Crazy dot dot dot
[Update August 19. I’ve edited this, and I’m going to edit some of the comments. Very Orwellian; very memory-hole. Yes; too bad. I disagree with myself about much of this now, so I want to get rid of the worst of it, and thus the worst of the comments it triggered. I make mistakes. It happens.]
Sexist epithets. The subject keeps coming back. We think we’ve killed it and then it pops up again, undead. The disagreements of the past month have brought it back more robust than ever and fifty times as large.
Russell Blackford has astonished me by consistently brushing them aside as unimportant. I’m pretty sure that in one of the many epithet-discussions we’ve had here he told me he’d stopped using “bitch” because of what I and others had been saying. I seem to have lost my influence.
A lot of people whom I’d believed sensible are showing irrational streaks over this issue. E.g. it’s not that hard seeing what Watson did wrong – but some folks seem determined to protect her at all costs…
Likewise, we’ve been getting totally unnuanced discussions of insults like “twat”. I don’t actually like these, either, as it happens, because I think there is at least tendency for them to express and reproduce sexist attitudes …but not everything is the same, and it’s possible to tease out the distinctions analytically and dispassionately. (E.g. I’m far more worried about the use of “cunt” as an insult, because its primary meaning is still the female pudenda; whereas “twat” has lost that meaning to some considerable extent. I think that “fool” is now its *primary* meaning.)
Not here it isn’t. In the UK and Australia/New Zealand maybe, but not in the US – and even in the UK and Australia/New Zealand it hasn’t completely shed its misogynist aspect; not all women even there think it’s perfectly all right. I set off a discussion of the subject on the WMST list a year or so ago and there were a lot of emphatic comments from UK/Aus/NZ women saying hell no it’s not ok.
Anyway – this business of teasing out the distinctions analytically and dispassionately – that’s a lot easier for people who are not named by the epithets than it is for people who are. That is (I almost regret to say, at this point) a textbook example of privilege. When people throw around cunt and twat and fucking bitch and smelly snatch, they’re not naming Russell. They are naming me. I can be dispassionate and analytical about the (putative) distinctions under some circumstances, but not under all. I can’t do it when a mouthy woman is being called those things in public over and over and over and over again. I’m not dispassionate about that. I can’t be.
I’m sure someone will be around any minute to let you know that the real problem is that you won’t stop talking about how offensive things are, and if only you would stop playing the victim you could see that there’s no real sexism problem at all. In fact, YOU’RE the sexist for constantly attacking men for innocently throwing around words like “bitch” and “cunt” and “twat”.
“…whereas “twat” has lost that meaning to some considerable extent. I think that “fool” is now its *primary* meaning….”
Has Blackford confused ‘twat’ with ‘twit’? Sheesh.
I’m not sure which views are supposed to be the tempest in a teacup. The mild statement and rebuttal by Watson (who’s only posted a few times on the topic and moved on), the straw person response by McGraw (again only a couple of posts and moved on) or the ongoing vulgar targeting by Smith.
The wardrobe malfunction was silly but the stream of attacks on Watson have been astounding, and by no mean equivalent, from this Canadian’s view. Perhaps there is such a strong response in the US because the ERA failed and now conservatives are working to take away reproductive decision making.
Ophelia, I just want to say I’m glad you’re keeping this discussion going. I see the childish schoolyard taunts of ERV and company and get depressed that there are people who feel like that’s where our level of discourse should be. I just deal with it by closing the laptop and reading some Ingersoll as a kind of unicorn chaser, but it’s reassuring to know that there are others out there who feel the same and are actively trying to hold people accountable for their behavior.
Gah! This is just so wearying. Words matter. Language matters. Because they don’t just affect the hearer’s feelings, they ultimately affect the speaker’s actions.
Abbie uses that one, too. I’m sure the public objections will be promptly forthcoming from Russell like they were from Jerry.
Sweet, fuzzy lord. I’m not trying to censor anyone, and I’m definitely not a prude when it comes to frank, salty language on principle, but why are so many people so goddamned attached to these words? It’s like “no, no, don’t take my blow-up sex doll away! Look, see, I’ve dressed her in hospital scrubs* and hung a stethoscope around her neck…so she’s not even about sex anymore! She’s a pretty, pretty DOCTOR!”
Would it kill these people to just fucking expand their vocabularies?
*see what I did there?
In case they haven’t noticed, there are a lot more speakers of American English than of UK, Australian, and New Zealand Englishes, and I think Canadian is like American in this one. If this discussion were entirely in the UK–if it was a few people sitting around a pub somewhere in Scotland, say–there might be reason to dismiss American usage as irrelevant. But it isn’t; not only is this online (and not in locally focused online spaces, such as a site connected to a specific town), but a lot of the participants are in North America.
I think Russell is indeed confusing/conflating twit with twat. I’ve been on this planet a long time, a native English speaker for all of it except for the first year. And nowhere in that time has the word twat been used in my earshot without it expressly conforming to the idea of a female anatomical part.
How curious that someone otherwise so careful about word usage would get something like this wrong.
Maybe he grew up on a different playground than me. Or trying rather inelegantly to steer the conversation in a different direction.
Just say “I was wrong, and I’ll try to do better next time” Russell. Trust me on this one.
Ophelia, where do you stand on the use of the word ‘dick’ to mean ‘jerk’? In my experience only men are called ‘dicks’, while both men and women are called ‘twats’ (by both men and women). I am aware that this may only be true in my experience and limited to the small corner of the UK that I live in (Belfast).
Ophelia, you’re completely ignoring why denigrating women and encouraging others to is cool: That’s Abbie.
Now now, Ophelia, the Menz are explaining why you’re (plural) being hysterical. You girlfolk just can’t understand with your tiny ladybrains. It’s a good thing you have us dudely dudes here to walk you through it.
Without sarcasm, there are actually times where using slurs is acceptable: when it’s between friends and used… I don’t want to say “ironically” or “sarcastically”… invertedly? A lot of my friends call each other “sluts”, but it’s used as a compliment, not an insult. Same type of thing with the use of “nigger” between friends (where at least one is black), or Irish folk calling each other “mick”, or gay friends referring to each other as “fags”, or so on. Actually, that last example is useful: “gay” is used as a popular insult meaning “bad” for people aged 10-18. It’s not used with the intent to slur gay people; is Russell really going to argue that this makes it ok to use as an insult? I doubt it.
Ophelia, the points you raise are valid. For further corroboration of this phenomenon, see the (atrocious on many levels) video and the associated comments here: http://www.unifreethought.com/2011/07/i-have-video-for-you.html
i doubt this is a battle you’re going to win, connotations change and such words are still in use with different meanings. When I read the history of “hysteria” I almost fell out of my chair laughing “hysterically” (with the absurdity of it).
… and not for nothing, and I’m riffing on MyaR @#5 here…
… but when I use language like that, it make ME angrier and less rational. I think it is because it is always easier to escalate, and nearly impossible to back down especially in public. I used to go straight to the foul language, and lots of it, and intricate constructions of deeply offensive images. Disagreements would turn into arguments a lot faster. Now I find that without much more than a light sprinkling of “fuck” here and there, I don’t argue as much and I’m not as quick to anger. And when I see that I’m not getting my point across, or I feel like other people are overreacting to my points and getting aggressive, I find it easier to just walk away.**
I think the language you use affects you, and the way you are willing and able to think about the issue. Language should be led by emotions, but sometimes it can lead your emotions. When you’re jumping straight to the most aggressive words you know, you’re shutting all sorts of doors in your head. You’re not just pissing off the people around you, you’re making yourself more hostile as well. Stopping and thinking and considering your words gives you a second to breathe, and to maybe not make such a big deal out of things.
** … except from condescending tone-troll philosophers, who I automatically want to smack some sense into with a shit-dipped sea bass.
Sigh. I think this is one of the few times I have to disagree with whatever Rusell has written. Ah well there’s always Jason Rosenhouse.
Ophelia, I know you generally don’t use the term “dick,” but you’ve also said that you don’t think it’s as bad as “cunt.” I’m wondering if you’ve worked out why? I have very little emotional response to the term “dick,” but haven’t been able to come up with a reason that its not as bad as “cunt.”
@Nathan If I had to guess at a reason, I’d say it’s the same reason “honky” or “cracker” isn’t as bad as “nigger.”
Nathan, many, many people have explained why. I’m guessing you could work it out for yourself if you gave it a little effort. Think of the relative power of the groups involved and the way these terms have been used and played a part in oppressive social relations over long periods of time.
The difference between ‘dick’ and ‘cunt’ arises because there’s a power differential between men and women.
Incidentally, ‘twat’ can indeed have meanings other than the literal one. It can even be a verb, at least in the UK. But while it’s certainly true that it’s seen here as relatively mild, the idea that it’s anywhere near losing its original meaning is just patently absurd.
Thanks Rebecca (@ 4). It’s a dirty job but somebody’s got to do it! Clearly this kind of thing could happen to any woman, given the flimsiness of the “reasons” for the relentless onslaught directed at you.
I expected better from Russell, I had assumed once the video came out he would realize his mistake and correct it, instead he just keeps digging the hole. [edit]
themann – about using slurs among friends, as it were invertedly – sure – like (as I always say) the end of Renoir’s Grand Illusion when a guy says to his friend, “Au revoir, sale juif.”
Nathan and AJK – what everybody said. I have pretty much quit using “dick” in public for the sake of consistency and not being gotcha’d by people like Abbie’s playmates, but I also think it’s not an insult in the same way. Being a woman is bad, you see, while being a man is good. Women are praised by being said to have balls. [eye roll]
So Russell would think better of Rebecca if instead of taking issue with a publicly-posted comment of Stef McGraw’s, she had referred to some woman who wasn’t in the audience* as having a “smelly snatch.”
Well, I guess that’s a value system of sorts.
*– Or, if the beef is that McGraw is some poor defenseless little waif who can’t defend herself against the powerful juggernaut Watson (with whom McGraw chose to pick an argument), then substitute a public figure if you like. Imagine Watson had referred to U.S. Republicans as “chasing after Sarah [Palin]’s smelly snatch.” See Russell, it even has that alliterative flair you’re so impressed with!
Just this morning I had a chance to respond to someone who claimed that the use of “boy” to refer to African American men (specifically Barack Obama) was not racist. That, in fact, the non-racist meaning of “boy” or “your boy” to mean your friend, your homey, the one you support, is now universal. That person was simply wrong, on several levels. Mostly, how the hell would he know? Especially if he is Pat Buchanan?
Russell’s comment that “twat has lost that meaning to some considerable extent” reminds me of the boy example. His claim is simply not credible. I doubt that it is true, even in the Non-US English-speaking world. And I doubt, I’m sorry to say, that one person, even a well educated person who circulates a lot, can speak for a entire region, even a relatively small region, regarding the extent of meaning change for the word twat unless he has conducted a linguistic survey of some kind among speakers of English of all ages, genders, classes and ethnic groups in his region. Until he has some credible evidence of this meaning shift and its extent, I say it’s spinach and I say to hell with it.
I think perhaps “bitch” ought to treated differently from other female epithets because it actually has the technical meaning of female dog. My 20-something informant (who is a social anthropologist) has also told me that “bitches” is often colloquially and inoffensively used for all genders, generally in the plural. (As an example, the xkcd Tshirt that says: “SCIENCE: IT WORKS, BITCHES” is clearly not aimed solely at females (human or canine)). My informant also told me that, as a woman, it was contradictory for me to say that I am “a hardware engineering guy”, but I could call myself “one of the hardware engineering guys”.
I am conflicted about “dick”. To me, it does not have the same sexual connotation as “twat” or “cunt”. As a matter of fact, while I know what “dick-ish” behaviour would be, I am at a loss to explain what sort of behaviour would incite one to call a person “cunt-ish” or “twat-ish”. I consider that these terms are used purely to offend or insult, rather than to describe.
Which has been used as a gendered insult since at least 5th C BCE Athens. One of the Greek tragedies has someone call Hekabe a bitch. Probably The Trojan Women. Athena will know.
I’m starting to feel like the term “crazy bitch” should be a badge of honor. I mean, if you:
1. Haven’t stabbed anybody lately.
2. Haven’t burned the property of a current or former significant other on the front lawn.
3. Aren’t Michele Bachmann.
Then chances are you’ve been called a “crazy bitch” for standing up for women’s rights. Seems to me being called a crazy bitch, then, is something to be proud of!
Well, thanks for that, Blackford.
You’re as wrong about this as you are that PZ called you a liar.
It’s also impossible to credit the motivation behind ignoring people (who thought you were friends) who are telling you, point-blank, “No. That’s not OK. That insults. That hurts. It’s just like XYZ other word.” Actually, yeah, it’s malice, and it’s deeply ugly.
Ophelia could explain something about American politics—say the Electoral College—and Russell would accept it uncontroversially (all things being equal) because he knows Ophelia to be a sharp cookie and a lifelong American. But she’s not a political scientist or historian; she might get the explanation wrong. But on the one thing she’s unequivocally an expert on—how it feels to be an American woman in a whirlwind of bitching and cunting—he flat out refuses to believe her.
That’s so fucking bizarre I don’t know. . .
@#28 – Theo
For what it’s worth, in the UK anyway, cunt-ish behaviour would be roughly equivalent to being an arsehole, it implies a degree of malignancy. Twat-ish would be more descriptive of idiotic behaviour.
Bitch is quite a weird one in that it has very different meanings depending on whether it is being applied to a women (aggressive), or a man (weak).
Heart sinking in all manner of directions.
I’ve completely lost track of who’s said what about what. There are “sub issues” here which have been elevated (not meant to be a pun) when they shouldn’t have been and other issues that are important seem to have been sidetracked. And I can’t even say which should go in which pile, as there’s just too many spot fires going on.
I’m trying not to be the irritating agnostic looking down on everyone, but reading patches of the comments sections linked to, there just seems to be a heck of a lot of misrepresentation going on in all directions. I haven’t read many comments outside of B&W on this topic, as it’s been a balckhole once you start reading mulitple threads, but it would be fair to say that ERV has been demonised around here, and there may well be (almost certainly is) justification, but I just read one of her comments from the link above at miranda’s place, that made some sense.
I’m also concerned at what deepak has said at #16. “Whatever” Russell has said? Surely if you are going to dismiss it you need to actually see what he’s said to see? Surely?
ghah, I see this overall discussion as absolutely necessary. Greta Christina’s post of a couple of weeks ago is absolutely spot on, but man is it painful to actually read through.
It’s like pulling teeth.
This is not meant as a justification of the use of the word in any way, but just as a matter of interest. I do find it interesting how differently the C word is treated here (australia) amongst certain circles, compared to the States. In working class circles, and with the yoof, as it were, it’s used to describe just about anyone at any time. dumbc*nt, sickc*nt (a compliment), this c*nt, and almost exclusively directed at men, whereas it’s definitely always a very strong insult in the states, and directed at women.
Anyhoo, as I say, I’m certainly not suggesting that the “aussie” way is the way it should be.
David M, well with all due respect I don’t think there’s much misrepresentation going on here. As you notice – it is a bit irritating to pretend all parties are as bad as each other.
About “cunt”; it’s the same in the UK. I remember hearing yoof casually saying it in London back in 1973 – before most of you were even born – in Pond Square, Highgate, of all places. I think Claire was there (Claire Ramsey, above). I did not like it.
In any case, even when it’s directed at men – it is of course still an insult (but worse, only there is no word for it) directed at women, just as it’s insulting to women when crab fishermen, lumberjacks, truckers, soldier and other assorted macho types call each other girls and tell them to man up.
@Claire Ramsey “Until he has some credible evidence of this meaning shift and its extent, I say it’s spinach and I say to hell with it.”
Not only that, but I think with group-specific insults (gendered, ethnic, etc.) you just cannot, on behalf of a group you don’t belong to, make such claims, because so much of it is about the feelings these words invoke, which are deeply personal, and should be approached with sensitivity.
@ Jen Phillips, “Would it kill these people to just fucking expand their vocabularies?”
And this is what really brings it home for me, the reality of what Russell (& those like him) are arguing: that their desire to use these words is more important than any possible damage they might do to others with their use. That’s the real argument. All the, “this word should not offend you” nonsense is just the excuse.
I find the privileged aspect of it…I’ll say comprehensible. This goes back to the Lizard and the Dog. There is no male equivalent of “twat,” or “cunt.” Nathan mentioned “dick”; the difference there isn’t scientific, but cultural. Neither I nor any man I know finds being called a dick, or a prick, or a bastard strongly hurtful. Certainly, if it’s said with enough bile by someone whose opinion we really value, it might affect us, but that’s about as far as it goes.
As the cold-natured “dog” in this situation, I cannot feel the cold when you turn down the thermostat. But I can see my friends shivering. I know that “cunt” and “twat” can be deeply affecting to many women, even coming from strangers. I wish Russell and others using and/or defending the use of these words would see that these effects are real, and that they matter more than some weird desire to keep using them.
When such epithets are used in public places by people who don’t personally know one, then the object is quite clearly to insult one, to belittle one and put one on the defensive in argument. How can this not be just utterly bad behaviour? I wouldn’t use any of these terms to a friend either, despite posts above. Not even a close friend. Although I do reserve the right, when angry enough, to use the phrase “twat in the hat” for his holiness pope benedict 16th who is sexless, so it cannot be a sexual slur in his case!
@Ophelia, “About “cunt”; it’s the same in the UK. I remember hearing yoof casually saying it in London back in 1973 – before most of you were even born – in Pond Square, Highgate, of all places. I think Claire was there (Claire Ramsey, above). I did not like it.”
Oh lord, it’s an epidemic amongst all the English I know, it seems. Even this writer who’s really quite liberal otherwise; would gladly defend feminism, gay rights, and so on, once wrote (albeit through an author surrogate),
“In English (by which he meant British English), ‘cunt’ is punctuation.”
And that’s just…such a pathetic defense.
I wonder: it’s almost certainly the case that the average white man in an Anglophone country spends more time and is more intimate with women than with black people. So never saying “nigger” isn’t much of an imposition on a lot of people; having to think about how to relate to women properly probably is. It seems also more likely, for the same reasons, to raise discomfort at the thought that one might have been treating one’s mother/sister/wife/friend wrongly all these years.
Simon @ 13 – ew. I could manage only 2 minutes of that video.
It’s a horrible word. When furious guys like that land on it with all their weight – I flinch as if he were about to punch me.
I seriously don’t know how many more times I’ll have to point out that I and other non-Americans agree with Watson and also find anti-women slurs vile.
But as I mentioned elsewhere, it’s just so much easier to proclaim “oh, those crazy, barbarian Americans” even when it’s not true and simply dismiss the issue, than it is to acknowledge that there might be a point there somewhere and discuss the point. At this point, I’m almost ready to dismiss all mentions of the (often presumed) American nationality of someone in a discussion as a lazy ad hom
No, it wouldn’t be fair to say that. She has not been demonized here or there or anywhere.
Come on, Aratina. Pointing out her horrible behavior is demonizing her. See, all sides are equally bad! Why won’t you tolerate intolerance? That’s not very tolerant of you!
This kind of problem was solved a very long time ago by the great philosopher George Carlin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZCS5I80X-8
Russell said today it was “totally crazy” for men to cross the street at night if a single woman approaches. Yeah, it’s fuckin’ looneytunes batshit to be sensitive to a single woman’s anxieties at night on the street. Oh, and he characterized it as people saying men “should” do this. I only recall men (including me) saying that I do do it. No one proposed a rule.
“I don’t want you to take this the wrong way, but…””I’m not a racist but…”
“I’m trying not to be the irritating agnostic looking down on everyone, but…”
Jeez, man! Come on! Also, the false equivalence based on selective reading is getting REALLY DAMNED IRRITATING!
The misrepresentations and demonizing has predominantly come from certain positions roughly equating to a “side”, and almost entirely aimed at Rebecca Watson and people who don’t hate her. You don’t even have to be “Team Rebecca” to catch some hell. All you have to do is speculate that the very deeply personal attacks against Watson have a personal cause beyond the specific issues, or not run your website the way the anti-Watson crowd prefers.
David M – somehow I missed that bit about ERV. Are you kidding? Did you miss all the places where I said I like her? (I do, in spite of all this. I like her forthrightness. I hate everything she’s doing in this area, but I like her. I like Arnie, too.) But whatever her character – what she is doing is well worth criticizing – and notice nobody is calling her a bitch or a cunt. That would be demonization; criticism is not.
Ophelia,
“Not here it isn’t. In the UK Australia/NewZealand maybe.” No, definitely not.
I’d agree that if Jackson’s ‘wardrobe malfunction’ had occurred in Australia it would have been regarded as ‘trivial’,however I think that it’s not an appropriate analogy,we’re really talking about language and its offensive connotations, not anatomy.
Even though we speak English, there are cultural and ‘dialect’ differences, I’d be very careful about attempting to pontificate on Americans’ use of language, I’m surprised Blackford has taken the position he has, he’s painted himself into a corner.
Steve and Kevin: like Russell, I’m antipodean, though from the other side of the Tasman, and for several decades thought ‘twat’ was just a strong form of ‘twit’. I learned only a few years ago that it had a particular sexual reference, but because the word is so rare and its use not obviously sexist or sexual in my experience, its impact is quite minimal on my ears – a bit like a swear word in a foreign language.
Of course, none of this delegitimises the reactions of other people from different language backgrounds.
Heh. ;) I’m starting to wonder if maybe certain other people don’t view the word “demonize” or “demonise” as strongly as I do.
@Ophelia.
hmmm. Where I see the misrepresentation is in the summations. And I should be finding specific examples, so forgive me for not doing that right now, but reading through all of Russell’s comments in the linked thread makes me think that your summation makes him out to be a little bit more strident about his defense of these words than he actually is.
But even my use of misrepresentation in the above comments might be too strong. I dunno, I guess I’m just a little distressed that a heck of a lot of people who I’ve found very enlightening writers over a long period of time seem to be struggling to be treating each others words in good faith.
As for the use of the c word, it’s so normalised in certain circles that it’s just not even used as an insult, it’s just used to describe a bloke, or a group of people, or whatever. FWIW, that’s not a good thing, but it is a thing, it does happen. It should also be mentioned that, particularly the older blokes who use the term, particularly at it most casual, are also of the ilk who would call their wives the “trouble and strife” the “ball and chain” and all the other attendant stereotypes of gender relations.
Also FWIW, I think Russell is ever so slightly wrong on Watson being OTT in her original video, and also slightly wrong about the badness of EG. (And, it should be added, lest all of this discussion seems to have fallen on deaf ears, my stance has changed over the course of the whole mess.) Where he is absolutely right is that we should all be able to discuss it without throwing each other under busses.
I too think Jackson’s tit-flash was trivial beyond belief. No dispute there. I just don’t agree with Russell that I and other Americans are doing pretty much the same thing, or that it’s cute to make disdainful generalizations about Americans that one wouldn’t make about other nationalities. It’s a very common habit, not particular to Russell at all, but as with so much of this…I’m surprised he doesn’t consider it beneath him.
Then why doesn’t he stop doing so? He can’t act persecuted when he won’t even acknowledge that the cunting and bitching is out of line. Worse, he defends it and eggs it on with cutesy comments! For god’s sake, what is so hard about this?
Why should I forgive you for not finding specific examples?!
@Rowan, “I wonder: it’s almost certainly the case that the average white man in an Anglophone country spends more time and is more intimate with women than with black people. So never saying “nigger” isn’t much of an imposition on a lot of people; having to think about how to relate to women properly probably is. It seems also more likely, for the same reasons, to raise discomfort at the thought that one might have been treating one’s mother/sister/wife/friend wrongly all these years.”
I dunno. I’m white, and know and live around lots of black people, and I never feel the urge to use the word ‘nigger’ in any other way than to refer to it academically. And I’ve had the misfortune to meet people who do still use that word. I think it’s ultimately a matter of practice; the more you build a vocabulary without a word, the less you need it.
Seriously, I quite possibly did. I thought I was good at following blog comments sections and discussion and following things back and getting context, but this whole thing has been too much for me, I have lost track of who’s said what about who and when and etc.
@joe: Maybe I should have not joined in, but I don’t think it’s beyond the pale to suggest that all the various blogs and comments sections on this topic are hard to keep track of. Trust me when I say I am trying to keep up to date, in good faith, it’s just there’s a heck of a lot being said in a heck of a lot of places.
There’s a scene in The Exorcist that illustrates the problem with “cunt.” Though the movie is almost 40 years old, the American perception of the word hasn’t changed. Regan, the possessed girl, is doing all manner of horrible things, of course, which are grotesque on their own. But the devil inside her mocks her horrified mother by speaking in the voice of the mother’s now-dead boss, a drunken Brit with a salty mouth. Regan, the 11-year-old girl, speaks in the dead man’s voice and says “Did you see what she did- your cunting daughter!”
This strikes the American viewer very harshly. It’s the most obscene word in our language, and to hear it uttered by a daughter (even if possessed) to her mother is shocking. But it’s the sort of thing the dead Brit guy would say any night in a bar.
Preemptive: no, I’m not so stupid as to think the uttering of the word “cunt” was more shocking than seeing Regan stick a crucifix in her bloody vagina, so don’t you be stupid and say that. Thanks:)
David, well that’s certainly true, and I certainly don’t expect people to read everything. I have said that about Abbie, more than once. It’s kind of weird that it’s still true, and yet it is.
Well then, maybe your best bet is to “join in” while keeping your scope as narrow as possible. I’m not questioning your good faith, I’m questioning your rather sweeping claims based on what you admit is incomplete information. That behavior has driven huge chunks of this BS over the last few weeks: someone makes an inaccurate or biased comment about someone else saying something, people who trust that person start making sweeping comments based on that inaccurate comment, and then someone posts video of the statement to YouTube and we get to see the inaccuracy revealed. A lot of people who said a lot of nasty things “in good faith” turned out to be dead wrong. The decent ones apologized and ate some crow, and the rest doubled-down instead of admitting error.
You don’t have to catch up on all the issues, but you’ll be better off just commenting on the ones you have the most knowledge about.
Similarly, there’s a scene in the movie Harry and Tonto, also nearly 40 years old, in which Josh Mostel tells Ellen Burstyn, “I like you, Aunt Shirley, but you’re a cunt.” It was meant to shock and by golly it did.
I learned English when I was older. Languages learned past infancy are processed differently than languages learned in infancy. One consequence of this is that button-pushing words have a lot less emotional resonance, I hear them “muffled”. From that distance, it is nevertheless clear that these words are not redeemable: they are “the nuclear option”, used expressly and exclusively to torch communication bridges.
Bottom line: anyone who uses these terms and defends their use on an international forum with readers from several cultures is an abject failure across several axes: imagination, empathy, maturity… to say nothing of impoverished vocabulary. In short, intelligence.
Oh my gosh, Ophelia – Ellen Burstyn gets called a cunt in two different movies made a year apart? What are the odds. .
@Josh: hang on, who is Russell throwing under a bus?
To be clear, as I mentioned above, I’m on board with R Watson’s video response, I’m on board with EG being in the wrong, and the reaction of a scary proportion of the blogosphere was ott and terrible and highlighted a clear issue that needs to be discussed; and I also have no particular need to defend to the hilt using terms like tw*t or c*nt or b*tch.
ghah, I am probably being that annoying person who jumps into a discussion halfway through half cocked and commenting about things without seeing important aspects.
I can’t get over it. I mean, I’m not going to know what you say in your local pub (though from what I’ve heard from many women and men in the UK in these discussions be aware that you may be wrong about how these words are understood by other people even in your locality). But these are international blogs, many of them based in the US, with hundreds of thousands of readers from here, and we’re telling you what these words mean here and that they hurt and demean. Stop using and defending them on these blogs. If you can’t do that, you’re a selfish, cruel person.
And it doesn’t matter who the immediate object of the slur is. The first endless argument I set off about this at Pharyngula was in response to people calling a vicious homophobic woman in a video PZ posted and Sarah Palin stupid cunts and dumb bitches (of course when I objected I was immediately called a dumb cunt and a stupid bitch). As Ophelia has been at pains to explain, when you use these epithets you’re not just insulting Palin or Coulter or Rebecca or Abbie or Ratzinger or…; you’re demeaning every woman, including me. There’s no way people like Russell and Jerry (who’s in the US, by the way) could not get this at this point. The obvious parallels with racial, ethnic, and homophobic slurs have been pointed out to them several times. Their callous disingenuousness in joking about words like “fuck” shows their contempt for women, including women who considered them a friend.
Again, I can’t believe we’re even discussing this.
Me either, SC. It’s been literally breathtaking. Never could have predicted that Jerry and Russell would turn out to be capable of this.
“…protect her at all costs”. What an irrational thing to say. It isn’t as though no one has done everything possible to raise the price, is it?
[edit] Whatever Rebecca did wrong (I would say, it would have been better to keep McGraw’s post anonymous, and to have avoided referring to the arguments from ignorance and from privilege — though given the emails she has been getting one can reasonably allow for an astonishingly restrained exasperation) she must be protected because her transgressions simply do not deserve the kind of abuse to which she has been hourly subjected for weeks. This abuse has included cruel and unforgivable attacks on every aspect of her personality even without any sexist language, and however the choice of gutter-epithets is “correctly” to be construed they express a depth of viciousness and hatred which she does not in any way deserve. And let us not forget that from the first much of the criticism has been from men who resent being asked not to do something that they would very much like to do and see no harm in doing and who reject the implication that they are “objectifying” women when doing it.
This whole nightmare is, quite simply, personality destruction, engaged in with a kind of furious joy at perceiving a victim that one can find some meagre excuse for attacking. It is torture, it is in every way wrong. I do not think that I can find a way to forgive those people who claim the highground of reason and yet have set aside every principle of decency and impartiality, and have done it in a rage of self-righteousness and enthusiasm.
Of course the language is important. It is the kind of language which every scarcely literate hate-monger uses to attack a representative of something that threatens their cosy arrogant world. Richard Dawkins has told us about his own experiences as a promoter of atheism, Rebecca has now done so, too, and to the extent that hatred is aimed not only at her atheism but also at the fact that she is a woman it is even worse. And this doesn’t even include the “supporters” of Rebecca who tell her what they would like to do to her sexually.
My own theory is that misogyny is endemic, the result of thousands of years of misogyny, and it is embedded in our culture and in all our brains, both male and female, ultimately programmed and maintained by our evolution. And here it is, because a woman has overstepped an invisible boundary and outraged feelings people didn’t know they had. It is an image of flogging a woman for showing a wisp of hair, or stoning a woman for complaining about being raped; and insisting that her experience of misogyny doesn’t compare with more extreme treatment only reinforces the point about why cruel punishment and repression of women occurs. This is the crucial point that Richard failed to see: that to ignore a woman’s expressed wishes, to make sexual overtures when she is vulnerable, are expressions of the same imperious presumption which leads to rape and beating and murder. These are the mechanics of misogyny, and Watson has exposed them, and a lot of people are very very annoyed.
From my own experience, as both teacher and parent, of decent young women who have suffered undeserved harrassment for even less cause or no cause at all but for being young and pretty and alone, it was made clear to me many years ago that it is hard to be a woman even in our own relatively benign society, and I feel I could join with Rebecca in her complaint about arguments from ignorance and from privilege with the greatest sympathy. Many many men clearly believe that their feelings deserve more respect than a woman’s. I have seen it, I have felt the stirrings of it, and I see no difference in what is happening now. The fact that it is abetted by women does not surprise me, given that we are all enculturated the same and are all imbued with the egotism which is our greatest curse.
@joe: Ironically, I think I may have contributed to a problem I was trying to address. What you’ve just described is exactly what I’m saying is a problem. And in my last comment I was actually tempted to put a disclaimer about eating some pie.
@ohpelia: No I don’t think you’re happy about this. ;)
Also, re the c bomb. I’m not trying to defend the use of the word, I’m just telling you that there are people in this world who would call someone a “sickc*nt” and mean it as high praise. The attitudes and the culture that surround the context where that becomes ok is not a good thing, not at all, but the fact remains that it happens.
C. Mason Taylor: I see what you mean. I didn’t mean to imply that anyone not black who spends any amount of time with black people will ever so much as feel the need to use the word “nigger”; it seems a pretty useless term for anyone remotely civilised. I think I did imply that, so apologies.
I think I was thinking that: some people are only prepared to make so much effort to not be prejudiced. If their lives are such that they spend little to no time with black people, then they can truthfully say that they’d never use “nigger”, since they’ve no real opportunity to. And, though there’s more to not being racist than not using the most crude epithets, they won’t need to worry about how to treat black people as equals if they never actually come across any. [*] Not being sexist, however, would require thinking about interactions that probably take place several times a day, and so they can’t be bothered. (If certain words are deemed inimical to feminism, then their use needs to be monitored sometimes even when there aren’t any women about. Again likely to be deemed too onerous.)
I’m not saying that such an attitude wouldn’t be reprehensible though!
[*]I’ve seen the ability to choose to mix only with other members of one’s race described as an example of white privilege.
Thank you Gordon. Eloquent.
Yes. It’s important to point out that it would be awful, disturbing behavior even without the epithets.
I don’t agree with this at all, but if there’s anything I feel like doing less at the moment than disputing evo psych explanations for misogyny I don’t know what it is.
:|
@Salty Current: indeed. Yet we must start from step 1 every time this happens, like Sisyphus.
@Gordon Willis: exactly. Watson has undergone the equivalent of stoning for reasons that are trivial on the surface, yet profound. Namely, the millennia-old corrosive poison of considering and treating women as not fully human. Every single aspect of using/defending the various terms points inescapably to that.
Women cannot reclaim these words: they are permanently poisoned, like plutonium; as Audre Lorde said, You cannot dismantle the master’s house using the master’s tools.
Postscript: I concur with Salty Current that sexism is not “programmed and maintained by our evolution” — this is evopsycho crap science and equally crappy politics.
Our two closest relatives, the bonobos and chimpanzees, have very different social organizations. Most evopsychos conveniently ignore the former (non-hierarchical, genders co-dominant, conflicts resolved by group sex) and emphasize the latter, which fits a bit more closely to the stereotypes. However, even if you ignore the equidistant bonobos, female chimpanzees have clout and use it both individually and collectively. Additionally, in both species there is no defined paternity, and the status of individuals within the group is defined by the status of their mothers.
What is unique in humans is the total obliteration of female power alliances — and that is cultural. It may have happened when the transition of agriculture deprived women of mobility and foraging skills and tied them to the barley field. But it has nothing to do with our genes or our neurons.
David M:
The most interesting thing you can do is watch the 3-4 relevant videos of Watson saying the things that have produced this whole issue. Once you’ve watched them, I cannot imagine anyone being able to justify any but the mildest criticisms of Watson’s statements and behavior… and then it might be interesting to see that a bunch of us “Watson defenders” went ahead and made those criticisms.
Find me something that Watson or anyone who isn’t attacking her has said, that justifies throwing common decency out of the window.
Parenthetically, I’ve always thought that Audre Lord remark is silly. Sure you can! (And saying you can’t tends to give aid and comfort to the people who like to say science and logic and math are for the menz and women are too good for that kind of thing.)
As you were.
@Rowan, “And, though there’s more to not being racist than not using the most crude epithets, they won’t need to worry about how to treat black people as equals if they never actually come across any. [*] Not being sexist, however, would require thinking about interactions that probably take place several times a day, and so they can’t be bothered.”
It sounds to me that the essence of what you’re saying is that it’s an issue of exposure and subtlety. Since those in question aren’t regularly in contact with black people, they can merely commit a token contribution to not being racist by not being in favor of slavery, not saying “nigger,” and not actively opposing black rights. The same way there are people who attempt to say, “well, women can vote now, and get abortions. they have nothing to complain about.” They do not appear racist merely because they aren’t given the opportunity, not because they’re deeply aware of one issue and not of another. Correct me if I’m wrong; that’s how I read what you’re saying.
It’s a very interesting take, and I have no doubt that there are people in the world like this, but I think it’s also true that there are people whose consciousnesses have been thoroughly raised in one area, but remain fairly ignorant in others. However, I think you (raise? imply?) a really interesting point: that it’s probably a good idea to figure out if someone actually gives a shit before attempting to enlighten them.
I don’t think that’s quite what she meant, Ophelia. And you know well enough I’m a research scientist, so clearly I don’t think math is for the menz.
Oh I know you don’t think that, Athena – hence “parenthetical.”
Whatever she meant, I think the literal meaning of the phrase makes it seem kind of silly.
C Mason – could you not bold everything but quotes that way? It’s distracting.
@joe #76: From what I have seen of Watson’s contributions, even if I did disagree with any of them, they have all been done in such a civil manner that it’d be really hard to find a reason for any vehemence directed at her. And even if she was less civil, or angry, that anger could be – and indeed would be, given some of the stuff said about her – seen as absolutely justified.
I suspect that the issue people are having with Russell, and heck, possibly with me right now, is that we’re seen to be shuffling our feet and belittling the situation while ignoring some of the more deranged and nasty reaction that Watson has copped.
FWIW again, QFT.
More later. Work calls.
It makes me sad that someone I respect as much as Russell Blackford is making excuses for that kind of behavior. It kind of reminds me of people in the South who try to argue that the Confederate flag isn’t a racist symbol but a historical symbol that should be on the state flags in the South. While that flag may be a historical artifact, it is and has been used as a racist symbol for generations. Not enough has change for it not to be the case. If you argue that the flag should be used, then you are arguing for a racist symbol to be used, and you should do that because it’s not good.
In regards to sexism being the product of evolution, and “in our genes” — White Woman’s Burden*. The first part of your statement I agree with pretty completely, though, it’s just that last phrase. Yes, misogyny has been around for thousands of years, but I think the evidence, such as it is, is more in the nature of cultural and linguistic — the same basic model of slow accretion of changes as biological evolution, except on a much faster timescale. (I’m really kind of personally offended by the failure of imagination in assuming that as we are now culturally, so must we be.)
* Incidentally, googling “white woman’s burden” gives a fascinating range of results, some even look potentially appalling. I hope Dr Hardman doesn’t mind linking it, as I don’t see it available anywhere else online — it’s fairly old, as those sorts of things go.
Sailor1031 #37: “I do reserve the right, when angry enough, to use the phrase “twat in the hat” for his holiness pope benedict 16th who is sexless, so it cannot be a sexual slur in his case!”
It’s absolutely still sexist/mysogynist, even if not it’s intended to be. It’s still assigning female attributes/body parts to a man and then criticising the man for embodying them.
How about “The Prat in the Hat”? It still rhymes and it’s still fun to say.
Those are two separate issues. YOU seem to have fallen into a sort of “where there’s smoke there’s fire” error, where people who you are familiar with and respect are taking sides and it is difficult to imagine that one side is behaving badly for very bad reasons. Blackford is actively part of the “deranged and nasty reaction” you’re talking about.
And, to tie this into the general topic of sexism, misogyny, and language: you don’t join in on the language unless you’ve got the personality defect. Your mind doesn’t go there, or accept the language without serious reservation and hesitation, unless you already somewhat approve of the negativity behind it. And you ABSOLUTELY don’t defend it after the fact as appropriate in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. If you’re not a racist, your mind doesn’t immediately jump to racial slurs when someone of a different ethnicity does something you don’t like. I can’t stand Obama, so I think “asshole” and “betrayer” and “Republican” and other insults of that nature. My mind doesn’t immediately jump to “tar baby” or “coon” like the Republicans have been saying this week.
In the same way, if a woman says something that angers me I’m going to think “asshole” and “moron” and “Republican” and other insults like that. And to be honest, my mind might jump to “cunt”… but that’s my issue, I recognize it and I’m working through it. I certainly wouldn’t sit down and type words like “cunt” and “twat” over and over again, and then call it my finest moment the way Abbie has done. I wouldn’t go out of my way to rationalize it away, or create false equivalencies the way other people have done. I definitely wouldn’t join in the “fun” the way Blackford has.
Ophelia @#40: Did you sample the comments? I feel like saying “kids these days” and I’m only 31…
A meme I’ve noticed: someone is “normally reasonable” up until they agree that sexism is a problem in area X, Y, or Z.
Moewicus: more generally, it is “criticism is fine as long as it is directed outwards.” When it is sexism it is apparently worse… I was going to say “…because it is a particularly ugly accusation in the minds of people who consider themselves incapable of the failings of the theists (and maybe especially Muslims), who are sometimes violently misogynistic.” Now I’m starting to think it is because there’s something especially sexist about this “community” as a whole, and they don’t want a light shined on it.
I’m an Australian. Russell is wrong.
Cunt is a very strong, and strongly-gendered insult. Twat is milder and probably a few people don’t know what it means, it’s a British usage. However, it is still a strongly-gendered insult. Both derive their entire insulting power from comparison to women’s genitalia. They are stronger examples of calling a man a woman or girl as an insult.
BTW, I’m fairly sure you’ve seen Gabby’s cartoon about a similar case, but have you seen the followup? Very useful!
Original – http://www.gabbysplayhouse.com/?p=1444
Followup – http://www.gabbysplayhouse.com/?p=1457
Oh, by the way, I also hate the term “pudenda”. I did Latin in high school.
Since I’m finally able to respond, let me see if I’ve got it straight:
“Dick” and “prick” are insulting terms used against men, referring to male genitalia, equating the man to the genitals in a negative way. “Cunt” and “twat” are similar, in that they’re insulting terms used against women, referring to female genitalia, equating the woman to the genitals in a negative way.
The difference is in the historical and cultural baggage that the terms bring with them. Women have been oppressed and looked down on for hundreds, even thousands of years, with huge aspects of culture (women are “given away” when married), law (can’t vote), and -of course- religion (it was a woman who caused us to get kicked out of paradise) getting in on the game. Men have had some flack sent their way when stereotyped as brutish, or only thinking with the smaller head, but by and large, it’s the men who have had the power and been engaging in the oppression of women.
When the terms are used, they bring all of that with them, in the background, whether the user is conscious of it or not. I don’t have a strong emotional reaction to “dick” because as a male, I’ve unconsciously absorbed the power differential that is still part of the culture, which says that I don’t have to worry about things like lower wages, less opportunity for advancement, or being talked down to by the mechanic, all because well, I’m a guy. I’m strong. I open the jar of jelly. I should protect women, but guys can take care of themselves (or they’re wimps). And other similar things, usually not stated directly.
Combined with the sheer vehemence that I’ve sometimes heard when “cunt” is used, which I’ve never heard when “dick” is used, and . . .
Yes, it makes sense. Similar reasoning would apply to “cracker” and “honky” (I had to look “honky” up, hadn’t heard that before Rebecca) vs “nigger.”
*sigh* Bloody hell, this privilege stuff makes things complicated. Did I get it right? I think I’m just going to try avoiding all those terms from now on. Kindly call me on it if I screw up.
And thank you.
I’m trying to imagine the response from Jerry Coyne and Russell Blackford if the threads at Abbie’s were about, say, Miranda Celeste Hale instead of Rebecca Watson. I think they’d spontaneously combust.
Now you’ve done it! Now Russell will have to claim that you’re lying, Coyne will email Ophelia to criticize her moderation skillz, and down the rabbit hole we go!
I think I’m going to have a beer and go to bed. Good luck everyone.
I used to have a lot of respect for Russell and it’s quickly dissipating.
Cath, thanks for Gabby’s followup — I hadn’t seen it. (Not for use on cats, while not part of the comic itself, may have me giggling all night.)
Just doing some rereading. My humble pie may be incoming.
Ophelia:
True. Very true. But I think that the reflection on possible reasons why it is is quite illuminating.
Since colonial times in Australia, to call a man a ‘bastard’ could be anything from hostile, to mildly rebuking, to a term of endearment, depending on the context and tone of voice used. The term is taken more seriously elsewhere, which has led to some amusing cultural-clash situations.
To call a man a ‘prick’ is usually to suggest that he is bit of a fool. But to call him a ‘cunt’ is to imply that he is of the worst character possible: mean, treacherous, deceitful and unprincipled; the type who would not only cheat at cards and steal from his mates, but go on to pinch the proverbial coins out of a blind man’s cup. My habit of never using it (today is an exception) has probably kept me out of an awful lot of fights.
It will be the last word to appear unaster*sked in print in any newspaper, and is rarely heard on stage or screen, or in song lyrics.
It is misogynism in a nutshell.
That thread you linked to at Hale’s place is freakin’ insane.
I did not call Blackford a liar. I was talking to some clueless twit on that thread, not him.
I do think Blackford has a gigantic blind spot. I noticed that originally when he gave a summary of the events, used only the mildest, friendliest terms to describe what Stef McGraw had done, for instance, while saying that Watson, in a talk he hadn’t even seen, was on the attack. The bias was glaring. And now that we do have the video of Watson’s CFI talk, it’s clear that it wasn’t the vicious assault he made it out to be. His interpretation of the events was FALSE, and yet he persists in it.
This claim that we’ve been demonizing the other side is ludicrous. I have said nothing against Abbie; she blew up and did a little online shrieking at me, and I left her site without further comment.
I am so sick of this incredibly stupid argument that such-and-such a country uses gendered insults and finds nothing offensive about them. The whole point is that the mindless, casual acceptance of insults that are insults because they assign feminine qualities to the target is what is offensive. It’s people taking for granted that female attributes are rude and offensive.
I don’t mind being rude and offensive myself, but I don’t find that calling people various versions of “woman” insults the people I’m trying to insult — it just offends half the population of the world.
I got as far as this, from Abbie:
Right. Because Hitler’s words were completely harmless and had no effect. Hitler’s.
And no one contested this, including the “LOL!” Incredible.
Here’s a clue, you stomach-churning dimwit: Hitler didn’t personally kill millions of people.
Nathan, FWIW, I think you got that privilege stuff figured out, in your post @ #93
OMFG, seriously? arguing for the unimportance of words, and using one of the most dangerous <i>orators</i> of modern times as an example!?
the stupid, it hurts so much…
yay, tagfail :-p
I think the video was pretty much what everybody expected. McGraw got called out in a public forum, and for whatever reason, that’s what people like Blackford seem to take exception to.
@Ian MaDougall
But its not just “bastard” that is context dependant.
Can I break to note I don’t find the insults flung at Watson appropriate? I don’t intend to offer her insulters support. Even if they want to argue about context I think they crossed the line. Calling Watson a bitch in a discussion about a feminist issue is quite clearly contrived to insult and demean her.
But back to Ian.
Its a general feature of Australian English that insults are context dependant and has been for a long time. In Helmet for a My Pillow Robert Leckie recalls that in Melbourne in 1942 “Yank” (I’m paraphrasing from memory) could fall from an Australian’s mouth as the sweetest endearment or the vilest insult. Or take Australian infantry divisions at the time who adopted enemy propaganist’s insults “Rats” and “Thieves” as semi-official names. “Thief”, of course, has racist implications when applied to an Australian.
In Australia in many circles it’s acceptable to call someone a “wog” as at term of endearment. Its probably even more acceptable identify a 1980s architecural style as “wog box”.
I find it quite acceptable when immigrants call me “skippy” or “convict”. I’m married to an immigrant. Her family worries that I might feel left out at their “wog” (their word) gatherings.
I think using the Australian example you’re actually offering evidence for your opposition.
Gordon willis’s comment at #69 for the win. Blackford is increasingly looking like a loser.
When I saw this post had over a hundred comments I expected something a bit more acrimonious. This is pretty civil for an angry mob.
“Bitch” needs a little more attention. Its original meaning is only polite in a very restricted domain; it’s archaic in general discourse. “Son of a bitch!” as an expletive is nearly universal, and as far as I can tell not gendered (although it may be that women are seldom called “you son of a bitch”; perhaps “you bitch” is substituted).
The verb “bitch” meaning to complain is gendered only to the extent that women are thought to complain more than men. (Back in the 60’s “bitchin'” was a term of approbation, comparable to current British use of “brilliant”; neither makes any sense to me.)
The noun “bitch”, at least in the U.S., is now generally used to refer to any woman one resents, and in practice to a woman who doesn’t defer to men, confounding expectations. A woman doesn’t have to be a dick, a prick, a schmuck, an abusive asshole to be called a bitch; all she has to do is stand up for herself.
In practice, then, “bitch” ought to be treated the same as “nigger”, a term reserved to those to whom it has historically been applied.
A friend of mine has occasionally recounted scenes in which she had to “act like a bitch”, and an expression crosses her face which expresses the effort it costs her to utter the word, but in those scenes she was merely advocating a reasonable course of action, not strutting like a rooster or threatening a fight the way too many of the men of my acquaintance are liable to do.
My avuncular advice to women who work with men is to be a bitch: don’t back down just because some men take exception to your presumption in offering your own opinion. They’ll call you a bitch. This will change, eventually, but for now you’re part of the difficult transitory period, so you have to do a certain amount of education as well as your regular job.
Smokey @ #107:
Please explain?
I’m not sure I follow you there.
Geez. That Amazing Atheist video made my day.
I think I’ll turn the sound down, run the video in slow-mo, whip out my nano-violin and play Barber’s Adagio for Strings. ‘Strings’ as in String Theory that is. It’s about as much sympathy as I can muster.
“Its a general feature of Australian English that insults are context dependant and has been for a long time.”
I think that’s true but if I think about bugger in New Zealand (famously immortalised in the Toyota ad here – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvAT8eS67RM and passed by the Advertising Complaints Authority as an acceptable use of the term despite it’s history) it’s fine used as a verb to express displeasure. However if say “you bugger” and direct it at a person that would often would be interpreted as a insult. I’d have to know a person really well before getting away with directing that at them, if attempting to use it in a joking way. Also terms like “twat” are rarely used, and I find when they are, people readily understand the connotations and history of the word although in some contexts it might be seen as more acceptable than others. The c-word just wouldn’t pass with me at all, if I’ve ever seen it used at all, it’s been as a direct insult and meant to demean.
The fact is that these terms are being egregiously used intentionally to insult and demean in this situation and it can’t be excused away by saying that sometimes in some contexts they could be seen more neutral. That’s just redefining it to suit their ends and minimise what they are doing, what’s being done here is there is a false equivocation being used. The reality is that it’s not about being uncomfortable or precious about what words are being used, but how they are being used. Ultimately, though, I think the detractors of Watson have gone so over the top that what ever their point was in the beginning it’s completely lost in the mud slinging and attempts to rake over everything in her past, including years-old blog posts for alleged inconsistencies in her stance. That makes me cringe. I’ve been gob smacked at how low some commenter’s have gone, and many of those I used to have a lot of respect for but don’t now just because this just isn’t how you express disagreement. You use logic, you don’t get enmeshed in what is effectively a witch hunt. Watson may well have made some mistakes in approaching aspects of this but even if that is the case, none that is anywhere near meriting this sort of response.
This is so very true: “This is the crucial point that Richard failed to see: that to ignore a woman’s expressed wishes, to make sexual overtures when she is vulnerable, are expressions of the same imperious presumption which leads to rape and beating and murder. These are the mechanics of misogyny, and Watson has exposed them, and a lot of people are very very annoyed.” I wish I could have said it that well myself.
I wonder, if people arguing against these words, are only against it when they are used to insult some person or also in casual throwaway uses or used as part of humor or satire. Is, George Carlin and his “seven words” OK. Recently, in UK national TV, a comedian said, the conservatives put the ‘T’ in ‘CUTS’, when talking about benefit cuts. Some people claimed to be offended – when considered in proportion to the claimed pain of those cuts, it seemed irrelevant and even appropriate. While I myself would never use these words to insult anybody, I’m not sure I would criticize George Carlin and his “seven words” joke or similar.
Indeed, the discussion here is shockingly sane and polite. Even PZ is nice when he comes visiting.
But I was wondering about using “bitch” as a verb? You can bitch about this or bitch about that. I used to consider this usage totally inoffensive, but now I am not so sure anymore.
How about “kicking against the pricks” (Acts 9:5) which has absolutely nothing to do with anything except that it sounds silly out of context.
PZ sums up my views on sexual epithets with that (#100). But I am made uncomfortable by some of the comments here morally shaming Russell Blackford. Yes, perhaps he does have a blindspot (which I’m sure isn’t indelible), but he’s not a ‘loser’ and since when does one ‘lose all respect’ for a colleague because he makes a mistake? It’s the same as discounting all the excellent work Richard Dawkins has done, because of one clumsy intervention. Like all of us have never made similar mistakes, or worse. Russell is one of the good guys, for God’s sake. If this community is going to go on witch-hunts every time one of its members is deemed to have trespassed against its moral absolutes, then I don’t want to be a part of it.
@#10 (AJK): No, women get called ‘dicks’ too. Here’s an example of a woman being called a ‘total dick’ as a major part of Rebecca Watson’s “Don’t Be A Dick” speech.
And, to others, no, Blackford is not confusing ‘twit’ with ‘twat’. ‘Twat’ is a standard insult in the UK, with about the same meaning and strength as ‘prick’ (eg that someone is mainly an idiot, but seems to enjoy it or do it on purpose to annoy people), and it’s not at all surprising to find it used in the same way in Australia. And with no more sexual connotations than ‘prick’ has. See, for instance, Professor Brian Cox saying ‘Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a twat.’
Athena@64:
The effect of usage is different in different countries and different contexts. Australians are notorious ‘swear bears’ (even compared to the English, but on a level comparable, I think, to the Scots). Disclosure: I spent my childhood in Queensland, studied law in Oxford and now live and work in Edinburgh. That Australians and English and Scots on various atheist and skeptical forums/blogs are having difficulty with the USAnian take on ‘bad language’ should come as no surprise.
However, the various forums in question are all, so far as I am aware, frequented for the most part by USAnians, based in the United States and run by USAnians. This means that Athena’s point (quoted above) is most relevant. When you are a guest in someone else’s house, you play by their rules. If you are an Australian or Scot, that means turning down the swear levels. If you are English, it means you can’t make David Cameron’s ‘too many tweets make a twat’ joke and expect to raise a laugh.
Is this so very difficult? The reason I ask is that some of the response to USAnian concerns with respect to language use on this issue is shading into the sort of shallow anti-Americanism current just after 9/11, as though the appropriate emotional response to everything from bad language to US foreign policy is best evinced by an upper-middle-class resident of the Home Counties.
There is also another point I think worth raising. I think it applies to anyone who likes to indulge in ‘a bit of the blue’. It is this: mastery of the blue requires considerable comedic talent, and these days, the floating noun, verb and adjective ‘fuck’ [or whatever] is not funny or clever or remotely transgressive in most people’s mouths. It’s just tedious. There are, of course, exceptions. On the Vatican ‘reach around’ thread, someone posted a link to Tim Minchin’s ‘Pope Song’, which displays South Park levels of bad language.
It is also very funny.
My suggestion, then, is that if your ability to demonstrate mastery of the blue does not equal Tim Minchin’s, then perhaps it is best not to swear at all, at least in public. Horses for courses and all that.
For those who haven’t seen it, Minchin’s song is here [Minchin, I should add, is also Australian]:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRDfut2Vx0
What, isn’t it clear that we are looking at the words when directed as an insult? i.e. “Anyway – this business of teasing out the distinctions analytically and dispassionately – that’s a lot easier for people who are not named by the epithets than it is for people who are. ”
The *distraction* from how these words are being used to insult and demean a person is the argument that the terms might not be offensive in some situations or, as in your case where it’s used in the context of a joke that isn’t directed at a single person but is either generalised joke or a humorous comment on a situation. It’s just artifice to pretend that those words aren’t being specifically used in a way that is meant to insult and demean one specific person. In some cases like the use of “Twatson” even that argument can’t be used, it can only be characterised as an old-fashioned school yard taunt that is intended to belittle the person that it’s directed at. That’s way below the behaviour you expect from any reasonable adult.
That was for lethe drinker, should have put that in.
That’s up to him.
Answering for my own statement:
I am just a musician and music teacher. He is a philosopher whose work I have often found reason to appreciate. I think that there is no excuse for his adding encouragement to the public destruction of someone who also “makes a mistake” (and one which is itself hardly “indelible”). Blindspots are what this is about, and he is one who professionally spends a lot of time elucidating them.
@ Ian MacDougall
As I understand it there are people arguing that using words like ‘bitch’ and ‘cunt’ isn’t necessarily sexist or offensive. They are arguing that in certain contexts using those words is acceptable.
You seem to disagree with them. But you cite the Australian habit of using ‘bastard’ as a term of endearment. It’s conceivable that Australians could do that to each other without knowing each other’s names. But try it on (say) a recent Afghan refugee. That would probably cause greater offense than calling someone a ‘cunt’ here. Context matters. One person’s grave offense is another’s term of endearment.
Agreed, Hemlock. Insofar as these insults are being hurled at a woman who has angered people by raising the issue of sexism in the way that she has they have their full force, notwithstanding polite academic discussions on variations in usage.
@ Hemlock
I call my kids ‘little buggers’ when they do something slightly annoying. Its common for parents (in less refined areas) to call their kids ‘little shits’ in similar circumstances. I’ve even heard parents of older kids gently and lovingly correct a silly mistake call the kid ‘dickhead’.
I may need one further point of clarification on insulting terms: are we ok with douchebag? I know in some parts of the world it implies vaginal irrigation, whereas others use it to refer all forms of internal irrigation using a bag and fluid.
Facetious? Moi?
Just because there is colloquial use of a term it does not justify using it. Yes it is unfortunate that the inventor of all the best swear words had a fixation on genitalia, particularly a woman’s, and that for some it is a tad rummy to be using those terms in any conversation let alone polite conversation.
It’s a big language with a lot if words, very expressive words too. We don’t lose too much by holding off on a couple.
Except for Chaucer of course. My 13 year old self would be very upset if he didn’t have the experience if his teacher saying quim in class.
Smokey @ #122:
Precisely. That’s why I put that ‘situaations’ link into my post @ #99.
I grew up in rural Cumbria in a working class culture and when I was a lad Cunt could be used as a greeting as in “nah then you ugly cunt” this was only normally applied to other men. Around women any term of endearment was kept strictly for wifes and girlfriends. Women were almost always addressed by their name or sentence structure twisted to avoid calling women anything this may be because in car repair, and engineering circles we were simply unsure how to address women. Cow was probably the most common insulting term applied to women with mare and witch after. My wife (a sparky) objects to darling or sweetie far more than cunt when applied to her from all but the closest male freinds. Being called a cunt implies close friendship or equality being called darling implies that it is not worth properly addressing the little woman. Twat was mainly reserved for inanimate objects such as faulty tools or difficult repairs, the only other useage I can remember was silicone sealer was refered to as daft twat presumably as a weak pun on silly cunt. When I first visited London to see a friend who had moved down his first words were “welcome to London don’t call anyone a cunt”. When fighting words were used in my circles they tended to be simply fat fucker or knob related. Twat was allways the stronger word reserved so to speak for work place injuries. Now neither word is regularly used by me mainly because you never know how people will react but partially because of the sexist tones. Cunt is still occasionally used when with old friends as it sort of signals “we are all part of this group of old freinds who grew up calling each other cunts ahh those were the days” among us.
GordonWillis (#121), this is the language I have a problem with. It’s biblical talk, like there being an unforgivable sin. How’s this for an excuse, ‘I’m human ergo not perfect’? By all means, express your disapproval and unhappiness, even in vitriolic terms if you must (it will still sting him, I assure you), but I find this absolutist moralizing not only lacking in compassion but also naive to the fallibility of human nature – a nature from which not even philosophers have managed to escape. I mean, would none of ALL the respect you’ve lost come back if he said sorry?
Barney: ‘Twat’ is a standard insult in the UK, with about the same meaning and strength as ‘prick’ (eg that someone is mainly an idiot, but seems to enjoy it or do it on purpose to annoy people), and it’s not at all surprising to find it used in the same way in Australia. And with no more sexual connotations than ‘prick’ has. See, for instance, Professor Brian Cox saying ‘Anyone who thinks the LHC will destroy the world is a twat.’
Astonishingly, the speaker’s intention matters. That a word like ‘twat’ can be used without any particular sexual implications in larger parts of the English-speaking world might be a hint that it is not completely outrageous for an American to claim the same right of having their intention taken into account. And in any case, the implication that is being picked up by some recipients of such words are still only implicit (i.e. necessarily subject to interpretation), whereas other words would rightfully be objected to because of their explicit othering content, e.g. ‘traitor’. Again astonishingly, the former just simply “denigrates all women” whereas the latter isn’t even worth a comment. Go figure.
Sorry I should I don’t believe that either word should now be employed but do still occasional use twat as a verb or in times of injury/annoyance as is “bastard I’ve knackered this bolt I was trying to get the nut of by twating the end of the ratchet and the twating things bent … its fucked now” This is more ingrained usage than something I would want my daughter to emulate. Fowl language well employed can up someones status in my working class culture good but not as much as the use of piss taking use of outmoded or old fashioned language this seems to be specific the north of england were a bank manager will look for a pub while a mechanic will ascertain the location of a hostelry for a quick libation. I think this is what make Alan Bennet so popular.
Ophelia:” I have pretty much quit using “dick” in public for the sake of consistency and not being gotcha’d by people like Abbie’s playmates, but I also think it’s not an insult in the same way. Being a woman is bad, you see, while being a man is good. Women are praised by being said to have balls. [eye roll]”
Sorry, I don’t buy this for a second – at least not in the context of this argument. “Dear Dick” is/was a play on Richard Dawkins’ name to refer to male genitalia, with the purpose of implying a set of stereotypically male bad characteristics. “Twatson” is/was an example of exactly the same thing (with male and female reversed, of course), used specifically to highlight the hypocrisy of using a gender-based slur when one is complaining about sexism.
To give “Dear Dick” a free pass while complaining so bitterly about “Twatson” on the basis that “being [referred to as] a man is good”, when Dick was used very clearly as an insult, is disingenuous in the extreme.
Since you don’t know me this will mean little to you, but I expected better.
Tristan (#131), quite. One of the common perils of setting out on a moral crusade is that you invariably find out only in the heat of battle that hypocrisy has saddled up too.
I haven’t been commenting on this matter very much, although I’ve been following the trend of the discussion. I guess I just can’t understand why people should think that epithets like ‘cunt’, ‘twat’, ‘bitch’, etc., should be considered acceptable expressions anywhere. They’re hand-me-downs from a culture in which women were second listed as a matter of course, and people who haven’t learned yet that continuing to use this kind of language marginalises and denigrates women are really not paying attention. The fact that there are so many of them — and especially when you consider that many of them are educated, and that they are morally sensitive in other respects — is very concerning.
This is a matter on which reasonable, rational people should be able to see that perpetuating the use of these expressions is simply a way perpetuating the old sexist mind-set, that one thought was part of the old religious way of looking at the world, a world in which women were “separate but equal,” and in which, if women had the temerity to intrude into man’s world, they could be slapped down with language derogatory enough that they wouldn’t venture to transgress the boundaries again. It concerns me that people of the stature of Dawkins and Russell Blackford don’t seem to be able to understand where this language comes from and why it shouldn’t be used. This is not a complex issue, and it should have been resolved before it got to this stage, where it keeps flaring up, as though there is something about the use of this kind of language that is defensible. It is simply shocking to me that this is a continuing sore point. It should have been scotched immediately when “elevatorgate” was brought to people’s attention. That should have been the end of it, and men who thought differently about it should have realised that they needed their consciousness raised over issues of gender and common respect, but the male ego keeps rearing its ugly head, even in cases where it was thought that enlightenment reigned.
I might point out further — the thought just came to me — that church circles in which I worked had solved this problem a long, long time ago, and genuine respect for women had become the norm, not just out of political correctness, but because there was a recognition that gender discrimination was simply wrong, and that women had as much to contribute to the human conversation as men, and that this should be recognised and respected.
And just by the by, having seen Marvin’s post (#130), it is simply wrong to continue to use this sexist language even in the case where you’re cussing a car or a computer. It keeps the sexism alive and vigorous. Find some other language to use, for Christ’s sake!
Of course it would, but that would not excuse his behaviour. You don’t seem to understand that it works both ways. You complain about my criticising him but do not see that it is because he is adding to the far worse criticism of her. Why is it unfair of me but not unfair of him? Compassion for the gander is compassion for the goose, is it not? Your view that my words are some sort of idiotic biblical moralising is very inappropriate, and I have said nothing that can be construed as vitriolic. As to “stinging him”, I doubt whether he’ll take any notice. Why should he? Your one-sided and disproportionate remarks are a good instance of how this sort of thing gets started.Actually, this is making me so angry that I think I’d better stop. So I’ve got to consider the sensitive feelings of a man who adds his considerable prestige to a vicious assault on the character of another human being who also has sensitive feelings? And seems to take a determined delight in doing so! No way. Why is this always the argument? “Never mind the woman, what about the poor man’s rights!” Sorry. Only sackcloth and ashes will persuade me.
Sorry, no paragraphs.
GordonWillis (#136), you have completely missed my point.
I am NOT saying Russell’s views or interventions are excusable or that you shouldn’t feel highly aggrieved. I am NOT commenting on the nature or severity of his alleged crimes. I am commenting on the next step you and some other commentators have taken, which is to attack his character as though he’s trespassed against some absolute set of no-nos. Can an essentially good and respectable man not make a terrible mistake? And would you, after committing some error, like for us to write you off as deserving of no respect? I’m saying: criticize the behaviour and not the man (that is, stop making an error of attribution). And if anyone here thinks that Russell, or Ophelia or Jerry Coyne or Richard Dawkins or any public figure enjoys character attacks by people who’ve never met them but whom they regard as part of their intellectual audience, well, I think you’re mistaken.
Hi Eric Sorry I should have made it clearer that this was old usage its not something that I commonly employ nowadays and I envy the work mates who can in times of frustration or injury summon a richer vocabulary hence the reference to Alan Bennet. That said fowl language is defiantly used in Cumbria as a bonding tool among working class locals probably to a large degree because it is offensive to middle and upper class offcomers. In Carlisle which is far enough north not to have had second home owners and the friends of the lake district types it is far less common. I do try to find other language where I can see a problem such as sexism but often being told to change your language is a kin to being told to change your culture and by implication change yourself. Even when there are glaring problems with yourself or your culture it doesn’t feel good to have them pointed out by others, but of course if I didn’t believe being firmly told some things are wrong can be good for you at the expense of some temporary bruised feelings I wouldn’t read Ophelia at all.
I’ve only read the first dozen or some comments and Russell is correct in one point. It is common usage to call someone a twat (pronounced like bat) for being foolish. When referring to female genitalia it is pronounced like shot. Ophelia picked me up on this about a year ago, and I hadn’t event realised that by calling someone a twat (as in bat) for being a silly bugger I was comparing them to a woman’s genitalia (as in twot). People here say ‘I went out last night, drank heaps, and got twatted (sounds like batted)’ for ‘Last night, I consumed many beverages and was intoxicated so that I engaged in foolish behaviour’.
That however doesn’t make it any better. Because it’s still a synonym for cunt, and it just adds to the belittling of woman to define them by genitalia and then suggest that’s foolish. I would think that he knows this. And as someone stated, most of the involved in this debacle, in fact most native speakers of the Queen’s English, are ‘merkans who don’t mean fool when they use the word. So, what us antipodeans and a few cockney gits do isn’t normative.
Stupidest first. Tristan –
Who is giving any kind of “dick” a free pass? I’m not. There’s a meme on Abbie’s thread that I am, but it’s bullshit.
Yes, you are, or at least were. However, I am glad that we now agree.
I think he is doing something very wrong. I think he is an accomplice in a social act of character assassination, humiliation, and mental cruelty. This is in complete contradiction with what I thought he stood for. I am reminded of when Ophelia said that she doesn’t know anyone any more. If he stops it and apologises that would be an excellent thing, but he hasn’t done either so far.
Also relevant here:
Rebecca Watson’s good work is also being discounted, and worse. No, it’s a tragedy that this has happened and people who have previously earned respect are suddenly behaving in a thoroughly obnoxious way, but no one has made them do it. Maybe there is a difference between how people are when they write books and how they are when they get annoyed about something.
Can an essentially good and respectable woman not make a couple of breaches of professional etiquette?
Can an essentially good and respectable woman not be forgiven for complaining about lack of consideration?
You think that to ask these questions is to “miss the point.” That is my point.
Ha! I knew it. I didn’t say so, but I knew it. The second trackback on Miranda Hale’s thread –
http://www.jeremystangroom.com/in-defence-of-russell-blackford/502/
Bollocks.
It is possible to have discussions of that kind under the right circumstances, but even then it’s tricky, and can go wrong very quickly. Epithets are not a branch of inquiry. They are epithets. I’ve always said yes I’m dogmatic about them; that’s because they’re highly emotive, and highly personal. Again – privilege comes into play. Jeremy can’t know what it’s like because “twat” doesn’t name him the way it names me. I don’t always want “free inquiry” into the relative values of cunt versus twat, any more than I always want free inquiry into racial epithets or sexual orientation epithets or ethnic epithets.
And this business of “a mob” – this is a mob? This is a mob and the gang at Abbie’s is just a bunch of nice folks engaged in free inquiry into the uses of “cunt” and “twat” and “Twatson”?
Please.
Maybe I should open a book on how long it’ll take for some idiot to call you a hypocrite for this.
I’ll just be direct about it, however futile it is. (Jeremy stopped answering email from me a year and a half ago.)
Jeremy: are you seriously saying that Russell is being treated worse than Rebecca?
Russell has joined “a mob” that has been shredding Rebecca for a month now. You haven’t said a word about that. You do a post (with comments closed, of course) saying Russell is being mistreated. Why do you think Russell is worth defending from a putative mob while Rebecca is not worth defending from a mob that is orders of magnitude more vicious?
Martin – groan. I should have said bullshit. It’s affected for an American to say “bollocks” anyway, because it’s UK idiom, not US.
:- /
I love the way we’re a mob… when do we get our Tommy guns? You’ll never take me alive coppers!!
Anyways, a couple of thoughts? “Mistake” has taken on a whole new meaning. A forgivable mistake would be a one-off comment, immediately apologized for. The loss of respect doesn’t come from the mistake, it comes from when the mistake is pointed out, and the person says that it is NOT a mistake and then launches into a long arc of repetition and escalation. Ophelia, your example of someone blurting out “You horrible nigger!” isn’t quite enough. It is more like someone blurted that out, you objected to it, and then they started flooding your inbox with forwarded racist jokes and pictures, and started blogging about the positive side of the white power movement… not that they would join, of course.
Stangroom is engaged in the same dishonest nonsense as everyone else on that side of the issue, and let’s call it for what it is: defensive projection. In order to justify all of the excesses the two ERV threads, they have to claim an equivalency on the other side. In the same way that the reaction to Watson’s comments was completely out of proportion to what she actually said, the description of what’s being said here as “an extraordinary outpouring of vitriol” is similarly out of proportion to what we’re actually saying.
Stangroom and Blackford and the rest will have you believe that we’re a vitriolic mob for comments like “we’re disappointed in Russell, he’s dead wrong for encouraging and engaging in misogyny”… and Abbie is displaying clear thinking for talking about “airtighting those stupid fucking cunt bitches.” Yeah, we’re clearly the guilty ones here.
GordonWillis, I condemn character assassinations of Rebecca Watson and the discounting of her good work with no less moral force. I’m sorry if I never made that clear. This isn’t the skeptical movement’s finest hour.
Ophelia, if you have indeed condemned the ‘Dear Dick’ issue, then I’m sorry for my glib remark. For some reason, I find myself, despite myself, smarting when someone calls me a dick. It seems to cut through more emotional flesh than non-sexist terms like bastard, asshole, idiot etc.
From Stangroom’s post (emphasis mine):
To which I can only reply…well, bollocks. This is either spectacularly clueless or simply disingenuous.
Note that he conveniently fails to provide any indication of where or who this vitriol is coming from. Nor does he provide any examples. Another example of why Watson was entirely correct to call out McGraw’s statements as she did.
Martin, the closest thing to “vitriol” was probably me, after Blackford decided to single me out for suggesting that Abbie’s personal attacks had a personal basis. Even then, I’m pretty sure I didn’t suggest he star in a gay porn gangbang, or use much in the way of foul language. I called his position pathetic, and said it was cowardly to single out anonymous commenters if he has a bone to pick with other people.
Also, not coincidentally… I started my criticism of Abbie by pointing out that I have been a fan of her blog and generally liked her, and mentioned my former respect for Blackford as well. These aren’t people who I saw as enemies before they went on this weird rampage.
Alasdair
Exactly how the female versions work. Well put. I had said I’d quit using the word in public for the sake of consistency, because I hadn’t seen any men say what you just said. Now that I have, it’s out on principle, not just for consistency.
Josh Slocum wrote:
Indeed and I thank you for bringing it up. It brought home the message for me that being sensitive or considerate is also something you van exercise toward people you are not really interacting with.
I also think teasing out the distinctions analytically and dispassionately about words like “cunt”. “twat”, “dick”, “bitch” is the wrong approach because often enough such an analytically and dispassionately approach lack sensitivity. Russel seems to have forgotten what this is alll about. Attracting more women to atheist and skeptic events. So if enough women indicate that something makes them uncomfortable attending, the easiest way to take this hurdle is to remove what makes them uncomfortable. Taking the analytically and dispassionately approach in the hope of persuading them that it shouldn’t make them uncomfortable seems futile and dismissive.
In an ideal world there would be no need for a men to be so sensitive as to cross the street in order to put a woman’s mind at ease. But this world is not so ideal and taking the real world in consideration which seems to be so more perilous for a woman than for a man, is not demonizing men or infantalizing women.
Beyond the sexism in language concerns, isn’t it strange that we use body parts associated with sexuality as insults (e.g. prick, dick, twat, pussy, cunt, asshole, etc). And we use other sexual terms to insult as well – typically in verb-pronoun combinations (e.g. screw you, fuck you, blow me, etc).
Even if there weren’t a history of sexism associated with the female genitalia insults, the use of sexual body part words and other sexual terms to insult and wound is not sexuality-positive. It reflects attitudes that view sexuality as bad. After all, if these body part synonyms and sexual act verbs are things that many people find pleasure in, why are they used as insults?
Yeah, there’s been nothing here that struck me as in any way vitriolic. To be fair to Stangroom, he does sort of allude to two examples of ‘outrageous vitriol’; that Blackford’s been called a liar and a misogynist. The former presumably refers to Blackford’s misreading of a comment PZ made at ERV’s place, in which he mentioned Blackford in passing before calling out commenter to whom he was responding on a lie, so not exactly the best example. He doesn’t bother to link to any examples of the latter.
I’m not familiar enough with Blackford to have a strong opinion either way. A couple of days ago I would have agreed with you about Abbie, but the more I think of it, the more I realise that her current behaviour isn’t actually a radical break from form. IMO, the difference between this and her normal attitude is one of degree, not kind. She’s always been free with gendered insults, including “bitch”, “cunt”, “cottage-cheese dripping pussy”…
It’s not the first time she’s dismissed, mocked and misrepresented another woman’s experience of sexual objectification, either.
I’ve been reading Russell Blackford’s various pages for a few years now, and may I say I am quite surprised to witness such an appraisal of his position. Especially from some names whch are familiar to me. Is this how you treat friends and colleagues? I am intrigued how people could have so misjudged the man. If you’re going to suggest anyone is misogynist in relation to these terms, you’re picking on the wrong person in RB. Come and say it about ME, give me twenty strokes of the whip because, frankly, I have no problem with any word or neuroses around sexuality.I say all of this as a Catholic. And a French-Australian. Poor Russell, he in fact stated that he has problems with the use of insults around female genatalia. Well, I don’t, take a pot shot at me instead. He may have thought he had a few friends here. This isn’t how we treat our friends.
I have now had a bit of a think and from now on will make more of an effort to remove twat and cunt from my vocabulary, rereading my first post I think I was upset that someone seemed to want to take a word away. I actually said I wouldn’t want my daughter to use that language which when seen again seems very hypocritical even to me. By the way in my defence she is a flesh and blood daughter and my only child (I wouldn’t treat a son differently in this respect) not some abstract made up. I genuinely thought that in my culture of largely male work places the words were so often used to have lost all association with anything female. What I didn’t do was think “is this one of the reasons my work places have been largely male and how would it feel to walk into one as a female not used to it”. Its obviously a privilege thing I’ve not noticed in myself. Massive amounts of scatological references and breaches of heath and safety regulations in the name of fun will of course continue at work as you have to have something to help you through the day.
Ophelia @ 140:
This is misleading, in that someone who only reads here, without reading Russell’s comment, might think he’s saying it’s okay to call a woman a twat. What he said is something closer to “it’s not equally bad [as calling a woman various other things]”. In the comment that started this, he said “I don’t actually like [words like twat], either, as it happens, because I think there is at least tendency for them to express and reproduce sexist attitudes”.
To be clear, I’m not denying the inappropriateness of any of these words, and I agree that we shouldn’t use them. They clearly haven’t lost their pejorative force, and probably never will for some. And that’s entirely legitimate. Furthermore, because you can’t tell in advance whether the person you’re talking to would be offended by these words, it’s seems incumbent on any of us who want to avoid needlessly insulting others to always refrain from using them.
But Russell should at least be criticised for what he said, which is compatible with a sensitivity to privilege – even if that sensitivity is perhaps not nearly acute enough.
M Godard,
No one has said Russell is misogynist. You can confirm this for yourself by using Ctrl + F.
Oh god Marvin you’re so right.
Exactly.
I’ve been thinking about this. I’ve worked in some very male places, in the Parks Department and to some extent at the Zoo…They were very or somewhat male, but not so male that they called people cunts in my hearing. That’s because there were some women around – at least I assume it is. Yet there were often only a few, and the culture remained mostly very male. I remember at times watching it rather pityingly and thinking the dear boys would benefit if there were more women. It was so impoverished – lots of loud contentless haw-hawing and “teasing.” It was as if they were stuck at age 12.
Anyway – thank you. For thinking about it.
Jacques – fair point.
Well, I don’t run around yelling insults left and right constantly, except when I’m pissed off enough to utter them. And then I might use some very colourful or vulgar ones.
I saw some interesting information about cultural/regional differences and history of insults again, which is really interesting.
Anyway, I fail to grasp what total avoidance of insults with historic baggage achieves? I mean, anyone could easily convey misogynistic views without using gendered insults. What’s the functional difference between, let’s say, “bitches be crazy” and “women are inherently irrational and way too emotional”?
Does self-censoring by avoiding certain words achieve anything? How does this reduce actual sexist and/or gender-normative views?
(Besides not causing unnecessary offence, I mean.)
lost control – do you call people niggers or kikes or yids or spics?
Jebus. What a load of nonsense. It’s absurd to complain that this side of the argument (pretending for a moment that there are only two sides) is the nasty, uncivil bunch, when we’ve got ranting, irrational kooks howling about “twats” and “cunts” and describing Rebecca Watson as a “frumpy, balloon-full-of-water butted red-heads with glares that curdle milk”, the latest among many other insults. And I resent that comment that “Even PZ is nice when he comes visiting” — I’ve taken the same tone throughout this BS, at my blog and elsewhere. I’ve also been surprised at Blackford, not because he has been following the same tactics (he hasn’t), but because he so blindly sides with those who do, and sees nothing wrong with them.
I also find this attitude annoying.
Yes it is. We argue with our friends and we tell them when they get things wrong. The people who promote that hands-off attitude are all-or-nothing fanatics who, when they encounter something they don’t like in one of their ‘friends’, decide that they aren’t a friend anymore and turn the whole world into a black&white collection of friends vs. enemies.
They’re also hypocrites. I notice that no one is saying “PZ Myers is an ally of atheism and skepticism, therefore he’s exempt from all criticism”. Somehow, that one never seems to happen.
@lost control:
First off, isn’t “not causing unnecessary offence” enough? Secondly, take a look at my post at #15.
Ha! (I keep saying ‘ha’ – but there is a certain dark humor in some of the weirder manifestations).
Miranda thinks this thread is depressing – and she says so on Abbie’s sparkling cheer-upping inspirational thread. Yes really! Ha, I say.
Lost control: I also have no problem with insults, but aim them. The problem with calling someone a “cunt” is that you’ve aimed an insult at one person that also smears half the world’s population as collateral damage. That’s kind of stupid.
Remember, this whole contretemps began with a woman trying to explain to skeptics why many women felt unwelcome at skeptics conferences. Maybe we ought to consider that treating a group we’d like to have participate more as an epithet isn’t exactly endearing.
PZ – tell me about it. One load of nonsense after another.
You appear to be suggesting that if somebody’s going to be misogynistic anyway, they may as well go all out. This does not imply that if somebody uses a gendered insult in a phrase that wouldn’t otherwise be misogynistic, it magically becomes OK.
Ah – “lost control” is a fan of Abbie’s thread. That explains that.
I read Stangroom’s blog a couple of days ago when he was gleeful about blackford getting aggrieved with PZ and it was clear which side he was going to come down on. Stangroom is very predictable – his little ego was more massively damaged by PZ than Blackford, so guess.
You, Ophelia are the unvoiced enemy but all the more potent for it. If there’s ever a showdown between you and PZ, Stangroom will choose PZ over you. Like Blackford, these “philosophers” make their minds up over some issue/people, then offer rationalisations for their prejudice.
I’ve mentioned before the hypocrisy of those who didn’t object to Coyne’s open letter to the NCSE but are seemingly aghast at Watson’s to Dawkins. It should also be noted that I don’t recall Russell or Jerry or these other people, when Ophelia was called a “useless, putrid twat” by a female TJ sock, minimizing or making excuses for this or for M&K’s allowing their blog to be used as a platform for vicious and mendacious attacks on and character assassination of gnus. When I said that they owed Ophelia a huge apology, people didn’t argue with me or defend the behavior.
Oh, and Blackford’s pointed everyone over at the Misogyny Monument to this thread. Without making any substantive comment.
Alasdair, thanks.
Dammit, now Stangroom; it’s getting worse and worse. I’m already depressed enough as it is. When I began to understand what new atheism was about it was the greatest thing for me, and it has helped me in every way, including psychologically and morally. Merely to read what people were saying was better than a hot meal by a good fire after slogging for days through wind and sleet. That Richard and Jeremy and Russell are among the beacons of sanity is something for which I can never be sufficiently grateful; and I understand that no one is perfect, and I don’t expect it. But I don’t understand how a reputed model of rationality can take sides with the shocking enthusiasm for what I cannot help thinking of as a virtual gang rape, and so egotistical in self-defence (no, perhaps I understand that, re Joe’s point, but it’s really depressing). Perhaps reputation makes us arrogant. We forget that we are only animals after all, and start to assume that we are just fine, and don’t have to keep doing the work that keeps us human.
@lost control
Language does matter. Even if “cunt” were not considered a rude word by many people, it would still be offensive to use as an epithet. As an example: Though there is nothing wrong with someone being gay, it is clearly wrong to say “that’s so gay” or “he’s so gay” as an insult. Some years ago, my pre-teen sons and their friends started using “girl” as an insult. My sons had been raised in an environment of gender equality, and I asked them what was wrong with being a girl. They, of course, said that there was nothing wrong with being a girl. So I told them to think about what it meant if someone should be insulted to be called a girl. The light dawned.
I thought I’d mention this again: those ERV threads are full of people claiming that there’s no real sexism or misogyny problem, and then spewing the most vile sexist and misogynistic bile.
And THEN claiming that we’re the real problem, and we’re the ones being cruel and hateful towards them. It has gone way past sickening, and is just incomprehensible now. I understand that Abbie’s created a haven for misogynists because they share her negative opinion of RW… but no one else had to join in. No one here was asking anyone else to actively condemn them; Abbie’s blog, Abbie’s rule and Russell and Jerry and Miranda and the rest don’t have to take a side. But to actively support that, and attack us?
It is not even wrong.
To be fair, I don’t think I’ve seen Jerry publicly support that. Maybe that’s only because he’s been away, and I’m sure there’s plenty of back-channel support, but I haven’t seen any public comments (apart from that Facebook jeer that I quoted on Monday).
Jason. I call females “dicks” too. Is that bad?
Blackford is making me feel a bit ashamed of being a U.S. basher. But he’ll have none of this talk on his blog. :\
Fair enough Ophelia… and if you had an “edit” button somewhere I’d fix it!
@PZ (#164):
That’s a rather encouraging bit of light at the end of this tunnel (which is beginning to look a lot like a collapsed mineshaft full of debris and bodies)
Well, actually, in pt. 1 of The Monument, Coyne is comment #40. Arguably, his comment much precedes the misogynistic bile that follows and he is not responsible for what comes after. I wonder, though, how far that thread would have gone had Coyne availed himself of the opportunity to, in that early post, condemn the use of “twat”? Is what comes after attributable to his passive endorsement of the epithet in ERV’s original post?
Steve, this is essentially conceptual metaphor (or root metaphor, or generative metaphor, depending on your preference/perspective — they’re close to the same). They’re the metaphors that underlie a lot of what we literally say, and we generally don’t notice them as metaphor. They’re also incredibly productive, in language terms. For English, some of the most productive are War, Sports, and Sex. (Think about it — try to write more than a few sentences about any of these three without using words that are literally from one of the other domains. War becomes a game, sports becomes war, sex becomes war, etc.) Every language has them, and they’re not universal, even though they feel like universals to the speakers.
Jeremy doesn’t seem to be rushing to reply to my direct questions. What a surprise.
A couple of specific objections.
No, that’s wrong. Blackford chose to intervene here several times, always in an indignant and frankly rather bossy manner. He also chose to comment several times on Abbie’s threads. He also chose to make repeated scornful jokes about elevators or coffee on Facebook. He didn’t get “caught” in anything, he isn’t some passive bystander.
I doubt that. I think he doesn’t want to link directly to a post of mine. I’m always the target but never mentioned.
Blackford is right to say that twat is used routinely (in my part of the U.K at any rate) to mean idiot, as is pratt (twit is very old school). However he is wrong to say that it has lost its gender meaning. It might be a generation thing, but I still think genitalia when I hear the word.
Marta – ah, I stand corrected. I did see that at the time, and flinch at the endorsement of “Twatson” (and the rest of the malice in that post). Oh well.
Why do you assume that?
I said I don’t constantly use insults, only when warranted. I surely have fucked up in the past with my choice of words when too angry, but I think I mostly stick to “asshole, idiot, stupid” and variations thereof.
Why do you assume I wouldn’t aim them?
It makes it easier to spot. I don’t advocate the usage, though.
Did I say, they are OK? I wonder about the impact the avoidance of these terms has. Do they effectively reduce sexist views, or are there other, maybe more effective, ways to work against such views which could be used in addition?
Yes, I read both threads at ERV, and there were some discussion developments that emerged which I found interesting, so I posted in there. That doesn’t automatically mean I agree with everything in there.
If I said something condemnable (there), I will gladly admit if I’ve been stupid about something.
IIRC, I posted earlier here on B&W that I find “Twatson” pathetic and/or immature, but I don’t know which thread that was. I read B&W regularly, among a lot of other blogs, but I seldom post at all.
Actually, I hope it would’ve gone exactly the same way. Why? Because, while it would be nice if all the more hateful bile over there had never existed, to give that sort of implicit power to a senior male over a junior female in an arena that is not supposed to be hierarchical, would be problematic.
My personal opinion is that, hell yes, Jerry should’ve condemned the use of “twat” — it’s the decent human thing to do. And it’s also my personal opinion that that, in and of itself, shoudn’t’ve* changed how people were acting. The fact that they are acting in sexist and misogynist ways should’ve changed their behavior.
*Yes, we’ve gone to the land of awkward verbs, talking things that should’ve happened in the past if they were to happen at all, which they didn’t, so they no longer could, but really, what is wrong with people?
PZ is right; we do argue with our friends. We owe it to them and ourselves. But surely we should ask, what ends are we achieving with our chosen means? If the end is to heap moral shame on someone for its own punitive sake (I admit, this could be construed as a potentially constructive intervention if nothing else has worked), by all means, fire away – and watch the antagonism escalate. But if the aim is to help a friend and ally (for the most part) ‘see’ their mistake, I submit that a more conciliatory, cool-headed approach might have a better chance of succeeding. (Not that this criticism applies to most of the comments here, mind.)
lost control – I don’t assume it – it was a question – which you didn’t answer.
I think your answer is much more likely to be no than yes; then I have more to say.
Could you answer, please?
Alasdair, have you given any of this thoughtful advice to Russell?
And could you not call it a “mistake,” or if you insist on calling it that could you explain why you’re ignoring what I said about the duration and persistence of the “mistake”?
More substantively…we tried, I think. The only result was more sneery jokes and more “naughty Abbie” nonsense. I can’t see Russell as a friend and ally any more. I can’t see anybody as a friend and ally who shrugs off cunting and bitching. It’s way too personal.
Ophelia, I just want to commend you for being consistently awesome throughout this whole thing. I am still trying to figure out why people are defending these particular words. It just doesn’t make sense to me. I’d also like to thank you and some other commenters in this thread for making me aware about the words I use.
@#190
Here’s the problem in a nutshell. You say this:
But then you end with this:
So I’ve got to ask you a question: why are you telling us? Why should we be conciliatory when we’re not in the wrong? Why should we bend over to be even more cool-headed than we’re already being?
Look, we’re way past issues to do with ElevatorGate that are subject to rational discussion and fair-minded disagreement. This has shifted into personal attacks and character assassination, and that’s all coming from outside of the people posting here. So don’t preach to us that we’re not being nice enough to the people who are on the attack against us… especially since you admit that the criticism doesn’t even properly apply.
Thanks Laurence. You and me both – endlessly still trying to figure it out. I’ll never succeed; it’s just an enigma.
Sorry, my fault. I left off: Of course I don’t.
(Sorry too, for not being a quick replier.)
Why do you feel the need to lecture me that insults are offensive? Sheesh.
The (mostly lurking) reading experience in a lot of places has been fascinating for me. People (including me) surely sometimes read a lot more into what’s written than what’s actually there, the sarcasm-detectors fail at times, especially when tempers are heightened. This is really fascinating for a schizoid like me.
I second Ophelia’s question Alasdair – have you given the same advice to Russell? If not, why not?
When I was in junior high, it was the fashion at my school to use—I shit you not—”Jewish” as a slur in the same way kids use “gay” or “lame” today: to denounce something as unappealing or unpleasant. One Saturday, I spent the day at the mall with a friend from another school and his friend Michael. All day long I was all “that’s so Jewish this” and “that’s so Jewish that”. Finally, my friend pulled me aside, and told me that Michael was Jewish, and that I should be more careful with my language. And I was stunned. It had never even dawned on me that regardless of how I meant the term—not having grown up around many Jews, I didn’t connect it with an ethnic and/or religious group—I was slamming an entire group of people. And even at that age, having been around enough bigots, it was pretty clear to me, once I’d put two and two together, why things that sucked were “Jewish” and not “English.”
And even at that age, I had the sense and sensitivity enough not to start rabidly spamming Jewish slurs and quoting that scene from Life of Brian and attacking my friend for implying that both me and Monty Python were racist and it’s just a thing we say at my school all the time and how dare he oppress me over mere words, and by the way, kike-yid-hebe, ha-ha! What fun!
The reason that sexist and racist language has meaning at all is because of the power differential inherent in our social construction of gender and race. If I call someone a ‘nigger’ or a ‘cunt’, I’m insulting them by reminding them of their tenuous place at the bottom of the social order. That’s of course, why ‘honky’ and ‘dick’ don’t have the same power—it’s no insult to remind someone that generally, they’re unaffected by glass ceilings and don’t have to fear being lynched.
In general, people belonging to the groups tarred by terms like ‘nigger’ and ‘cunt’ will tell you that their use causes them pain, and that their non-use doesn’t cause the same pain. Are you looking for a double-blind study to verify their self-reports? Is there something inherently untrustworthy about the testimony of people like Ophelia?
Are you arguing that we shouldn’t use Method A unless we first determine whether there are other, maybe more effective methods that we can use in addition to Method A? Look, if you’ve got these other, putatively more effective ways of reducing sexism and racism, then by all means, FUCKING USE THEM. Because, unless you’re claiming they only work in conjunction with the liberal use of words like nigger and cunt to work*, then nobody’s stopping you from achieving the end of sexism and racism with your “other methods” AS WELL AS NOT USING nigger and cunt.
*Lenny Bruce already tried that experiment. Sexism and racism still exist.
lost – ok then. You don’t use those epithets; well the same reasons for not using those epithets apply to “cunt” and the rest.
Is that not obvious?
lost, people are asking you these questions and telling you about insults because of your comment @ 162. That’s all.
It seems that to a good number of otherwise decent, sane and rational people the answer is no, it is not obvious.
Now quite why they do not find it obvious I cannot help you with. I am at a loss to understand why.
I mean – we’re not doing it to annoy; we’re responding to something you said. Maybe you didn’t mean what you seemed to mean…but you seemed to mean that! :- b
Why are you telling us this? How are you expecting people to react to the idea that sexism and racism, visceral, emotional issues that are very real for some people, provide you with a sense of detached curiosity?
Or is this your way of asking people to “chill out”?
Because one can also avoid misreads by being more clear in their intent while writing?
Mya @ 189
Hmm. Yes but. One can also just learn from other people. Jerry’s otherwise (apart from all this I mean) a good person to learn from – he knows a lot, he has wide interests, he’s been all over, he writes well, he (usually) thinks clearly, etc. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing if people are being stupid and nasty and then are pulled up short by seeing someone they respect say “Hey that’s stupid and nasty, whatsamattawitchoo.”
Sigh. I think what Russel and co are saying is that because they dont use these terms in a sexist sense or that because these terms can be used in a non sexist way , we should have more nuanced discussions. And that if people insist these terms are misogynistic we are implying that Russel must be misogynistic as well.
It’s quite surprising. It’s like a moderate Christian telling us “we interpret the Bible metaphorically – why do you keep criticising the Bible” or “why do you say moderates lend legitimacy to religion”.
And then there is the people called so and so a gender traitor so Im just going to ignore everything else thats said. Sort of like commenters on pharyngula use colorful language so Im going to ignore what they say.
Im surprised to hear Russel call for nuanced discussions of “twat”. To what purpose? If you need to use colorful language , there are so many colorful non sexist terms to choose from. And if there arent I can share some from Indian languages.
Yes there have been some over the top reactions on both sides (for example I found gender traitor to be idiotic , I found calling Dawkins to be misogynist to be silly as well) – but that doesn’t change the points being made. And I thought it was a point of pride for us that we could look beyond insulting terms to see what is actually being said.
I was wondering if avoiding such terms was simply masking sexist views, or if it was also reducing them.
And I wondered if there were other stuff that could be done in addition.
It was a question. Not a request for a study. I hoped for opinions and ideas of others that I could consider and maybe adapt.
English isn’t my native language. It seems my command of it is so lacking that I can’t be clear enough to successfully convey my meaning, no matter what.
I give up.
Ophelia, I was intending for my comment to be abstract enough to apply not just to this sexual epithet thing but to all occasions where commentators have jumped in feet first, energized by moral affront, and inflamed the situation – which has only served to aggravate their affront (cue vicious cycle). Yes, I did note what you said about the persistence of the ‘mistake’. I’m not ignoring it or disputing it. No, I haven’t spoken to Russell. If I’m giving the impression that I think resolving any conflict is as easy as dispensing platitudes, I’m sorry. It’s easier to pontificate on what makes it worse. I joined this discussion because I didn’t want Russell to be vilified. The charge that he has sided with those who vilify others doesn’t mean he deserves the same treatment. Nor does it mean that I exclude him in any measure from my criticism.
Improbable Joe, I was specifically responding to the ideas expressed by PZ in #164. I thought they were incomplete and wanted to add to them. Also, this thread didn’t start out as cool-headed as it’s got over the last number of posts.
lost, don’t give up. I think we got closer to mutual comprehension.
Bleh – I screwed up the last sentence of paragraph one. But you get my meaning.
Two years ago almost to the day, I wrote an article that Ophelia highlighted in her blog (Me Tarzan, You Ape). Here’s the pertinent excerpt:
“So what we have here are people so embedded in their privilege that pointing it out to them instantly strips away the progressive veneer and elicits poop-flinging that would make a baboon blush. Women and other Others are still furniture – and though furniture is useful and can be decorative, it’s not supposed to move, dammit!”
Couple this with the brittleness of internet interactions and large but insecure egos that can dish it out but can’t take it, and the outcome we have seen is guaranteed. On the bigger picture, as many others here and elsewhere have pointed out, the use of such terms serves to enforce and perpetuate power differentials. As long as self-labeled “progressive” communities and movements act as if these don’t exist, they will remain part of the problem.
God no! Not for me anyway – not real, fighting-words insulting terms of the kind we’ve been talking about.
Why haven’t you spoken to him? Why are you more concerned about how we react (acting as if we have the burden of being patient teachers to a 2nd-grade classroom) than you are about the outrageous offense Russell is supporting? Seriously – think about that for a minute.
Let me make it crystal clear for you:
1. I’m not among “friends” when said friends spend days and days laughing online about a fellow gay man being called a faggot. Do you get that? Is that hard for you? It’s the same thing happening with Russell and the bitchtwatcunting.
2. Read number one again. Do you get it yet?
3. I don’t have friends that would do that anyway. That is what makes this so disturbing for Ophelia, me, and others. We literally can’t believe people we thought were awesome could act this way. It’s just as unbelievable as discovering they think it’s funny to joke about niggers. It’s through the looking glass.
4. It’s extremely condescending and rage-inducing when people, like you, look at the targets of vicious bigoted insults and wring their hands about how we’re just not patiently coddling the offenders enough. Our anger is “productive.”
Stop it. I’m so fuckin’ mad right now I’m going to take a walk.
The explanation for that characterization was provided several times over, with no one arguing that the behavior I was criticizing from Abbie and described above by MartinM @ #154 hasn’t existed. I suppose you’d also think “Uncle Tom” being used to describe a black person saying and doing equivalent things would be idiotic. There’s not one idiotic thing about the concept, and, as Ophelia acknowledged, in this case it’s “pretty damn descriptive.” So unless you have something substantive to say about the defining features or their application in this specific case, your opinion is worthless.
As I’ve said here before, the behavior is understandable, if naive, but it’s wrong and needs to be called out. Just like the faitheists’ gnu-bashing does, but far more urgently.
Alasdair Cameron, my criticism stands, and your defense of Blackford is insufficient. You’ve not shown anything in the way of evidence that we’re any of us being unfair or excessively harsh in relation to Blackford’s behavior. You didn’t even go after me, and I used maybe the most aggressive language of anyone here. Of course, the most hot-headed post in any thread on this site would be hard pressed to compare to the average tone of the threads over at ERV that we’re criticizing, and that Blackford considers to be an example of clear thinking.
I guess it is nice that Russell has someone like you trying to defend him, but I consider his behavior to be indefensible. Like I keep saying, there are mistakes and then there’s doubling down on the behavior when the initial mistake is pointed out. Blackford has been shooting himself in the foot over and over again, and instead of listening to the friends he has insulted, he has taken up common cause with bad people who are attacking his critics.
lost control@207: “I was wondering if avoiding such terms was simply masking sexist views, or if it was also reducing them.”
I think that in the short term it masks them, and in the long term it reduces them. Listen to all the people defending the use of these terms essentially on the grounds that they’re common expressions that they and their friends use all the time.
Actually, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that avoiding such terms is “masking sexist views,” because that implies that everyone who uses these terms does in fact hold such views. I’m quite sure that many of the people defending these terms really and truly aren’t misogynists, and sincerely believe in gender equality and such. They’re just a little insensitive to the effects of these terms due to their own privilege, and some of them are now digging in their heels because they have an instinctive revulsion at being told “don’t say that.” (A mostly useful instinct, but it has its limits.)
But the problem is that good (or at least, non-evil) intent doesn’t wash away the negative effects of using sexist terms. The message the speaker is sending is “I think this term is ok,” and that both offends (some/many) women and signals to the sexists in the room “I’m one of you.” The fact that the speaker didn’t intend to offend, and isn’t in fact “one of them,” doesn’t change that.
Precisely. It’s like a punch in the face, and there were a lot of punches. “This is funny to you?”
Marvin #137
Bingo. I think that is a significant part of the motivation behind it–because it is getting a rise out of us. In short: it’s standard Internet trolling.
This is why I kept thinking at every step, “Surely they’re going to have to step back from this now, distance themselves from it, at least stop engaging with and defending it.” But they don’t. They keep choosing to remain on that road and even travel further down it. With every new post or comment or joke or comment disappearance, my heart sinks a little more, and I’m starting to wonder if there’s anything they wouldn’t be willing to brush off or defend.
@Ophelia
But you are objecting more to what the terms mean and implies , rather than – you used a rude word so ill ignore what you are saying or Ill pretend that it overrules everything else you said.
*blink* *blink* I always thought it was “twat” like “not”.
Deepak Shetty, you’re missing the point. The language, and the ugliness behind it, IS the point. The whole point! If there was some substantive point, wouldn’t someone be defending it instead of the language and personal attacks?
Has it not occurred to those who say words such as “twat” or “cunt” have lost their sexist overtones where they live that if that is the case then feel free to use them where you live, but refrain from doing so where there are people for whom that is not the case ?
They are essentially saying, I will do what I want and fuck you.
I live in the UK, and I will admit I do sometimes use “twat”, although I try not to. I am a human and I am not perfect :). What I do not do is think that the same vocabulary I use with real life people is fine for use on the ‘net.
Josh, I feel you’ve misrepresented my point of view. I’ve already said that unleashing one’s anger and untrammeled moral condemnation could be a constructive intervention if no other means are working. And you clearly feel that that point has been reached here. Look, I didn’t contribute to this thread to induce rage or appear condescending, so I’ll exit after this comment.
Salty:
That was my point WAY BACK at the start of the thread: the use of certain language slams doors behind you. They escalate the emotional element of an argument above any potential rational discourse, and prevent the person using the language from backing down. Once you’ve gone “all-in” this way, all you can do is hope to beat people down, or get them to give up out of frustration.
@Ophelia
Huh. Had no idea it meant “testicles” originally. Yep, be prepared for the anti-hypocrisy crusaders to sense this great disturbance in the Force and put up a great foul-mouthed whine to restore balance.
You still haven’t answered why you think it’s so important for us to have the moral burden of coddling Russell. Why do you think that? Why is that your default assumption? Why do we have to “try other things” before we’re allowed to be outraged? Your ethical priorities are really out of line in this case.
Ah. Passive aggressive bullshit and a flounce. Quel surprise.
PZ, I apologize. Your tone has indeed been exemplary throughout this whole affair, and I never intended to imply otherwise. My excuse, for whatever it’s worth, is this: You do seem to cultivate a rather fierce online image, and even occassionally complain that you come across as too nice and non-threatening in real life. Or something like that. And I was just trying to resonate with that.
Improb Joe:
Blackford admitted that he hadn’t read the toxic thread, and his claim of admiring ERV’s ‘clear-thinking’ was on the basis of her general position, not her insults. So he made a mistake by failing to check his sources, but he doesn’t approve of the rhetoric.
It’s understandable, in a way. Abbie’s place has become a kind of shanty town for wayward souls: the genuine misogynists and mischief-makers, side-by-side with McGraw sympathizers, supposed “gender traitors”, and miscellaneous folks who feel disproportionately slighted by people on the internet.
That’s how it’s done! Harald’s response, I mean.
Ophelia:
I don’t think you’re giving it a free pass—you clearly don’t condone that sort of thing—but I think you may not be giving the Dear Dick thing due weight, as a specific rhetorical escalation in particular a polarized flamewar.
(Bear with me—I’ll get to why I think the response against Watson et al. has been wildly disproportionate.)
As I understand it, Abbie et al. were partly responding to the perceived unfair and hypocritical stereotyping and quite gender-based slurring of Richard Dawkins, specifically.
I can see that point. I think it was a big mistake to call Richard Dawkins a Dick in that way, in that context.
The subject clearly was his perceived assholery of a specifically male kind, having something important to do with his having a dick.
It was accompanied by a suggestion that he was racist for using the term “muslima,” which as I understand it was quite unfair, and helped paint a picture of him as a privileged rich, white, male racist asshole of the stereotypical sort who is clueless and uncaring about all sorts of issues—basically a pretty bad guy all around.
I think stooping to making fun of his given name by pointedly miscalling him Dick was perceived by some people as a very cheap shot of the sort you don’t take at your allies. It’s the short of very easy, very cheap gag that you stoop to when making fun of people who you don’t feel an obligation of basic civility toward, because the bridges are already burnt, and they’re just enemies.
It reminded me of Jon Stewart (IIRC) relating some asshole statement or other by Dick Cheney, with a picture of Cheney looking ike a mean old white guy, and following it up with something like “Right, Dick.”
Is a liberal who considers himself a feminist, I didn’t think was really okay, but thought I got two points:
(1) Dick Cheney is pretty close to the stereotype of a mean old rich white guy, systematically defending mean old rich white guy privilege in lots of important ways, and he’s just a dick in multiple pretty strong senses.
(2) The bridges between us liberals and Dick Cheney and his fans are well and truly burnt already, so using bridge-burning rhetoric like calling him a dick doesn’t do much harm. He’s permanently the Other to us, and we’re permanently Other to him, so what the hell, go ahead and call him a Dick. He’s the enemy, after all. Yes it’s a cheap gag, but so what? He doesn’t really deserve any better, and if you’re going to call anybody a dick, he’s a good choice.
Richard Dawkins isn’t Dick Cheney.
That said, I think Abbie and her supporters overreacted and escalated the whole shitstorm tremendously.
If you think somebody escalated in a hypocritical way, it’s arguably okay to turn the tables, and flip them the inverse kind of shit.
So, for example, if a black man were to suggest that Dawkins is a racist, and use some cheap gag that called him a stupid honky, I could understand somebody making a snide, cutting, pointed comment like “Do you think it’s really okay to call Richard Dawkins a stupid honky, nigger?”
Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t do that, and don’t think anybody should, because the power differential between blacks and whites really does makes “nigger” worse than “honky,” but I’d get the point of why they’d consider such turnabout to be fair play.
What I definitely would strongly condemn was if somebody spent the next several weeks frequently calling that black person nigger, shine, jigaboo, and so on, and even warned them of their hubris by describing a scenario in which certain uppity black individuals might be “Standing next to Richard Dawkins one day, and shining white mens shoes for quarters the next.”
That’s way too much, and going way the fuck too far. The black guy may have escalated and crossed lines he shouldn’t have crossed, but that doesn’t mean he deserves such a wildly disproportionate response.
And whether or not he or his defenders in particular were “asking for it” by being hypocritical and truly presumptious—uppity in a non-racist sense—it certainly doesn’t mean that everybody else is asking for a shitstorm of racist name-calling that goes on for weeks. You could make your point by calling somebody a name once or twice, with explanation, and just explaining the pointed “joke” you made thereafter.
If you keep calling somebody a nigger or a cunt over and over, long after that, you’re just being a ruthless asshole demonstrating how much of a ruthless asshole you can be. The joke may have originally had a point, but it got old a long time ago.
If people really “aren’t getting” the point of a seemingly hateful insult joke, you can explain the joke over and over as necessary, referring back to the joke and justifying it. But don’t keep telling the insult joke they’re allegedly “not getting” the point of, over and over. It isn’t pointedly transgressive anymore. It’s just routine hatefulness.
Hang on, Ben – that’s a great deal more than we know. If he doesn’t approve of the rhetoric why does he keep commenting there? And if he hadn’t read the toxic thread before it was pointed out to him, he should have read (or skimmed) it by now, or else stopped giving it little pats on the back.
Ben… are you SURE? Because that’s not how I’m reading his behavior at all. He seems to tacitly approve of the rhetoric over and over again, while using the weasel construction of “I don’t approve, but…” to cover his tracks. If you don’t approve, you don’t make joking comments referencing what you claim you don’t approve of, come up with rationalizations for things you don’t approve of, and then attack the critics of the things you don’t approve of.
If you don’t approve, you condemn or you shut up. You don’t disapprove while encouraging.
Harald:
Way to set an example. That’s how people behave when there’s an honest disagreement between people who show mutual respect.
Precisely. The way you express your disapproval is: “Wait. Stop. The use of the words bitch, cunt, twat, and the reference to “smelly skepchick snatch” is way, way out of line. I find this shocking, and it’s an expression of just the sort of misogynist abuse you claim doesn’t exist. I can’t support this behavior even if I agree with you on other aspects of the matter.”
Paul…right…I did express reservations about the skepchick letters at the beginning, and then more strongly when Mooney announced he was interviewing Rebecca. But then Abbie’s thread got worse, and worse, and worse, and worse………….
Hmmm, maybe we (atheists, skeptics, human beings) just need more My Little Pony.
WAIT!
“Dear Dick”? Really? Prove it. Did anyone fact check that one?
Yeah, I’ll wait while you guys hunt down the “Dear Dick” campaign. I’ve got potatoes to blanch.
Joe, yes, there was a Dear Dick letter. I too thought it was a bad move. Yeah, I can understand the “give him a taste of his own medicine,” but by using a sexed slur? Eesh.
SC
I really have no interest in going over the issue again. Im merely saying you have other good things to say – but I still find gender traitor idiotic as a term .
Great. You don’t need to respond to me then.
Did Rebecca call RD Dick? Did she write/sign the letter?
@improbable joe
Of the words being used , yes.
However Im referring to the other insults that got flung about.
Dawkins was clearly in the wrong – Calling him misogynistic was over the top in my opinion. But for the “other side” to refuse to acknowledge what Ophelia and others have been saying , focusing instead on the fact that Dawkins was called misogynistic or that someone was called gender traitor is silly in my opinion.
We can leave that Stangroom or Mooney et al.
Josh:
There was a single “Dear Dick” letter. The Skepchick campaign was “Dear Richard Dawkins.” The first comment in the thread was criticizing it, and subsequent comments followed suit. It is incorrect to insinuate that RW or her website as a whole engaged in the wholesale use of the term when only one person quoted from a different website used it. It is being characterized as a “Dear Dick” campaign led by RW who is hypocritically insisting on the use of that term, and that’s just not so.
Not that quoting it is beyond criticism, and the use of the term “dick” has been fairly criticized here, but it seems like just one more example of exaggeration and overreaction from people looking for an excuse to pile on and call RW cruel names.
No. The post is signed by Mindy, and it collects a bunch of letters to Dawkins. One starts with “Dear Dick.” The post title is Dear Richard Dawkins.
Oops, crossed with Joe. Well at least we got that cleared up.
I guess Stephanie Zvan of Almost Diamonds wrote it. Lots of people signed it.
By the way, I should have pointed out that it wasn’t Watson herself who made the “Dear Dick” joke, or the accusation that his use of “muslima” was sexist, but those weren’t just in a random comments–they were in open letters to Dawkins that were included in the “Dear Richard Dawkins” post on skepchick, which to many people (including me) seemed to imply a somewhat stronger endorsement of the letter.
Opinions vary as to how much that can reasonably interpreted as endorsement, and how rapidly and how far Watson and her supporters should have distanced themselves from those comments.
Some people do think those things were justified—that Dawkins had transgressed in substantive ways that justified such mere rhetorical transgressions. (Like calling Cheney a Dick.) Others clearly don’t, and it’s a big old messy mess.
I don’t claim to have kept track of who said what when, and who distanced themselves how far, or how fast, from what others said.
Ah, I see others beat me to the “Rebecca didn’t say that herself” point.
Good going.
Baloney, on many levels. As I’ve been pointing out since before this episode began, and as MartinM noted at #154 above, this is standard fare for Abbie. She’s used all of these terms and expressed these attitudes for years, in pretty much every circumstance imaginable. I’ve provided links. The attacks on Watson started long before Stephanie Z posted and Watson included the “Dear Dick” letter or a commenter at Skepchick made the comment about Muslima, which was corrected by others. And I’m not even going to entertain this business about “Dick” further. When I first read it, I read it as his name. My father had a good friend named Richard who went by Dick. That video a few years ago called him “Dicky D.” I thought initially that that was how Stephanie Z (whom I don’t like, by the way) and some others addressed him. Now that I get it, I don’t approve of it at all. I don’t use it. It is not, though, as many people have made clear, a parallel to the sexist/misogynistic slurs, and I doubt there’s anyone who honestly believes that it is.
The continued misogynistic vehemence of the attacks on Watson should show you quite plainly that “Dear Dick” was not at the heart of it (nor are Watson’s remarks in her speech about McGraw). What’s at the heart of it is contempt for women, especially uppity ones. Just as you needn’t look for substance or specific impetus behind most of the gnu-bashing: it’s rooted in a contempt for outspoken atheists and will opportunistically latch onto and exaggerate any perceived misstep.
@Hertta: No she didn’t AFAIK, and that’s sort of the point. And, although I agreed with it at the time, I see now where it is problematic and have changed my mind. It IS hypocritical to say “Dick” while complaining about “cunt”, even if your heart is in the right place.
It is slightly complicated…”Dick” is after all a name, and it is short for Richard. Twat and cunt and fucking bitch are not names, and they’re not short for Rebecca.
But only slightly complicated. Richard’s name is Richard; nobody calls him Dick, just as no one who knows better calls Hitchens “Chris.” And strangers don’t use nicknames anyway, if they’re being polite. So yes: calling him Dick, out of bounds.
It’s OK. I try to be as fierce as possible online, but at the same time I try to focus my ferocity on stupid ideas, not the fact that someone has a penis or a vagina.
I find it another fascinating example of the histrionics that have been going on, that this claim that everyone at Skepchick was using their own version of gendered insults directed at Richard Dawkins, reduces to one letter that called him “Dick”. I guess this goes right up with the claim that Watson was a crazy New Age wacko who demanded praise for her divine yoni, or that this is all a product of a cabal of radical feminists who hate men, or that they’re all cackling over the idea of chopping a man’s penis off.
So some people think it’s ok and kinda smart to call RW “Twatson” (and bitch and cunt and so on) and host a hate fest because someone else started a letter with Dear Dick?
I was typing that while 248-251 were in the pipeline; it looks as though I’m replying to them in 252 but I’m not!
Which, as I’ve said, is a worthless, substance-free assertion. Thanks for sharing.
Melody has asked people to publicize this, so here it is.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/women_in_secularism/
The fightback begins!
Or to put it another way, Crazy American Bitches to meet up in DC next year.
Is or is not “Dick” a shortened form of “Richard”? Has no one seen the Expelled promo rap-video: “He’s the Dick-to-the-dock-to-the Ph. D. He’s smarter than you, he’s got a science degree!” Asserting that “Dear Dick” was referencing the connotation of “asshole” instead of just a contemptuous way of referring to him by the shortened form instead of “Richard” (parallel to his contemptuous usage of “Muslima”) is possibly reading too much into that salutation.
“Dear Dick,”
“Dear Muslima,”
Ophelia finally got invited somewhere… sweet!
(Although I almost typed “Ophelia phinally…”)
Aratina Cage: Let’s not defend “dick”… OK? It is easier and more rational just to admit that it can be used as a gender-based insult just like “cunt” and move on.
Rock on CFI!!! I’ll so, so be there. I scanned that article super-fast thinking, “OMG, if Ophelia is not on that speaker list I’m getting on the phone to them right now!”
@SC
your welcome.
Oh, and first round is on me at CFI. Pabst Blue Ribbon for everyone!!!
Yeah, the CfI event is very cool. Thank you, Melody, whoever you are.
My, yes. I think I’ll go to that, too.
The announcement of the Women in Secularism conference made me more okay with deciding to stay in the DC area for another year. But then it’s time to get out.
I was one of the people who signed the “Dear Dick” letter at Almost Diamonds. I knew the significance of calling Richard Dawkins “Dick” and at the time it seemed appropriate. In my mind, calling him a dick referred to his male obtuseness and sneering attitude to Rebecca. I passed over that fairly quickly to read the letter and the comments from women and men who’d been raped. I added my rape stories to the letter. After some consciousness raising here, I can now say I don’t agree with starting the letter with “Dear Dick” but I stand by the substance of the letter.
Improbable Joe #261, please count me out of that. I’ve known many Dicks in my lifetime. “Dick” is a common, respectable (but not always formal) name. There is nothing inherently wrong with addressing a man as “Dick” when that is his name. Why should I read “Dear Dick,” in that letter in the worst possible, most childish sense?
Not only was it just the one letter, it was…well. I’d suggest anybody who hasn’t done so simply read it, and the list of names attached to it. If you have a strong stomach, try the comments too. Anyone who can do so and end up thinking “you know, the important point here is that she said ‘dick'” is coming from a place I will never understand. This is not ammunition. No reasonable person would dispassionately chip off one tiny piece and use it to score points. To do so is disgraceful beyond words, and those who are wielding it as some sort of weapon should be utterly ashamed.
At last, I seem to have discovered how to use the block quotes properly.
This is the thing that has so thoroughly amazed me about this whole discussion. Rebecca’s initial act that began this, “guys, don’t do that,” along with the vast majority of responses to Dawkins, and especially Ophelia’s (and now Josh Slocum’s) reactions to Russell here, have actually, at their root, demonstrated immense respect, and nothing like the derisive, dismissive nonsense. The false equivalencing that folks keep trying to do is simply astonishing.
Has anyone seen anything that dismissive coming from this side of the discussion? ERV and her commenters aren’t even bothering to be specific with their criticism anymore, it’s just “idiot” this, “hypocrite” that.
Aratina Cage: I don’t think it is fair to divorce the word “dick” from the context in which is was used. It is a minor issue, to be sure. That doesn’t mean we should be dismissive of it. Since it is minor, I don’t see why you would be committed to defending it. What’s wrong with just saying “could be read more than one way, therefore better to avoid it just to be safe”? Isn’t that the same thing(in kind, not degree) as what we’re asking for in the use of “cunt” and “bitch” and “twat”? If you acknowledge the possibility of the negative interpretation, then the issue goes away and if people keep pushing the issue it make it their problem and not yours.
SC:
Good point, and I should have been clearer. Abbie has used sexist terms before, against various women targets, and I think that’s stupid and wrong.
I do think that she ratcheted it up in this case, and my impression is that her supporters do cite the Dear Dick thing as a major example of the kind of thing she’s supposed to be objecting to, and why it’s supposed to be okay to do it the way she does.
I do think that you are right that Abbie was spoiling for this kind of fight, and had engaged it this kind of fight at a lower level before—and you’re right that it sucks. I’ve thought it sucked before, and I didn’t realize how far Abbie would take it. It sucks bigtime.
You may well be right that the Dear Dick and muslima things functioned more as an ex post facto excuse than an actual motivation, but it has definitely served as ammunition, and I think it was a real blunder that lent support to accusations of hypocrisy.
Oph:
Going by his words that’s what we know. And he keeps commenting there because it’s the aforementioned shanty town. From what I understand, he’s read the thread, commented vocally (on Facebook) about how he doesn’t approve of the language, etc.
It’s a separate issue if you just want to say that he’s cottoned onto the wrong side of town, consorting with a gang of varmints, no-gooders, and miscreants. Plenty of evidence of that. But I dunno what you can infer from it.
Improb Joe:
Not positive, but I’m as sure as I can be without having access to a small door that allows me to live inside of his brain. If he says he doesn’t approve, I’ll take that at face value (at least for now). If he puts in caveats, it’s plausible to think that the experience of being constantly maligned is making it difficult to show contrition with respect to some mistakes (e.g., not reading the thread before offering praise). But I can’t speak for him and wouldn’t try.
Once again Ben, you’re way more generous than I’m willing to be. More importantly, I think my point is valid: as many times as you state that you’re not supporting something, if your words and actions contradict your denials than your denials are meaningless. That’s what I was getting at with the second bit you quoted. If you don’t agree with someone’s behavior, you don’t participate in that behavior or joke about it or defend it or make light of it. You don’t have to actively defend it: you can withdraw from the conversation and no harm attaches. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t give support for something AND say “…but I really don’t agree with it!”
Your interpretation would be more plausible had Blackford not been willing to weigh in and make his opinion known in no uncertain terms when he felt that a single commenter here had said something unfair about Abbie. Compare that post to the weak, vauge “I don’t really like her language, but hey, that’s Abbie” crap he’s been coming out with.
@Improbable Joe
Yes, but I think the people arguing that it means “dick” are doing that. The context in which it was used was more of “you’re not so special yourself, sir”.
“Dick” is a name. Should we immediately head to the gutter when we read it or hear it? It seems rather childish to do that to me, and nothing in that letter suggests childishness as far as I can tell.
Is “Twat” a common name? Is “Cunt” a common name? Is “Bitch” a common name? There really isn’t any grey area for those words. None.
MartinM:
Thanks for bringing up those terrible memories.
Ben:
Blackford called me and the rest of us nutjobs in his defense of Abbie and the ERV threads, because I suggested that Abbie’s personal attacks had a personal reason… and in the posts between mine and his, I criticized someone from making an unfair attack on McGraw, which he conveniently missed along with all of the fair criticism of Watson and the expressions of respect towards people who have been wrong on this issue. Since then he has attacked this thread specifically as though we’re being unreasonable. He has also made comments that can most logically be interpreted as joking approval of those ERV threads.
Improb Joe:
All other things being equal, I think you’re right. But all other things aren’t equal. People are forming dramatic alliances on the basis of expedience. It’s understandable, though not laudable.
Martin:
You make his views seem artificially one-sided, yet in that quoted post he said “I know there are some nutjobs commenting on Abbie’s thread”. Also, I’ve seen him make sense of his previous “clear-headedness” remark by claiming ignorance about Abbie’s choice of language, and afterward he expresses discomfort about that choice of language. I don’t think it’s generosity that makes me take those remarks into account, it’s just what he said.
You seem to be more worried about what he didn’t say. So, you might ask, why doesn’t he rebuke Abbie? Well, seems to me that it’s because everyone needs a shanty town, and you don’t get to piss on the locals when you’re seeking asylum.
@Aratina Cage:
You’re wrong. You’re technically right, but you’re wrong on this issue. You’re dismissing a possible interpretation out of hand because there are possible alternate explanations, but ignoring the fact that this is specifically in the context of a discussion that hinges on perceived sexism. You can’t just wave away the obvious subtext just because you think the target deserved the negative treatment. Richard Dawkins was being a jerk, and calling him a “dick” was an obvious and easy direction to go in. In the heat of the moment, it is even understandable and defensible as a mistake that doesn’t take away from the larger context.
It is NOT defensible as a stand-alone statement. You’re one of my favorite folks who comments here, and I don’t want you to think that I think you’re a bad person, and if you ask me to I’ll drop the issue… but I just can’t agree with what you’re doing here.
Improb
My limited claim is just that there is evidence to the effect that he expressly doesn’t approve of sexist epithets.
When he rebuked you, it was probably because you were doing internet psychology. That is pretty annoying. Of course, you were doing what everyone else is doing, but then that’s not speaking very highly of Everyone.
Jeez Ben, I’m starting to be disappointed in you too! It’s cool, as long as you don’t call me “deplorable” or anything.
Yes, it does. It’s minor. In the major context, I dismiss it. I’ve said that I don’t approve (on anything but the most charitable reading), but it’s minor and eminently dismissable. As we would dismiss, in context, similarly minor statements that are disingenuously jumped on by gnu bashers. Someone addressing a man named Richard as Dick is not remotely equivalent to what we’re talking about here, and I have to wonder about the people making such a case out of it in this context.
What Aratina Cage is suggesting is that she might not have been calling him a dick, but that it might have been similar to calling someone named Stephanie Stef or Steffie. I don’t think it’s likely, but it’s possible. It’s also possible that that was how Watson read it (or how I initially did) when she posted it. It’s a name.
@Improbable Joe
Laughing at a guy because his name happens to be Dick is very childish (or Beavis and Buttheady, whichever). Calling someone Dick instead of Richard is a show of friendliness or disrespect depending on the context, and disrespect was obviously intended. How far down in the mud this disrespect was intended to go is debatable.
No, I’m looking at the behavior of the people involved in interpreting it that way.
The problem is that Dick is a valid shortened form of the name Richard, and using a shortened form of a name is a sign of disrespect in itself. He’s no longer the esteemed Richard Dawkins but plain old Dick. Was it really meant to go deeper than that?
AC is saying that your “obvious subtext” isn’t as obvious to him.
I wrote the “Dear Dick” letter about a month ago. I’m amused that in all of the furor over the address, no one has bothered to ask me about it. I’ve seen plenty of people making reference to “class” over it, which is blindingly ironic when the topic is privilege. I’ve also seen plenty of people use it as their personal excuse to ignore everything else about the topic, which is telling in itself.
Aratina’s closest, for the record. There’s an intended resonance with “Don’t Be a Dick,” based on the fact that if Dawkins is going to claim the behavior the way he did in his comments, I’m certainly going to name it. There is also a very large element of tit-for-tat uninvited familiarity based on his assumption that he can know what that elevator situation would be like for Western women. I wrote it perfectly willing to apologize to Dawkins if he objected to either the familiarity or felt that I was comparing him to a penis. If he was unwilling to offer his promised apology in return, well, that would say something too, now, wouldn’t it?No, I don’t use gendered insults. I find no power whatsoever in comparing people to genitalia. Genitalia’s way too cool for that to work. It may be worth noting, however, that Abbie saw that letter in draft stage. Her concern at that point was that the final letter not appear to be speaking for all atheist and skeptic victims of sexual assault.
Thank you, Ophelia, and thanks to Melody for the conference information.
Oh, and Joe, there was no heat of the moment. That letter was written, then quite a bit of feedback was collected before it was posted. I wasn’t just speaking for me. I was posting something that was meant to give survivors who felt they’d been silenced something of a voice back. That isn’t something one does recklessly.
Improb
oh shi
Stephanie Z:
Like I said, it isn’t a big deal. If people want to link “dick” to an insult, I say we let them and move on. It doesn’t matter much either way.
Ben:
Don’t be a jerk. :-)
The Dear Dick letter was not “just one letter.” It was an open letter signed by scores of people.
I don’t find it very plausible that all of those people missed the fact that Richard Dawkins doesn’t go by “Dick,” or that given the subject matter that they were all concerned with in the letter—Dawkins’ male-privileged sexism—none noticed that it might well be construed as calling him a dick, and as a slur against the kinds of stereotypical dicks who have dicks. That was, after all, the subject at hand. It’s pretty much what they were accusing him of.
It seems inevitable to me that many if not nearly all of the people who signed on recognized that Richard Dawkins was being cutely called a dick in the opening words of the letter, knew full well the likely interpretations, and chose to sign the letter anyway.
Some might have made an innocent mistake, and innocently let a mistake pass and signed on, but seriously, that wasn’t just an accident there. It was pointed, calculated, intentional pushback by a bunch of fairly pissed-off people who (most of) thought Dawkins deserved to be called a dick in the opening words of an open letter for all the world to read. And I’m pretty sure that many of the people who immediately endorsed the letter with no comment about that thought so, too.
It was flagrant disrespect, knowingly playing on the connotations of the word dick, and quite intentional. Maybe not fully intentional on the part of everybody involved, but it was intentional.
Sure, it’s possible I’m wrong, but it’s possible Elevator Guy just wanted a chat over coffee, and didn’t even realize he was saying anything that would very likely be construed otherwise.
Not bloody likely. Stephanie Zvan knows what she’s doing with words, and I’m sure most of the people who signed on or later endorsed the letter do, too. They thought Dawkins deserved a dose of that kind of medicine, so they gave it to him.
I can understand thinking that Dawkins deserved brisk smackdown, after the “zero bad” comment, which was substantively very bad, and I can also understand thinking that pushing back in that particular way was “tit for tat” after the misgynistic shit heaped on Watson and her supporters by Dawkins’s supporters.
I can also understand being insulting in that kind of way to Dawkins, who generally tries not to stoop to that kind of cheap insult gag himself, precisely as a protest against his condescension about civility and merely vulgar language (e.g., “fuck”) while defending privileged, irresponsible, substantively harmful views.
It seemed clear to me that they wanted to take Dawkins down a notch or two by flipping him some disrespectful shit, in a controlled and calculated dose that they thought was an entirely justified reaction to his being substantively wrong and condescendingly dismissive, and to many of his supporters being misogynistic-name-calling shitheads of more blatant kinds.
And I’m not saying that they were wrong, or that they hadn’t been duly provoked.
I was pretty peeved with Dawkins myself, for being so obtuse and condescending, and for failing to do the smart and civil thing, and admit he’d been wrong about at least some things—e.g., about how there’s nothing scary about the elevator scenario, because you can just push the button and get off, so it’s “zero bad.” It was stupid, and he was painfully condescending—e.g., whining about people saying “fuck” at Pharyngula and proceeding to ignore their serious careful explanations that he had himself asked for—and he didn’t make it right. I could see trying to puncture his pompous aloofness.
I think it’s a lot easier to defend the proposition that scores of people were justified in calling Dawkins a dick than the proposition that they didn’t do that, or that they didn’t mean that, or that it was just an isolated outlier, or that somehow, nobody even noticed.
I think it’s also a lot easier to defend the proposition that the weeks of incessant blatantly misogynistic name-calling were not an appropriate, measured response to that event. (Or to a group of events that’s a well-known and oft-cited example of.)
Whether it was an appropriate, measured, justified response to Dawkins or not, I think Abbie et al. have gone way off the reservation, and Abbie’s gleeful cunt-ing and bitch-ing and twat-ing and airtighting for weeks is just inexcusable, even if a bunch of women called Dawkins a dick in the sense(s) I thought they meant.
I think that using gendered slurs like “dick” is problematic, and it was a tactical mistake, but I think it does make a difference who started it, who did it more, and who did it worse. (I think that Abbie’s got everybody else beat in that department.)
Ah, I hadn’t seen that Stephanie posted before I posted that last one.
@lost control:
Ah, I see now why you were asking, and my response was based on my suspicion that you might be employing a tried, tested, and true strategy for denying and derailing the issue, rather than honestly asking a question. Sorry about misreading your intent.
I was away from the computer for awhile, and in that time Screechy Monkey answered better than I could in #216.
It’s often said of feminists that they go looking for insults where none are intended. If there’s anything to be learned from this whole fiasco, it’s that there is indeed a group within the skeptic and atheist communities that will scour a speech, comment, or letter for any hint of injury that they can seize upon to wrap themselves in the cloak of victimhood, and it ain’t the feminists.
And now she’s told you what she was doing.
Since Abbie has said as much, I cannot see why Blackford has a problem.
When PZ took issue with her criticism of RW, Abbie replied that she had issues she was not willing to make public, but that PZ had failed to take her up on her offer to let him know what these were in private. PZ, correctly in my opinion, replied that since Abbie was public in her criticisms, it was only fair to judge whether that criticism was fair based on what Abbie has said in public.
Matt Penfold:
Yeah, but none of my reasons were flattering to Abbie. As I recall I only called her smart and well-educated and good looking, but also petty and jealous of Watson’s comparable success… which seems fair since Abbie has harped on those specific issues, that Watson is less smart and less educated and less attractive, and that Watson’s success is undeserved.
I meant “Abbie and her friends” since I’m not sure that Abbie has commented on Rebecca’s looks, and I’m not willing to wade into her sewer to find out.
Oh, Abbie has commented on Rebecca’s looks all right. A lot.
Back in the comments 260-268 – you guys will all be there? Nice!
Ben –
No. What he’s done is minimal preliminary “now I don’t much like ‘twat’ myself blah blah” and then gone on to say that what matters is something else – what PZ called him [except that he didn’t], the terrible mugging of McGraw [except that it wasn’t], the batshit craziness of all those crazy Americans, and the like. What he mostly did on Facebook was (as I’ve said) to make repeated sniggery jokes about coffee or elevators.
Just a few hours ago he gave the nice people at Abbie’s that nudge to say “y’all have seen this?” linking to here. He is treating the nice people at Abbie’s as sane and reasonable and me and all of you as batshit crazy.
Now, Ophelia, you’re being unfair to Ben and Russell. Russell called us “nutjobs”, not “batshit crazy.” If you aren’t perfectly accurate in the exact wording, it means that Russell is completely fair in attacking all of us.
[with dignity] That was a paraphrase.
De(Dora)plorable!!!
[without dignity] Honestly, wouldn’t you know it! I was also invited to a conference in Kamloops next May, with PZ and Lawrence Krauss…and it turns out to be on the same day as the Women in Secularism one. Once in a blue moon I get invited to something (this one was PZ’s doing – he recommended me) and it turns out to be two on the same dates! Honestly.
Wait, no it wasn’t a paraphrase – look at the post! Batshit crazy is what he said.
Honest to fucking christ – we’re batshit crazy and that gang at Abbie’s are sane.
“hes now seemed to have lost some IQ points when it somes to this issue as well.”
Yes, I’m sure it’s plausible that any intelligent person who disagrees with you does so because they’ve become less intelligent than you.
Nice echo chamber you have here. Any errors in your analyses will only be noted by “the other side” which, demonized, can be safely ignored. Onward skepticism!
No… we’re batshit crazy, the gang at Abbie’s are also crazy… BUT THEY SURE ARE FUNNY!!! Russell doesn’t approve of their language, BUT THEY SURE ARE FUNNY!!! We’re crazy to object to them, even though Russell also ‘objects’ to them, but they are so funny he can’t help but love them!
Indeed. Just watch me ignore all the errors you not…oh, wait.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Oh it’s MK! Well if MK says so, I can’t possibly disagree. I take it all back, whatever it is. MK knows all.
Holly cow. I sleep on things and there’s another 200 comments!!!!!
Still, have been back to read through quite a few threads and longer comments.
Firmly coming around to seeing exactly why there’s so much beef with Russell. And I’ll add an unfortunately to that, as I have loved so much of his writing over the last few years, and on many other subjects he has been as reasonable and clear headed and big picture as anyone. But that doesn’t mean that he hasn’t really missed the mark here.
For my own part, I think there’s a risk, if you don’t delve in a little to the on going conversations, of missing how nasty things actually are.
The other broad thing I’m taking away is that I’m struggling to find a good argument for the need for keeping any of these terms at all. The harms just seem to always outweigh any positives. Waving some sort of free speech meme seems weaksauce to me. I’ll freely admit to having used the c bomb and bitch in my time. But they’re the srot of words I can easily ditch. It’s a no brainer. As PZ put it above, why use them when they have so much collateral damage? To justify their use in any contexct you’d need to get past that damage and harm, and I’m really not sure it’s possible.
So on a personal level, it becomes a case of it causes me no bother to change my behavior, why wouldn’t I?
Little could be more trivial or tangential, but I believe it’s “He’s the Dick to the Dawk to the Ph.D.”
David M:
See what I mean about getting a broader read on the issue before wading in? Good on you man… even if you don’t agree with anyone here 100%, I appreciate that you put in the time to wade through a wider selection of posts.
And you are 200% right about defending insulting terms that carry baggage. You don’t need them, so why would anyone ever defend them? Especially in text, where you can look back over it before you click on the post button. If it doesn’t matter either way, then why defend it? Why offend and insult your nominal friends to defend language that can easily be bypassed?
Ophelia,
Right. But that matters. It also matters that he expressly “does NOT actually approve of the use of the words “cunt”, “bitch”, and “twat” as insults, since he thinks they tend to express and reproduce sexist attitudes”.
Improb asked Alastair for evidence that Russell was being treated too harshly. I take that to mean: give me evidence that Russell is not tacitly approving of misogyny. There it is. You can present counter-evidence and come to your own interpretation, but it’s unreasonable to trivialize his words just because they point to a different conclusion.
If Russell’s interpretation was a mistake, it certainly deserves to be called a mistake.
I am sympathetic to your interpretation of that incident to some extent. i.e., I think Watson was within her speaker’s rights to call out McGraw just as she did. But I also see why people would have another viewpoint.
These are moral convictions and they’re not going to be affected by anything you see on the video.
I agree that the ‘culture card’ is not any good. It’s a canard, a common error that people fall into. The fact that America happens to be more visibly batshit on the world stage is not an excuse for ignoring the perspectives of people you trust on views that directly target them. So call them on it; sounds good to me.
I didn’t react to them because jokes have multiple meanings.
Ben (in scrambled order)
Sure, so can I. On the other hand I have a harder time not thinking they shouldn’t choose their verbs and adjectives according to their viewpoint. Russell used completely different verbs and adjs for McG and W. That’s Mooney-stuff.
I’m not convinced, especially not now. If he really didn’t approve, he wouldn’t keep commenting there, especially in such a palsy way. I’m not as bowled over by his purely formal “I don’t approve” given his nullification of that by what he actually does. I think it’s like the old ‘someofmybestfriendsarejews.’
I don’t see how it can be, given the nature of “tacitly.” Just saying “but he said” doesn’t demonstrate that he doesn’t tacitly approve all the same.
You what word is winning out of all of this: asshole/arsehole. Not gendered, all purpose.
I must admit that I have also learned something else through all this. I didn’t know tw*t meant what it means. I thought it referred to an a-hole, or something. Very much a UK term also though, so I’ve never really used it anyway.
Somewhere way back amongst these posts there was discussion of the Australian usage of “wog.” I think it was factually correct to say that the term has been picked up and run with by a lot of ethnic groups out here, in an attempt to defuse it, but I still think it comes with all the attendant issues that the N word has, or Fag has. I don’t know that there’s quite the same history with wog as with Nigger, but they’re certainly playing the same sport, and I don’t think you can just say it’s usage is now completely unproblematic and defused. (Santo Chilaro on The Late Show did just about the best satire of Wogs out of Work etc I’ve seen and pretty much skewered the point.)
Does anyone know what Stef McGraw said about being called out in Rebecca’s talk ?
(apologies , googling for stef mc graw gives me too many different hits)
Deepak pick the one called Thursdays wif Stef, or is it Fursdays with Stef. Or add unifreethought to her name.
Here it is.
I’m not sure I’ve read it myself. I thought I had, but now I’m not sure.
No, I have.
@Ophelia
thank you
I would suggest having the transcript of the relevant portion of Watson’s talk open while you read it for comparison.
It’s also interesting to read ERV’s comments at McGraw’s post; she was pretty clearly off the deep end very early into the whole affair.
SC, you seem to take Stephanie’s comment to refute what I said.
I take it to confirm a lot of it, e.g., not in the heat of the moment, a very large element of tit-for-tat (her emphasis), intentional unwanted familiarity, etc., and clearly using an insulting term for resonance. (Not just for the over-familiarity of miscalling somebody by a name they don’t want, much less doing either accidentally. Both were done on purpose.)
It wasn’t just an accident, it wasn’t just “one letter,” and it wasn’t just an outlier, as various people said above. It wasn’t nothing, and clearly wasn’t meant to be nothing. It was meant, as I said, as a calculated pushback. Certain lines were crossed by a number of people who agreed to cross them, to make a point, because they thought it was justified under the circumstances, given the lines others were crossing.
That’s not nothing, and it’s more interesting than nothing, especially if they’re right. It raises interesting basic questions about when it’s okay to insult whom, and how.
@MartinM
The transcript I had read, I just hadnt seen McGraw’s reaction to being called out.
I noticed ERV’s comment too, and did the required facepalm at “So I took hand-to-hand combat lessons with a guy……If you *genuinely* fear for your safety, you do something about it.”
This whole incident has forced me to swear off facepalming altogether. I like my face.
Yes, Australian usage is different, but the difference doesn’t actually lend support ERV’s Twatson brigade.
In Australia, we commonly use insults with our FRIENDS. It’s a sign of affection – think of it as meaning “we’re such good friends that you know that I would never insult you – not even when I say an actual insult!” So logically, that usage absolutely depends on the words actually being insults in the first place. So yes, meaning is context dependent, but it’s still always an insult.
Somehow I don’t think that the twatson twits are trying to express affection for Rebecca.
I remember the first time I read the comments over at ERV and thinking that she came across as kind of maniacal. She had a lot of ALL CAPS and EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!! and LOLS!!!!! Combine that with what she was saying, I was kind of confused and not really impressed. Then she starts throwing around words like “twat” and “cunt” in regards to Rebecca Watson, and that just seemed like going over the edge for me. And what’s funny is that I don’t know whether she has a good argument or not because I never read the posts, but from the words she has been using, I don’t know if I really want to delve into what she’s saying. Especially when I might be able to get similar arguments without the vitriol. All I do know is that I think it says something about your reasonableness if you start out of the games with insulting and inflammatory language and think that this is an appropriate way for a person to act. Compared to ERV, Rebecca Watson has been an angel saving little children from the plague. But what do I know.
I don’t even know what you’re talking about at this point, Paul. This was never about over-familiarity. That aspect was never significant. It’s another one that’s different based on gender, since women are frequently belittled in this way by men, whereas men aren’t by women, and if they are statistically it isn’t nearly as likely to be by a woman in a position of authority over them. With regard to the insulting term, you’ve acknowledged that it’s not equivalent to the terms we’re talking about here. It’s Jon Stewart “You don’t know Dick” [Cheney] bad. It’s Plait “Don’t be a dick” bad. Read Michael Lewis about Big Swinging Dicks. It has not at all the same meaning or effect in our culture. I called tm a prick once at Pharyngula, and I think he called me a cunt in response. I don’t recall him apologizing, but I did apologize later to all of the men. The response was overwhelmingly (I think entirely) to thank me but to say that they hadn’t taken any offense at all. They knew that it isn’t the same thing. The only people who don’t recognize this are stupid people and/or those with an agenda. I suspect most at Abbie’s are some of both, mostly the latter.
To the partial extent that that was what she was saying, it’s so incredibly who-gives-a-fuck that I’m gobsmacked that you would be devoting these screeds to it in this context. It was not the impetus for the vicious attacks on Watson, and it’s irresponsible for you to suggest that it was despite clear evidence to the contrary. Your emphasis on alleged tactical errors and blunders in a context of horrible sexist attacks and dismissals is surprisingly lacking in perspective and sensitivity. If this were a race or ethnicity question I doubt you would be doing the same.
Yeah! Get ’em Salty!
And because I’m inclined to be pedantic, please:
If you’re going to discuss profane words, <b>spell them out</b>. The word is cunt, not “c-bomb.” If we’re to seriously discuss these problematic words, we should confront them as they are, not in some cutesy American-style obfuscation. Similarly, I hate seeing “the N-word” in the media. Spell it out. Viewers and readers should have to confront and take on the full ugliness of it.
I notice also, with a raised eyebrow, that “fag” is not subject to such twee linguistic work-arounds. Mmm. I’ll bet you know just what I think about that.
Ophelia,
Fair enough — but I’m not out to demonstrate anything (in the sense of proof). I would never be able to do that, short of becoming Russell Blackford himself. I just rose to Improv’s challenge concerning evidence. And surely it’s real evidence, and is not something you can just put aside completely, even if you have doubts.
Ben, you seem to be falling into the same trap of inappropriately applied charitable reading (when it comes to Russell Blackford) that you’ve quite rightly criticized in the Canadian philosophy academy. You don’t have to go that far. It makes you look like you’re really working hard in your pleading.
Ben, Josh beat me to the same comment I was going to make. You’re bending over backwards to be more generous than is reasonably deserved in this instant. Since you’ve been making the “charity” case recently, it just makes it stand out that much more.
BTW, Ben… you can just call me Joe. It is actually my name, after all. Not “Improb” and definitely not “Improv”. Yeesh.
The trouble with “fag” and “faggot” is that you can’t call them the F-word, because it gets mixed up with “fuck”. Which caused some confusion in the media a while back, when a Olympian swimmer Stephanie Rice tweeted that insult and consequently lost an advertising contract. Quite a few people were going “WTF? Fired for obscenity in a tweet? Oooooh, THAT F-word. Well, OK then.”
BTW, I noticed that google now suggests searching for “gay” instead of “fag”, and quite a lot of sites are writing it f_gg_t or f.a.g. or similar. So at least some people are actually doing the twee workarounds, Josh. I’m not sure if you meant specifically here, or in general, though.
@Josh #329: Fair play re my lack of f-bombing, but as someone who’s doing their best to navigate this minefield, it’s not helpful to now be pulled up for NOT using the words in question.
The whole thread has been about why they’re shit words to use, so I’m trying to minimise my usage of them, certainly there may be a point where the self editing gets in the way of a point, or it may be added to Jason R’s list of bad bits of writing, but at the moment, I don’t know if arguing the toss over self editing isn’t too meta.
Joe,
Sorry about that, my finger slipped. However, in the time that has elapsed since the previous post, I have come to be enchanted by the idea of calling you Joey. Hopefully that’s an acceptable compromise.
Josh,
Joey asked for evidence of a certain sort. I pointed to some of Blackford’s comments, which were not being discussed or seriously considered. That’s not charity, not reading between the lines, it’s a Q&A.
I see this, but there’s the problem of people like Dr. Laura who seem to take some perverse pleasure in repeating it. (There was a long thread at Pharyngula a few years ago in which Louis, who I don’t put in the Dr. Laura category and actually find rather clever these days but who was saying stupid shit at the time, kept using it to the point that it seemed gratuitous.) I don’t know what the answer is, or if there’s one best policy that covers any situation….
*sigh* Obviously, it’s up to Joe, but I know I would hate if you decided to call me “Nate,” and feel a bit insulted. It’s diminutive, as if the person using it thinks I need to be lessened in some way, and lacks respect for me. I had a similar reaction on Joe’s behalf when you said that.
(Yes, I know, light years away from the kind of sexist language actually at issue, not really the same, and all that. It still bugs me.)
Josh: Do you think it is offensive to say, “Fred Phelps says ‘God hates fags'”?
(Begging Ophelia’s indulgence, as this is a bit off topic, but a serious practical question, as CFI Ottawa has invited Fred’s estranged son Nate (a GLBT advocate) for a speaking engagement in Ottawa during our Pride Week.)
Hmm, lest there be any confusion, I just saw the post previous to mine by “Nathan DST aka LucienBlack”, and I would like to be clear that I am referring to a different Nathan, who by preference calls himself “Nate”.
@Theo:
Heh, relax. I understood, and found it an amusing coincidence that your comment showed up so shortly after I posted mine.
For goodness’ sake, it isn’t that hard. Here are the rules:
1. If you’re going to criticize the gendered/bigoted use of a word, spell it out
2. That means you don’t get to say “c-bomb” when you mean cunt
3. It also means you don’t get to spell out fag or faggot if you wouldn’t spell out cunt or nigger
This isn’t hard.
Or, to put it in really basic A-B-C primary school form for those who find it baffling:
1. Cunt is a filthy, aggressive word
2. Nigger is a filthy, aggressive word
3. Faggot and fag are filthy, aggressive words
If you treat them differently when you say them or spell them out, you have a problem. And I have a problem with you.
Is that clear?
Joey’s possibly cuter than Joe. He’s right in any event.
***
But again, I don’t want to type or read it over and over. Why should I be forced to do so just because I have to deal with scumbags (some of whom I suspect want to see the word in print as often as possible)?
I know you’re not talking about me here, but I wouldn’t demand that LGBT people spell out every slur against them.
(Who said “c-bomb”? Paul?)
Ah. I think I get it. You want consistency, as do I, and homophobic terms are rarely not spelled out – you’re right. I guess I’d rather see a consistency of spelling/not-spelling them out, clearly leaning towards the not, as opposed to their being spelled out all of the time.
Ah, fuckitty fuck fuck fuck.
I think I owe PZ an apology for misunderstanding him and making a too-big deal of “disagreeing” with what I took to be a really crappy argument.
I took his talking about there being just one letter calling Dawkins “Dick” to be emphasizing the just one letter part, as though it was just one letter by one person, therefore meaningless anecdotal data, not reflective of a substantial agreement by a significant number of people.
I thought he was granting that Dawkins was called a dick, and that that’s Very Bad, but saying that it was quite atypical, and not something to hold Watsons’s supporters to account for as though it was remotely comparable to the barrage of weird negative shit Watson et al have gotten from lots of people.
I think I mostly misinterpreted him, perhaps quite stupidly.
PZ was not saying that it was just one person and therefore meaningless anecdotal data, or granting that calling Dawkins a dick was Very Bad, or denying that many people agreed with it and some defended it—he was saying that even so, so what if they did? It’s no big deal that a number of people called Richard Dawkins a dick, considering.
(It’s not entirely clear that PZ would grant that calling Dawkins “Dick” is just a cute way of calling him a dick, but I’m guessing he would.)
That is a much more reasonable position, IMO, and basically the position I was defending as obviously better. (Which in fact I myself agree with, in my gut and, to the extent I’ve thought it through, in my head.) My main point was that it was better to grant that people called Dawkins a dick, and deny that that that’s such a bad thing, than to try to make it sound like next to nobody did that.
Which may be no disagreement at all.
Mea culpa.
SC- I’m trying to point out the inherent imbalance people assign to certain slurs. “Nigger” is so out of bounds no one will spell it out. “Cunt,” in the context of this discussion, is also out of bounds for most, though we do have some spelling-out of the word. From others, we get “c-bomb.” But “fag” is perfectly acceptable; witness David M’s comment:
It’s “n-word,” but “fag” is just fine.
This inconsistency bothers the shit out of me, because it betrays an ingrained hierarchy of oppression. It’s out of bounds to call someone a nigger, but it’s still just slightly OK to spell out the word “faggot.”
No, I don’t want to stop people from spelling out these words. I think obfuscating them is a cop-out, and that’s shit. But I do want to call people’s attention to the fact that they default to typing “the n-word,” but they have no problem spelling out the word “fag.”
That demands some thinking.
Did you see my #345?
I see your point and agree with it. I think our only difference concerns the preferred nature of the consistency. I don’t think obfuscating them is always a copout. I don’t want to read any of them endlessly repeated in these “abstract” discussions that aren’t at all abstract to some of us, especially when some revel in their use.
We agree on the major point, though, and I recognize your grievance, so I see no point in continuing to argue.
Yeah, we’re largely in agreement, SC. I’m still more inclined to nudge (badger) other commenters into consistency, even if it means spelling out those nasty words. For them, I think it’s salutary to have to type out exactly what, and who, they mean.
As for who used “c bomb”:
Agreement. True with regard to the example you gave @ #347 – again, we agree about consistency. Our difference lies only in that I don’t want anyone consistently to type this all out. I want people consistently to not type it all out. Not sure which is better, or if there could or should be a general norm beyond consistency. I just personally don’t want to see any of these slurs repeated again and again, regardless of purpose.
SC:
I waffle about it. Some days I think they need to type it all out so they can be mocked in public. Other days (when I’m feeling more cynical, and thus more like “me”), I despair about anyone mocking them for their ignorance and wish I never got out of bed that morning.
:) With you.
Ophelia ,
But then you said…
“honest to fucking Christ”
Does one not have to pay the same respect to the sensibiltes of Catholics like myself?
Why not? No, don’t answer that, it’ll be too abusive for me to hear; dedicated atheists are like that with even the most moderate of Christians like myself.
There are 2 strands here. The point about the language and the point about how one deals with a friend on the internet. The latter gets no real mention here. why? Somewhere or other PZ put his oar n and said (a bit paraphrased) “friends can treat each other like this”. PZ, I don’t know if you werfe raised by wolves , or whether Mnnesota has different rules of engagement , but f this is tough love fora friend (ie, Russell Blackford) I’d truly despair to see you all hate the man. It is disturbing to one’s soul that you three –Ophela, PZ and Russell- are not all huddled behind closed doors talking about it more intmately, when this is a suosed **friend and colleague**. Fellows, to do this in a public space–the indignity! Please, do address this queston of loyalty and forgiveness among yourselves, you have a moral responsibilty to do the right thing. This tearing Russell tp pieces and each other to pieces; it’s all so unnecessary and so uncharitable.I know you don’t see that in the heat of the moment, but next time you all attend the same conference…? what then? Wouldn’t you rather talk, accept> understand? forgive rather than this…. is the end game worth it?
About the language:
My point being, Ophelia, there is a culture clash here and you will have a blind spot about my objectons to christ as “fucking christ” and I shall have a blind spot to the one you have, (rightfully in your own mind) to misogynisitic language. t smply doesn’t carry the same burden it does for you. The real truth is on the relatonship and the way men can split womeninot either / or Madonna / whore.
In Australia words do get thrown around more freely; we’re a pretty laconic lot–fortunately and unfortunately. And yes, I have a good idea of the Oz women who have a problem wiith ‘cunt’ and those who don’t. But that’s beside the point because the word is notr used here to have any association wkth female anatomy , even if it began that way. It’s just a word w/oa reference ,IN THE SAME WAY, that there now exist a lot of meaningless words, like “whatever” “oh well” “anyway…”
The problem is , we all talk so much on the net, our egos straning to be heard above the other egos, that ALL language is rendered … similar.
I can agree wth anyone who wants to advocate for more **beautiful** words, used more often, and ugly words used less often. (Where have they gone these days???) But , notwithstanding that is the case, words really are Just Words and their meanings shft and play and contradict and baffle and anger and repulse and seduce and so on–then they shift again. I mean, look around you, for people who hate the word cunt , its presence here today is ubiquitous . It all does lend all of this some levity! Don’t you think so?
I think Christ is a beautful word–even before I was catholic I thought so; just from studying literature I came to view it in this way. You, Ophelia, might say it is an ugly or offensive word because it reminds you of the projection you have in your head about “A Christian” as well as your , no doubt, bruising experiences with actual Christians (particularly so in the US where you have those fundamentalist types, and in their droves). So if the word Christ (or Buddah for a Buddhist, or whatever…) were subsitututed here, you lot , instead of seeing any poetry or beautiful symbolism in it, would be banding together chewing off your arms to attack one. Can you not see that you are in “my” position yourself?
In essence: we need more butterflies and fewer wheels runnng over each other.
I must admit the idea of a Catholic getting all offended is rather amusing, given how the RCC has been conducting itself.
What about those of us who find the whole idea someone can still call themselves a Catholic to be offensive. To still be a Catholic to me says you are happy supporting a criminal enterprise.
Well, that seems to be going over the top a bit. I think it is reasonable to assume that most Catholics are in denial. Sure, they must know about the extensive abuse by now, but the idea that the church is guilty as an institution, rather than just a bunch of priests having gone bad, hasn’t sunk in.
Matt Penfold, but I’m NOT offended. You’re being all arch or something. Why? How many insults can you throw at a moderate perosn of fath, lke myself (a pro aborton,. pro same sex marage etc person) before you would feel satisfied you’d insulted “me” enough? Or is it a black hole in yourself that you need to fill again and again?
My remark was in the complete abstract. I am (almost) completely impervious to what anyone thinks of my beliefs, truth be known, and particularly from people I don’t know because all we are doing here is sitting in our dining rooms and offices projecting fantasies about unseen , unknown figures, at each other, don’t you think? . I smply couldn’t care less–only enough to say I simply couldn’t care less.. That’s the thing! I’m the only one here who *isn’t* personally offended and affronted by what are subjective positions. Whatever we all , in this life, say,is all about *ourselves* as individuals, it has no bearing on anyone else. Except two people are offended by one another–Russell and Ophelia. I came in because I heard Russell was hurt by this and he thought OB was afriend of his, and I like Russell Blackford, and I know he means very well. He’s actually quite good at loking at al the sides . I am an outsider looking in to the conversation and saying “what a shame” , not involved up to my neck in it. It needed some one to say, love is the way.
Do people have the right not to be offended?
M. Godard: I don’t have time for a detailed reply, so this must be (much too) brief, but I want to point out that this thread is about insults directed at a group of people (i.e., women). If you have paid attention, you will notice that insults against Jews have also been on the agenda. A set of ideas, or a faith, on the other hand, is incapable of being offended, so they cannot be insulted. They are fair game, in other words. That some people holding those ideas or clinging to that faith are offended by this, is a side issue. They have the right to be offended, but I don’t think we have an obligation to hold back, or to avoid salty language, when talking about ideas that we are very much against. Ideas that, many of us believe, have caused and keep causing a great deal of harm.
But if someone begins using the word “Christian” as an insult, it will be time to put the foot down.
No, Mike. And you have the right to demean people by using, for example, racist epithets.
This discussion isn’t about “rights”. It’s about decency.
Stacy, Yes, that’s the truth, :)
That’s exactly my feeling Stacy. It’s politeness, manners, decency.
So I suppose it must sometimes be mandatory when attacking ideas that are deeply held by someone else but are themselves indecent.
“So I suppose it must sometimes be mandatory….”
Not sure what the “it” in your sentence refers to, Mike.
But Mike, IMO–you’re being much too intellectual about that. Why?
It’s a person we’re talking about –well *people. We’re talkng about peoples’ suffering.
If Opehlia is suffering, then be kind to her. If Russell is sufferng, be kind to him. It depends on the way you go about things. Not knowing your personal ‘way’ I am not addressing this to you, but to everybody who cares to read it: If someone is your friend or colleague, and you pull the rug on them in publc, they shall feel hurt , their pride, their confidence, their sense of self worth, all get affected (potentially) so don’t do it; it isn’t right.
“And yes, I have a good idea of the Oz women who have a problem with ‘cunt’ and those who don’t.”
Hey, M. Godard, I’m an ‘Oz woman’ who has a problem with being called a cunt. Are you implying that this makes me a castrating bitch? Personally, I don’t give a toss if you blokes call each other ‘madcunts’, and don’t have any problem with women referring to their vaginas as cunts, either. What I *don’t* like, and what many of the other people here have said they don’t like–repeatedly–is when men call an uppity woman a cunt to silence her and remind her that she’s not worth shit save for what’s between her thighs. The fact that Aussies or Brits or Scots don’t always use it this way is irrelevant; it *gets* used this way, a fuck of a lot, and not just in America. And for a bunch of men to say it to a woman who’s making a point about sexism is akin to white people calling a black person who’s told them he feels uncomfortable with the way white people engage with him a stupid nigger…but then, I don’t know why this argument would persuade an Australian, given the number of times Julia Gillard’s been called some variation of ‘red-headed cunt’, or our collective shoulder-shrug over Hey Hey’s blackface skit (But hey, words like ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ were just invented by those hyper-sensitive seppos, right?)
Also, non-Catholic Aussies don’t tend to take Catholicism too seriously, so I find it hard to believe that Ophelia could say anything more ‘abusive’ than what you hear from your fellow countrymen.
One more thing: if your god is so omnipotent, why would he (assuming it’s a he) be offended by anyone calling him names? And if *he’s* not offended, why are you?
But look here, M.Godard, if you are not offended why are you concerned about your sensibilities? Or is it somebody else’s sensibilities (e.g. a Catholic not like yourself)? Do please decide.
The problem with your friend Russell is that, however hurt he might be, he has chosen to support egregious attacks on another person, who also has sensibilities. I’ve been having this conversation with someone else. Why do we have to worry about his feelings when he has so little regard to the feelings of someone else? And to the extent that some of us perceive his behaviour as wrong, we are going to complain about it. And no one is tearing him apart, but we are criticising his behaviour and feeling very upset that he has chosen to take this line.
While I was writing this, Harald popped up with pretty much what I was about to add. Please note what he says about how we would react if the word “Christian” became used as an insult. We don’t believe in Christianity and think it’s a rotten idea, but we would defend Christians as human beings.
Honesty time. “Cunt” bothers me a bit because there are women I like. But there isn’t really any individual catholic I have that sort of affection for. U mad?
If it makes you feel any better, I don’t typically use that one in shortform myself. I prefer “Christ on a stick.”
“I’ve been having this conversation with someone else. Why do we have to worry about his feelings when he has so little regard to the feelings of someone else? And to the extent that some of us perceive his behaviour as wrong, we are going to complain about it. And no one is tearing him apart, but we are criticising his behaviour and feeling very upset that he has chosen to take this line”.
But are your feelings of upset about it *real? as in deep upset? orare yu losng sleep? are you just indignant? “criticising his behaviour” yes, en masse–typcal of the internet. Noone here should do that. It isn’t right. Have those conversations privately because otherwise the net effect is one ends up shooting butterfles with cannons.
I haven’t got anything to do with “elevatorgate” , not even slightly, so the reaosn you ought not do ths about Russell s smply because you want to be good and do the kind thing and do it wht h over coffee or in a private note. Set the example.
Gordon Willis _ you might think ‘m bemngh sarcastc , but I swear I’m not– love the way you say “see here, M Godard’ it s so charming and old fashioned.
Your question tho–ie, am I offended or am I not? No, I am not. I was making a point of principle or *in principle or something like that — to talk about THIS matter, about language and what it does. My own prpfessonal background precludes me from taking offence about language, guess.
Katya- I’m an Oz woman as well. I don’t care about the word, personally, but I don’t use it because it’s not a nce soundng word, it’s a bt TOO Oz for me and donm’t want to make my female friends feel uncomfortable.
If you get interested–I saw this great Larry Davd piece on Youtube -entitled The C word and it speaks volumes for where we are at ! :))
As for other things, don’t feel any need to defend anything much apart from feeling a desperate need to say do the right thing when someone is your friend. Love is the way. It’s so true.
@M.Godard
From Ophelia’s point of view (and mine, and a lot of other people’s here), Christ doesn’t exist, maybe never existed (my view), and consequently has no opinion on the matter either way. On the other hand those referred to as cunts and faggots are indisputably real, and have indisputably real cause to feel indisputably threatened and marginalised as persons. Profanity might disturb people’s religious feelings, but it still does not represent an attack on them as persons. A person can be offended, a belief cannot.
When believers feel “offended”, they are actually only expressing their fear of what God will do in revenge for his name having been taken in vain. It’s against the rules. It annoys him. The believer is offended for him, as if he couldn’t be offended for himself. Bad, it’s not done, God will be cross and we’ll all be sorry. Plagues and boils and things could happen any time, and when they do we will know that it’s because someone said “Jesus fucking Christ”. This is the kind of petty thing God worries about tremendously and takes violent revenge for, even though people still get raped and abused and depersonalised and God doesn’t do a damn thing. Or maybe some 8-year old is hanged in Afghanistan because God knows that Ophelia cares about that sort of thing and knew that Ophelia would say “honest to fucking Christ” a few days later (in eternity, it’s all the same, isn’t it?)
M. Godard, there’s a distinction between attacking an idea, or a complex of ideas, and attacking a human being for some personal attribute beyond their control like sex, or race, or sexual orientation, or looks.
We humans do tend to identify with our beliefs, and so it can feel like a personal attack when our religion, (or political affiliation) is attacked. But it’s not the same thing at all.
IRL, I do respect my religious friends’ sensibilities, up to a point. But the point is there. One example of the area way, way beyond that point: an atheist blog.
And as to Russell Blackford’s hurt feelings: GordonWillis mostly said it already, but again: Blackford accused Rebecca Watson of egregiously unprofessional behavior. He then came on Butterflies and Wheels and tried to tell Ophelia how to run her blog. He’s accused PZ of calling him a liar when PZ did no such thing. And he’s been hanging out and commenting on a blog that is relentlessly and cruelly and personally attacking Rebecca Watson, specifically, and using misogynistic language that demeans all women, generally. If he’s so good at looking at all the sides, I wish he’d take a dispassionate look at his own side in all this.
Hope the foregoing made sense; it’s awfully late here. Good night.
But damn it all, M. Godard (and I’m glad you like my quaint mode of address), Russell has joined a gang which is doing it all on line, and is making public attacks on another person which are wholly disproportionate to any offense that person has caused. In any case, we are all about disputing serious issues on line, it’s what we do, and it’s what Russell does. So that’s how it is. Yes, I agree that it would be really nice if it could all be dealt with over a quiet cup of coffee, preferably decaffeinated (and someone, I forget who, did point out ages ago that if we were discussing face-to-face the quarrel would not have escalated to the present pitch), but to the extent that an unruly mob has decided to hurl seriously damaging personal attacks all over the internet we have to oppose it.
Regarding sexist epithets, you really don’t seem to understand the issues that bother us. Do please read what we are talking about.
Gordon, No, you’re not right about that. You’re not right because if you were you’d not be bothered with me. What a tiny bundle of concerns we all have. Feeling offended on the internet does nothing except hurt the main players w/o HELPNG the ones it’s meant to help. All the original, noble GOODWILL is warped by argument and this deep well of anger. Go to work in a womens’ shelter. Or India and work in the slums. Invite homelses people into your home. Go out in the night and feed homeless people. Work in an aged care faclity. Work as a disabilty support officer. Be kinder towards Russell. As I need to be a bit kinder to Ophelia Do what you think “a Christ” *would* do.
@Stacy It= behaviour that another would find offensive.
@M. Godard Possibly, but my feeling (see what I did there?) is that some intellectual rather than emotional responses earlier in this sorry affair might have meant that I wouldn’t now feel like bursting into tears every time I read another blog post.
“Regarding sexist epithets, you really don’t seem to understand the issues that bother us. Do please read what we are talking about”.
Yes I did. or at least I think and hope I did. It was a blog–again with these blogs– something about ERV. I do understand the issues, just wasn’t involved in it. I could see both sides. I sort of can’t abide Richard Dawkins so I chose to absent myself from that one.
Yes Gordon, it’s a great turn of phrase :) And no, ‘,m not mad. Quite sane. Notwithstandng will stick up fro my frends I just can’t resist a great internet drama!
and now goodnight.
No, MG. We are about reason and human rights. Rebecca Watson contributes to the cause of human rights, and she has human rights, and we are doing our bit to defend them against attack, because, as you imply, they have to be defended, and, as you don’t seem to understand, they apply all over the world and to everyone, not just in India.
How do you know we aren’t? Amongst the religious, if you asked that question, how many different answers would you expect to receive? And if you all asked him his opinion on what we should do and then compared notes, what would you expect to hear?
“@M. Godard Possibly, but my feeling (see what I did there?) is that some intellectual rather than emotional responses earlier in this sorry affair might have meant that I wouldn’t now feel like bursting into tears every time I read another blog post”.
Sorry, was about to absent myself and saw yours, <Mike. I am sory if I have contributed to making you feel lke crying. Please accept my apologies. Perhaps was a bit harsh sounding when undernath ot all, just want to say ” it’s not rght, sort it out another way We all have things going on in life and , yeah, didn’t mean to be harsh, Mike. There was no “tone” in what I said to you but apologse if it came across that way.
GordonWillis #367
Well I would say because it would make your message stronger. As I percieve the situation, sensitivity is highly valued on this side and less on the other. Now the more circumstances in which you are willing to not be sensitive, the more you lower the impression people have on how highly you value sensitivity and the more this can be played by the other side as a disagreement about the circumstances in which to be sensitive as opposed to a disagreement about the importance of sensitivity.
Well, I generally agree with all that, Axxyaan, but you are applying the principles inaccurately. The point of my question was to make it clear that the demand is onesided, because it ignores the other person, and the one who has greatest cause to feel wronged; and in so far as sexism is on the agenda, it’s a case of being told to be nice to a male attacker and treat the cause of a female victim as less significant. And, as I said earlier, no one has made Russell do what he is doing, and no one is tearing him apart either. But as long as he maintains his support for a vociferous mob of haters you must see that there is a moral problem regarding the possibility of just kissing and making up.
There seems to be an idea that to insist that someone is in the wrong is ipso facto to be antagonistic and unreceptive to humane considerations. (1) Humane considerations are what we are insisting on and why we have to keep on insisting; (2) the first move in reconciliation has to come from the transgressor.
No. Ideology is not physical identity.
And I’ve met Catholics who blaspheme far worse than a little lapsed proddy like me ever could. If they deserve my respect then…
What? I didn’t realize you and I were in a negotiation over my name. That’s probably about as “acceptable” as me declaring that your new name is Poopsie McWinkiepants. So let’s just not do that, OK?
M.Godard:
You belong to a baby-raper factory, complaining about disrespect use of a fictional character’s non-name. Yeah, kind of difficult to drum up any concern here. Also, fuck Santa Claus.
I just returend to see what gordon had to say (because, G, your ideas are interestng and I cannot look away) , and you ask a good Q Gordon. But this person , above, calling me a “baby raper”?! heaven above. Oh my god , no, that says a lot about you and absolutely zero about me. That is so sick. I’m a parent. adore my chjild. Oh that’s so horrible, who are you?? Oh my god. I have never heard anyone call me that That is so , ma shocked and sick. And you are worried about human beings? worry about yourself; there’s plenty of material. gotta get ,myself out of this place. Op\heloa, kf ths s what you accept as a good comment, I just can’t fahhom it.
Didn’t call you a “baby raper” chum… now, it comes time to figure out if you can’t understand what you read, or choose not to understand to claim a bogus undeserved victim status.
I might start a discussion about this on the small pro-science / evidence-based internet forum where I spend most of my online time
I just don’t have the energy / productivity to follow this on several blogs (including this one), and the tone on several on them (not this one) has been unbearable for me at times (including Pharyngula)
On this / my forum, “cunt” has become sort sort in-joke / a badge of dishonour for people who are generally considered to have lost the benefit of the doubt ages ago (like AIDS denialists who peddle bogus advice / cures), so I am curious about they will react to the suggestion / assertion that the use of that word and some others as an insult in some or any circumstances is incontrovertibly / absolutely sexist and / or misogynistic (?)
The (?) is some sort of “I am aware that this might be a strawman” disclaimer; perhaps I should be more bold / confident / whatever, but I have the sort of brain (long story) that struggles with all of the ambiguities I perceive here (and that explains any odd grammar / syntax too)
(I have disagreed with some of the things that Rebecca Watson and others have said / written during the last few weeks, but I have never been abusive)
(haha @ #386 – how ironic)
@Axxyaan
I’ll be sensitive to a person’s feelings to the degree that I feel doesn’t interfere with the task at hand. If someone creates a situation where they are being rightly and fairly criticized, they don’t get to dodge that criticism by claiming that their feelings are hurt. They don’t get to avoid being confronted over their behavior by attacking my “lack of sensitivity” or whatever other touchy-feeling BS you demand from the relatively polite people over here, while Blackford, Abbie, and all their friends discuss or just laugh about things like the sexual humiliation of people they don’t like.
M Godard:
I am fairly certain that when someone here says “Jesus fucking Christ”, they know full well that this is offensive to believing Catholics. The point about “cunt”, “twat” etc is that there is some discussion as to whether/when it is offensive, and just how offended the target and his/her allies should be.
(Re the “baby raper” – note that you were not being personally called a baby raper; the statement was about the RC Church as an organization, which does have a history of at least tacitly accepting, and in many cases enabling the sexual abuse of children. You obviously love your child – aren’t you concerned about the risks s/he could face based on the RC Church’s record?)
Josh, those “rules” are quite clear, and I totally agree! I was unsure as to exactly who you thought was doin it rong, that’s all.
GordonWillis,
No I am not applying the principles inaccurately and off course the demand is one sided. That is because only one side seems to be defending/promoting/arguing for sensitivity.
If one side is defending a particular value, it is expected from that side to also act according to that value. At least more than it is expected from the other side that is not defending that value. Arguing that you are not acting according to your own values because the opposition is not acting according to your values looks strange.
That is why I think a side that promotes sensitivity should worry about the feelings of their opponent. However this worry doesn’t automatically translate in being nice. If after you worried about the feelings of your opponent and other pertinent factors the action that reflects best the weighing of your values involved calls for a harsh response, by all means respond harshly. But let it be because after you worried about the feelings of your opponent you thought other things were more important than because you didn’t worry about your opponents feelings at all. The first is sensitive even if the result is not nice, the second isn’t.
Here’s a difference I would like to point out to M. Godard: I want to offend Catholocs. I want to shake them up and wake them up, and make clear my contempt for their whole wacky hateful belief system. I want them to change (and of course there is more to getting people to change than just offending them).
I do not want to offend women, or Jews, or African-Americans, or [insert ethnic group here]. I have no interest in asking them to change who they are, nor are they capable of doing so.
That’s why this whole affair is so weird to me. It’s as if a subset of the skeptic movement just wants to chase off a whole gender from the group, except for those willing to be targets of sexual propositions. Which, I suppose, would make sense if this was a baboon troop. But we aren’t.
Improbable Joe,
I demand nothing from anybody here. I just tried to answer a question and so provided a reason for why this side that values sensitivity, should worry about the feelings of those persons that themselves don’t seem to worry about other peoples feelings. However it was not my intention to have this worry imply or exclude a particular response. As far as I can see I have no problem with how you want to apply your sensitivity.
I assume he won’t mind, then, if we take to referring to him as “that prick Russell”? I’m not good at alliteration, but “Bollocks Blackford” or “Rogering Russel” might make him happier.
Well, some believing Catholics, anyway. I mean, where on earth do you imagine we learned to swear like that, M.? The Atheistical Institution For Rhetorical Assaults? I picked it up from Christians. As an atheist, I’ve struggled to expunge “oh for Christ’s sake” from my vocabulary — not to protect the tender feelings of some portion of the Catholic world, but out of my own annoyance at how often Christ is invoked here in the U.S. in general.
@ Axxyaan #390
I don’t know which side that is. You obviously don’t mean people here, and you couldn’t possibly be referring to Abbie’s cosy menagerie. Your application of your principles is inaccurate because the demand for sensitivity is misplaced. The one-sidedness comes from people who say that we should be nice to someone who is not being nice to someone else, so the demand ignores the rights of that someone else. If we started making friendly overtures to Russell at this point it would necessarily involve abandoning support for the person to whom he is being so enthusiastically obnoxious.
I am at a loss to know how to make this any clearer. As I have said before, we are not tearing Russell apart, and I think that that is as nice as he is entitled to while he is in his present mood. Inasmuch as he and his associates have been very cruel to RW we can say that RW has been punished far in excess of what she deserves, and continues to be punished without pity, and even with a certain very nasty glee; and until he begins to show some sensitivity on his own account he does not deserve more than common decency, and he deserves to be told. And if you think that’s insensitive you not only have a really very odd idea of what sensitivity is, but you don’t even understand common justice.
Isn’t it some kind of blasphemy to put yourself on a cross like that?
It’s not that us “dedicated atheists” are abusive to “the most moderate of Christians.” We’re just tired of you self-proclaimed moderates expecting us to give you a cookie for it. Yes, Godard, you only believe in a huge line of bullshit promulgated by an institution that condones child rape and suppresses women’s rights and encourages poor people to have more children than they can afford. But hey, you acknowledge that the planet is more than 6,000 years old, so hurray for you! How dare those mean old atheists say anything about the harm your church does!
Wow, I can’t believe how much time I’ve spent in the past two days reading the comments to this post! (I also can’t believe the amount of time I’ve spent over the past few weeks reading things related to sexism in the atheist community.) It’s been interesting, though.
I was thinking that some of these arguments might be avoided if people spent some time proof reading, spell checking, and shortening their posts. The typos in and length of some posts make it much more difficult to follow the discussion than it needs to be. This is annoying for those of us at work, who are reading a few posts between tasks and don’t have the time to tease out the meaning from longer and typoed posts.
Also, I’m going to start using the verb “typoed” a lot.
I think Godless Heathen’s On the Typo was mainly addressed to M. Godard, whose comments are full of them. I too find that exasperating and tiring to read. M. Godard if you’re going to keep commenting, please compose your comments in a program that will help you correct them.
GordonWillis #395
I am not asking anyone to be nice, I am not talking about making friendly overtures with anyone, I am not asking anyone to change his behavior. You asked a question and based on how I perceived the participants here I thought I could give some considerations that each could evaluate themselves for their worth. As you don’t seem to recognize yourself in that perception, I seem to have misjudged you. That happens sometimes. My apologies, don’t bother with the answer, it is not applicable to you since it was based on a wrong perception.
I love that.
By the way M Godard – @ 384 –
Are you nuts? Do you think I monitor comments here 24 hours a day? Do you think I’m a robot? Did you not notice I hadn’t said anything for many hours? I wasn’t here.
If Joe had called you a baby raper, no, of course I wouldn’t allow that. But, also of course, he didn’t. Maybe you misunderstood what he said because it wasn’t full of typos?
Umm, that’s Tpyos, the god of typos.
One point that I don’t see being made yet (sorry if I’ve missed it) is that Blackford is public. The things he’s said have been in public. The people he’s said them about are public people. Taking him aside privately to try dealing with something so very public still leaves it out there in the public, with no apparent objection from anyone. Those who are not privy to private conversations would not know that there was an objection and debate, and in fact it would look like there wasn’t, providing tacit support for the very public things Blackford has said.
Those of us who have chosen to be public with what we say in some fashion, such blog writers like Ophelia, myself, and others who have commented here, must be called out in public when we fuck up. Its the only way for those who silently observe to know it happens, and to see the reasoning when a debate ensues. There may be better or worse ways to go about it, but it still must happen in public.
An example: this concept of male privilege is one that I cannot recall ever encountering prior to ElevatorGate. Now, I can’t help noticing it, and I can’t help noticing how its played out in the culture. This is a good thing. Now, I can watch my own behavior for actions that would reinforce that privilege, and not do them. I can watch my language, recognizing that some words have inherently sexist overtones, and some are worse than others because of that privilege. I can start to be a better person as a result of what could’ve been dealt with privately (perhaps) being made public. Yes, the weeks long kerfuffle has sucked. But I’m grateful for the conversation, and I’m grateful that some have kept it going, because frankly, I only figured out the “cunt” vs “dick” thing yesterday. I know I’m not the only one who’s had consciousness raised by these discussions.
M.Gordon, you’re wrong. Your concern for sensitivity is commendable, but in this case misplaced. It is better to call out public fuck ups in public, at least when the person is a public figure.
(Full disclosure, I have not followed all the links to see what Blackford’s been saying, or to see what’s at ERV. The few moments I spent at ERV [against Ophelia’s advice] hurt my brain. I think my argument works without that anyway)
As long as you don’t try to be more formal and correct, and instead of using the short form “typo” call it a “Type O” (or type-o) error, as I encountered in a forum recently. At first I thought it might have been a pseudoscientific theory about blood types and cognition, but I eventually realized that many people have no idea that it is simply an abbreviation of “typographical”.
Oh My Fucking SATAN! I’m laughing so hard now you wouldn’t believe it!
Jeez Ophelia, NOW we see the knives come out… over TYPOS!!! This is the most rude and cruel and reactionary that you’ve been in the whole month of ElevatorGate, and it is over typos!
Not only is M. Godard wrong (and you’re right about how, Nathan), but he/she is a proud member of one the most sadistic and morally perverse institutions in history. Even without the child molestation, the Catholic church’s dogma is appalling and wicked. Its treatment of women and gays, its fetishizing fetuses at the cost of the mother’s life, its opposition to condoms that helps ensure the suffering and death of millions of Africans. . .why go on?
I hope you are offend, Godard. The existence of your church offends me more deeply than I can express. It’s a blight on humanity and it works profound evil.
You’re just not listening, Axxyaan. Go back to where I told you you hadn’t understood the question.
All hail Tpyos, the god of typos!
Heehee – good one, Josh.
Nathan (naka “Nate”) @ 403 –
Precisely. That’s why I did the post. I want to know who stands where on this, and I assume that other people do too. I think we need to know these things about each other. To be perfectly honest, if I know about you that you think cunting is perfectly ok, then I am at least wary of you, I think for good reasons. Clearly the same applies to me – for some people the knowledge that cunting is a deal-breaker for me will make them at least wary of me. So it goes.
Renept, for the kingdom of Tpyos is in our mitds.
“Tpyos, the god of typos.”
And the Rev. BigDumbChimp is his prophet.
M. Godard:
Speaking only for myself, it depends on things like whether you give money to the Catholic Church, which fights against abortion, against same sex marriage, against secularism, against priests being held to the basic legal responsibilities of citizens, and against pretty much everything else I’m for, on most live political issues. (Besides telling me I deserve eternal suffering for a sincere difference of opinion. I don’t think I’m quite that bad a guy.)
If you are a normal Catholic, and aren’t among the very small minority of Catholics fighting very hard to change the Church, you’re complicit in its crimes and other misdeeds.
And IMO, if you don’t understand the massive harm that the Catholic Church does, worldwide, overall, despite its admittedly real efforts to help the poor and so on, I think you’re negligent and thus complicit.
Do you realize that the Catholic Church, in its zeal about repressive sexual morality, encourages people to vote against political progressives, and for right-wingers, because it’s not only anti-abortion, but thinks that being anti-abortion is more important than social justice, and throws the latter under the bus? (Luckily, a lot of American Catholics don’t vote Catholic. But some do, and many in some other countries do.)
Do you realize that the Catholic Church is in the process of ensuring that tens of millions of people in subsaharan Africa will unnecessarily die, and tens of millions more will be left destitute orphans, with its staunch objections to family planning, including condoms use to limit the spread of HIV?
Do you realize that in many poor, overpopulated countries, the Catholic Church systematically exacerbates overpopulation, and thus poverty and misery, more than it helps the poor that it keeps ensuring a surplus of?
Do you care whether the Catholic Church does more good than harm, really? Do you care enough to know, or just assume that it does?
Do you realize that the corrupt, self-serving, secretive behavior in the Catholic Church, exposed by the sex abuse scandals, is not an aberration—e.g. that canon law still requires covering up serious crimes, even if that means failing to stop them from happening again, if grave scandal can be avoided that way?
If you do understand these things, what are you doing about them?
IMO, if you aren’t working very hard to fix the problems from the inside, I think you should leave the Church.
I also think that the root problems are basically unfixable—the Catholic hierarchy is incapable of the needed fundamental reforms, which are rooted in some fucked up basic theology—so you should probably vote with your feet anyway.
@Ophelia – Yes, I was referring to M. Godard. I should have just called them out directly. I blame it on trying to work and read/comment here at the same time.
@Josh re: Tpyos- My bad. I bow my head in shame bfeore the mitghy god T[pyos. I mean Tpyos.
@Theo – I’m ashamed to admit that I’d never thought that typo error is short for typographical error, but I also never add the error part to it.
Also, is Type O a real term for something in the world of computers or engineering or math or something? If not, it’s pretty hilarious that people think it’s a “Type O” error.
At any rate, M. Godard has done enough typoing today to feed Tpyos for weeks.
Surely “Type O error” is named after me.
Hahahahahahahaha
#413 It’s short for a bloodtype. Bloodtype Ohne.
If there are Type O errors, then there must be other types, right? There have been a lot of Type C* errors lately, not to mention the Type S’s, Type F’s, and Type L’s. Are they all single letters? Because there should possibly be a Type SSSS error, just for the nice hiss of calling someone on it.
*No, I’m not talking about all the giant SUVs parked in Compact parking spots, although that is certainly it’s own category of error. Someday, I will get the “C is for COMPACT” post-its printed up for those times when I can’t get in my (actually compact) car.
M Godard
Alright Ill bite. If you are indeed pro-liberal causes , then you are admitting that the Roman Catholic Church is wrong about these matters and has been wrong about these matters for a fairly long time? You are also saying that your interpretation of what is considered a sin and what isn’t , as a catholic, is more valid than that of the Pope and the Roman catholic church ? That your views of what constitutes”good” and “moral” is in fact closer to what the people who insult you than it is to the people who are supposedly saved along with you? That in fact you believe that god will be punishing (in some form) the current pope and his predecessors for all the evil they committed and continued to do so.
You are also saying that the so called one true church of Peter has misguided, mislead and caused considerable damage to humans , and has in your definition indulged in un-christlike behavior?Are you also saying that you wont give your money to the RCC , since a part of it can be used to actively damage the causes you say you are for .(you can ofcourse still donate to any worthy charity)?
So tell me again – why are you a roman catholic(call yourself christian if you want,follow what you think are the teachings of christ if you want, the question is why are you a roman catholic)?
Let me make a prediction – when you try to justify why you are a roman catholic by some weird twisted logic , that’s when I will insult you and walk away. But you wont figure out why Im doing it , preferring to think of yourself as a victim – who keeps getting insulted in spite of being a moral person, right?
Oh, I was nearly able to resist the temptation to bring Jarvis Cocker into all this, but in the end, I couldn’t quite resist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRGGbyZzuTg
OK, I had never heard of Jarvis Cocker, so I went and listened to the song, the whole way through, and while I appreciate (and generally agree with) the main message, I have to say that I do not understand how it is enhanced by the refrain “cunts are still running the world”. He seems to be using “cunt” as just a general purpose insult – how can that not be misogynistic if people think it is offensive to call a person a name that means female genitalia with zero sexual context? The rest of the lyrics are somewhat clever, so I have to assume that the artist chose his words carefully, which leads me to wonder: is Cocker unaware of the offensive connotation, or does he just not care? Either way, colour me unimpressed.
What’s your point, patrick?
Oh how sweet – Jeremy got a shout-out from a commenter at Abbie’s. What a nice compliment.
And meanwhile, Abbie’s at it again. Suffice to say that her description of the thread in question is…not accurate. Indeed, it’s hard to see how she could have misrepresented it in a more egregious manner.
I honestly don’t understand how anybody can enjoy reading anything she writes.
@422
It’s fairly easy to point a finger and declare something is an “egregious” misrepresentation. Show your work.
@423
Different strokes….
Wildlifer, ERV’s link (at MartinM’s link) was sufficient to show the work. She’s making an egregious misrepresentation.
His is the egregious misrepresentation …. see how easy that was? No work at all.
Becky “transsexual” was obvious troll. Like, most obvious troll ever. The links are there, they show the work — obvious troll was obvious. But ERV has found it convenient to go with her story of PZ-oppression.
That thread and its participants are so fucking crazy in their hate of women that one almost feels sorry for them. To be that unaware and oblivious of how they are projecting themselves, so stupid.
[…] there would be… challenging). Also recently, Ophelia Benson at Butterflies and Wheels wrote a post about sexual epithets and (white male) privilege. It got me […]
Everyone in the “out group” is a “troll” so that’s not surprising. Just replace “transsexual”with a “rape victim” objecting to the language………
@428
Show your work please.
@”Transvestite priests” – I’ve always thought it’s funny because they hate everything else that wears a dress, though I can’t say if that’s why P.Z. found it funny.
Ah, yes, Becky Transexual. She wasn’t banned for being transexual, you know — but because from her very first comment on, all she ever did was scream “KKK!” and “Nazi!” at everyone. And you should have seen the email barrage she hammered me with, not once stopping to discuss, but only damning me to hell. She also has a blog that for quite some time focused on nothing but how much she hates me. Just another obsessed kook who, in this case, happens to be claiming to be transexual.
Yes, it was odd how she just popped up screaming, as it were. I thought I must have missed something and had to backtrack, but no, there wasn’t anything I could find that might explain it. And she seemed to be just being rude at random, and acted as though she were the only transsexual person there. So she annoyed everybody, and completely derailed the discussion. I suppose the only thing to do with someone like that is just to ignore them, as soon as you see where they’re heading. Very peculiar, really. I hope she doesn’t spend every minute of her life hating everybody. That’s a horrible thought.
One item on that comment of Abbie’s jumps out at me –
But you do make fun of “someone” (to wit, Rebecca Watson) for having or being a “smelly snatch.”
What, exactly, are the “standards” here?
Improv Joey would be even cuter, but possibly too much so, resulting in a cuteness overload.
He’s not right though. Josh’s critique was based on a misreading of a relatively terse comment, and Joe was chaining onto Josh. (To the extent this matters. I think, not much.)
Well, no that wouldn’t work. The thing is that it has to be a riff on my name so that I get the reference and don’t just think you’re talking to somebody else.
You could call me “Bullshit Nelson”, for instance, which is a reference to my unfortunate initials. Also, this preserves enough of my actual name for me to get the point. It’s also topical. But it runs the risk of being too obvious.
Or you could make fun of the fact that I’m one of those people with three names, which always sounds sort of lordly. So you might refer to me as “Benjamin Samuelson Futherington Johnson Nelson”, which would be a good way to mock that. (Although admittedly it would take a lot of effort having to write and rewrite it each time.)
Benjamin, what are you babbling about?
BS Nelson: perhaps BS could stand for the stately (indeed lordly) and eloquently fitting Blithering Soporific.
I get web access for the first time in nearly a month and like a moth to a flame I come here.
Anyway, I just wanted to share a story that’s been in the back of my mind for a few weeks now and probably isn’t relevant to the discussion anymore. But I saw a reference to one of those ‘If you were really worried about your safety…’ arguments above and need to at least get it out there.
A few years ago, during the early days of Operation Enduring Freedom, a male Marine (and I say male for the same reason the Marine Corp says male/female) on his way to the showers at a forward operating base was raped by a group of nationals (locals hired to do odd jobs around the base). He survived, despite a great deal of blood loss.
I wasn’t there when it happened but from what I’ve heard, more then a few Marines got ‘hysterical.’ One went as far as showering with his knife on him. Most actually started obeying the ‘take a buddy with you’ rule and letting someone know where you were going stopped being important only to anal retentive staff ncos. These were adult men, all with at least basic self defense training, never more than a quick shout from someone who was armed and who themselves were required to demonstrate every year they could handle a rifle and reliably hit a target at varying distances including close range.
One rape and it became something men had to think about. We still hear it at safety briefs and, because we seem incapable of realizing bravado doesn’t mean squat, still something we jeer at. We’re tough, of course, and if that shit happened to us, we’d at least go down swinging, damn it! Which is why we’re justified in showering contempt on everyone else and laughing about it.
@433
PZ,
Yes, her behavior was questionable, but perhaps your statement was a trigger for her. The issue for me is members of your horde calling her a liar about being transgendered and not being challenged, something that would have never flown had she said she was a rape victim.
@435
Hygiene?
Further to Ophelia’s comments 399 and 435.
OK, what are the charges?
1 The accused well-known woman related an experience of a sexual approach in circumstances which made her uncomfortable and asked men not to do that.
This showed that:
1.1 she has the audacity to speak for other women;
1.2 she is inconsiderate to men who might only be (a) socially inept, (b) just asking, (c) unaware that there are roolz now FFS, (d) drunk (but in a good cause), (e) stupid;
1.3 she is selfish to ask men not to do it because some women get raped and flogged and stoned and treated to mental cruelty and character assassination and public humiliation
1.4 and get to see what can happen to them when they complain, QED.
.
2 The same well-known woman (who by her own testimony has through being well-known as an activist experienced an onslaught of verbal abuse that any normal person would regard as cruel) talked in public about misogyny and showed a message she had received from some woman in the audience which illustrated what she meant and explained what was wrong with the sentiments expressed and said nothing in personal criticism of the writer herself who is an adult and is responsible for what she does and to whom she owed nothing beyond the politely neutral presentation she employed.
This meant:
2.1 she abused her power and publicly damaged for life the emotional security and social standing of a defenceless “youngling”;
2.2 she knowingly and in full awareness of all relevant circumstances experienced what can happen to a woman when she complains, QED.
.
3 “She [the identical well-known woman] seems to be a nasty piece of work” [statement from witness RB].
Because (apparently):
3.1 she said that another well-known woman was using an argument from ignorance/privilege (i.e. that the other W-K W’s experiences are her own and not those of quite a lot of other people well-known or otherwise including the accused);
3.2 and therefore has no consideration for other well-known women or would-be well-known women or complete nonentities who make monuments and other socially constructive constructions;
3.3 she has a smelly snatch [statement from witness AS],
3.4 and therefore has no consideration for the original complainant who rather interestingly knows about it or for all the men who claim the natural right to say that they would prefer it if she washed now that they know and think they should be told if she has;
3.5 she knowingly and with complete awareness persists in seeing what can happen to a woman when she complains, QED.
.
The judgment of this court is that the accused increasingly well-known woman has been found guilty on all three charges and is sentenced to a whole month of mockery, verbal abuse, misogynistic jokes, public shaming, character assassination, mental cruelty, and anything else anyone-who-wants-to-join-in can think of just for the hell of it.
And furthermore, the court proposes that this sentence has now been served and everybody should shut up about it from, say, Sunday 7 August at 12:00 GMT.
More furthermore, the presiding magistrate recommends that in the case that any level of abuse of the accused well-known woman be maintained after the agreed deadline, the accused well-known woman consider legal action for defamation of character against quite a lot of persons, if she hasn’t already done so which I would have done already but then I’m a man and have real rights.
Wildlifer, Becky acted like a troll from her first comment, failed to comprehend anything that was addressed to her, spewed sexist shit, accused another commenter of lying about being transgendered, called everyone present Nazi-KKK-witchburners… and was accused of being a troll, after making dozens of comments which contained nothing that would distinguish her from a troll.
And I’ll take the Vegas odds on whether you have read the thread in question.
Forbidden Snowflake
Wildlifer’s a troll. Ignore it.
Julian, thanks. That’s very moving, and gives a lot of food for thought.
@443
Yes, I was reading it – real time -as it was happening. I already said she behaved poorly, but her behavior is not a good excuse for others to mimic it.
@444
Of course I am. It’s the price of disagreeing with ideologues.
Ophelia: “I think we’re all profoundly mystified by Russell’s take on this.”
There you go again, presuming to be able to speak for everybody (on one side of the issue). Don’t you at least recognize that this helps create an us-vs.-them atmosphere? Besides, from what you have said about these debates, it would really help if you simply said up front that you do not want to understand anybody who has a different opinion from you on specific issues (e.g. epithets). That alone, I wouldn’t have any problems with. You starting new threads at whose core any open discussion is unwelcome and even suppressed, that seems just a little disingenuous.
Wildlifer, don’t just throw out accusations and odd statements; either take responsibility and engage in a real discussion or bugger off.
Aratina: Why should I read “Dear Dick,” in that letter in the worst possible, most childish sense?
Exactly. Why should I read “Rebecca Twatson” in the worst possible, most woman-hating sense? Unless you are saying that any insult per se is vicious and hateful, or that with ‘twat’ no other interpretation is possible (thereby arrogantly declaring my right-pondian usage/interpretation illegitimate), you would have to employ just us much fine distinction when the tables are turned.
The writer of that letter explained what she meant when she wrote it up thread. Read it if you’re interested. I misread it the first time too (didn’t misread so much as rolled my eyes and scrolled down.)
The author of ‘Twatson’ has also made it clear he used Twatson because Ms Watson is a ‘twat’/’cunt’/’fucking bitch’/insult gendered insult aimed specifically at women.
Ophelia: “what PZ called him [except that he didn’t] … and me and all of you as batshit crazy.”
Actually no, you can’t have it both ways. Either the association with liars that PZ drew really was meant to include Russell, or your “me and all of you” (again presuming you can speak for everybody here, and again creating an in-group) is somehow not quite the same as ‘everybody who went apoplectic over Janet Jackson’. If Russell said you (personally) are batshit crazy (which he didn’t), then PZ also called Russell a liar (which, in fact, he didn’t).
Not good enough, wildlifer. You are saying that others must back up what they say but you don’t bother to support your own demands. You just make statements and accusations, while complaining that others are doing the same. MyaR’s observation at #425 that the evidence for MartinM’s complaint is on line is a valid one, because you can read it, if you choose. If you want to dispute it or advocate a different interpretation you should produce your reasons and be prepared to discuss them. We’re not playing a game here. If you have something serious to say then say it properly and be prepared to make your case. Otherwise, as I say, bugger off.
julian: “The author of ‘Twatson’ has also made it clear he used Twatson because Ms Watson is a ‘twat’/’cunt’/’fucking bitch’/insult gendered insult aimed specifically at women.”
Could you perhaps give a link to the place where you think he said that? Actually, the author of that nickname has made clear that he is doing no such thing: “Who here is using ‘Twatson’ or ‘twat’ to identify a group of people to be oppressed? I’m going to vote against the motion. I’m using it to insult someone who’s acting like an asshole.”
@453
Gordon,
Martin pointed and said “egregious misrepresentation”. MyaR pointed and said “Martin’s link proves it’s an egregious misrepresentation.”
Show your work. Why and how is it a misrepresentation and what makes it specifically an “egregious misrepresentation”?
Thanks
So, like I said, the speaker genuinely feels that Ms Watson is a fucking bitch/cunt/twat/other gendered insults and that they’re also appropriate (although I didn’t add that bit last time). What did you think I said, exactly?
Abbie’s description of that thread:
Not mentioning the fact that Becky’s contribution to the thread was, in essence, 50-ish comments calling everybody a Nazi, KKK, witch-burning lynch mob is pretty much the fucking definition of ‘disingenuous’. As is not mentioning the other people who objected to the initial post and were not banned.
I’ll also note in passing that one commenter on that thread, deriamis, argued that using terms like ‘tranny’ and making jokes about Ann Coulter being transsexual was OK because he didn’t mean any offence. Sounds oddly familiar for some peculiar reason. The regular commenters, of course, spent a substantial amount of tiem and effort trying to teach him privilege 101.
Gosh, I hadn’t thought of that. Maybe all the people calling Rebecca ‘Twatson’ are simply under the impression that it’s actually her name.
By now it’s possible that some of them are.
@wildlifer
The “work” is the relevant part of the thread. You only have to read the original, and then compare ERV’s remarks with the original context. If you have a different interpretation you should explain what it is and why. Do the work.
So having read that thread, why do you think that he has made an egregious misrepresentation? What is your evidence? What case are you trying to make?
Prove this. Who is guilty? Make your accusations, do the work.
Well, are you going to challenge? On what grounds? State your case. Why do you think the issue is about calling her a liar? Why do you think her saying she was a rape victim would have made a difference? Do your own work. If you won’t, why not?
You’re sick. You think this is a substitute for doing the work? You don’t deserve a reasonable response.
What do you think? Do you think? Why do you want to know? Or do you just like to ask questions and pretend you are clever? What’s your own view? Have you a view? You’ve seen other people’s evidence. Martin has just spoken for himself. Now state your case. Then fuck off.
Is this a British thing? Is Dick not a name there at all?
Hygiene?
You’re out of here, wildlifer.
Peter Beattie has not read this thread. The honorable choices are to read it or to bow out until he’s done so.
wildlifer @ 464 – maybe for regressing from junior high standards of discourse to 4th grade.
Evidence he’s not deeply offended by it (and if he were, it wouldn’t be the same thing).
Now go away.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw&fmt=18
Hee!
@wildlifer – let’s just say that if you think “hygiene” is the standard you may not fare as well as you think. I have a bidet and I’m not afraid to use it!
wildlifer’s comment @ #471 should stand. It’s data.
Ugh. Sorry now I provoked it.
This is 2nd grade “You’re a smelly poo poo head”, but nastier. Disconcerting.
What do you believe you “provoked”?
It’s a little more evolved than 2nd grade rhetoric. When someone prescribes dogma and tells you what buttons are and are not allowed to be pushed, naturally when they piss folks off, some folks are going to push those buttons.
I see, Wildlifer. So the gendered insults directed at Rebecca Watson are due to Ophelia Benson saying she can’t stand gendered insults? That makes…wait, no it doesn’t. It wouldn’t even if the chronology were right. Which it’s not. The insults came first, then Ophelia commented on them.
And the barrage of insults directed at Watson are appropriate because….
Stacy,
Not sure from whence the confusion arises re: gendered insults–>watson–>benson.
everyone has stated some of their reasons up to and including hypocrite (See Teh Bad Werds) and abuser of privilege (see McGraw). Some folks I think have had poor prior experiences with her for which this recent episode is just an addition.
Watson isn’t the one complaining about gendered insults. Ophelia, and the rest of us, are.
We’re pointing out that a barrage of gendered insults, directed at this woman, is 1) out of proportion to whatever “sins” she’s supposedly committed, and 2) demonstrates contempt for all women.
No. Our point is that “cunt, bitch, twat” etc. are words that denigrate women. You can argue, if you like, that “dick” does the same to men. Ophelia has already said she won’t use it. Nevertheless, there’s still a difference. The difference is in the social status of the group maligned by the word. Or do you really think it’s just as bad to call someone a honky as it is to call (someone else) a nigger?
Like a lot of people here, I have no problem with obscenities per se. But when they’re used to express disrespect for a marginalized group, they’re insidious. And when a whole bunch of them are directed at one young woman for dubious reasons, I don’t think anyone who participates in the pile-on is all that “rational”.
Also… saying “hygiene” is the standard opens up a lot of territory. The historical examples are not good. Somewhere in these threads Ophelia mentioned the term “sale juif”, interesting parallel here.
» Alasdair: PZ is right; we do argue with our friends.
By saying they “blindly side” with somebody and “play rhetorical games”? How is that kind of thing an argument? And do we argue about the alleged fact that certain words “smear half the world’s population”? (Which, at best, is ignorant about how insults work.) No: just trying to argue that point is “disgusting” and “nasty”. PZ is right about how we ideally wish we would act; in this discussion, not so much.
[…] Crazy American bitches […]
Why isn’t it?
Yes, we do argue about it. And, no, you don’t get to assume your conclusion.
Again, for the umpteenth time, the analogy is: racial slurs. Do you use them? What if an African American really, really pissed you off, and, let’s say everyone in the world would agree this individual really deserved to be insulted? Are there words you wouldn’t use? Why or why not?
It’s true, there is a world of possibilities.
OK, I don’t have research, but perhaps a logical explanation would be helpful. I’m not aware that anyone is saying that by insulting Rebecca Watson one insults all women. People can honestly disagree as to whether Watson acted appropriately, and I am not going to discuss that aspect of the train wreck here.
The problem is with the nature of the insult itself. To use “cunt” as a derogatory term, whether labelling a man or a woman is, in fact, degrading to all women. The insulter obviously considers that a cunt is inherently a bad thing, which therefore insults the ~50% of humans who have cunts.
You expect to make a dent in his worldview by accepting his premise that gay=bad and turning it against him as a personal insult? That’s not arguing, pal, that’s trolling. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a time and place even for trolling, just, you know, don’t claim to be arguing when you’re trolling.
Also, would you use homophobic slurs against a gay man you were arguing with? It’s reasonable to assume that it’s what would rile him the most, after all. Y/N? Why or why not?
Then perhaps you should do some research and find out, if you’re going to be going around the intertubes attempting to practice psychology on other people. Or, if you prefer to just piss people off (troll, in other words), you can continue what you’re doing. Just don’t call it “skepticism”.
OK, perhaps I am clueless about this (being borderline Aspergers), but to me it seems clearly obvious that it is objectively demeaning to women to use “cunt”, “twat” (or even “girl”) as an insult, and it is objectively demeaning to homosexuals to use “fag” or “gay” as an insult. This is true, regardless of whether the person being insulted is, in fact, female or homosexual.
What possible rhetorical use would it be to gratuitously insult them like that? I’ve had about 20 years experience arguing with creationists on the internet and in person, and I must say that it has never once occurred to me that it would enhance my message (either to the person I was arguing with or to the lurkers in the audience) to use such a tactic. Surely if you call someone “gay” as a form of insult it conveys to them (not to mention the lurkers) that *you* consider being called gay to be a bad thing. Insults aren’t just neutral things like rocks that obey laws of physics and hurt the same regardless of who throws them or gets hit by them. The choice of insult says as much (if not more) about the source as it does about the recipient.
Theo,
Wrong, some women and gays say they don’t consider it demeaning and use the terms themselves. There’s no single voice, even though some like to pretend they speak for everyone.
You’ve gone on to a different subject. Other than to score “points” in a flame-war, insults serve no purpose. I’ve never initiated such behavior, but don’t have a problem escalating it for shits and giggles as obviously productive discourse has ended.
Again, besides the fact insults by definition aren’t supposed to be warm and fuzzy, it would be useless to try and insult someone with a term you thought was “bad” but they didn’t view as “bad”. So you would need to base insults from what you’ve gleaned of them from previous statements, eg being a homophobe. IOWs, you couldn’t insult me by calling me a “faggot” or a “twat” or “cunt” just because you believe those are bad words I would take offense to, because I would laugh in your face and wouldn’t be insulted in the least. To insult me you would have to use words I would view as insulting.
So the assumption one can draw any conclusions of what the insulter thinks of the insult, other than they believed the insulted will be insulted, is flawed.
And no, I wouldn’t use the same insults to a homosexual because they would laugh at me and say; “Breeder, please, you’ve got to try harder than that!”
I think you will find that those people mostly resort to arguments like “you should grow a thicker skin” rather than claim that slurs that use a group trait as stand-in for “bad thing” aren’t objectively demeaning. By using ‘gay’ as an insult, you are, objectively, suggesting that it’s a bad thing to be. The fact that some people don’t bother to take offense with you does not change what your words actually meant.
And others do consider it demeaning, which is hardly unreasonable, since it’s their collective trait that is pitched as an insult. Therefor, when you use a misogynistic slur against Watson, you also demean non-Watson women. I’m not laboring under the illusion that you give a shit, but this, and that you don’t give a shit, are things that need to be said for the record.
You are such a failure. When you need to play denialist to the novel idea that slurs hurt people, then everybody’s an individual and inferring how certain words will be perceived is COMPLETELY USELESS, and when you need an excuse for your inconsistency, suddenly Teh Ghey is a hive-mind.
I suppose if you knew that an individual gay person is likely to be offended by slurs, you would then use them, right? Or are you about to go into denial that people like that exist? I’m just curious how far into la-la land you would go in order to defend your inconsistency.
You have no consistent basis for eschewing racist/homophobic slurs and defending misogynistic slurs. You are now officially flailing.
Except that you can insult those watching or listening, even if they are not your intended target. That’s a big part of what the issue is here. Call someone a “faggot,” and I’ll feel at least a touch of personal insult as a bisexual man. I’ll certainly feel insulted on behalf of my gay and lesbian friends. Call a woman a “cunt,” and you insult my wife, and you better believe I don’t like that! If the only words you can think of to insult someone with are words that insult others as collateral damage because that’s all you think they’d see as bad, then you either a) need to get a bigger vocabulary, or b) not insult them at all, and just let the opportunity go.
In other words, unless you truly want to indiscriminately spray bullets into the crowd when you only intend to hit one person, drop the machine gun and pick up a precision weapon.
wildlifer:
Them, not the people around them.
You’ve called X a “twat.” Y happens to be watching. Y is a woman, and feels that you have just put someone down by implying that “twats” and the people who have them are bad. Y now feels insulted.
Y’s only deeper issue is that she’s a woman who thinks that twats are a damn fine thing to have, and doesn’t appreciate having them and their possessors denigrated by proxy. What kind of therapy should she seek, exactly?
Denying that words are linked to ideas? OK, that’s pretty radical, though still in the ballpark of what I expected.
I have several citations kindly supplied by Jadehawk in the other thread, but I don’t think they’ll do the trick – the authors seem to employ the premise that such things as slurs exist, which you will surely reject to go further into your denialism. This seems especially likely now, after you’ve dismissed a priori anyone stating that they do feel hurt by slurs related to their demographic as having “deeper issues”* and thus not worthy of consideration. I don’t see how pinning statistics on the matter would further the debate.
*no duh they have deeper issues, being an oppressed group and all, with yet another gobshite dismissing their argument based on the identity of their maker
OK then, so you backtrack from your previous statements? Amusing, after your little session of autoerotic back-patting as Internet defender of gay rights. By the way, you mentioned the hypothetical example of a “homophobic creationist”. How would you identify said person as homophobic? According to what?
Nathan,
Based on your next statement, she believes they’re a fine thing to have and shouldn’t be insulted. Now, if she thought they were indeed a bad thing to have, maybe she would feel insulted (but still shouldn’t).
Accepting your premise for a second, if she thinks they’re “a damn fine thing to have”, why would she be insulted if someone else didn’t?
Believing you are being insulted as a result of another person being insulted would most likely be a form of paranoia.
Brilliant! Black people see nothing wrong with being black, therefore racial slurs aren’t insulting!
Not what I said. You’re the one declaring these words somehow cause harm/bad results for women, that the use of them equals hatred of women, so if it’s fact and not dogma, you should be able to support it with objective evidence.
I’m not denying the words exist. Let’s see your citations. I recall some papers put out over there, but none that linked the use of gendered insults causing anything, especially the discrimination of women, disparity in pay or sexual assaults.
And I would be deeply concerned for someone who said they were personally persecuted/insulted because of what was said to someone else and would do what I could to get them help. People posturing on the internet with faux-outrage, not so much.
No backtrack.
I would identify them by their stances on the rights of homosexuals.
Martin,
Right, I don’t think they would be insulted with “black”.
Wildlifer,
How many people have to tell you, that sexist, homophobic or racist slurs are offensive to them, even if they are directed at other people, before you stop using them? Or do you just not care?
Not a fan of the insulted pig/worm/ass fable joke, then?