons for having done so were personal, and had nothing whatsoever to do with Free Thought Blogs or any of those who blog with FTB. I want to emphasise that. I don’t want to go into the reasons deeply, but my decision was a personal one, based on a purely emotional response to having made the switch, a response that I do not myself completely understand. Those who suggest that there was any other motive for doing so are entirely wrong, so please stop speculating. I admire many of those who blog at FTB, and I am sorry if my having left has in any way damaged the good name of FTB or those who blog there.
As for Shermer (which a few people mention), I want to say that I never did say that he is or was sexist, merely that he overreacted to a situation that could have been defused by a simple, “I’m sorry, it was a dumb thing to say.” It was a sexist remark, although I do not (or at least did not) think that Shermer was sexist, though when he spends as much time as he has defending himself, you begin to wonder. And when a significant leader of a movement loses perspective like this, it reverberates through the whole movement, unfortunately, and people come out on various sides which they are only too willing to defend tenaciously, regardless, apparently, of the harm that is being done.
I have tried hard not to take sides here, although of course I have taken a stand against abusive name-calling. I have always found that name-calling is unhelpful, and that it is more effective to say in words what people try to say by abusive name-calling and sexual put-downs. Some of the things that have been said to and about my friend Ophelia Benson are completely unjustified, and the continuing stream of abuse that she has suffered is unacceptable. Those who think this kind of thing is appropriate are sadly lacking in propriety and perspective. Most of the stuff that is being written is really just a stupid waste of time. I’m tempted to say, “Grow up!” And now I’ve given way to temptation.
Jon, really, I think you misunderstand (Jon | 5 March 2013 at 02:38). I don’t understand your use of the terms abuse and persecution. If you take an unpopular stand, especially one that seems to doubt the scientific consensus — say, anti-global warming — you are bound to be criticised, and some people will not take you seriously. You should expect that. Of course, no one should abuse you for it, though I am curious as to what you count as abuse or persecution. You do seem to misunderstand the difference between male privilege and female marginalisation, and how the difference in social perspective affects the things that people say. That’s why Lee Brimmicombe-Wood’s (5 March 2013 at 03:15) comment seems important. You must see that there is a big difference between taking an unpopular stand, and being criticised precisely because you are a woman, and not for anything specific you say or believe. There’s a big and important difference here, and you seem to have missed it.
Eric, I support you, Ophelia and Rebecca totally on this issue. That is all.
@Eric
“It was a sexist remark, although I do not (or at least did not) think that Shermer was sexist”
It’s not possible for a person to think and do sexist things without being sexist.
If a person is raping people, then they are a rapist.
In reality Shermer’s words are *interpreted* to be sexist, by some people, but that’s a lot different to actually being sexist.
Ksolway, nonsense! If a person is raping someone, he is a rapist, of course. But if someone makes a sexist remark, he is being sexist, but is not necessarily a sexist. It simply does not follow. Sometimes we say things without thinking, simply responding in what used to be culturally approved ways, ways that are no longer approved. Falling back into bad habits does not make one committed to the position — for example, sexism — those habits illustrate. It can be simply a lapse, and lapsing into something one deplores is not adopting the deplored state. Shermer’s words were sexist. They represented a lapse, or would have, if he hadn’t turned around and tried to justify the lapse. The best course would have been to apologise and move on. Saying “I’m sorry” isn’t really all that hard.
@Eric
You are claiming that the *words themselves* are sexist. But words are only words, and cannot be sexist in themselves. So you are definitely wrong when you say that the words themselves are sexist.
Of course, words can have negative or positive effects depending on how they are interpreted. I imagine you think that Shermer’s words might, in some people, create undesirable effects. That would be your personal opinion, and it’s not an opinion I agree with.
That’s the problem with this debate – it’s all a matter of personal opinion. It is extremely subjective, and I strongly object to people stating their subjective opinions as though they were objective, absolute truth.
I decide for myself what words I use, and I won’t ever be bullied into using certain words by those who wield the heavy club of “sexism” or “misogyny”. Using such heavy weapons does a lot more harm than good – which, by now, should be becoming apparent.
Those who are insist that the words are sexist are the ones who should be apologizing.
ksolway – as shocking as this may be to you, your complete ignorance about the topic doesn’t make sexism disappear and doesn’t change reality.
“I decide for myself what words I use, and I won’t ever be bullied into using certain words by those who wield the heavy club of “sexism” or “misogyny”. Using such heavy weapons does a lot more harm than good – which, by now, should be becoming apparent.”
Yeah, such “heavy weapons” of calling out bigotry where it exists is clearly the problem here. After all, the precious, delicate feelings of privileged men must be protected at all costs. Everyone knows men suffer terrible reprocussions after being called out for misogyny. Just look at what happened to poor Shermer, run out of town on a rail, he was!
Oh wait…..
“Those who are insist that the words are sexist are the ones who should be apologizing.”
Got that girls? How dare you tella man something he said was sexist! Get back in the kitchen and make him a sandwich to appologize for not being sufficiently demur and silent!
Ksolway. Give your brain a chance! Words in themselves are neither here nor there. But words in context can certainly be sexist, yes. It’s the social, political, personal context that gives words their weight, not the words themselves. In a dictionary, for example, they have no emotional loading. A remark that is, in one circumstance, an insult, could be, in another circumstance, encouragement. Telling a concert pianist after a concert that it was certainly a good effort, could be construed as damning with faint praise; telling a music student that his performance was definitely a good effort might be high praise. Stop and think, first.
“the precious, delicate feelings of privileged men”
You are singling out men, and thereby implying that only men can be bigots or be sexist. I don’t know what planet you are on, but it’s not the one I’m living on.
Eric,
“It’s the social, political, personal context that gives words their weight, not the words themselves.”
Yes, that’s why I said “words can have negative or positive effects depending on how they are interpreted”.
The issue is that you do not know how all people interpret words. You are not God. It is your personal opinion that certain words, used in a certain context, do more harm than good. And it is my personal opinion that certain words, used in a certain context, do more good than harm. I’m not going to try to bully you around to my way of thinking by calling your words sexist, and you should offer me (and Shermer) the same courtesy.
No, not on how they are interpreted. That’s not what I said, and not what I meant. What counts is how words are meant. And we know very well, in individual situations — of course sometimes we get it wrong — what people mean by their words, how they intended us to take them. This is the principle underlying all social interaction. That we sometimes err is neither here nor there. I am not bullying Shermer. His words, as spoken, had a sexist subtext. Read them again. All he needed to do was to say, “Hey, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean them that way, but I can see how you could read them that way,” and the issue would have sunk without a trace.
Actually, it is. Take Shermer’s example. What he said was just something from the language which he used without thinking about how it would be taken. His mistake was in feeling insulted by being called on it. He doesn’t think of himself as sexist and he’s not. He just slipped and then couldn’t handle that being pointed out.
As for only being responsible for what you intend to say…well that would be nice but it doesn’t work that way. The purpose of communication is to be understood. If what you mean doesn’t make it into the brain of the person you’re talking to then you have failed. It’s not the other persons responsibility to guess what you meant when you have poorly stated it.
@Eric
“What counts is how words are meant.”
You’re changing your story. Earlier you said that Shermer wasn’t sexist, but only his *words* were sexist. Now, however, you’re saying that not only were his words sexist, but also his *intent*, or what he *meant* by the words, was sexist. That is, you are saying that Shermer’s *thinking* is sexist.
If Shermer was indeed *intending* to convey ideas that are called “sexist”, then Shermer himself would be sexist, and not only his words.
But, again, you are not God, and you do not know what Shermer meant or intended by his words. You certainly cannot say what the “subtext” was. You only have your own subjective opinion, which I consider to be badly mistaken. Yet you are putting your subjective personal opinion forwards as though it were the absolute truth, and labeling people with very harmful words in the process.
Ksolway, this is really getting a bit tiresome. When I said that words are sexist I clearly meant words used in context. When I say words as meant, I clearly mean words whose meaning is reasonably taken to be readable from the context. Of course I am not a god, and can make mistakes. We can all make them. But we can reasonably take a remark about the lack of women in a certain field, and remarks about intelligence to be sexist. That is the subtext of that kind of language. Even if Ophelia was wrong, Shermer only had to say that he didn’t mean it the way she took it, though he ought to be able to see that it was reasonable to take that meaning from it. And his words, in this case, though reasonably taken to be sexist, would not imply that Shermer was also sexist. Think things through or call it a day.
Just to reply to what Persto said – I did not take what Shermer said out of context. I in fact summarized the context, for readers of my column in Free Inquiry who wouldn’t otherwise know it.
And I never said he is sexist. I said that something he said was a sexist stereotype.
Welcome to the jungle, Eric. These are the conversations that take place in, and I am not exaggerating here, literally every single conversation that revolves around sexist language vs. sexist intention, changing the culture to be less sexist, etc. From sophistry to outright denial, people like ksolway will drag out all kinds of irrational tactics to defend the sexist status quo. This conversation is tiresome – imagine having the exact same conversation, over and over again, week after week, month after month, and eventually year after year.
This is why it’s so important that people like you – who see themselves as not being overly involved in the discussion, or not having anything to add – take a stand, speak up, and add their voices to the chorus of those demanding equality and respect and a change to the status quo.
@Ophelia Benson
“something he said was a sexist stereotype”
Something *you interpreted* was a sexist stereotype. That’s something completely different to what Shermer said.
Geez, apparently, being able to say sexist tropes without criticism of any kind is super important to Shermer et al.
@BirchSoda
“sexist tropes”
It doesn’t matter how many times you use the word “sexist”, it doesn’t make it true. It still in your imagination.
Since the trope is in your own imagination you should be criticizing yourself.
OK player, keep pretending that history and context mean nothing, if that makes you feel better.
No one who is paying attention will be convinced, however many times you say it did not meet some threshold of sexism defined by you and you alone.
People will still have the right to critique lazy thinking and the sexist tropes that come from that.
Right. So if…let’s see…the new pope issues an encylical saying women are stupid, that won’t be a sexist stereotype?
Language is social. Meaning is social. Congratulations, you’ve grasped that point. Now you need to grasp the point that the fact that they’re social doesn’t mean they’re random or arbitrary.
Ophelia, I apologize for my suggestion that you were calling Shermer a sexist. It seems you were not, mea culpa, but others have, I should add.
Chiefly, language is a funny thing and, as Eric pointed out, I think, in a comment above, words and phrases can mean a myriad of varying things. That being said, I can see, as I stated in an earlier comment, how what Shermer said could be considered, at face value, sexist. Although–speaking only for myself–once I got the phrase within the proper context–what I consider its proper context–and Shermer’s explanation of that context the impression that Shermer was saying something sexist did not appear at all obvious to me. In fact, it appeared more likely that Shermer’s words were misinterpreted and misrepresented, unintentionally.
Now, I have no idea as to why Shermer didn’t just apologize for what could be, superficially, perceived as a sexist statement. Perhaps, he felt he was being accused of outright sexism. Or that he needn’t apologize for having someone misrepresent his words. Or maybe he felt defensive because he knew he had said, without thinking, something sexist. I don’t know and not one person on this thread knows. What I do know is that Shermer responded and in the course of that response probably misrepresented Ophelia’s original point. Shermer felt he was responding to a charge of sexism, but it seems that he was taking his response a little too far. Ophelia had done no such thing. Although, I think the nature of Shermer’s response sheds some light on his reasoning for constructing such a response. However, here again, one must be careful when interpreting the words of another, especially outside of face-to-face situations. In a sense, Ophelia’s goal to interpret Shermer’s words in such a way as to provoke thought and discussion was accomplished, but I think in the process of such noble work Ophelia lost the essential quality of what Shermer was attempting to communicate, in my opinion. Interpretation of language is a funny thing, where two people almost never have the same understanding of the exact same words. In my mind, what we have here is a clear example of the nuances of meaning within language. Nothing more.
At the end of the day, I am just willing to take Shermer at his word–he has given me no reason not to–that the phrase ‘it’s a guy thing’ was not a sexist statement.
Regards
I’ve hung back, not wanting to remark on particular cases. I do recall attending a ‘Workplace Harassment’ course (how to avoid it, not commit it!) where one particular comment stuck home – no matter what your intent, if the person you speak to is offended then in UK employment law terms you are at risk of causing harassment.
Compliments can be perceived as harassment, assumptions about appropriate behaviours can be perceived as harassment. Even not saying something to one particular person can be perceived as harassment. This is a tough line to follow, especially when there are a very few people that are hyper-sensitive.
I try and steer clear of debates about who is most ‘privileged’, who is the most ‘oppressed’. What is said is often not what is heard. I try and treat everyone as ‘people’, but such self-examination is hard sometimes.
Eric, first-time commenter here. Thank you for writing this, both the post itself and your replies to commenters. To echo Sally Strange, above (5 March 2013 at 11:54) – it is really important that male allies of feminism speak up, and speak up often. When you (the general you – male allies of feminism/feminists) don’t, it tends to look like you either don’t care, or actually agree with the abusive contingent.
For you (again, the general “you” as referenced above), it is possible to turn this issue off, and go about your day – for women and cultural minorities, this is a daily, corrosive drip of hate that we can’t escape for even a minute.
That is why feminist allies who speak up, and speak up before women/minorities have to, for the gazillionth time, makes such a HUGE difference in our lives.
I would love it if you made a post like this each week, but it is your blog, so all I can do is ask you to continue speaking up consistently as a feminist ally, if not as a feminist yourself. I’m requesting this because you have shown yourself to be a clear, incisive thinker, and even on the rare occasions that I disagree with what you have said, I can usually see your point – although other commenters get there WAY faster than I do, and I hate just doing the “me, too” head-bobble, hence this first-time comment.
Also, I want to say that, although this is off-topic and late, I am very pleased you continued blogging, Eric. It was a bit bizarre, though, because I found myself wondering what Egbert would have expressed about your ‘deep into that darkness peering’ moment.
Regards
Sally Strange | 5 March 2013 at 11:54 | I’m beginning to get the point! There is something surreal about this. I deleted a couple of Ksolway’s comments; they were getting so tiresomely repetitive. Persto, this is not a question of “I think it is” — “I don’t think so”. This is a question of whether it was reasonable to take what Shermer said as a sexist remark. It was. Shermer’s choices were two: (i) recognise that what he said could be taken in this way and apologise, explaining it away as best he could as a temporary lapse in good taste; (ii) go off in high dudgeon with a claim that he hadn’t said anything sexist and how terrible people were to suggest otherwise. He chose the second course, thus compounding the original ambiguity, which is there to be read as plainly as can be. That was a mistake. You are making a similar mistake by making a completely idiotic “I don’t think so” remark, when someone with perfect justice had taken it that way already, had commented on it with some astringency, and was answered in what can only be described as a self-serving way. I have nothing riding on this, but that is my interpretation. I’m not going to repeat it, and I wonder why this issue has become so thick with needless repetition and obfuscation. Why do you feel the need to justify Shermer? Isn’t he capable of looking out for himself. I can understand, from the women’s side, why this kind of thing is an issue. I can’t understand why men have taken it on as a battle worth fighting. This is simply unintelligible to me. It’s a waste of bloody time and energy. Women need to feel safe in freethinkers meetings and discussions. Women have every right in this as in practically every other society on earth to feel, not only that their contributions are not valued, but that are being treated as having no opinion worth bothering about just on account of their sex. You should be trying to reassure people that you are on the side of equality here, not pressing Shermer’s issue so hard. He’s a big boy. He can look out for himself. So far, in this particular case, he’s not doing too well, and your coming to his defence makes him look worse than if he were left to sort the matter out for himself. Thanks, Sally, by the way; I am beginning to see the problem
Persto, my deep into that darkness peering moment had as much or more to do with personal issues than it had to do with the free will issue, though it was around that issue as a catalyst that the moment came to expression.
I am, by the way, in a grouchy mood. I woke up at 3 this morning and couldn’t get back to sleep, and all attempts at napping during the daytime have not worked, so if I growl your head off, that’s the explanation.
@Jon 4 March, 17.26hrs. Eric, I think Jon has a point. The issues between us (male and female) are being refined. Sensitivity is required on all sides.
Yes Unselfish Jean, Jon does have a point, and I sometimes felt that women were oversensitive (in the church that is), but I also understood, and it is important for men to work at this, because marginalising women comes pretty natural to us, that women have every right to a bit more sensitivity. That doesn’t mean that the don’t need to be challenged sometimes, but any such challenge should be prefaced by the recognition that women have a right, very often, to be aggrieved, and need to be shown, in good faith, why in this particular case their sensitivity is overwrought. In my experience it is less often so than is supposed, and men especially are culturally programmed to miss this (in my experience). What used to annoy me about women in the church was that, immediately they were ordained, they interpreted Christian faith in the dogmatic way that had excluded them for so long. You can’t be a biblical literalist and be a woman in ministry, for the Bible denies that women should hold a leadership role in the church. That they so seldom sided with my more radical conception of faith that refused to take the Bible in this conservative fashion annoyed me. I know they felt they had to be careful, but they needed people to interpret the Bible liberally, or their role in the church was called into question by their hermeneutics. Of course, we can’t always be consistent, but it helps.
I just want to point out some (related) cognitive science on the subject:
This applies more generally. The persecuted group is more likely to notice the subtle racism (or in this case, sexism) than the non-persecuted group. The bigger takeaway is that everyone has a bias; this study overtly points out the “privilege” bias but also hints at the more well know culprit of confirmation bias.
Eric,
There seems to be some confusion here. I am not Shermer’s ‘bulldog’ and I have not even come close to saying I’m opposed to the progress of women in our society or, God forbid, their safety. But if I have given the impression that I am an anti-feminist or defender of sexism then I apologize, for that is not my position at all.
The point I am making is that Shermer’s comment, in my opinion, was not sexist–I still have an opinion, I think–and that Shermer, once again, in my opinion, is not a sexist. I laid out my reasons for believing these things, not because I adore Shermer, I don’t even agree with him on many issues, but because, in my opinion, this is not a case of sexism.
Of course, Ophelia feels differently and, apparently, you do as well, but, let us not forget, it is just as reasonable to take what Shermer said as *not* a sexist remark. That is my opinion on the matter. After reading the all the essays involved, it appeared to me that it is not at all established with any certainty that this is a case of definite sexism, but maybe I am wrong, I found myself thinking. So, I did a little more research. I studied the evidence, read a few more articles, and did a little old-fashioned ruminating and came out thinking differently than you. Are you opposed to disagreement? Am I now to be included in the ranks of those opposed to women?
This bears repeating: I don’t know enough about feminism or the atheist movement to speak intelligently on the subject of behavior within those groups, but I will say that, within society as a whole, sexism does exist, it is a real problem that real women face everyday of their lives, and it has no place in the 21st century.
However, in my opinion, Shermer’s use of the phrase ‘it’s a guy thing’ is not a case of sexism. I just don’t see it; others do. That is fine. Let’s talk about it. This is the nature of discussion, I thought? I have no where in any of my comments on this thread or any other thread advocated sexism or the oppression or the repression of women, ever. All I have heard in response to my comments is that I shouldn’t be defending Shermer–I am not defending Shermer. I am defending my interpretation of the evidence, for Christ’s sake!–and that the phrase is inherently sexist and the phrase has not been misinterpreted and misrepresented. Well, I disagree and I don’t think that makes me a sexist or a defender of sexism. I must admit, the implication that, because my opinion differs on something that is not at all an established fact, I am opposed to the progress of women is insulting.
Regards
@ Persto – I disagree and I have many excellent reasons why, but that’s not the point. The point is that Shermer was unreasonable in stating that it requires uncharitable (witch-hunty! Nazi-like!) interpretation to cast his remarks as sexist, and, further, saying, “That thing you said was sexist,” is, contra the claims of ksolway and his MRA pals (I’ve seen him on Manboobz.com) helping more than it’s hurting anybody. Pointing out sexism and racism and other bigotries should be a relatively unremarkable occurrence – what makes it notable is when the target of the criticism freaks out completely and acts as if they’re being persecuted by a tyrannical mob. Such responses are obviously irrational, counterproductive, and they do lend support to anti-feminists, supporters of the status quo, and other foes of equality.
Presto,
Why do you think Shermer’s comment was not sexist? IMO a comment is sexist if it is probable it will enforce male and/or female stereotypes. And answering a question about why men are in such a majority in a particular field with: “it is a guy thing”, is enforcing such stereotype. Shermers defense is that he was making an observation, just stating how things are. But that doesn’t make sense, you can’t answer a question about why things are a particular way by just observing that is how they are. Shermers defense implies that the reason why men are in the majority is because there are more of them than woman.
The big problem with Shermers answer is that instead of answering it, he labeled it. And people often confuse a label with an explanation, certainly when the labeling is done in answer to a question for an explanation. And when “It is a guy thing” is given as an explanation, it does enforce male and female stereotypes, because it enforces the idea that how things are, is a reflection of natural male and female preferences and that cultural factors don’t play a significant role in shaping these preferences or in the opportunities of man and woman to play an active role. So in conclusion I think it is reasonable to classify such a remark a sexist.
However this doesn’t mean that Shermer is a sexist. People are often enough only half aware of what they are saying and what the possible implications and connotations are of what they are saying. So you, I and about everyone else will in the future say a lot of stupid things, some of which will be sexist, some of which will be racist, and so on. This doesn’t make as sexist or racist as a person, just fallible and human. The problem is not the occasional sexist or racist remark, the problem is in how you deal with it and someone points it out. You can acknowledge it and move on or you can get all defensive at the notion
that you may have made a sexist or racist remark. That is problematic because in getting defensive about it, you are making yourself blind for this kind of mistakes and you make yourself unable to learn from the experience. That is why people think Shermer’s reactions are problematic.
Persto wrote:
Perhaps you could point out who made that implication, and where it is, because I have not seen anything, in any comment, where anyone implied that you personally are opposed to the progress of women.
The idea that you must be opposed to all progress if someone notices your sexism is an overly emotional response to having your perfectly ordinary sexism pointed out.
We are in a sexist culture, right now. We all grew up in an environment that rewards sexism in a lot of ways. We have only started to decry some of the more severe stuff relatively recently.
If you make remarks without thinking, then, you are likely to have your ordinary level of sexism shine through. Where Shermer stands out is his utterly out of proportion response to having his ordinary sexism pointed out, and he displays his commitment to a higher level of sexism.
People who are truly thoughtful, and willing to listen to others are going to go farther in rooting out their own internalized sexist tropes than people like Shermer, who just want credit for doing the barest minimum of thought around sexism in general.
Sally,
Perhaps, Shermer’s response went a too far in trying to dispel the notion that his comment was sexist. In fact, he probably did go too far and misrepresented Ophelia’s point. I’ll concede that, but my point is that I don’t think Shermer’s comment is sexist or that Shermer is sexist.
Regards
Oh, hey, Persto, this is a bit over the top:
First, of course you are defending Shermer, for the defence of your interpretation of the evidence is, in fact, to defend Shermer. Second, not one has suggested that you are opposed to the progress of women.
But the third point is the most important one. Since women have taken Shermer’s remark about the smaller percentage of women at freethinker/atheist conferences as “a guy thing” as misogynistic — and there is every reason why they should — he was called on it. That interpretation was made, and it was a reasonable interpretation, even if you think that that is not what was meant. It may not have been meant deliberately, but by any reasonable standard, that interpretation was just lying there waiting to be picked up, and someone did. Shermer only had to say, “Hey, that’s not how I meant it, It was a silly, confusing use of language. I’m sorry.” The whole thing would have been over there and then. And it won’t be over until we recognise that women had a perfectly good reason to take Shermer’s language that way. Doesn’t matter what you think, and defending your interpretation is a waste of time at this point. It’s all water under the bridge. Why argue about it? The point, as you make in a comment that just came in (in my email over on my other monitor), that perhaps “Shermer’s response went a too far in trying to dispel the notion that his comment was sexist. In fact, he probably did go too far and misrepresented Ophelia’s point.” That’s the problem exactly. Now you see it. All the rest has been wasted words.
Axxyaan,
You see, you just misrepresented Shermer’s comment. Have you read his article?
I have addressed your other points in previous comments.
Regards
tomh,
I think it is all implied here:
Why do you feel the need to justify Shermer? Isn’t he capable of looking out for himself. I can understand, from the women’s side, why this kind of thing is an issue. I can’t understand why men have taken it on as a battle worth fighting. This is simply unintelligible to me. It’s a waste of bloody time and energy. Women need to feel safe in freethinkers meetings and discussions. Women have every right in this as in practically every other society on earth to feel, not only that their contributions are not valued, but that are being treated as having no opinion worth bothering about just on account of their sex. You should be trying to reassure people that you are on the side of equality here, not pressing Shermer’s issue so hard. He’s a big boy. He can look out for himself. So far, in this particular case, he’s not doing too well, and your coming to his defence makes him look worse than if he were left to sort the matter out for himself. Thanks, Sally, by the way; I am beginning to see the problem
Regards
Persto, you need to climb down off of that cross. The only person putting you there is you, and your insistence that no one pay attention to the ordinary sexist stuff that comes out when people are being lazy, like Shermer.
Ordinary sexist tropes actually do have effects in the real world, for girls being told that science and math are “guy things”.
Eric,
Yes, I am, indirectly, defending Shermer because I am directly defending the non-sexist nature of Shermer’s comment. Much like Darwin’s natural selection destroyed Paley’s design argument, but destroying Paley’s argument was not Darwin’s motivation for proposing evolution. It was just an indirect consequence. In that spirit, I am defending what seems, to me, a misrepresentation of someone’s words, it just so happens those words are Shermer’s.
I should add, I am not on Darwin’s intellectual level, assuming that was going to be the next objection.
I think it was implied, but, here again, we are left with the nuances of meaning within language, maybe I got it wrong. If I did, my apologies.
Eric, I can acknowledge that Shermer went too far, but I don’t think his comment was sexist nor do I think responding to Ophelia’s criticism was, on the surface, wrong. Shermer, in explaining his own misrepresentation, became guilty of misrepresenting the words of Ophelia.
Regards
BirchSoda,
I actually agree with you, but that is not what happened in this instance, in my opinion.
I am sorry, BirchSoda, you will find I have never insisted that “no one pay attention to the ordinary sexist stuff that comes out when people are being lazy”
I was only responding to what I felt was a misleading implication about the nature of my disagreement.
Regards
What if Shermer had said something like this? “Historically, fringe activities and movements invariably attract a larger number of men than women. Whatever the reasons for this, it’s clear that this movement is no exception. There are significantly more male than female members in nearly all of the the organisations represented in the movement, and this imbalance in numbers is reflected in attendance at meetings and the number of male and female presenters who are available.”
That would have — I think — been perfectly true whether he was talking about atheists, climate change sceptics, climate change alarmists, the Tea Party, theosophists or stamp-collectors. But would it have been sexist? And do we know that’s NOT what he was saying?
@ Persto
So you can take the perfectly reasonable statement by MacDonald, that includes “women need to feel safe,” and parse out some subtle implication that you’re being accused of opposing all progress of women, yet you can’t see that the statement by Shermer is not just a subtle implication but a blatantly obvious sexist remark. Amazing.
@ Persto
I honestly, respectfully can’t see how that comment could be anything but sexist. I am trying to understand your point of view from your comments, but I don’t.
Here’s an analogy. We also have a lack of ethnic diversity in the secular movement. I am North American and white. Let’s say I were to explain the lack of black people in the movement thus: “Well, it’s about who’s more intellectually active about it, you know, it’s more of a white thing”, could that be understood as void of racist undertones? I can’t see it, but I can see how someone could say that without being “a racist”, without having animosity towards black people, and thinking of it as an unbiased statement of fact.
I don’t see why being called out for saying something sexist is such a big deal. As a feminist woman, I know I say sexist stuff that perpetuate stereotypes harmful to women *all the time*. Being called out for it is a chance to realize our biases, regardless of our gender. It doesn’t mean anybody is a horrible person. This bias has been confirmed in studies over and over. Women are a lot more interrupted in meetings than men are. Women get a lot less speaking time per person, and are perceived to speak more than men. A female name online will get you a lot more insults than the exact same comment with a male name. Papers with a female author get lower grades than the exact same paper with a male author. And so on. And female correctors are just as biased against women as the men, it’s not a “men against women” thing. Gender stereotypes hurt men too. And yes, most of these studies should be replicated more than a few times and should have larger sample sizes and funding, but that is all we have for the moment.
It’s the same with other social dynamics between groups. As a caucasian, it stings when someone points out if I treat a racial stereotype as fact. I’m an ally. I want equality of opportunity for all, regardless of how they were born. But that doesn’t mean I’m free from racial bias. As with the gender stereotypes above, studies have shown again and again that we don’t live in a racially blind society. Those who believe they do not recognize color have a particular problem, because they do not accept criticism, but still discriminate against minorities. We all do it. I do it, and so do you. It’s ok, we just need to be aware of it if we are interested to try and make things better.
After all this, if you are still around, I would be interested to know how, from your point of view, the statement “it’s about who’s more intellectually active about it, you know, it’s more of a guy thing” can be interpreted free of sexist undertones. I honestly can’t see it, but I would like to, regardless of my opinion after the argument is laid out. Also, I am curious if you can see its racial counterpart as a non-racist statement, and if you think it is different than when applied to gender.
I am honestly, respectfully and as open-mindedly as I can, trying to understand your point of view. It seems like we are all looking for equality here.
tomh,
It is called context and, once again, you are incapable of appreciating that fact. You quoted five words–out of context, I might add–from a 189 word comment in order to score a rhetorical point. Well done.
Nevertheless, from my perspective, Eric’s intent was to imply that if I disagree with his and Ophelia’s opinion, on this matter, I am standing directly opposed to women’s equality. That I, no matter my reservations, should just agree with him and, as Eric phrased it, “reassure people that you (Persto) are on the side of equality here(…) Hmmm, where would I be if I am not on the ‘side of equality?’ And where would I be if I don’t agree with him?
Regards
@Ophelia Benson
“So if the new pope issues an encyclical saying women are stupid”
Shermer didn’t say women are stupid.
That’s only in your imagination.
“Meaning is social.”
Meaning is individual.
Different people can understand different things by same words.
The reason there are so many different kinds of religion is that people interpret the scriptures in so many different ways.
If meaning were social then everyone would have the same interpretation of words, but that’s obviously not the case.
@Axxyaan
“IMO a comment is sexist if it is probable it will enforce male and/or female stereotypes.”
Okay, so you’re saying that it doesn’t matter what people *mean* by their words, it only matters what people *interpret* from the words.
And if one person interprets something in a way that will enforce a sex stereotype then the words are sexist?
I don’t think that’s reasonable. The sexism is coming from the listener, and not from the words. The listener is sexist, not the words.
Persto wrote:
You quoted five words–out of context,
My, you seem a bit sensitive. Since you had already quoted the whole thing, I quoted a few words to identify the passage, not to mean that’s all that there was.
MacDonald explicitly said, “not one has suggested that you are opposed to the progress of women.” Which seems obvious, since no one has. When Shermer says he didn’t make a sexist remark, in spite of the fact that to many it certainly seemed sexist, you swallow his denial without complaint. Yet when MacDonald says he never suggested that you were opposed to the progress of women, you dismiss his statement as though it’s meaningless. It seems odd.
@Sally Strange
“the claims of ksolway and his MRA pals (I’ve seen him on Manboobz.com)”
I don’t have any “MRA pals” and I don’t know anything about “Manboobz.com” and I’ve never posted anything on it.
This is an example of typical feminist misinformation.
tomh,
If Eric says he didn’t mean it that way, then I believe him, as I have already stated in my reply to Eric’s comment.
In your previous comment, you suggested that my interpretation of the implication in Eric’s comment, that I am opposed to women’s equality, was wrong. I proceeded to show you how one could reasonably arrive at such an interpretation.
It appears you were attempting to score a rhetorical point by suggesting that I was being biased in my interpretation of Shermer in some way. I responded, within the context of your reply, that my initial interpretation was justified based on a close reading of Eric’s comment and my reasoning process.
Now, however, you are suggesting that I am unwilling to take Eric’s assertion that he wasn’t implying that I am opposed to women’s equality. But in your previous comment, you were attempting to make an entirely different point based on an entirely different comment. You see, the comment from Eric that you are currently quoting is from a subsequent comment Eric made after I had pointed out that, I felt, he was implying my disagreement was indicative of my position on women’s rights. He said he wasn’t. I said, in my reply, to him that I accepted his word.
Your problem is that you were making a point about my initial interpretation of Eric’s comment, which you quoted 5 words of; not about the resultant declaration that he wasn’t implying that I am opposed to the progress of women. But, now, alas, you are attempting to make a point about my unwillingness to ‘see the light’ by utilizing a comment made after I had laid out my reasons for feeling the way I did. With, it seems, the express desire of making me seem unreasonable.
Do you see what you are doing here? Your comment wasn’t about whether I had accepted Eric’s statement that he was not implying sexism, but about the nature of my interpretation of his prior comment. Now, you are saying that I have dismissed his statement as meaningless, which I have not, because I didn’t address it in my previous comment. I DIDN’T NEED TO! Your comment wasn’t about that. It was about, what you perceived as, my faulty and partisan interpretational skills.
Regards
This was exactly Shermer’s mistake, and so I can see why you have a lot invested in defending him. No. Ophelia, Eric, myself, and many, many other people who have commented on Shermer’s remark have repeatedly gone out of our way to clarify that making such remarks does necessarily call into question a person’s commitment, on a conscious, intellectual level, to women’s equality.
This is why I was saying that the point has become larger than whether Shermer’s remark was sexist, or whether Shermer’s deepest heart of hearts is sexist. Shermer’s reaction mirrors yours here, both in its emotional overwrought nature and in its inaccuracy. There is no witch hunt, despite what Shermer claims. There is nobody trying to cast you as an enemy of equality, as you claim. But the fact that men like you and Shermer consistently react this way to people bringing up the subject is a major obstacle to achieving equality. Even though you don’t mean to be an obstacle, the way you are acting right now is in fact an obstacle. We need to be able to have these conversations, and we simply cannot if you, and Shermer, and every like-minded, well-intentioned man acts as if there is a “Secular Malleus Maleficorum,” to borrow a phrase Shermer coined, just because someone said, “Hey, that remark was sexist.”
As to Ksolway, a thousand apologies – I thought I remembered you commenting on Manboobz, but in fact you were merely mentioned in comments on Manboobz. Charming, though, how you attempt to paint my innocent mistake as a part of a vast feminist conspiracy. Here is one of the remarks in question:
http://manboobz.com/2012/03/16/tom-martins-anti-male-discrimination-case-against-the-london-school-of-economics-dismissed-he-responds-by-calling-his-critics-whores/comment-page-24/#comment-221701
You were the subject of conversation because of your remarkably misogynist and anti-scientific views on the nature of men, women, emotions, and logic. The evidence for the misogyny of your views can be found by googling “Kevin Solway women emotions.” I think most reasonable people upon reading your true opinions will conclude that you have little to offer this conversation.
Sally,
I was responding, specifically, to Eric’s comment, and I have explained my reasoning for thinking he was implying that I was opposed to women’s equality. My comment was not intended to be a characterization of the general sentiment of this thread. I think you and most everyone on this thread have been generously civil.
Also, Eric and I have cleared up any confusion on that point.
I don’t think I have been very emotional, but maybe I have. I have attempted to remain open-minded and reasonable, if I seem irrational and emotional then I apologize for the appearance of irrationality and emotionality, but I can assure you I strive to be as unemotional as possible, particularly when discussing issues as potentially emotionally-charged as the issue of sexism. If I have failed, once again, my apologies.
No, I just happen to disagree with the assertion that Shermer’s remark was sexist. That is all. If I am obstructing the conversation, then, I apologize, but I don’t think I have been. I just happen to disagree with a very minor point, although I understand your frustration. In my mind, my comments have contributed to the ongoing dialogue in a meaningful way, but if, as you say, I am being an impediment then I will leave you guys the floor.
I just want to add, in the spirit of Will Durant, that I am an imperfect creature, but, perhaps, I will be forgiven if I have advanced the matter a little, and I have done my best to remain true to my conscience. I’ll announce the prologue, and retire; hopefully, after me better players will come.
Regards
#Sally Strange
“remarkably misogynist and anti-scientific”
I am not even slightly misogynist or anti-scientific. In fact I am a feminist who is academically trained as a scientist.
Instead of making personal insults and slurs you should keep to the topic and discuss the issue at hand.
http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/poison.html#wom
ksloway’s screed linked above, and here is a quote from it:
“In this respect then, man and woman are worlds apart. A woman is severely restricted in her thinking. She has no mind for irony, contradictions and paradoxes. She has no mind for the dialectic. There is no use in forcing a woman into a good that hurts – it would break her. Only men, true men at least, have the toughness, born out of their egotistic competitiveness, to endure the intense agonies of the true philosophic life. A life of honesty.
“Now she loves him, and looks ahead with quiet confidence – like a cow” reflects Nietzsche. Woman’s greatest love is when she possesses one man, or when she possesses a child. Relationship is her basic need. This is why women are so very much under the control of such vanities as fashion, fun, and friends. Willingness is woman, she lives only for the crowd, and finds her identity only with them. For her, to be alone, without a man, without child, without family, is the most terrible plight imaginable. She would perhaps rather be dead than live in this wretched condition. But one must be alone if one is to follow the path of reason. Only alone can one truly live.”
Yeah, ksloway is truly a feminist(not)
I think you have been, and I note that you have not responded to the point I made about the similarity between yours and Shermer’s responses, and how it’s the response to the criticism that makes up a major obstacle to constructive conversations about sexism. The subject at hand is really, really not whether Shermer’s remark was actually sexist. It’s whether his response to the criticism is part of a larger pattern of overreaction and denialism in response to feminist critique. Your reaction also fits into that pattern. Apologies are nice but introspection and change would be nicer.
Note, again, another piece of the pattern: the conflation of fact-based claims like, “Your views are misogynist and not supported by the available science” with “personal insults and slurs.”
It’s a very handy thing for misogynists to pretend that misogyny is equivalent to an identity slur, insulting in the same way that “faggot” or “cunt” or “nigger” is. It allows them to escape criticism for their sexist views by pretending that a person who identifies sexist views is just engaging in character assassination. And I will point out, again, that that is the same mistake that Shermer made and that Persto appears to be struggling with in this very thread.
@Sally Strange
You said, and I quote “your remarkably misogynist and anti-scientific views”
Then, when you quoted yourself it became “Your views are misogynist and not supported by the available science”.
You can’t even quote yourself properly, let alone other people.
What you are doing here is the standard feminist tactic to get people banned from blogs. You refuse to talk about the question of the blog, but instead focus on getting dissenters banned.
@ksolway “Okay, so you’re saying that it doesn’t matter what people *mean* by their words, it only matters what people *interpret* from the words.
And if one person interprets something in a way that will enforce a sex stereotype then the words are sexist?”
No I am not saying that. You are twisting my words. I have the impression that you are working under a false dichotomy, between:
1) all that matters is the meaning of the speaker/writer and
2) all that matters is the interpretation of the listener/reader
and that you interpret everything that doesn’t fall under (1) as falling under (2).
And so you go from me writing: “IMO a comment is sexist if it is probable it will enforce male and/or female stereotypes.” to your non sequitur implication: “And if one person interprets something in a way that will enforce a sex stereotype then the words are sexist?”
Sally,
I don’t think I have denied–what am I denying, again?–anything other than that Shermer’s response was not sexist.
My comment to Eric was about what Eric said to me. It was, in a way, an exclusive conversation. Anyways, we cleared up the confusion.
I think my responses have been quite rational and much more reasonable than Shermer’s. I don’t think we are even in the same ballpark.
“how it’s the response to the criticism that makes up a major obstacle to constructive conversations about sexism.”
Yes, I can see how that might be problematic, but, I don’t believe I am guilty of that. And Shermer’s response, while over the top, didn’t seem to obstruct the conversation in a very significant way. But, for the sake of compromise, I will concede that that mine and Shermer’s responses to perceived criticisms were an overreaction.
Regards
@ Jon | 5 March 2013 at 19:17. You give an alternative to what Shermer said, and then ask, “[D]o we know that’s NOT what he was saying?” Yes, we do. I don’t understand why we should not take Shermer’s words at face value. If he had wanted to say merely that there are more men than women in the freethinkers movement, and at freethinkers conferences, then he could have said that. He didn’t. Why is it so important to attribute to him something he did not say?
By continuing to put focus on the non-issue of whether Shermer’s initial remark was sexist, you are continuing that pattern yes. Also, if you really don’t think you are doing the things you are apologizing for, I don’t see why anyone should take your apologies seriously.
And then there’s ksolway’s latest remark:
Hmm, I’m quoting ksolway properly here. And I’m noting that he seems to be under the impression that the difference in meaning between “your remarkably misogynist and anti-scientific views” and “Your views are misogynist and not supported by the available science” is so immediately and obviously vast that he does not need to explain what exactly the difference in meaning between those two phrases is. And further noting that he is avoiding the point I made, that “misogynist” and “anti-scientific” are fact-based characterizations of his opinions, not, as he previously tried to claim, a personal insult or a slur.
I wouldn’t exactly cry if he were banned, but this remark strikes me as a tad paranoid. Feminists! That evil cabal that’s constantly tricking sexists like Kevin Solway into publicly revealing their reprehensible views and then calling attention to them. It’s quite the conspiracy theory.
Do you self-identify as a skeptic or an atheist, Kevin Solway? Just curious.
It is not really the initial comment that is very sexist, that initial comment was only ordinary, everyday, no one really thinks about it, sexism. Where you, Presto and Shermer segue into the more intense sexism and overreaction is your response to that ordinary stuff being pointed out.
Why are you guys so intent on proving you are “not sexist” by doubling down and being super irrational about it?
@Sally Strange |
“Do you self-identify as a skeptic or an atheist, Kevin Solway?”
I am skeptic, atheist, and feminist.
And before you ask I am feminist because I promote equal rights and equal opportunity.
There is huge difference between “not supported by available science” and “anti-science”.
For example, there is no available science to say that I am thirsty right now, since no scientific research has been conducted on the matter, and therefore my claim that I am thirsty is not supported by science. However, my claim is not anti-science.
For a person to be “anti-science” they would have to be against the principles of science.
But please get back to topic.
@BirchSoda
“ordinary stuff being pointed out”
What you call “ordinary stuff” is what many people call “raving insane” – such as Ophelia Benson’s claim that Shermer said that women are stupid.
This may be the famous “echo-chamber effect” where you never hear dissenting voices, since they have all been banned or driven away, giving the false impression that there are no dissenting voices.
Sorry ksolway, I read your screed and can no longer take you seriously as anything but a fringe hanger on of the MRA variety.
You have no concept of skepticism at all.
Also this from your screed:
“But she is not to blame for her weakness. Woman is forced into her thoughtlessness and superficiality, not being equipped to make a stand for individuality and reason. When she does make a stand she is punished for not fitting the role expected of her. Men will despise her. On top of this she faces all the defeats and pressures involved in the exercise of thought. For her, the exercise of thought is like stepping outside of a cosy warm cottage into a cold and icy blizzard. She’s just not used to it. Therefore, rather than fail, and suffer, which she cannot stand, cannot enter into and bear-up under, she steps back into the restfulness of womanliness. Even here, she can still think a little, a lot more than she appears to. Though she must cover up her thinking, repress it, not let it come to the surface – not actually use it.
The human mind is born with the potential to enjoy the fruits of analytical thought. Consequently the will to learn and conquer has a seed in every human mind. So we see the stronger women becoming men. Some women, however, were men from the start, having failed the difficult transition from the “boy” of early childhood into the woman of adolescence. Unfortunately, masculinity in a woman, regardless of its source, is rarely of quality; it explodes too easily in the form of rashness. The masculine does not sit easily in a female brain: it tends to overcompensate.”
So, tell me how this is truly feminist? Or rational? Or even anything like coherent thought?
@BirchSoda
“how this is truly feminist?”
There’s nothing about feminism that says you have to believe that women are identical to men, or that you have to believe that women are, on average, equally as rational as men.Men and women are different. Men tend to be better at some things, and women tend to be better at others. That’s perfectly compatible with feminism, and in fact is essential for any kind of true feminism.
ksolway said
“such as Ophelia Benson’s claim that Shermer said that women are stupid.”
There is no such claim. The quoted passage is a falsehood.
I’m not sure what ksolway means by rationality and truth, but I am sure it does not resemble the definitions commonly used among actual rational people who are truthful.
Persto, when people like ksolway are on your side, you need to look carefully at what you are supporting.
The implied assertion that there are feminists claiming that men and women are “identical” is a fabrication. For most values of the word “identical.” I suspect that ksolway is using the word here in a slightly different sense than most people would, though.
The idea that women are not equally as rational as men (of course, the two possibilities are that men are more rational, or women and men are equally rational, not that men are less rational, on average) is one of those ideas I was talking about – the ones not supported by the available science.
A person who, like you, assiduously embraces and promotes ideas that are not supported by the available science can be reasonably said to hold anti-scientific views.
Kevin Solway (if that is the name of ksolway), either shape up or ship out. You simply do not get to speak of “true feminism” or to suggest, as you do, that women are not as rational as men. Not here. It is hard to see how you could prove this, since rationality itself is a term often in dispute, so it is just a prejudice, and a misogynistic one. Nor do you get to make unsubstantiated claims (see Ophelia at 6 March 2013 at 12:38). Say “I’m sorry” or leave.
Sorry to spoil your “fun,” folks, but I have decided to give the misogynist irrationalist Ksolway the boot.
I used my feminist mind control powers to force Eric to ban ksolway.
Sally,
My apologies were out of respect for your opinion and in the spirit of politeness. I cannot act contrary to my conscience, but, if in acting according to my conscience, I upset someone I usually apologize. Just out of habit, I guess. I also want to show that person that I am not just dismissing their opinion, in a sense, I am also apologizing so as to avoid being dismissive. My apologies are an act of showing that I have tried looking at it the other way.
In truth, when you have a good point, I intend to respect what you have to say more and in this case you have a good point, but I cannot agree with your point in its entirety. For that, I am sorry.
The reason I am putting so much emphasis on Shermer’s remark is because, if Shermer is not sexist and Shermer’s remark is not sexist then he was justified in responding to the criticism that his remark was sexist. Yes, as I have said, he went too far, but if no sexism is present then he has a right to be upset when someone claims sexism is present. That is why it matters to me if Shermer’s remark was sexist or Shermer is sexist because if I neither of these things are true then we have missed a step in the logical flow, in this instance, to get to your point about the nature of his response. I would think you would agree that people have a right to be upset when things are said about them that are untrue. So, if Shermer’s remark is not sexist then Shermer has a right to respond to that criticism in an absolute way. If, as you claim, your point is to suggest that it is irrelevant whether Shermer’s remark was sexist, then on what grounds are criticizing the nature of his response? Just because it was a bit over the top? Okay, but wouldn’t the larger issue be the false criticism not the response to the false criticism? If Shermer’s criticism was wrong then Shermer was right. His response to Ophelia would be justified, at least if he had avoided misrepresenting her point, because the criticism would have been false. I can only get to your point if I accept the falsity of my own point.
The idea that we should not be prone to overreaction regarding this issue is a good point. A point that Shermer and I missed in the course of addressing our criticisms–Shermer more so than me–but I do not think addressing those criticisms, if they seem untrue to us, is or was obstructionist or wrong or even uncivil.
Birchsoda,
Yes, I quite agree with you, but ksolway’s beliefs do not represent my opinion on this matter. He is a lunatic and a misogynist and I have no respect for the man’s opinions. His opinions are not mine and I want to make that very clear.
Regards
Maudell,
Just found your comment. It must have had to wait for moderation. Well said. Very reasonable. I find I agree with a lot of what you said and I will address your questions in another reply later on in the day. Class beckons!
Regards
Even if Shermer’s remark was 100% free of sexism, his response, in accusing his critics of engaging in witch hunts and making up phrases like “Secular Malleus Maleficorum” is actively damaging to the cause of opening up the conversation about sexism in our community and making it more welcoming and inclusive towards women. Therefore it is irrelevant. Whether he was sexist or not, his response was more than an overreaction, it was part of a pattern of overreaction to feminist critiques and actually ended up supporting the sexist status quo. Even if someone went up to you and said, “Persto, I believe you are personally opposed to the liberation of women,” that would not give you license to invent a “Secular Malleus Maleficorum” and make hyperbolic accusations of Nazi-style witch hunting. If you did do that, reasonable people would wonder if you weren’t protesting rather too much.
Is it ironic that the Malleus Maleficorum aka Der Hexenhammer (which I love the sound of) is sexist – claiming female lust is insatiable and leads to sex with the devil! and therefore witchcraft?
Sally,
Yes, in that regard, Shermer crossed a line by suggesting that was Ophelia’s aim, I agree.
Regards
Maudell,
Just to add some context, Shermer was asked a question about why the gender split wasn’t closer to fifty-fifty? Santa Maria, the host, responded that she had a difficult time finding panelists to discuss atheism with her. So, she queried Shermer: “Why is that?” Shermer responded to the first question about the gender split by saying it probably really is fifty-fifty–he dismissed it. After which he stated that its who wants to go to shows and talk about it and so on, ending with “it’s a guy thing.” Following that up, he stated that at the 2012 TAM meeting there had been more female speakers than male.
Now, although I am not overly well-versed in literary interpretation, it seems Shermer was moving from a point of saying, presently, ‘it is fifty-fifty’ to a point of when it was not fifty-fifty. He had already stated that he thought the gender split for speakers and thinkers was fifty-fifty, so certainly he was not saying that women could not speak or think. It seems he was saying that, there was a time when it wasn’t fifty-fifty. He had already established that he believed it was fifty-fifty, so he wasn’t addressing a present-day issue of gender inequality within atheism, but a past issue of inequality. He didn’t accept the premise of the question, so he answered the question regarding a time when he believed it wasn’t a fifty-fifty split, a period when the atheist movement was mostly comprised of males. Furthermore, he established this context by following up that statement with the 2012–present-day–TAM example where he maintained that there were more female speakers than male, so the past issue of gender inequality was no longer as pronounced a present-day issue, in his mind. It seems to me his point wasn’t about the present-day, since he stated that he believed the gender split was close to fifty-fifty, currently. For him to follow up a statement about his believing there were just as many female speakers as male speakers with a statement that he didn’t believe women could speak or think seems a bit absurd. So, it seems to me he was talking about the past inequality within atheism where men were larger in numbers than women; not the present-day gender split that he didn’t even accept. Also, it seems he wasn’t suggesting that women in atheism couldn’t speak, but that, in the past–in my mind, he was talking about the past–there were more male speakers because there were more male atheists. He established this context by following up his ‘it’s a guy thing’ remark with a present-day example of how, it could be suggested, that there are more female speakers than male speakers, since, if you accept my interpretation, there are, presently, more female atheists. This indicates, in my mind, that he not only believed women could speak and think, but that the past issue of a large gender split was no longer an accurate portrayal of present-day atheism, in his opinion.
Additionally, I took into account Shermer’s intent when he made the remark. It seems, and I think we all agree, that Shermer’s intent was not to make a sexist remark. So, if I proceed from the origin of Shermer’s non-sexist intention and follow the reasoning for my interpretation of Shermer’s comment, I can arrive at the conclusion that Shermer did not make a sexist remark.
As to the racial issue, I think, within this context and if the hypothetical scenario was identical to the event we are discussing, then the comment would not be racist, if it were an identical situation. Although, we are trying to compare a hypothetical scenario to an actual occurrence and that can be problematic. I should add, that people are racist and sexist; not words, in my opinion.
I hope this addresses some of your concerns.
Regards
What Shermer said was an obvious, straightforward sexist stereotype.
Ophelia Benson called him on it. But instead of simply saying, “Sorry,” and left it at that, he just had to go into a long rigmarole – he couldn’t help it, I guess — a male tic, apparently
I think he got far too hyperbolic in using the term “witch hunt”.
However, I think defensiveness when criticized is a human tic, not something particularly characteristic of one gender and not another. Nearly everyone hates to have one paragraph out of a longer talk singled out for criticism.
Ophelia said:
Yes, I agree. If he had come back immediately and said, “I’m sorry, I know that’s what it seems like, but I didn’t mean it that way,” he could have defused it and transformed something that was reasonably taken to be sexist into a harmless tic (as smhll) says. But that’s not what he did. By responding as he did he made it very clear that the meant the sexism, and he simply seems to be oblivious of that.
So, smhll, by becoming hyperbolic, the defensiveness redefined his original expression as undoubtedly sexist. A tic is one thing, a determined and extended defence of something that was, on the face of it, indefensible, is another. That is why I gave Ksolway the boot, because he didn’t seem to recognise a very simple thing — not that he disagreed with me — many commenters disagree with me — but that when you continue to defend a point of view and your arguments become more and more attenuated, the argument continues to shift, subtly at first, and then more clearly, until, in the end, almost without noticing, you are defending precisely the point of view that you claimed to be denying. This happened in Solway’s case, when he spoke of what he called “true feminism,” which, he said, allowed him to suggest, perfectly reasonably (and without evidence), he thought, that women are less rational than men. This is essentially what happened in Shermer’s case. It may be a natural tendency, but it doesn’t help to defend him against sexism, which he really confirmed by continuing the argument.
Persto, I think you are having trouble dealing with the fact that the specific way in which Shermer overreacted is directly supportive of the sexist status quo. As such, the overreaction itself can be reasonably described as sexist.
Obligatory disclaimer: I’m not making any claims about Shermer’s mental state or his conscious commitment to women’s equality.
About as ironic as a person defending themselves from charges of casual racism by accusing their critics of engaging in a metaphorical lynch mob.
I had the same reaction to “male tic” as smhll, and the response to his comment didn’t clear anything up. This seems like unjustifiable sexist stereotyping to me, and not the kind of thing one wants to use in pro-feminist writing, if the goal is to be taken seriously.
I’ve come to this long repetitious, but important discussion long after everyone else has left. I’d just like to add that I found the explanation of maudell | 5 March 2013 at 20:28 to be most compelling.
Eric,
For the last few weeks I have been coming back to this discussion in a variety of ways. But I don’t want to bore you to death with the details. I’ll get to the point. I just want to say that I am in agreement with you and Ophelia on this issue now. I see the blatant sexism inherent in Shermer’s response and it is my everlasting shame that I defended it. I am truly ashamed of this discussion, at least the part I played anyways.
I want to say that I am truly sorry if I offended anyone.
P.S.-Eric, I would be grateful, beyond measure, if you removed my comments from this thread–don’t feel compelled to do it if it is not convenient. You may leave this last one so as to explain the confusion within the discussion for future readers.
Regards