Another reason relates to the Elevator-gate business last summer. Before that whole kerfuffle, my attitude was more or less: I like this crowd, apart from their problem with tone. Elevator-gate made me see the atheist-crowd in a new light. I realized there wasn't just a possible tone problem in the atheosphere, but there were a lot of problems. For one, there are a lot of misogynistic loons. They say amazingly absurd and revolting things, and there are some fairly respectable people who give these people safe harbor. For another, there are people on the respectable feminist side who simplistically "us-them" situations, sweeping complexities under the rug. There's no way for me to position myself with respect to this mess, because I'm against the misogynistic loons, but also against the simplifications of the supposedly feminist side. So--STAY AWAY!
Except, today I'm disturbed to see DJ Grothe's being beaten up over at Free Thought blogs for refusing to sweep complexities under the rug. These things get insanely involuted, which is another reason I've come to ignore them. Long story short--DJ didn't want to merely rebuke someone at Facebook for misogynistic lunacy, but tried to explain the pressures on the guy that lead to the lunacy. He also had the audicity to suggest that people sometimes keep issues about feminism and misogyny alive just to increase blog hits. (OMG!)
The response? Greta Christina says she will stop going to TAM meetings, over which DJ presides as president of the James Randi Educational Foundation. His stance on the Facebook comments means she might not be safe there.
I have no intention of going back to TAM because I don’t feel safe there. I don’t feel confident that D.J. Grothe takes threats of violence against public figures in this movement seriously: especially gender-based, sexualized threats of violence against female public figures.Can she be serious? Is there really now an increased risk of being assaulted, verbally or physically, at a TAM meeting, in light of what DJ Grothe said about some guy on Facebook?
Shake ahead. I bring it up just because someone should support DJ Grothe. I don't think he said anything contrary to feminism. Must get on with Work, so (too briefly, and a bit dogmatically) I'll have to leave it at that.
81 comments:
Speaking as someone who was actually verbally attacked by a much larger, red-faced guy who was VERY unhappy with something I'd written about his product, (and I'm 6'2", 220. Not small), wondering the entire time when, not if, he was going to finally just punch me or throw me over a balcony, (didn't happen, thankfully) I wonder what is served by pumping up things involving cuntkicks.
I'm curious to know how many people like greta have ever been in that kind of situation, in a conference, in the conference building. I'll hazard it approaches zero.
Did I stop going to conferences, or even that conference? No. Not because I'm a guy, or some other macho bullshit, but because upon analysis, i realized that was a HELL of an edge case. In almost 14 years of conference going, multiple times a year, that's the ONLY time that's happened.
Based on that, and a lack of even vague headlines about similar incidents actually happening, (no, "elevatorgate" and "gellatogate" and all the rest don't iive in the same category as "YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE, I'LL MAKE SURE YOU NEVER ARE ABLE TO USE MY SOFTWARE!!!!" yelled less than a foot from your face, and from a significantly taller person), it was obvious that while, clearly, there is a *risk* of such things happening, it was in fact, a statistically small risk.
Maybe other people see *any* risk as too much, but I would then question why they do *anything*, as everything has *some* risk. I'm asthmatic, a friggin' bonfire almost killed me once. I don't now think FIRE BAD either.
people shouldn't threaten people, but they shouldn't do a lot of things. Like overhyping small risks to get pageviews.
"C***kicks"....What? Can we just drop that kind of talk? Thank you.
Jean Kazez said:
"Must get on with Work, so (too briefly, and a bit dogmatically) I'll have to leave it at that."
While I understand your sentiment and your reasons for not going into this issue more deeply, I do really think it is a pity that you do not. You are one of the few truly calm and rational voices on this issue. Those of us who try to confront some of the overhyped nonsense flowing out of Freethoughtblogs, and a few other locations, are invariably labelled as MRAs, mysogynists, sexists, and worse simply because we present a calm and rational voice questioning and dissenting with the outrageous claims of many of these folks.
Hi Jean,
Not really related, but kind of related. It's about the lack of civility in political discourse. (That's why, not really related but kind of related.)
http://blogs.barrons.com/penta/2012/01/03/the-groundswell-for-increased-civility/
I would love to know what you think about this! It's what my husband and I were aiming for in our blogpost about The Skeptic Illuminati. Thanks!!!
Jean,
1) Many people seem to simply dismiss certain behaviour as misogynistic, when in reality its just something thats a bit more aggressive than what certain males and females are used to. Are you open to the idea that its just a difference in people's psychology? Here's some relevant writeup from psychologist Abraham Maslow's work.
Since dominance behaviour seemed to be the key to monkey psychology, Maslow wondered how far this applied to human beings. He decided to study dominance behaviour in human beings and, since he was a young and heterosexual male, decided that he would prefer to study women rather than men. Besides, he felt that women were usually more honest when it came to talking about their private lives. In 1936, he began a series of interviews with college women; his aim was to find out whether sex and dominance are related. He quickly concluded that they were.
The women tended to fall into three distinct groups: high dominance, medium dominance and low dominance, the high dominance group being the smallest of the three. High dominance women tended to be promiscuous and to enjoy sex for its own sake -in a manner we tend to regard as distinctly masculine. They were more likely to masturbate, sleep with different men, and have lesbian experiences. Medium dominance women were basically romantics; they might have a strong sex drive, but their sexual experience was usually limited. They were looking for ‘Mr Right’, the kind of man who would bring them flowers and take them out for dinner in restaurants with soft lights and sweet music. Low dominance women seemed actively to dislike sex, or to think of it as an unfortunate necessity for producing children. One low dominance woman with a high sex-drive refused to permit her husband sexual intercourse because she disliked children. Low dominance women tended to be prudes who were shocked at nudity and regarded the male sexual organ as disgusting. (High dominance women thought it beautiful.)
Their choice of males was dictated by the dominance group. High dominance women liked high dominance males, the kind who would grab them and hurl them on a bed. They seemed to like their lovers to be athletic, rough and unsentimental. Medium dominance women liked kindly, homeloving males, the kind who smoke a pipe and look calm and reflective. They would prefer a romantic male, but were prepared to settle for a hard worker of reliable habits. Low dominance women were distrustful of all males, although they usually wanted children and recognised that a man had to be pressed into service for this purpose. They preferred the kind of gentle, shy man who would admire them from a distance for years without daring to speak.
But Maslow’s most interesting observation was that all the women, in all dominance groups, preferred a male who was slightly more dominant than themselves. One very high dominance woman spent years looking for a man of superior dominance - meanwhile having many affairs; and once she found him, married him and lived happily ever after. However, she enjoyed picking fights with him, provoking him to violence that ended in virtual rape; and this sexual experience she found the most satisfying of all. Clearly, even this man was not quite dominant enough, and she
was provoking him to an artificially high level of dominance.
... CONTD
The rule seemed to be that, for a permanent relationship, a man and woman needed to be in the same dominance group. Medium dominance women were nervous of high dominance males, and low dominance women were terrified of medium dominance males. As to the males, they might well show a sexual interest in a woman of a lower dominance group, but it would not survive the act of seduction. A medium dominance woman might be superficially attracted by a high
dominance male; but on closer acquaintance she would find him brutal and unromantic. A high dominance male might find a medium dominance female ‘beddable’, but closer acquaintance would reveal her as rather uninteresting, like an unseasoned meal. To achieve a personal relationship, the two would need to be in the same dominance group. Maslow even devised psychological tests to discover whether the ‘dominance gap’ between a man and a woman was of the right size to form the basis of a permanent relationship.
2) since you are quick to dismiss very simple statements as misogyny, are you open to the idea of there being genuine misandry in society, especially emanating from feminists? Are you committed to the truth?
@jean
aren't you glossing over some of the reasonable objections to DJ Grothe?
but tried to explain the pressures on the guy that lead to the lunacy.
Well one of the major objections is that people (especially men) try to come up with excuses for sexist behavior , surely you can see why the above is problematic.
He also had the audicity to suggest that people sometimes keep issues about feminism and misogyny alive just to increase blog hits. (OMG!)
In itself this statement wouldnt be surprising even if true - but who exactly is Grothe talking about? He's successfully tarnished everyone who posts at FTB right?
(the equivalent would be implying that some "accomodationists" are bribed by templeton to go after gnus)
Deepak Shetty, an explanation is not an excuse. Can you understand that distinction?
I wish people would just stop all the use of words like "cunt" in this context, and for Zeus's sake stop all the hand-rubbing references to violence.
I think it's fine to make fun of somebody's over-the-top objection to being asked to talk over a cup of coffee (which may or may not have been a coded offer of sex). Making elevator jokes was one thing that got me my very own slot as Witch of the Week a few months ago. I'll probably go on doing it, though I didn't enjoy being Witch of the Week.
It's fine to object to the dreadful treatment of Stef McGraw at the CFI conference for student leaders. Likewise, to object to the shoddy way that Paula Kirby was treated in Dublin - which I'd warrant the convention organisers were not too keen on, either.
You can surely do all, as I have, and a lot more without coming off like a violent, creepy, misogynist loon.
I get that some of the people who appear to be doing their best to look like violent, creepy, misogynist loons are probably trying to make an obscure point about the harmlessness of words, or some damn thing, or perhaps they're just trying to annoy the witch hunters as much as they can. Whatever the point of it is supposed to be, it's not a good look.
I don't see how it's helping Stef McGraw, for example. It probably just embarrasses her.
It certainly embarrasses me, and I'm not someone who's enamoured of the ongoing witch hunt that has selected DJ Grothe as its Witch of the Week this week.
A word to the wise - the more you come off as a violent, creepy, misogynist loon, the harder you make it for a lot of other people who also object to the ongoing game of Witch of the Week. You make it look as if the witch hunters actually have a point.
@John Greg
Deepak Shetty, an explanation is not an excuse.
That depends on a whole lot of things. But you can decide whether I'm "explaining" why Greta said what she did or whether Im "making excuses" for her (you can also decide by what authority and what degree of accuracy I can do that for her)
@Russell
that got me my very own slot as Witch of the Week a few months ago
Sorry Russell you over-reacted. When Ophelia was willing to have a nuanced discussion on your statement and we nominated you (in my mind because you were, atleast at that time in my mind, a very reasonable , smart guy so you might have had something useful to say) you kept saying witch hunt etc.
Believe you were witch hunted if you want - it didn't look that way from this side. (no more comments on this topic from me)
I agree with your assessment, Russell.
And D.J. Grothe is accurate about the current state of dialog on this issue. If you dare to articulate a contrary position you get shouted down with a lot of name-calling which, apparently, we consider acceptable. After enough of this abuse you tend to get a bit angry as Ryan (whom D.J. is now taking flak for) did.
The abusers say, "No. No. This is unacceptable because you have crossed the line by advocating violence towards women." But, being told to stuff a porcupine up your backside is OK. Being told to f*** yourself with a rusty knife is OK. Advocating "f***ing" gelatoguy "into the ground" is OK. Calling people sexists, misogynists, and gender traitors is OK. Engaging in character assassination by either stating outright, or implying, that your dissenters are lying is OK.
I would love to see at least one person who is railing against D.J. Grothe at the moment, acknowledge some responsibility for the vitriolic nature of the dialog.
Whether or not these blogposts are being written to draw traffic to their sites, the posters certainly seem to be doing their best to elicit emotional reactions from their readership, rather than trying to promote well-reasoned, evidence-based debate.
There is no excuse for threats of violence. However, there is also no excuse for character assassination of those who disagree with you as a substitute for well-reasoned debate from people claiming to be skeptics and freethinkers.
Just wanted to say I appreciate the comments. I have the feeling if I added anything to my post I'd have to do hours of research. I'd have to reread Christina, Zvan, DJ--all very long-winded--and track down the relevant facebook thread. Somehow it doesn't seem worth it.
A little note about the men's rights movement (in response to someone way up): I instinctively gag at the thought, but I'm curious about it. David Benatar has a new book coming out very soon called "The Second Sexism" and I mean to have a look. In fact, it's on my radar as a book we will want to review at The Philosophers' Magazine.
Come off it, Deepak, if you don't know a witch hunt when you see one you should go away and read up on the phenomenon. Don't make excuses for the vicious behaviour that I was subjected to (along with many others whom I could list).
In my case, I'm talking about behaviour before the eventual "let's actually have the nuanced discussion" thread, which was quite civil. Ophelia herself made a point of redacting the earlier thread that I'm mainly talking about to get rid of the very worst of it.
You can see the redaction for yourself if you can be bothered finding that thread again. It's still pretty horrible but it was worse in its unredacted form.
Unfortunately, I am the only person I know of who has been made Witch of the Week who has subsequently been given any sort of redress for it. And even that only came from Ophelia - and I do give her credit for that much - not from any of the others who were involved in that particular mob of crazed villagers. I see that some of the very same people are still at it, going after whoever was the witch last week (Staks Rosch (sp?)/Ben Radford) or this week (DJ Grothe).
Good article, and good comments. The witch-hunts and the dogmatic approach to certain topics is a shame for a group that exists to do the very opposite.
The first of the seven(!) attack-articles on DJ written in the last week was based on a comment by DJ a month prior to the article being written. The fact that it was dredged up a month later demonstrates the lengths they will go to manufacture a new controversy.
It's all very nasty and neither helps the movement nor women.
There are atheistic bloggers whom I like, and then there is TAM. I could do well without TAM, but I would miss reading Russell Blackford, Joe Hoffmann, and you, Dr. Kazez, if all of you weren't on the internet. So, please, for my sake, don't buy wholesale into TAM. Stay away, or at least on the fringes, of TAM as long as it is is peopled by reactionaries and firebrands.
Just so everyone knows, my wife, Ashley Beck, did not leave the above comment -- I did. All responses should be addressed to me.
Hi Jean,
I can appreciate your lack of desire to go through this latest blog war. I've given up on keeping up. My dyslexia makes it very difficult and it just doesn't seem worth the effort. I'm very tired of the endless fighting which seems to be going nowhere. I've been spending my days in NWRs with the birds.
I am hoping you have the time to look at the article from the Barron's blog for which I provided a link. I thought it was fascinating. (A whole lot more fascinating than the current brouhaha in the atheist/skeptic community, but it also has parallels to the current level of discourse in the atheist/skeptic community.) Two of the ideas in particular: 1) Too many prescriptive laws eroding our freedom to make judgements about decent behavior, and 2) Anger and strife being necessary before we are able to reach common ground.
I have such a limited education, (and none in social psychology), that I'm not sure if any of the hypotheses put forth in the article are of any real merit.
Here's the link again:
"The Groundswell for Increased Civility"
I'm certain you are very busy and will understand if you don't have the time to read and give your thoughts on this article. Thanks for your time to read this comment. Sorry for the derail of this thread.
Did anyone in the atheist community give Christopher Hitchen's grief for calling the Dixie Chicks "F*cking fat slags" or did they let that one slide? Just curious.
Would it be silly to point out that the Dixie Chicks aren't fat or slags? Yes it would be silly, so I won't.
Ardent, Had a look. Anger has its place. Let's not banish anger! I think there's an intramural problem with civility in the skeptical community partly because there's an intermural problem. People get in the habit of treating religious people, or at least religious conservatives, as "the other". There is no limit to how they can be lambasted. That then becomes habit-forming, so that when there's an intramural dispute, the same sort of "othering" (aka--"witch hunt", as Russell puts it) goes on. It starts to be hard for people to think someone's simply wrong, but not atrociously and deplorably wrong.
I saw a blog or two where Hitchens comment about the Dixie Chicks was mentioned.
Thanks, Jean!
I would also be curious to know if part of the problem in the community would be a perception that there are some that are trying to lay down "prescriptive laws" that all freethinkers and skeptics must obey rather than keeping the discussion at a higher level.
It seems natural for freethinkers and skeptics to bristle at being told what they can say, think and do instead of just asking people to be aware of the feelings of others and conducting themselves with the feelings of others in mind.
Conducting oneself with the feelings of others in mind is a two way street, of course. We seem to have a whole lot of people who are looking to find offense and tarring and feathering the "offenders" by assuming their offense is a result of the worst possible motivations.
Thanks, again, so much for having a look at that article. I've been thinking about it quite a bit since I read it and was doing my best to try to decide if it had any real merit.
The atheist gang used to tout it as a badge of honor that the "community" is like herding cats. Suddenly everybody seems to be surprised that cats have claws and are independent. There seems to be an unrealistic expectation that being atheist would naturally lead one to be "progressive". Conflating the rough and tumble discourse of the interwebz with TAM etc is largely meaningless, I think. Typed "threats" in the internet mean little - just like "expertise" of anonymous internet commenters.
BTW, Jean, I have been giving your Elevator posts Un, Deux, and Trois a tremendous amount of thought and I feel there is a significant difference between Un and Deux vs. Trois.
In Un and Deux the complainants assumed what motivated the offenders’ behavior and put thoughts into the offenders’ heads. In Trois, Martha tried to understand why people might reasonably assume she is the nanny, perhaps because her clothing isn’t the kind other building residents normally wear. Moreover, she didn’t put thoughts into the heads of the offenders. She knew precisely what they were thinking because they were saying it. Galanes’s response to Martha was obnoxious.
I spent most of my childhood listening to verbal abuse from my mother, and yelling between family members. I did my best to try to keep the peace, by doing the housework and trying to ease my parents’ burdens. When I did something good, my mother would say that I had ulterior motives and that I just wanted something which I wasn’t going to get. All I wanted was for my mother to love me, and for the verbal abuse and yelling to stop. It never happened.
Putting ugly thoughts into other people’s heads, and assuming the worst possible motivations for others’ behavior, reminds me of that horrible childhood experience. I find it unacceptable behavior, particularly when it’s done to complete strangers.
Giving consideration to the feelings of others really is a two way street. I very much doubt that the people complaining the loudest about the misdeeds of others would be happy if others, who don’t know anything about them, were as quick as they have been to assume the worst, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt.
I walked away from my family and thought that the atheist and skeptic communities would be a better place. Unfortunately, I feel like I have ended up right back where I started. This “debate” is getting us nowhere; at this point, I just want the verbal abuse and yelling to stop.
I witnessed the events as they were happening.
The comments about cunt kicks were started by Ophelia Benson. The person who was attacked posted a response on his private facebook wall. It was a sarcastic response to the attacks from some of his facebook friends and Greta's sycophants about the assumptions of wanting to kick women in the cunt (once again, the accusations were generated from Ophelia and continued by Greta's sycophants).
And it wasn't a threat. It wasn't like he said that he was going to do it. The comment clearly showed that he was accused of this by others.
Would you consider it a threat if a parent said, "If you don't clean your room, I'll kill you!". Of course, the parent isn't going to kill the child, and it's the context that matters.
At the time, the person was getting new friend's requests from people who supported him on the issue, and we suspected that Stephanie Zvan may have been one of them. The person didn't know who Stephanie was, and that she would take snapshots of those posts to use in a blog, while ignoring his context, and that it was on his private wall.
Let's see, so originally I accused Greta Christina of being an attention-seeker and of stirring up controversies purposefully to get blog hits. She took issue with that. Then she blogged about me.
Now, over a month later, she's still blogging about it, and using it to attack a public figure.
You're welcome for the blog hits, Greta. Do I get to see some of that ad revenue or what?
- RGL
Whenever you see someone like Watson, Greta, Ophelia, etc., the first question you should ask is "How much does blogging/being famous on the Internet fund their lives?" It's another application of follow the money.
If the answer even appears to be anything over about ten percent, and they have gobs of ads on their sites, especially ads that in the past, when they weren't getting a major cut of the revenue, they railed against as inappropriate, and "These must be removed ASAP!!", (PZ is a notable example of this), then you can make certain assumptions:
1) This is how they feed and clothe themselves, and fund their lifestyle. If it's not the sole source of income, it's a significant contributor.
2) Because of 1) there are certain things you have to care very, very much about, namely Name Recognition, hit counts, and SEO/SEM/Ad Revenue.
3) To achieve those things at the levels you need to actually make money requires a lot of work devoted to keeping people reading your site, and wanting to know what you think about everything. You can try to do it with naught but awesome content, but you're not going to make a lot of money off it unless you're world-renowned, or bankrolled. Matt Tabbi, for example, is an awesome writer, but he's bankrolled, so he doesn' t have to care as much about staying in the public eye. Rolling Stone does rather a lot of that for him.
To get surprised that the Intarweb Famous crowd pumps up crap, or seems to be unable to go ten minutes without yet another "LOOK AT MEEEEEE" moment just shows a lack of understanding of the economics of what they do. If Watson, Greta, Benson, etc., didn't constantly pump up every nontroversy into yet another howlocaust, they'd not make any money. Even PZ, who has a "real" job, seems to have realized that there's perhaps more money, and a lot more fun to be had in making money for being PZ Myers, instead of Dr. Myers of UMM.
Even the "giants" such as Dawkins or the late Hitchens know that if you want to sell that book, and make money for being well, you, there's a lot of work involved with that, and if you aren't going to do that work, well, you're going to not get that nice bank. They're (were in the case of hitchens) somewhat less hysterical in how they do it, but the principle is the same.
So in a sense, it doesn't matter if they believe what they're saying and doing. They don't really have a choice if they want to keep making a living at it.
I'm not saying they're *right*, or that you should *agree* with them, but no one should be surprised at their behavior.
RGL--You must feel like the new elevator guy!
I completely understand that Ophelia, Greta, PZ, and others are upset about name-calling and threats, especially when they're ongoing. I don't think the discomfort of these people is manufactured or feigned, just to increase blog hits.
My post was supposed to be sympathetic to DJ Grothe, not dismissive of people who are being threatened and disparaged on a daily basis. I think I made that clear in the post.
Please, folks, don't make my blog look like a satellite of ERV. There's no way that's what I want it to be.
Discomfort may not be feigned - but can be disproportionate or degenerate to being paranoid by blaming people unfairly. At least, as phrased DJ is portrayed as aiding and abetting name-calling and threats - which is simply not fair. At worst, he waded briefly into the middle of a flame war. It seems to me that DJ and JREF are being used as pegs to amplify larger concerns. That is unfair to the individuals/organizations and disingenuous. It seems to be repeating now - and has to stop. I think already the "community" has fragmented and this is just the phase were people are ejected/added from different cliques. Started with Dawkins.. I'm sure you have it coming too :-)
Yes, exactly.
Also, much of this is simply a case of very sloppy writing. Nobody should be above criticism. But when criticism is being leveled at people who have a well-earned reputation for making valuable/ethical contributions, criticism should be well argued and be specific to the points and context. We owe at least that much to them. Simply plugging their names into overwrought rants or ongoing controversies doesn't help at all. It is only natural that mentioning an important person prominently in a rant - invites readers to associate them with all points raised. This then invokes a harsh response (undeserved may be but understandable) and so it goes. It also invites criticisms of seeking pagehits etc. Adding weasel disclaimers later doesn't help - if you are not calling for a boycott - why mention it? If you don't think DJ is a misogynist - say so explicitly - and he doesn't suddenly become one by simply disagreeing with you.
Many of them are supposed to be professional writers. May be all we need is editors/peer reviewers for blogs. Fill "no bright idea" days with puppies and youtube music. No cats - they are clearly evil :-).
"Please, folks, don't make my blog look like a satellite of ERV. There's no way that's what I want it to be."
Ah, and I thought it was the content and points made that mattered, not where else you hung out. My mistake, feel free to delete my offensive posts.
I agree - part of the issue with the problems since July has been that the actual arguments on both sides have been far from clear. Half of the angry back-and-forth in the comments on the various blogs have been arguing about what is being claimed, rather than whether the claims are actually true or not.
My suggestion is that the importance of philosophy in the skeptical movements should be recognised. Philosophers have to be clear about what they are arguing. It will not do to attack the other person - you need to argue properly, and argue well. There is no claim that should be exempt from challenge, no matter how obvious it may seem.
I'd go so far as to say that when people talk about the methodology of 'skepticism' (using the term in the non-philosophical sense), they really mean analytic philosophy!
"Please, folks, don't make my blog look like a satellite of ERV. There's no way that's what I want it to be."
Well, there's one surefire way to make sure that you only get the precise feedback you want to the exclusion of anything you won't like: just start banning like crazy. It's working for Watson, Benson, Christina, Myers, et al.
It takes no effort at all I'm told!
There is a high price to pay for being available to open-ended conversation: you'll find that lots and lots and lots of people disagree for lots and lots and lots of different reasons in lots and lots of different ways. It's a real bummer I'm told.
Aren't you overreacting, John? What you wrote sounds awfully like a diatribe about how your opponents are venal. You really don't know that.
Sure, they may welcome the increased traffic, and it may bring some pocket money as well as notoriety. Sure, we all (i.e. people who make either our living or at least our pocket money from writing) have to promote ourselves. But the idea that Witch of the Week is being driven largely by venality is a distraction. First, as I said, you simply don't know that. Second, I can well see why Jean would not want the thread to turn into a series of accusations and counter-accusations of that kind.
Personally, I think that what we're seeing is driven by fanaticism rather than venality. When we see DJ's comments on someone's else's blog that are many, months old being dredged up, when we see month-old Facebook comments dragged out, when we see references to whether he gave a comment a "like" on Facebook, or whatever the hell it was, this all looks weird, obsessive, and ... fanatical. It looks as if we are all now being monitored for signs of wrong thoughts at the level of stale comments in conversations on Facebook.
Ruseell, John is no longer reading these comments given the implication that he's somehow tainted not on what he's said, but where he hangs out and converses, and with whom. I wouldn't expect a response from here. I'll mention it to him, but that's the most I can do.
Also, your response missed his point quite dramatically I think. You wrote "Sure, they may welcome the increased traffic, and it may bring some pocket money as well as notoriety."
That isn't his point. He distinguished between people who write and blog which generates some revenue (pocket money), and those whose livelihood depends on people reading their writings and blogs.
While it would be fair to take a closer look at this guesstimate of 10% as the dividing line, I don't think that's a fatal weakness to his proposition; an increase of 10% in one's income is nothing to wave off.
Further, he added as a factor to determine which is which by evaluating how their views on certain types of ads change in direct response to whether they receive a substantial cut of the revenue generated from those versus when they did not.
Yes, people who earn a living off of being public noticed have to remain in the public eye. A surefire way to achieve that is to increase an issue to the dramatic because people love some drama.
Anyway, that's about as far as I think I can go given what's on the screen. As I said, I'll let John know you've responded; whether he returns to comment is, of course, up to him.
Sorry for the typos, particularly on your name, Russell.
Justicar, I didn't read that into it. Jean didn't say she was banning him or that he was a tainted commenter. As far as I can see, she merely asked that the thread not degenerate into such things as speculation about the venality of individuals.
Look, I, too, find much of what is said at ERV frustrating and unhelpful to, say, Stef. I can understand why Jean would, in passing, express some of the same frustration as I feel. But I don't see Jean saying, "You comment at ERV; therefore you're tainted/unwelcome/banned." I guess she can speak for herself, but I just don't see it from here.
Also, I think that Jean has done a wonderful job in getting discussion of these issues in an atmosphere that is calm and fair. I don't think that making accusations of, or engaging in speculation about, venality helps her do that. Even, what you said about it just now is very speculative.
Really, there's no strong evidence of venality from anyone at FTB. It's not impossible, but it seems like a red herring to me, and one that can only spoil the distinctive tone and character of Jean's blog ... which I hope we all enjoy and respect.
I do see some pretty strong evidence of obsession, fanaticism, etc., but that's a different matter.
Anyway, I'll try (try!) to avoid saying more if you respond to this, or if John does, since it's really a matter for Jean what constraints she wants to have on the discussion on her own blog.
By now, is anybody who used to be active and prominent, left untarnished in all this? I can only think of Dennet and Grayling - but they have been completely silent about it. Anybody who talked about it, however tangentially, have been flamed - like DJ here.
I suppose, the next step would be criticizing anybody who don't speak up. And finally, it could spill over face to face in all these meetings. Has that happened yet, anywhere? I wonder what will happen if that happens?
I fail to see how I'm speculating on what John wrote. Do you deny that he drew a distinction between those who make some 'pocket money' and those whose incomes are in some important way contingent on generating traffic and being involved in popular topics?
Was I speculating when I said he used as a factor for determining (not a factor for just guessing) someone's motives when in one day they're very much raging against certain types of ads, but that once they start receiving kickbacks from the revenue those ads generate become okay with the ads being there?
Do you think it's speculative on my part to say that people whose income depends on their remaining in the public need to remain in the public eye for that income?
Is it mere speculation on my part to observe that one good way to remain in the public eye is to involve one's self in controversy?
Am I speculating when I say that people love drama?
I cannot speak to why John thinks the way he thinks, but when he's said explicitly that he thinks a certain thing I'm definitely in a position to repeat that. He said that he took her comment to imply that content wasn't what mattered, but rather where it is one hangs out and with whom. This isn't speculative on my part; he's said as much.
In fact, I don't see anything I've written here which is at all speculative.
"Look, I, too, find much of what is said at ERV frustrating and unhelpful to, say, Stef. I can understand why Jean would, in passing, express some of the same frustration as I feel."
But that's not what Jean said (and she didn't say it in passing). She didn't say she finds much of what is said at ERV frustrating and unhelpful to Stef. She said
"I completely understand that Ophelia, Greta, PZ, and others are upset about name-calling and threats, especially when they're ongoing. I don't think the discomfort of these people is manufactured or feigned, just to increase blog hits.
My post was supposed to be sympathetic to DJ Grothe, not dismissive of people who are being threatened and disparaged on a daily basis. I think I made that clear in the post."
I understand that as seeing the name-calling and threats as happening to the people who are being name-called and threatened, not to Stef. (Stef is on record being against sexist name-calling, by the way, even of Rebecca Watson, and not because it's frustrating and unhelpful to her, but because it's sexist namecalling.)
And Ophelia: you're on record as employing sexist name-calling, publicly. And then you decided for the sole sake of being 'consistent' that you would from that point on only use sexist name-calling in private; not that you thought it was wrong, but that you wanted to appear to be consistent.
Those who live in glass condos . . .
John Welch was veering into the sort of hate speech that the ERV crowd specializes in. That's why I said what I said, not simply because I recognized his name from over there. "Howlocaust"...speculating that these people will do anything for pennies ... yeccch. Why do you hate them so much?
Justicar, Maybe you should consider retiring from your role as a hater. I have the feeling you have the potential to actually be a card-carrying member of the reality-based community.
Justicar, it's speculation that anyone at FTB is driven by venality. That's all I need to say in response to the responses to me above.
There's been a whole lot of speculation about the motivations of a whole lot of people in the skeptic and atheist communities over the last 9 months. Moreover, we have been insisting that this speculation be accepted as fact.
(And, here I was still under the impression that the ability to read minds was considered pseudoscience. I guess I didn't get the memo that the ability to read minds has now been proven a scientific fact.)
I think people in general need to chill the fuck out.
I think it was very dismissive of Groethe to suggest that the reason that Greta Christina and others were taking on this topic because they wanted blog hits. It really seems much more likely that they are passionate about this topic and want to change people's minds.
On a slightly unrelated note, I think one of the big problems about this whole sexism issue is that everyone thinks they have a right to do something or not having something done to them. It's not just an issue on this topic either. It seems that whenever a controversial topic comes up where there is a conflict, both sides tend to think that they have a right to do something or not have something done to them. I sometimes think that the concept of rights really gets in the way of having a good discussion on how people should or shouldn't act.
Jean said:
"... the sort of hate speech that the ERV crowd specializes in."
I am rather dismayed to see you, of all people, making such a generalized and exaggerated comment.
Most of the people who post at ERV, do not specialize in any form of hate speech at all. Yes, from time to time someof the posters at ERV will post some pretty angry stuff, but to inclusively label all ERV posters as specializing in hate speech is bombastic and false sensationalisation of the worst sort.
Your last comment is so absurd it's not worth responding to. Discussion over.
Call me gobsmacked!
You can believe the ERV crew are guilty of "hate speech" if you want, as long as you don't ignore "hate speech" from Pharyngula and other places.
We have seen enough hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance in the atheist/skeptic community already!
There's been hateful speech on both sides. I'm grateful that Jean has managed to provide a place where the issues could be discussed, as I said above, calmly and fairly - without anyone being called a "cunt" (I wince every time I see or hear that word) or accused of mere venality, or (on the other side) being told by the witch hunters that they are gender traitors, liars, disgusting, or parotting misogyny.
The meltdown in our community over these issues has been disillusioning and painful to watch. There was an opportunity for rational discussion of, for example, whether there should be asymmetries in how men and women relate to each other.
E.g., would it have been okay for a woman to invite a man to have coffee with her, if there was something wrong with a man doing so with a woman? Perhaps, contrary to what Stef McGraw wrote, there is an asymmetry here. But the discussion was spoiled as soon as Stef was attacked as "parotting misogyny" and for supposed ignorance of feminism ... both palpably untrue ... rather than being welcomed as a rational critic whose views should be taken seriously and possibly accepted as a valid critique.
Prima facie, Stef was right. No one would object if a woman invited a man back to her room (well, I certainly wouldn't). There'd be no cries that this was an example of misandry or of sexual objectification of the man.
So why object if a man invites a woman to his room? On the face of it, coffee is coffee. But even if he is making a coded offer of sex, or perhaps putting an invitation to receive offers from the woman, why is this misogynist or an example of sexual objectification?
And what is sexual objectification, anyway? If I am attracted to someone and would like to have sex with her, am I thereby already "objectifying" her? Or is something much stronger needed? Would I have to have an attitude to her that she is a mere means to my ends and that she is not also an end in herself whose feelings, needs, etc., must be taken into account?
Note that on the stronger interpretation of sexual objectification, Elevator Guy does not appear to have engaged in it - his language, as initially reported, sounds as if he was being considerate and polite, even if also sexually attracted.
Is the truth of it that sexual conduct between men and women is an example of conduct where you should not treat others as you'd like them to treat you? I.e. I think a lot of men would like to treat women as they'd like women to treat them, but as there are differences in, apart from anything else, physical strength, that may not be realistic. If a man treats a woman as he'd like to be treated by her - e.g. by offering to have sex with her - there's a sense in which, prima facie, he's doing nothing wrong. He's not necessarily thinking of her as a mere object or expressing hatred of women or thinking that women are inferior to men. But perhaps he shouldn't act in that way, all the same ... at least not when alone with a woman in a confined space.
These are all interesting philosophical issues with practical consequences, and there is a considerable body of philosophical literature on them and related topics. They are sufficiently challenging that no one should be dogmatic about any of them.
I had the chance to do some teaching in this area a few years ago, and I have an ongoing interest in it. My students found questions surrounding the rights and wrongs of sexual interaction interesting and grappled with them seriously, though I wish we'd had the elevator scenario available to us, as it brings out aspects that we didn't cover, such as the possible asymmetries between the situations of men and women.
Unfortunately, it became obvious at an early point of the Elevatorgate dispute that rational discussion of these topics was impossible in the blogosphere because the Watson/Laden/Myers side was ideologically committed to a particular set of answers, and that anyone with a different set of answers must be a misogynist, a gender traitor, or something equally wicked ... and would likely be made the subject of a hate thread, as I was at Butterflies and Wheels. To her credit, Ophelia later regretted this and redacted the thread, but there have been other hate threads at Butterflies and Wheels that have not been redacted.
None of the above excuses what Ophelia calls the bitching and cunting from the more vocal folks on the pro-Stef side, many of whom hang out at ERV. Stef herself has indicated that she disapproves of it. I certainly do. I'd be confident that Richard Dawkins does as well ... as, very likely, do most of the people who support Stef's side of the argument, even if they've been Witch of the Week at some point. The nature of the whole debate has silenced most of us for fear of just exacerbating divisions in the community, but our (relative) silence doesn't seem to be helping things either. It just means that a lot of reasonable voices are not being heard.
Thanks for all you've done, Jean, if this thread is now basically closed. I've long declared my own blog an Elevatorgate free zone because I didn't think it possible to host a rational discussion of the issues there. It would have become a flame war, as it has everywhere else (where it hasn't simply been a pile on). You've done the best job that anyone possibly could have in hosting good, rational discussion of the issues.
Wow, excellent comments Russell. That is EXACTLY the kind of conversation we should be having, and in the manner you demonstrate.
By the way, when I said that these recent attack-posts were "manufacturing controversy" I meant that they were obsessed with the issue and wanted to keep talking about it, rather than that they just wanted to make money. I think it's clear that it is that way around.
Russell writes:
"E.g., would it have been okay for a woman to invite a man to have coffee with her, if there was something wrong with a man doing so with a woman? Perhaps, contrary to what Stef McGraw wrote, there is an asymmetry here. But the discussion was spoiled as soon as Stef was attacked as "parotting misogyny" and for supposed ignorance of feminism ... both palpably untrue ... rather than being welcomed as a rational critic whose views should be taken seriously and possibly accepted as a valid critique."
There was indeed such an opportunity. More than that, there were indeed such conversations which took place over at the evil, evil Abbie Smith's blog, and a few other variants. In my case, it's about passes made at me by men in similar circumstances. I stand about 64 inches tall; I'm not exactly a big guy . . .
Of course, such a conversation was hand-waved off as MRA talk: what about the rights of the MENZ?! and so on.
In fact, I pointed out that Abbie had two years ago (or was it 3?) written a blog article where she potentially endangered a tall black guy in her building by letting in a crazy ex of his. He talked to her about it and she immediately realized that he not been a 6'6" black guy, but rather a woman she would never have opened the door to let in a stranger. But because he was a strong black guy the thought that crazy lady could do him any harm didn't cross her mind.
Until he came to talk to her. But, you know, MRA! gets bandied about as a method of not having to deal with the fact that some of these issues are complex; it's to shut down conversation by demonizing out of the gate those who think even slightly differently.
As far as the objectification bit goes, Watson has no troubles whatever objectifying males on screen, writing about one actor that she wants to 'lick him' head to toe. Mention that youtuber/blogger Zomgitscriss is attractive and a skeptic and Blaghag finds a reason to take one to task in the Q&A and blog about the sexism. Perfectly silent on the 'lick' head to toe comment though.
Double standard it seems to me.
Some people at Abbie's finally noticed that I have youtube videos and that I'm not horribly disfigured and made some comments about my being 'hot' (which I hear more than occasionally). I have never once taken an ancillary statement on my looks as in any fashion demeaning me or diminishing my stature otherwise. In addition to whatever else makes me, well, me there is also the fact that to enough people I'm seen as a good looking dude.
Will some people take a comment on his or her looks to be degrading? Yes. Does it follow that it really is? I don't think it does; I've certainly never felt demeaned by it, and I don't build my ego around looks because looks are fugacious in any event.
But mention that K-Rad is attractive in addition to being smart, articulate and a person of careful thought . . . well, somehow that's bad in a way the obverse commentary wouldn't be.
Was Neil deGrasse Tyson being objectified, sexualized and reduced in power and stature when it was pointed out in an introduction of him by a moderator that he was recently voted sexiest astrophysicist? It didn't seem to faze him in the least.
But we can't talk about that. Else, one is insulting all women everywhere (even the ones who are saying they don't find it insulting) according to the True Feminists.
Russell, I can easily understand why Watson thought it was inappropriate for the guy to proposition her in an elevator at 4 in the morning, and I think there are plenty of reasons why it would be different if she'd done the propositioning. Women feel more vulnerable in situations like that because men rape women and women don't rape men--I think that makes a difference. I have no problem at all with Watson's complaint per se, but I do think there was a legitimate debate to be had back in June about the way she was using incidents like the one in the elevator to explain female under-representation among atheists.
Alright, that's enough...for the moment.
To clarify--I don't mean she would have had a reasonable fear of being raped in the elevator. I just mean that the rules and dynamics between men and women are asymmetrical, partly because women get raped (but for a lot of other reasons as well...long story).
"women don't rape men--I"
They don't?
Yes, women don't rape men--or close enough. Women spend their whole lives protecting themselves from being raped. There are thousands of moments of thinking "take this route, not that..." etc. etc. The possibility of being raped by women is not in the background of men's decisions. It doesn't change that if you can come up with one freaky case of a woman raping a man.
I understand the asymmetry in how vulnerable men and women feel in those sorts of situations. But I think Russell's questions on sexual objectification are relevant and untouched by the fact that the majority of non-prison rapes are man-on-woman.
I also think that the feeling of vulnerability was caused by the mere fact that a man was in the elevator at the same time as RW - (she is alone in a strange country late at night etc...). I'm not sure how his asking her a polite question and accepting her negative response was any worse, but (just throwing this out there) it might even go some way to actually DISPEL the feeling of vulnerability! Even if you disagree with that, I still don't see how his question was the actual cause of her feeling vulnerable. If he touched her in any way that would of course be different.
We all have our opinions whether EG was 'wrong' or not. I think that the debate has been framed like this: Rebecca Watson felt uncomfortable and asked men not to do something. Misogynists were angry and sent her hate mail.
Actually I think there are various points at which people might find themselves on the opposing side.
1) Disagreeing with the initial complaint.
2) Disagreeing with Watson's 'calling out' McGraw (particularly the manner in which she did so).
3) Disagreeing with Watson's personal attack and announced boycott of Richard Dawkins.
4) Disagreeing with the way the debate proceeded on various blogs, including insult-hurling, banning, and blithely labelling people as 'misogynists'.
5) By using 'sexist epithets'.
6) By sending hate mail.
Now I find myself on the other side because 2), 3) and 4) apply to me. I also partially and conditionally agree with 1), but it needs further discussion and debate (which has been difficult).
Jean's ability to track this (and other) debate(s) without freaking out is one of the reasons I come to this blog.
Thanks, Faust. Have I ever mentioned that I really appreciate your comments at this blog?
notungblog--I gave a presentation about this stuff at an atheist group last summer, and almost all of the women said they related to Watson's feeling a bit threatened by being propositioned in an elevator. Just a few didn't, but the majority did relate.
Useful outline of ways to disagree. One more--
(7) Disagreeing with Watson's tendency to use misogynist incidents as a basis for generalization and explanation--as in "The reason why fewer women go to atheist events is because they are trying to avoid misogynist incidents."
Thanks Jean! Good to know.
Just to add one more comment on the subject here. As a side observer to the whole general fray, what I think can legitimately be viewed as progressive fracturing in the on-line atheist/skeptic community(ies), my view is that the sum total of these events should be taken as evidence that there are some very serious problems that need to be worked out concerning "rationality," "freethinking," "scientific thinking," and so on.
Supposedly these (very loosely considered) methodological matrices furnish us with the tools for disciplined inquiry that will, over the long term, increase commensurability between our various discourses. Certainly one of the problems with "religion" as viewed by "skeptics" is that it furnishes no methodological resources that can assist in this project. But given the extent of fracturing I've recently witnessed it's clear that the fact/values divide is still producing a lot of trouble. Norms lurk behind all the clean “rational” products of our recent scientific history. These norms involve everything from the root norm of how to evaluate methodologies generally, to the much more day to day norms of how to rank the importance of various cultural and political initiatives (feminism, science education, the danger posed by “religion”). But to debate about norms is to debate about a subject on which there is not a lot of agreement at the meta level. While scientific progress is nigh impossible to argue about (by which I mean deny), moral progress is quite a bit murkier. And it is on moral vectors that these various fractures occur.
I agree with you, Faust, that there are more fundamental disagreements underlying the recent spate of conflicts.
Discussions about whether skeptics should be promoting the methodology itself, or the conclusions that they come to as a result of applying it, appear from time to time, but don't appear to be very popular. See this blog post for some examples. Such discussions are often couched as debates over what topics skeptics should or should not be addressing, and often get ignored as they devolve into differences in opinion over that scope.
I think that's a mistake. To my mind, promoting skepticism is promoting the methodology, and the specific topics used to spark people's interest in that methodology are less important, as are the conclusions that any one of us might reach.
Adhering to that principle, though, makes it difficult to build a popular movement on skepticism. Movements are generally about gaining followers that agree with your specific stance on a political, moral, or social-values issue. Leaders of such movements don't really care how their followers arrived at that agreement, as long as they agree.
And this is where I am having the most difficulty with the recent disputes. If people want to promote their particular cause, I have absolutely no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is that people are attempting to promote their causes as skepticism, and proceeding to compromise the fundamental principles underpinning skepticism as a methodology in service of their goals.
I see your point, Ardent--you wouldn't want skepticism or atheism to be burdened with extraneous "isms", like liberalism (for example), but some of the issue here is just about inclusion vs. exclusion. If it were really true that atheist men tend to be sexist morons who hit on women every other moment, then the community wouldn't be inclusive. Likewise, if white atheists were prone to racism, you'd have to take a stand against that. Right? I imagine you would agree with that.
Well, of course, Jean, if either of those were really true, then yes, I'd either want to try and do something to address the problem, or dissociate myself from such a community.
But is it ever that easy, or clear-cut? Isn't that what you were saying in your post?
Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. I think people could have chilled a lot if they admitted they agreed about the basics--the skeptical community should be non-sexist and inclusive (duh!). It's relatively small stuff that people disagree about--little issues of morality/etiquette that are actually in various gray areas.
Speaking of combating sexism and racism, happy Martin Luther King Day, all (if anyone's still reading!). This is off topic, but I notice in Dallas that a lot of people are flying flags, even in my very white end of town. It's interesting that this is now seen as a patriotic holiday. Used to be it was controversial whether it should even be a holiday!
Some thoughts I've had over the past few months:
I heard a piece on National Public Radio that said Ernest Hemingway was reading Jean-Paul Sartre, and the working title for The Old Man and the Sea was Fishing and Nothingness.
Archdukefranzferdinandgate was my working title for The Great War, but then some other war came along, called 2.0 or something.
Elevatorgate seems to be another working title, not to say it's wrong, but when people start their narrative at the elevator incident, it reminds me of the Onion headline: WAR OVER AS FRANZ FERDINAND FOUND ALIVE -- Long and Hideous War Was Simple Misunderstanding -- Chancellor Friedrich Ebert has offered to quell Allied wrath by ordering the archduke's immediate execution.
Also, my intuition was that if we had (e.g.) 7 issues that could each be argued 2 ways, then people could group themselves into 2 x 7 = 14 sides.
Then I checked my math. My trumpet has 3 valves, each with 2 positions (up or down), and that gives me 2^3 = 8 combinations. So if we had 7 issues that could each be argued 2 ways, then people could group themselves into 2^7 = 128 sides.
That's how it looked from my corner of the pie fight. And when they filmed that epic pie fight, they had to break for the weekend, and when they came back to finish it Monday, it smelled something awful.
Upside, I learned about some bloggers like Ardent Skeptic I appreciate very much.
Jean/Ardent - I agree that discussing what we DO agree on would show that we are more similar than we realise.
I think the trouble is that some infer from the minor disagreement that therefore there must be the major disagreement as well. E.g. Dawkins thinks the elevator situation was "zero-bad" and therefore he doesn't care about misogyny among atheists. I don't think that is an unfair characterisation of the reaction to his comments.
Dave Ricks - yes I agree. 128 sides would stop the polarisation in the community! Perhaps there are fewer 'real' sides if we look at incompatibilities between the various positions - 2) and 6) seem inconsistent for instance. Who would complain over the unfair use of emotive language and personal attacks and then commit the very same crime? (To carry your trumpet analogy further - there may be 8 combinations but I doubt you really bother with third-valve-only!)
Jean said:
"I think people could have chilled a lot if they admitted they agreed about the basics--the skeptical community should be non-sexist and inclusive (duh!)."
Which, for the most part, despite your and others' angry denials is quite specifically a posiition that most, not all, but most of the posters at ERV agree with, and have been saying so for quite some time.
ERV says "Freethoughtblogs, please stop yelling at people who hold different points of view". Freethoughtblogs responds "May you soon anally meet a dead porcupine".
It is also a position which many of the Freethoughtblogs posters and commenters, Skepchick, and a host of supposedly dedicated feminist Web sites and blogs do not actually sincerely uphold in their vivid and angry struggle for women's rights. Rather, it is women's first and foremost; men's rights ... if and when they remember to get around to it after spending a great deal of time and energy reminding the world that anyone who demands true equality while having the audacity to quietly ask 'why don't we worry about men's rights and women's rights at the same time and call ourselves equity feminists and humanists?" is little more than a raving, misogyinst sexist MRA and/or gender traitor.
You see, what has happened is that in the words of Watson, Benson, Myers, Zvan, and a host of others (some of whom are worth listening to; some a complete waste of time and space), the ERV posters have been labelled MRA, sexist, misogynists, rape aplogists, and people who specialize in hate speech because in using equal-opportunity gendered epithets and other forms of equal opportunity so-called bad words, the "relatively small stuff that people disagree about--little issues of morality/etiquette that are actually in various gray areas" has quite gotten in the way and has therefore rendered ERV posters somehow invariabley, and completely, one and all, as a vilified group, evil, unwelcome non-entities and traitors to the cause.
All because of some bad words and because some of the ERV posters use harsh language and the evil of equal-opportunity gendered epithets.
A dick is almost always a deserved and/or funny dick; feminise and it is inarguably, invariably, inexcusably evil, even when due to different cultural linguistic practices it is, in point of actual fact, not.
John, I think you have a view about language that is completely incorrect. You think that if X and Y are anatomical counterparts in men and women, then using X-epithets and Y-epithets is just "equal opportunity." But no, the emotional charge of a word is not simply a question of what it refers to. Words can even refer to exactly the same thing (like all the words for excrement) and have different rules for use. You can say "crap" in many situations where you can't say "shit", for example--and they refer to exactly the same thing! So of course there's nothing that says it's just "equal opportunity" to call men "dicks" and women "cunts" or "twats"...just because the body parts are related. As everyone knows, "dick" is a light word in common usage. It doesn't express contempt or hatred. It's no more intense than a light word of abuse like "asshole." As everyone also knows, "cunt" and "twat" have rules of usage that go, roughly: "use to express extreme contempt and disgust for a woman." So yes, the ERV crowd marginalizes itself by using these words or happily interact with other people who do. They may have other respectable beliefs, but the misogynistic verbiage is indefensible--especially because it's so relentlessly aimed at the same specific people. Y'all appear to have a sort of rage against them that is literally pathological.
Dave--HA!!!
Notung--I agree about Dawkins. I think it's strange how people can know and love someone for years (like Dawkins and like DJ Grothe), yet be so quick to interpret their remarks uncharitably.
OK--I must pretty much be done with this thread, as the new semester is upon us.
Jean, I think your reply to John Greg would make a colourful introduction to Frege's notion of 'Sinn und Bedeutung'! They should add that to the philosophy textbooks!
Ha! I was thinking about Frege when I wrote it. I'm thinking about a whole post on this subject (full of dirty words) because I think these things actually get pretty complicated.
Thanks for your willingness to speak up on behalf of D.J. Grothe, Jean.
Good-bye!!!
Sorry, but I have one more request. If you are going to do a post about words and their impact, I would very much like you to destroy the non-nuanced "Sticks and Stones" cliche which is tossed around as an excuse for all kinds of abusive language. I despise that cliche. Too many people seem to think that if you get emotionally hurt by verbal abuse it's your fault because words can only affect you if you let them. We're not robots! And, we can't turn our emotions on and off like a faucet.
That cliche makes it far to easy to place all of the responsibility on the listener rather than the speaker. I think it may be part of the reason why snark seems to be the most accepted and approved form of communication on the internet.
The one very positive thing I have to say about "dirty words" are their blatantness. Too many people don't notice a verbal slap across the face to their fellow human beings if the language appears civil. It is the reason why many in the community are of the opinion that Rebecca's treatment of Stef McGraw was OK. After all, it was civil.
I don't think saying the following after calling out Stef was the least bit civil. Stef's name was the one specifically mentioned which means she could reasonably assume that when Rebecca said "people in this audience" it meant Stef:
"Because there are people in this audience right now who believe this: that a woman's reasonable expectation to feel safe from sexual objectification and assault at skeptic and atheist events is outweighed by a man's right to sexually objectify her. That's basically what these people have been telling me, and it's not true.
I've heard from a lot of women who don't attend events like this because of those who have this attitude. They're tired of being objectified, and some of them have actually been raped; quite a number of them have been raped, or otherwise sexually assaulted. And situations like the one I was in, in an elevator, would have triggered a panic attack. They're scared, because they know that you won't stand up for them. And if they stand up for themselves, you are going to laugh them back down. And that's why they're not coming out to these events."
IMO, implying that someone you don't know is so callous that they would laugh at the concerns of women who have been raped is a dreadful thing to say. And this ugliness directed at Stef because Stef had the temerity to ask the question; Why is the elevator incident sexualization and not just normal human sexuality? I would like to know how Stef McGraw was supposed to have known that it was sexual assault she was being dismissive of when she asked her question.
Jean said:
"John, I think you have a view about language that is completely incorrect."
And I, you. Where does that leave us? In disagreement.
My degree is in English and my professional certifications (and professional experience since the 90s), are in technical and other forms of professional writing. Your degree is in Philosophy. Which of us has at least the potential for being more of an authority in English usage and diction? I suppose you could argue that because you focus on the philosophy of language, you are an authoritity if we were to accept or agree that our argument covers more the philosphy of language, and less the actual usage, cultural usage, and context, but, hmm....
"You think that if X and Y are anatomical counterparts in men and women, then using X-epithets and Y-epithets is just "equal opportunity'."
Generally, yes, though it is always to some degree dependant upon context, which you seem to deny -- or at least refuse to acknowledge.
"As everyone knows ..."
How an otherwise intelligent, well educated, well spoken and written individual as yourself could post such a false and unsupportable claim mystifies me. Were you to say, "As everyone who agrees with me knows", you would then be presenting a supportable claim. Otherwise, there is never, ever, any such phenomenon as "everyone knows".
"'... dick' is a light word in common usage. It doesn't express contempt or hatred. It's no more intense than a light word of abuse like 'asshole.' As everyone also knows, 'cunt' and twat' have rules of usage that go, roughly: 'use to express extreme contempt and disgust for a woman.'
No. Wrong. It does not matter how many times you or gender feminists shout that naive and unsupportable misunderstanding of diction and linguistics from the roof tops, it is simply not true. And to the best of my knowledge, no professional linguist or English professor would agree with you.
You also seem to me to completely ignore context. The meaning and intent of all these words and phrases you so hate depend primarily, if not exclusively, on context.
You seem to me to be making the same error that gender feminists make, which is that when insults, bad words, etc., are feminized (so to speak), context, intent, and cultural infuence are irrelevant. Yet, when masculinized (so to speak), context might be relevant, but not really, because when masculinized, such insults, words, etc, are harmless and all meant in fun and good play. And that just is not true.
"Y'all appear to have a sort of rage against them that is literally pathological."
Sure we rage at them. It's like raging at theist fanatics and creationists who insist on putting their hands over their ears and screaming "La La La I can't hear you"; however, you seem to me to be missing (intentionally?) the rather obvious point that most, though not all, usages of all these bad words, insults, and so on as practiced at ERV, are intended as dark, sardonic, and angry satirical mirror-imaging of the hysterical nonsense raged at ERV, and the world, by the Freethoughtblogs, Skepchick, et al rather extremist gender feminists.
Lastly, you said:
"... I think these things actually get pretty complicated."
Yes, indeed they do. So, with that in mind and with you the source of the idea, why is it that you continually reduce all ERV posters, commenters, and comments to the most simplisitic, nuance-free, single-layered motive and intent, such as generalising and vilifying all ERV posters as specialists in hate speech?
Jean: 'As everyone knows, "dick" is a light word in common usage. It doesn't express contempt or hatred. It's no more intense than a light word of abuse like "asshole." As everyone also knows, "cunt" and "twat" have rules of usage that go, roughly: "use to express extreme contempt and disgust for a woman."'
My bold. No, not everyone knows this, because in some subsets of society, it simply isn't true. Particularly in working-class culture here in Australia, it's very common to hear men greet each other affectionately with "Owya goin', ya old cunt?" In these circles, it's really a word that's lost all its bite. As I understand it, the same is true for "twat" in the UK. Here in Australia, if you were to call someone a twat, they'd probably just look at you and say, "what, you a bloody Pom now or something?" It's not a commonly used word, and has very little bite one way or another.
I would humbly submit that you're using a very un-inclusive definition of "everyone" here.
Tristan, The blog we're talking about is run by someone who lives up the road from me in Oklahoma, and all the people being insulted with these epithets are American. So the relevant language for purposes of this discussion is American English. In American English, "cunt" is extremely vulgar and insulting to women. That's why even someone who uses piles of expletives, like Jon Stewart, never uses that word. He uses words like "pussy" and "dick," but not "cunt"--never, because it's too ugly and degrading.
"Yes, women don't rape men--or close enough. Women spend their whole lives protecting themselves from being raped. There are thousands of moments of thinking "take this route, not that..." etc. etc. The possibility of being raped by women is not in the background of men's decisions. It doesn't change that if you can come up with one freaky case of a woman raping a man."
Small question, and I know given the topic I'll get laughed off, but, um, citation please? This is an empirical claim, and certainly anyone making it will have the empirical analysis which shores it up.
" As everyone knows, "dick" is a light word in common usage. It doesn't express contempt or hatred. It's no more intense than a light word of abuse like "asshole." As everyone also knows, "cunt" and "twat" have rules of usage that go, roughly: "use to express extreme contempt and disgust for a woman." So yes, the ERV crowd marginalizes itself by using these words or happily interact with other people who do. "
Apparently, not everyone knows this, and quite few hundreds of millions of people disagree with it. But if by everyone knows you mean everyone whom you count, then sure. Cunt and twat are in many countries not what you demand and insist they universally are and are universally known to be. And this imaginary universality you insist exists isn't universal even in the states where most of the people with their necks bent out of joint live.
Jean,
Granting that, I'm sure you can understand where the misunderstanding arises - the Internet being inherently international and all. It tends to stir up already-simmering resentment about American cultural ignorance/imperialism to be told that "everyone knows" that something is wrong in all instances when in our culture that's patently false.
It's the sort of thing that could be defused with a bit of calm, explanatory dialogue. But, when met with blanket, unyielding condemnation despite multiple attempts to explain context, it's a fairly common human tendency to escalate. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, after all.
To be fair, your argument is too middle-classy. I've volunteered in places, here in the US, where people didn't really follow your idea of which words are more appropriate. It is fair to insist on appropriate discourse in which you are personally involved. How others talk between themselves should be their business. Words do get subverted or change over time - so somebody should be doing the subversion at some time. On the other had, even those who readily use these words, draw some line at racial slurs. How that line gets drawn in an "anything goes" speech is beyond me. Any deference given to "color of skin" should also extend to "genitals" since neither are related to "content of character".
Let's see, where are we with this.
Yes, the context matters, but it's clearly American--Oklahoma blog, Americans being called names.
The role of class--sure, I'm sure it has some role. But we're talking verbal interactions in a middle class setting.
Justicar thinks I need to back up my claim that most rapes are done by men to women....
I think it's time to be done with this discussion. As I keep saying, I have other things I need to be doing.
Post a Comment