Rebecca gives some helpful advice
Seen Rebecca’s dating advice? I think it’s pretty damn funny, and apposite. More apposite than I’d like it to be.
I don’t exactly see myself on either “team,” to the extent that there are two “teams.” I don’t think absolutely every single thing said and done on either side is 100% correct and perfect and right, so I’m not really on either “team” if that’s what it takes. But I don’t suppose anybody on either “team” really thinks either “team” is 100% correct and perfect and right any more than I do, so maybe that’s not what it takes.
At any rate I’m not on any team that calls Rebecca “Twatson” or thinks that her dating advice is a reason to declare that she’s a fucking bitch. And I think her dating advice is funny.
Someone did a transcript there, so I’ll give you a couple of highlights in case you don’t have time to watch it right now.
And I just wanted to, ah, to address some of the questions you’ve all had. Um, I don’t really have a lot of time right now, but I thought I would just address the one BIG question, (serious look) the one that I keep seeing over and over and over again. Which is something along these lines: “I’m a man, and I don’t see, uh, the PROBLEM, in cornering a woman in an elevator and inviting her back to my room, despite the fact that she said she’s tired and going to bed, despite the fact that she said she didn’t want to be hit on (shrug) and, despite the fact that I’ve never talked to her before; I don’t see a problem with the situation. So if you say I can’t do THAT, then, HOW can I possibly get laid?”
And (headshake) the answer to that, is that… you probably can’t. (wry look) You probably can’t get laid. Because, I think most normal people see that situation, and they realize “Oh okay, yeah, that’s not an appropriate time to, uh, ask a woman to come back to my hotel room.” And those of you who didn’t see that right away, y’know, there’s another subset of normal people, who said “Oh, well, it didn’t occur to me that that would be seen as creepy or weird or undesirable. So thank you for pointing it out; I will not do that in the future.” So y’know, most normal people get that, and they can then go forward and flirt with members of the opposite sex in a normal manner that may or may not result in sex for them.
But y’know, those of you who are asking that question obviously can’t do that. So, I would recommend that you look at OTHER ways to maybe get your rocks off. Like, I dunno, maybe one of those dolls? They, they sell those… (indicates vague shape, wry-faced) They’re kind of expensive I think, I dunno, I’ve never priced one myself, but I’ve seen a documentary on it, and they’re really… They’re LIFELIKE, but… their mouths are only used for sucking (pinchy hand gesture and chuckle) y’know, so no worries about them… very calmly… giving you advice on how to approach a woman or how not to approach a woman.
When I was a zookeeper, I had a folksy supervisor who hailed from Oklahoma. One day he remarked apropos of I forget what, “I have the kind of luck that if somebody cut a woman in half and gave me half, I’d get the half that talks.” Rebecca’s joke is kind of like that…except that hers is funny. Her delivery is funny, too. She’s good at the wry deadpan thing.
Y’know, the point of me uploading the video previously wasn’t necessarily to GIVE sex advice, but to give advice on how we, as a community, might go about making our community a more inviting one to women. But, a lot of you just have no interest in that (headshake)… you just wanted the sex advice. So there it is, my advice to you is to buy one of those really expensive dolls, and… fuck that! (smile) So I hope that helps. Thank you again to everybody who’s commented. I haven’t really read any of them, in the past, uh, few weeks, but hey! Keep it up, because you seem to… You seem to really enjoy it. (warm smile) So, thanks.
Judith Martin herself couldn’t have done it better.
Seen Rebecca’s dating advice?
Yep.
I think it’s pretty damn funny,
Nope.
and apposite.
If cherry-picking out of a set of already random commenters on blogs (and/or YouTube) those whose over-the-top whining about “how can I ever talk to a woman now” fits a certain preconceived idea, then yeah, it’s apposite. Otherwise, not so much.
Yes I’ve seen your comments at Abbie’s, Peter. Like this one –
So I take it you have no objection to “Twatson” and “fucking bitch” and “cunt”? Well I do.
I certainly object to the vitriol poured her way, but I think she’s a bit of a gom, and not particularly funny. She handled the whole Dawkins thing immaturely.
Yes yes yes. I said I don’t agree with either “team” 100%. I disagreed with much of the Dawkins stuff. (Mind you, I don’t think Dawkins handled the whole Watson thing particularly maturely, either.)
I don’t know what a gom is.
(Continued)
But given that torrent of dark-green vomit pouring out of the ERV post, I think Rebecca’s video looks like Oscar material.
So I take it you have no objection to “Twatson” and “fucking bitch” and “cunt”?
To the words as such? No, I don’t. OTOH, I don’t think that their use in this situation is a particularly good idea. I certainly wouldn’t have used them. But I don’t hink that their use warrants any particularly strong admonition, let alone the quite far-fetched charge of giving comfort to real misogynists. Talking specifically about the people at Abbie’s, they like to use plain language just as much as you do here, and they will be talked to. There is actually some thinking going on behind those words, and I think that is worth taking into consideration. Don’t you?
Well I do.
Which is your right, and nobody is trying to take that away from you. What others would object to, though, would be any suggestion to make that interpretation normative. That’s what Greg Laden did in his post. And I find that much more objectionable that using a word that might give offence to somebody.
gom=gormless in Scots, but I’m not sure what it means elsewhere.
This I have no problems with this and it seems pretty fair. The endless discussions of ‘privilege’ not so, because they were at no point subjected to serious empirical scrutiny, and ought to be. That, after all, is what skeptics are supposed to do.
That too?! You seem to have had an interesting career. (Or is this something to do with there being no jobs for philosophers?)
In what situation would you use those words? Other than describing someone else using them? For the life of me I can not think of any possible use of them (except bitch) that could ever be considered non misogynistic. To my shame I actually have used those words but I knew what I was doing and I was deliberately trying to hurt someone with whom I had no valid argument other than basic name calling.
David: Personally, I pretty much don’t ever use ‘twat’, ‘bitch’, or ‘cunt’, but I think that might be due my social surroundings. OTOH, I do recognise that, like any other swear word, they are applicable to different situations and can carry (if sometimes only slightly) different connotations. Of course they can also be used in situations where a woman is in an inferior position, where a sexual denigration is definitely intended, and where there might even be a possibility of that denigration becoming actual violence. But please accept that I am in fact prepared (very much in the sense of having thought such situations through and having resolved to interfere) to take some personal risk in the face of something that I think we all agree is despicable and should be opposed. What I do not subscribe to, though, is that there is more than the most tenuous connection between using the words without any harmful intent whatsoever and in a situation that in no way reinforces a misogynistic interpretation on the one hand and very much using them with such intent and in such situations on the other. (And I will certainly not be bullied into subscribing to such a view by Greg Laden or anybody else, which was my point in the comment Ophelia quoted.)
Yes I know they would; I’ve seen them doing it, including by performing it. I very strongly disagree – I think normative is exactly what it should be. I think identity epithets of all kinds should be right out (as they are with reasonable people). It’s not ok to call people nigger, kike, spic, wop, gook, chink, slope, faggot, jigaboo, wetback, towel-head, mozzie or any other deliberately inflammatory epithet. Calling me a cunt or a bitch would be a friendship-ender. I’m sick to death of all this po-faced defending of disgusting female genitalia-epithets.
Peter – your # 10 – no one is bullying you. Skip the macho posturing. It’s women who are being bullied with all this “Twatson” garbage.
Funny that it seems to be only epithets that apply to women that make you go all Don’t Tread On Me. I don’t see you making a case for calling people “nigger” with gay abandon.
I’ll close comments overnight if this keeps up. I’m not having this fill up with stupid “brave” insistence on the merits of calling women cunts and twats.
Just on the name calling (and maybe this is a Brit thing): I do not find that ‘nigger’ or ‘slut’ or [insert abusive term here] is excused or mitigated when a black person or a woman or [insert person of given group] uses it. Jewish jokes told by Jews I understand; I’m a lawyer who tells lawyer jokes. The direct abuse, however, crosses a line that makes me very uncomfortable.
I suppose you have no problems, Peter, with someone calling me “faggot” or “cocksucker” or “fudge packer?” No? Not with “the words as such?” Gosh, I mean, since there’s “no harmful intent” (and we all know intent magically mitigates harm!) what could be the problem? Golly, it would be just downright silly to think that flinging those words around with abandon at gay people would encourage an atmosphere where people with actual harmful intent felt freer to up the ante. Nah, that’s just paranoid and dumb.
Besides, why bitch about it anyway if there’s no harmful intent? It’s obvious that it’s a) not harmful b)not offensive c) irrelevant even if it is offensive to call queer folks that kind of thing in public, even when you know the signals it sends. Gay people who get their panties in a twist when someone takes the liberty of calling them “faggot” when they’re in public, and when they’re not friends, are just paranoid.
Shorter Peter Beattie: Bitches and their concerns ain’t shit.
No I don’t think it’s a Brit thing. I see it the same way. (I hate hearing women and girls throw around the word “bitch.” They don’t know what they’re doing.)
And for the record, I thought Watson’s video was hilarious too. I’m totally uninterested in debating whether it was “objectively” hilarious with anyone-taste is subjective. And I’m SUPER uninterested in hearing that it wasn’t funny because Rebecca Watson Is A Dishonest Abusive Bully Who Doesn’t Speak For Other Women Bullied Stef McGraw Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
My response to much rap music, with its casual use of the word ‘nigger’ and ‘bitch’, is what crystallised my view on the epithets point. That, coupled with people praising a musical form that was so derivative in the name of it being some faux ‘voice of the oppressed’. The latter came across as enormously condescending, like the brightest student in the school patting the slow kid on the head and saying ‘you did your best’.
Ophelia: I think the problem is exactly that these terms are sometimes not used as identity epithets but to flag a rather specific behaviour. And the only argument against that that I have so far seen is that this latter use might somehow give aid and comfort to real misogynists. But this is the same argument as saying that the (teasing, community-building, even mindless) use of ‘nigger’ between black people somehow encourages people who are not part of the meaning-endowing situation and who are not benevolent towards the person designated by the word ‘nigger’ to hold views (and possibly act on them) that show contempt, enmity, or hatred. And I for one simply don’t buy that argument—quite apart from the fact that this kind of argument opens a huge door to any kind of people hijacking any previously untainted word, banking on the fact that we will, in a knee-jerk reaction, de facto accept to be dictated a new rule for our conversations. I do not think that can be healthy. What would be healthy, though, is more deliberate discussion of the terms we use and making the reasons for using them as transparent as possible. That way, we ourselves would establish a rule for our conversations which would serve to not just marginalise actual misogyny but, more importantly, to force it out into the open by making sure that there is no doubt about the intentions behind what we say.
Allow me to tease out why that’s so important (the key word is “hearing”.) If a third-party is hearing women call each other bitch, or gays call each other “fag” or “dyke,” there might be a problem. In my close social circle, those words are OK with each other in private. My best friend Paul might say over drinks, while I complain about something, “You stupid fag, you know better.” But none of us toss those words around in public. No, that’s not hypocrisy, so don’t anyone start. It’s tactical thinking with an eye to consequences. We could very likely offend other people who don’t know us, other people who expect a modicum of decorum in public, and we could be inadvertently signalling to homophobes that it’s really OK to be a homophobe. We don’t want to do any of those things, so we don’t.
That’s what so many defenders of epithets don’t get – context matters. The default assumption is not that it’s OK for everyone to call people cunts and the burden of proof is on the “offendee” to show it was done with malice. It is the exact opposite, and no Abbie Smith-style psuedo-liberated Chill Chick bullshit can change that. This ought to be blindingly obvious by the fact that Abbie’s own behavior has encouraged an all out disgusting misogynist hate fest in her comments. What do you expect when Abbie calls Watson a “dumber” and “less attractive” and “less popular” version of a woman who made a fool out of herself in the atheist community by acting like a porn star, and then becoming one.
Um, it is happening right in front of you. Read my last post (I realize it came in after yours).
Yes, Josh @20 has explained the source of my discomfort. I don’t like being made privy to that sort of talk; by contrast, what people say to each other in private is none of my business.
Well clarified, Josh. I should have stipulated “in public” in # 11.
I wasn’t trying to criticize you for not so stipulating, O. I just thought it needed careful, A-B-C explication for the benefit of some readers. You know, the Skeptics.
Peter –
Yes of course they are – bitchy or cunty behavior. Behavior that is bad and evil because it is female doggy or female genitalia-ish. Flagging “a rather specific [nasty] behaviour” with an identity epithet does not make the identity epithet not an identity epithet. If you call me a cunt because you dislike my claim that a taboo on identity epithets should be normative, the word “cunt” has not magically soared free from its reference to the thing between the legs of women.
Josh no I know, I was just saying. That was what I meant but I didn’t remember that I meant it until you said.
And here’s the other thing. This whole argument is 1) ridiculous and 2) disgusting – because there is nothing important at stake in defending the use of inflammatory epithets while there is a great deal at stake in just not using them. It’s so idiotic and so nasty to make a big point of insisting on your right to call me a cunt.
(I know you didn’t put it that way, but that’s my point – that is what you’re saying. This isn’t some important grand principle – it’s people insisting on calling people deliberately degrading things against their known wishes.)
There’s no virtue in deliberately degrading people. It’s not a cause worth defending. “I can call people nigger if I want to!” Is that a glorious claim? Give me a break.
Ophelia: I’m not having this fill up with stupid “brave” insistence on the merits of calling women cunts and twats.
Which bears no resemblance to what I said at all. And I honestly resent your implication that I am acting in bad faith. Why did you have to throw that in? I think you can be pretty sure, from our direct interactions if nothing else, that I am trying pretty hard to maintain an honest debate. And I have honestly argued why I think Greg’s post was bullying: he said a certain interpretation (his, by no coincidence) was beyond argument, and if you didn’t agree you were not reasonable, or not decent, or didn’t support a common goal of ours. You are welcome to dispute my representation of what he said, but if that representation is more or less correct, then I think it is a textbook case of bullying. It is more than lamentable if, after pointing something like this out, you are summarily dismissed from the conversation because you are ‘posturing’, ‘indecent’, or do not actually support the ostensibly common goal. Well, I do. I just happen to disagree with you (among others) that a certain line has to be drawn just there. I also happen to think that Rebecca’s initial lumping together of Elevator Guy and “blatant misogyny” (which, by the way, was the one thing that RD explicitly referred to in his “Muslima” comment) does not help achieve that goal.
Ophelia at 27 – exactly right. It is disgusting.
And it frightens me (seriously). I totally understand how Rebecca felt when she called out Stef McGraw and mused about whether people who wouldn’t acknowledge that her elevator encounter was creepy, and wouldn’t at least acknowledge she was reasonable to bring it up for discussion, would actually have her back when the shit hit the fan.
I feel the same way, when I see someone otherwise reasonable defending the slurs and berating the victims of them (especially on such flimsy grounds as “I have a right to say this” or “I’ve decided it doesn’t mean what you think it means therefore you don’t get to feel that way”). I wouldn’t count on such people to actually have my back if I felt threatened with a verbal or physical gay bashing; there’s just not enough giving-a-shit there for me to feel at all confident.
And if that pisses off people like Peter Beattie, then good. It’s the truth. I don’t trust people like you not to side up with truly evil people who’d mean me harm. You can squawk all day long about how horrible I am, and how outrageous it is for me to make that leap, but know it’s not just a few women, gays, or people of color who feel that way. If you want it to change (if you care at all, which you might not) that won’t happen if you dig your heels in and label us as even more hysterical. That only demonstrates—yep, once again—that you’re more interested in defending your damned privilege than you are in the real welfare (or even “just” the feelings) of people with reason to be nervous.
Why should we trust you?
For clarification – I’m really not suggesting anyone in this debate, including Peter, would actually participate in a fag bashing. I should have been clearer about that. It’s more like the nagging feeling women have that their friends wouldn’t believe them after a rape. That their friends might say things like, “Well, what did you expect when you were out walking on Warren street,” or “You know, are you sure you didn’t egg him on just a little?” It’s not an exact analogue, but it’s close.
That is fucking hilarious. Rebecca’s dry wit is one reason I listen to SGU every week.
The last few weeks I’ve been thinking about joining an atheistical or skeptical group, and to be honest the giant raging privilege-fest that spontaneously erupted has been making me reconsider. But this sort of thing makes me feel like I can make the right sort of difference.
Guys who don’t get it, all I can say is: It Isn’t About You and Your Intentions Don’t Matter. Learn it, live it.
Josh: I suppose you have no problems, Peter, with someone calling me “faggot” or “cocksucker” or “fudge packer?” No? Not with “the words as such?” Gosh, I mean, since there’s “no harmful intent” (and we all know intent magically mitigates harm!) what could be the problem? Golly, it would be just downright silly to think that flinging those words around with abandon at gay people would encourage an atmosphere where people with actual harmful intent felt freer to up the ante. Nah, that’s just paranoid and dumb.
Maybe you would like to have a guess why this particular instance of patronising prejudice might spectacularly backfire? Jesus H. Christ in a handbag…
I literally have no idea what you’re talking about.
Classic. Fuck you.
I didn’t pay any attention to Watson before this, but now I’ll be checking out Skepchick more often. That clip was quite funny.
Sili, the job market is that bad, but I doubt most of us would be qualified as zookeepers. Our most favored post-doctoral career choice is suicide by hemlock.
The use of “twat”, “bitch”, or “cunt” as an insult against a woman is indefensible. Period.
If you have posted a defense of these words in Abbie’s pit o’slime (and you know who you are), you will not live long enough to be forgiven for it by any woman you would want.
Peter Beattie: ” a textbook case of bullying”
Seriously? Something Greg Laden wrote on his blog is bullying?
I’m glad that the It Gets Better Project and others have focused more attention on the problem of bullying, but it appears that the flip side of this is that people are now really eager to apply the label “bullying” to any behavior or speech they don’t like.
Someone writing on his own blog is not bullying you. Period.
When Greg Laden shows up at your workplace or school or doorstep to call you a misogynist, then we’ll talk.
Peter,
As Ophelia suggested, that can’t be exactly right.
Since you’re asking for total transparency, I’ll put the point in technical, semantic terms. The referent of these derogatory terms is always imbued with a particular sense (meaning that the referent is being presented in a particular way). The overall illocutionary point might be to refer to behaviors, for instance, fine — but the behavior is being referred to by way of the person and their characteristics, understood in a particular light. And the sense in which people are being referred to, is an unflattering one.
It depends on the features of the context.
Take a less racially charged example — high school. Being referred to as a “nerd” by a jock might be (at worst) a tacit threat, while being referred to as a nerd by the kids playing D&D in the library might be (at best) an honorific. So does the latter create the former? Well, it depends on how bad the situation is. If they’re beat up every day, then it won’t sound like an honorific — it will be used as a device to constantly remind each other how they’re of their lower status. It’s not always teasing — it can also be a form of habituated labeling. In the case of habituation, it signals a credible threat.
So here’s a rule for cooperative speaking. When the speech act is performed against a background of habituation, then the outsider should not use the term, even when the insider says it’s okay. When it is performed against a background of honor, then the outsider in good standing might use the term, though at their own risk. In order to find out whether the term is being used as an honorific or a habituated label, the outsider should defer to the opinion of insiders, in order to preserve a state of mutual dignity. One may mechanically follow this procedure, and I see no fault in doing so.
Then the question is, when is it normative to be cooperative? When it comes with people who are in some broader sense part of your own community, the answer is “always”. That’s what it means to be a community, as opposed to an aggregate.
Watson’s video was devastating — deft skewering of Swift caliber. So much for us feminists having no sense of humor.
A very long time ago I read a brief comment about an unwanted T-shirt which had presumably been printed by or for Trans World Airlines, now defunct, commonly referred to as “TWA”, with the company’s logo iterated as lines of text.
Speaking of cunts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTifRi3qDkU
I have to admit, as a Norwegian, I have a hard time these days getting really worked up over this controversy. I am beginning to get a whole new appreciation of the term “tempest in a tea cup”! But I won’t blame Rebecca for it. Her first video was quite mild, and I can certainly see how the second one would be funny some other day. But today, laughter does not come easy. Sorry about that.
I have kept out of this, mainly because I think these inter-sexual battles tend to bring out the worst in rather too many people, and now will only say that I think Ophelia is fundamentally right in the position she has taken,
Yes, Mr. Olsen–the news of Norway is horrific and unspeakable. This can not have left anyone untouched in your small and lovely country. I am so sorry.
Ophelia: Peter – your # 10 – no one is bullying you. Skip the macho posturing. It’s women who are being bullied with all this “Twatson” garbage.
Two things. One, your “Isn’t!” somehow fails to convince me that my argument is wrong. Two, your telling me that I’m just seeking attention or even faking a position (“posturing”) and then reading a negative character trait (“macho”) into that is completely unwarranted. (Also, “disgusting” and “nasty”, which is along the lines of PZ calling Russell a liar? Is that what you think has merit?) And three, to suppose that my pointing out that a charge of bullying is done in a bullying manner is somehow completely off topic is, well, bizarre.
I don’t see you making a case for calling people “nigger” with gay abandon.
Yeah, that’s very suspicious, especially seeing as ‘nigger’ is not an insult but a purely denigrating term. It would be very odd to say, for example, “Oh don’t be a nigger, Peter.” Whereas somebody could possibly say, “Oh don’t be a cunt, Peter.” And to forestall the next bit, let me also respond to this:
I’m not having this fill up with stupid “brave” insistence on the merits of calling women cunts and twats.
That is, to use your word, a stupid misrepresentation of what I said, which is: “I don’t think that their use in this situation is a particularly good idea. I certainly wouldn’t have used them.” That is pretty much the opposite of saying that I think their use has merit. Contrary to defending them, I said that their being condemned was not warranted. Which is to say, not everything that does not necessarily have merit automatically merits condemnation. Just because we care about a cause, and I care just as much as you do, that doesn’t mean that the world has to become black and white.
I will second Marta’s response to Mr Olsen. The situation in your country beggars belief, and reduces most other things–including this spat–to the realm of the trivial.
@Peter Beattie, You did not answer the question, if you can not that is fine, just admit it and shut the fuck up about it. I do not need a thousand word screed about your rights or anything else its not what I asked and I am not interested.
Mr. Olsen, what happened to your people is horrific. The person who committed this atrocity was able to do so because he cannot feel empathy for others and see them as fellow human beings. The same is true of how many people (both men and women who want to appease them) behave towards women. I am not comparing magnitudes; yet both are symptoms of the same sickness.
<i>Yeah, that’s very suspicious, especially seeing as ‘nigger’ is not an insult but a purely denigrating term.</i>
Please explain how being PURELY denigrating as opposed to being denigrating, IN ADDITION TO other meanings, makes it acceptable to say, “Don’t be a cunt” Peter whereas “Don’t be a nigger” is out of bounds.
For the record, people DO sometimes tell black people “don’t be a nigger,” implicitly anyways. A lot of white people have this funny distinction in their heads about “niggers” being the vast majority of black folks, the ones who are lazy, shiftless, criminally violent, etc. But there are also a few “good black people” who don’t fit their stereotype. My African-American significant other has been on the receiving end of this a few times. So please explain the difference between urging someone to not be a nigger, because being a nigger is bad, and urging someone not to be a cunt, because being a cunt is bad.
Shoot, sorry about the formatting.
“The last few weeks I’ve been thinking about joining an atheistical or skeptical group, and to be honest the giant raging privilege-fest that spontaneously erupted has been making me reconsider. But this sort of thing makes me feel like I can make the right sort of difference.”
You really should not reconsider the internets actually do make the issue look larger than it is, if you look at the posters on the issue there really are only a dozen or two “mansplainers” going to all the different blogs making a ruckus. I suspect that the number is even smaller than that with some being sock puppets.
Harald, no, I wouldn’t expect you to. I’m horrified about what happened in Norway too; every sympathy.
(What seems to have happened in Norway is very like what happened here in the Oklahoma City bombing. That too was horrifying and upsetting.)
Peter #6:
Quite possibly a lack of imagination on my part but I can’t see any situation where calling Rebecca Watson “Twatson” would be a good idea. This isn’t some generic slur.
You also wrote in #10:
Do you have any examples – other than talking about the word – where the use of the epithet “Twatson” was without harmful intent?
I do think I understand some of what you are saying. That there are swears that can be appropriate in one context and not in another. There is a specific context here, however, which is Rebecca’s talk about why she was uncomfortable in the elevator. In that context, do you really think that the use of the words “cunt”, “fucking bitch”, and “Twatson” are appropriate? In the current context you write
Really? You really think that kind of name calling doesn’t deserve admonition in this context? Perhaps you do object to their use, if so that isn’t at all clear from your posts.
Ophelia: I also found Rebecca’s dating advice to be very funny.
Peter –
Pay close attention. Seriously. Pay very close attention.
“Cunt” is a purely denigrating term.
Somebody saying “Oh don’t be a cunt, Peter” is denigrating me. Not you; me. Somebody saying that to you is telling you not to act like a woman’s genitalia. That denigrates all women while telling a man not to “be” (that is, act like, meaning the condition is temporary) like women, who are nothing but their nasty filthy sinister genitalia.
If you don’t or can’t or won’t get that you’re just beyond clueless.
Rebecca gave voice to something I’ve been thinking a lot over the past few weeks, which is that if being told to avoid cold-propositions in elevators at 4 am presents a major challenge to your ability to get laid, it’s probably in everyone’s best interest if you just stop trying to get laid.
Not for the first time in this overall dispute, I can’t figure out whether to despair at the level and extent of unabashed contempt for women among atheists’n’skeptics or to be glad it’s been exposed so that we all know where we are.
Off tangent: Amazing to learn that you used to be a zookeeper (presumably as opposed to your present role:)
Tell us, were you very fond of rum then? (cf. Simon&Garfunkel — “zebras are reactionaries, antelopes are missionaries, pigeons plot in secrecy …” )
Sorry, but I need some distraction from the extremely gloomy news flooding from Norway the past couple days.
I wasn’t a zookeeper for a very long time…I’ve always been very random and undisciplined about the whole question of Having a Job and Making a Living.
I’ve always been fond of rum (as compared with gin or whiskey, at least), and of course I sang the S&G song under my breath quite often.
I always find Watson’s videos quite funny. Each one is a gem, IMO, and this one especially as I wasted a couple hours of my time indulging my SIWOTI syndrome and engaging the YouTube fools who are outraged at her alleged sex-hating agenda, and by gum can’t a guy ask for coffee anymore, etcetera ad nauseum.
At this point I’m wishing Skepchick taken Elevator Guy up on his boneheaded offer, just so I wouldn’t have had to keep hearing about this for so long. Jesus.
Maybe that is what made you into such a full and rounded person, OB ;-)
At least, rum tends to make me a bit round under my feet. Also, about the waste. No, wait, waist!
@ christopher moyer: Just turn off, tune out.
Hop on the bus, Gus. No need to be coy, Roy. Why take all the piss, chris? Set yourself free.
“Stef and Abbie say thanks for making their point”
I suppose this is your (characteristically imprecise) way of admitting you were wrong?
BTW, I don’t actually recall RW calling Elevator Guy a bully. I do however recall Stef, or at least her defenders, calling RW a bully for naming Stef in a talk.
“Oh, and so does Richard Dawkins.”
Dawkins “Muslima” comments weren’t made on his own blog, but on PZ’s. Oh, and I don’t recall him being called a “bully”, either. The objection to his words lay elsewhither.
OK, “elsewhither” is my favorite new word.
:) SC. I’m on day 14 of a cold+asthma and not very articulate. Sometimes when I’m struggling for words obsolete ones come to mind. Youth misspent reading 19th century lit I suppose.
Peter, Stacy Kennedy just made the response I was going to.
But to be clear: if anyone has called Stef McGraw a “bully” for posting her video response, or called Dawkins a “bully” for his comments on Pharyngula, then I disagree with said statements. I also disagree with any hypothetical people who have called McGraw or Dawkins a leprechaun.
Shall I go on, or perhaps in the future you can stick to making “gotcha” accusations when I’ve actually contradicted myself, rather than because you assume I must agree with some other comment that someone else who you think is “on my side” might have made somewhere else?
Or if you really want to play that game, we can declare you a member of Team McGraw/Dawkins/ERV and chastise you for every disgusting thing any member of that “team” has said. Your call.
From my experience, vulgar language and name-calling (yes, you can argue there are distinctions, but is there a difference?) is so rife on the internet that many misogynists, feminists, gay, straight, etc. devolve into it when they become angry with their interlocutor. As an example, look at Peter and Josh’s exchange. Both are smart, even brilliant, posters, but their conversation took a turn toward epithets.
I’m not making moral judgments. To me, name-calling is failure in putting forth a point of view. And I have been guilty as well, seeing myself as in the right and the other person an obtuse jerk. I guess I’m saying that the internet brings out the worst in people in the sense that we say things that we might not do so readily if we were face-to-face. Some call that brutal honesty. I call it a break-down in civility.
Yes, someone who utters vulgar epithets says more about him/her self than the target of the venom. But hateful words empower the hater in a way, and perpetuate stereotypes. Out groups who use “bad” words, like blacks using the N-word, probably do so for many reasons but one it to declaw the word, to dim its power.
I’ve rambled a bit. Honestly, I don’t know what is right or wrong in these situations, or if right or wrong is absolute. Like Ophelia, I take neither side of elevator gate completely, although my reluctance is due to some assumptions made about EG that we can’t resolve unless he comes forward. However, conversations like this, while painful, are instructive and raise consciousness, at least in some of the readers.
PS: Separate subject: I think the Tea-Publicans are willing to destroy America’s economy to take out Obama, in my opinion for racial reasons. Truly tragic.
Bye, all.
Followed by
Concerned tone troll is concerned about tone.
Yawn. Bye honey.
“Honey?” Res ipsa loquitur.
OT, genuine question: I am a complete and utter technical fool, and don’t learn easily when it comes to computers (I am dyslexic). I would like to be able to comment over at PZ Myers as ‘skepticlawyer’, as I do here (and everywhere else). I find the lack of a consistent name disconcerting. At the moment it just gives me a long and unintelligible string of letters and numbers when I sign in using my google account (which doesn’t happen anywhere else), yet some people have clearly managed to make google sign them in as themselves.
I don’t wish to set up a new account or anything else, just make the current one work.
I don’t think Orlando is a tone troll, Josh!
Besides that is sort of the subject of the post itself. so we can’t very well accuse people who discuss the subject of tone trolling. Fair’s fair. :- /
s.lawyer, I don’t know…I’ve had to go round and round there in the past, although I’m currently able to sign in with my name via google. I have no idea what the fix is, but I’m sure someone will.
I’m hoping someone can tell me what to do. The alternative is to write to PZ Myers and ask him to ‘baby’ me through the process, I am so hopeless.
@skeptilawyer
Some people have had success by making a public Google Accounts profile for the Gmail address they are using to comment on Pharyngula. I’ve also read that you might have to be logged in to that Google Account simultaneously while you sign in to Pharyngula for it to take and show the correct nickname instead of the Googlemess.
@Screech Monkey
Me too. Personally, I think Stef crossed the line into trolling territory by misrepresenting what Watson said and then acting all surprised when it got a reaction.
Thanks Aratina, sorry for stupid question: does this mean I need to set up a new google account, or just make my existing one ‘public’ (whatever that is)?
Thank you, Ophelia. Denigrating a woman by calling her “honey” is not the best way to draw more women into the atheist/skeptic tent. You can dismiss it as tone trolling, but still, isn’t this what the whole subject is about – treating ALL people with respect?
Well, I was rather bored with RW’s video ramblings. It seemed kinda drawn-out and intermittent. A bit improvised on the spot? So no, I personally won’t be on the look out for a comedy routine by RW.
IMHO, the basic idea was kinda funny, but the presentation seriously lacked. But that’s just that snob in me who once had the pleasure of being the FX/lightning idiot for two young comedians/actors who witnessed how much work goes into a routine and thereby realizing I couldn’t pull such a thing off. And darn, timing and pace is important.
I use ‘fuck’ deliberately, but I don’t think I’m prone to using gendered insults (or something like them) unless seriously enraged. I might utter ‘slut’ if I found out to be cheated on while in an agreed upon monogamous relationship. Yeah, that could happen, I guess. And depending on the company and situation I might use the more colourful terms to refer to actual body parts. I don’t absolutely agree that labeling a person using the term for a body part reduces them to said body part though. If I did, I’d have to avoid calling someone an asshole. I understand that would convey how a person acts in a rather unpleasant way, not that a person actually is said body part.
‘Twatson’ is just pathetic. Imho, epically failing attempt at humour of the juvenile sort. And I wasn’t very impressed when RD was suddenly being called ‘Dick’ by one of the SkepChick bloggers, too. Felt a tad like petty revenge, to me. Or just not that funny.
Can I stay in Team Me, as in weirdly fascinated by all the snark, sarcasm, hyperbole, etc., please? From what I read, it seems I’m mostly d’accord with Ophelia. At least it feels, like I’m just silently nodding at your/her posts. (But it wouldn’t be the first time I just said something stupid and made a complete fool out of me.)
But damn, I won’t stop using ‘fag’ in proper context. I refuse to give up that awesome shorthand for cigarette because some want to use it differently. I guess that somewhat stems from my love of some dialects. One of my favorite terms for cigarette literally translates to ‘anchor bolt’. Language can be awesome and complex, I think it’s wonderful how many ways there are to refer to having sexual intercourse in German, for example.
From the rather joyful ‘schnackseln’ via the rather plain ‘bumsen’ to the common ‘ficken’. The kinda strange ‘vögeln’ (birding). And, not to forget ‘tupfen’ (to dab) because of fond memories. Kinda as a welcome rite, I was once told the following joke by a nurse in the operating room:
Why don’t operating room nurses get pregnant? Because they only use sterile
dabbersswabs (‘Tupfer’ meaning medical swabs but can also be understood as the male participant in heterosexual intercourse).I hope that joke isn’t lost in translation. It’s not that hilarious, but it had a great relaxing effect on nervous recruit lost control and his first steps as non-sterile operation assistant during my army times. Too bad I forgot the more morbid jokes.
tl;dr – post of an insomniac who doesn’t really care about tone but sometimes I’ve got the feeling that hyperbole or sarcasm isn’t recognized as such and might be taken too seriously/personally which fuels ever increasing flame wars? Or not.
Orlando, I apologize. My flippant “honey” was meant as a non-gender-specific kind of thing; I wasn’t aware of your sex (I use the word a lot to both men and women, nicely and not so nicely). I regret having said it, though.
Admittedly, I’m on a hair trigger because of this topic, and I skimmed, rather than read carefully, your comment. I shouldn’t have been so harsh.
On the other hand, I’m awfully tired of hearing about “vulgarity” and about how naughty words means you’re not able to communicate a substantive point. I vehemently disagree with that. There’s plain old exasperated vulgarity (which I think I was doing), and there’s pointedly hateful sexist/bigoted vulgarity, which I certainly wasn’t doing. There is a difference. They’re not equivalent ethically. And using “vulgar” words doesn’t magically erase the correctness of a person’s argument, or “bring her down to her opponents’ level.”
If you weren’t saying that, then I have no quarrel with you over it. But I see it a lot, and I think it’s a pointless and unfair distraction.
I wouldn’t write PZ, as he’s deluged and this is (comparatively) trivial. It’s not trivial for you, though, I know! My suggestion is to go on the latest version of The Endless Thread at PZ’s and ask someone to link you to past comments walking you through the process. They’ve been posted before, and someone should be happy to link you.
Orlando, I doubt Josh knows you’re a woman. “Orlando” is usually a man’s name. Josh doesn’t use “Honey” in a gender specific way.
Sorry for speaking for you, Josh; you weren’t around and I was.
Oh right, that’s good advice. (Josh’s advice.) I should have thought of that. It’s so busy that help will be practically instantaneous.
Oops, never mind. Cross posts. Jinx!
Josh, I’ve signed up for one of the Moveable Type (?) accounts and got my computer to remember the username and password (lazy and very insecure I know, but if I didn’t cheat when it comes to technology, I would get nothing done). People at chambers just have to put up with me being insecure, or my secretary does it all (during office hours, at least). I’ve also apologised for writing two comments not as myself.
I only hope it remembers everything after I shut down, otherwise it could be awkward.
Ophelia Benson (#57), I’ll probably regret this but here goes anyway:
I hope those aren’t the only choices by which to view disagreement. Not only is the universalist position being rejected, it’s being characterized as sinister and covert contempt for women, which I think is a failure to apply universal ideas and an attack on those (curiously and “universally” on Unis of both sexes) who try to. The universalist position is unnatural and overlooks the strength of intuitions about how insults directed at your affinity group make you unreasonable and so it’s really reasonable to expect people to be pissed off. One can apply this equally to feminists of the identity stripe and Muslims, Christians etc who claim the right against insult. Yet Universalism is the rationale for treating men and women the same in many ways that should appeal to sceptics, chick or otherwise. Is this having the cake and eating it too, claiming the benefits but holding on to identity privilege when it backs you up. I think so.
I don’t know if I have the “balls” to be a full-time Uni. It is unnatural, and I could be just using it as an excuse to “be a dick”. It does seem to fit neatly with my other beliefs, though, as it obviously does with scepticism generally. Anyway, I’m inspired to risk these comments by the article on the feminist-universalist Elizabeth Badinter in the recent New Yorker. It’s a good article. She applies universalist reasoning to uphold the burqa ban, for example.
Someone compared Camille Paglia to Sarah Palin, I forgot who or where. I don’t think Palin is any kind of Uni, though, which Paglia definitely is. She’s a hero of mine even though I often disagree with her. Sexual Personae is a very good read.
ernie, that’s not very clear. I’m certainly not rejecting universalism. (I’m not sure if that’s the same as “the universalist position”).
I think Muslims and Christians do get to protest against insults if the insults take the form of rude identity epithets – like mozzie or kaffir for example.
It’s not clear to me why you think it’s inconsistent with universalism to say that sexist/racist/ethnic/sexual/national epithets are vicious and should not be used.
I disagree with you about Sexual Personae, by the way. I think it’s a terrible read. It’s all assertion and no argument – even by the standards of lit crit, which are low enough to begin with.
I soldiered through Sexual Personae and still lament the time lost to that dreck. It espouses gender essentialism of the nastiest evo-psycho sort. Its essential assertion is that women are manqué humans and inherently ooky in the bargain (I use the juvenile term on purpose, since that is the “depth” of Paglia’s arguments).
My post was a bit of a mess, actually. The post I quoted seemed to present a “threat or menace” dichotomy that didn’t sit well with me. I think the Uni case that women don’t get to claim insult privilege is not a threat, menace or anything like that. Maybe it’s just unrealistic. Anyway, my attempt to connect feminist and religious identity protection is worth exploring. As I said, Badinter uses the French “Rights of Man” universal approach against the identity feminism of Judith Butler, for example. Butler supports burqas as an expression of feminist solidarity! See, the anti-Unis can make a stretchy implausible argument, too.
Is Sexual Personae that bad? It’s been a long time since I read it. I was chiefly impressed by her thesis that paganism survived in the arts, like bubbling up from the id. Maybe it doesn’t meet the standard, I don’t know. I think she’s right.
ernie, I still don’t know what you mean by “the Uni case that women don’t get to claim insult privilege.” I also don’t know what you mean by “insult privilege” or why you (apparently) think I’m arguing for it.
Yeh, I think it’s that bad. It’s been a long time since I read it too but I remember the endless empty assertion vividly. It drove me nuts.
@skepticlawyer
The existing one, I think. There used to be a check box near the top of the profile page that you could check to make your profile visible to the public. However, it looks like they’ve changed the interface completely. Maybe now you could try going to your Google profile (profiles.google.com) and clicking on the blue “Edit Profile” button, then clicking on “Nickname” and adding one if you don’t have one already, then clicking on “Search” and checking the box to make your profile searchable. Then try logging in with Google to Pharyngula again.
Athena, yeah, I didn’t like that part. She represents both rejection and affirmation of Universalist ideas. But I see that as pretty normal. And it does jibe with my idea that it’s unnatural to try to be a Uni about things while being pulled towards various essentialist ideas. But then, as Badinter might say, that’s the point of the “Rights of Man” idea, to combat essentialist confining visions of being human.
Ophelia, I was referring to the defense of the right of people who make Uni arguments to defend the use of ERV’s epithets. I’m pulled both ways. I don’t like the words and won’t use them. But I support the freedom to do so by the same reasoning as I support the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. It’s not an argument about how people should feel about the use of words.
@skepticlawyer
You might also try setting your “Profile URL” to the one that uses your Gmail username before clicking the “Done Editing” button at the top of your Google profile.
But using Movable Type to sign in at Pharyngula is probably a much better idea, especially if you don’t want your comments at Pharyngula to be directly associated with your Gmail account.
Aratina, thanks very much once again, but I have set up a new Moveable Type account (which I didn’t want to do, but needs must) and ‘remembered’ the login details, so at least I can comment. I’ve been reading PZ for years, but have never commented because the whole blog seemed designed to lock me out. I think I will be able to for now at least.
Apologies to everyone else for my ongoing technical incompetence. Please return to your usual programming…
ernie, but of course people have “the right” to defend the use of the epithets at ERV. But that doesn’t make them right. We’re not taking away their rights by telling them they’re wrong. And their “freedom” to do so also isn’t the issue, for the same reason. They are “free” to, but they absolutely shouldn’t.
I’m “free” to tell random people on the bus that they’re ugly (and vice versa). I have “the right” to do that. But I mustn’t do it. It would be hateful and evil, and I mustn’t do it (nor must they).
So the analogy with the Motoons doesn’t hold up, because in that case there’s only a very feeble (and illiberal) argument that people shouldn’t or mustn’t do Motoons or that it’s hateful and evil to do them.
This doesn’t boil down just to how people feel or should feel; it’s also about the quality of their reasons for feeling.
When I comment at various sites my name and email just pops up in the boxes. It may be a browser setting, but most sites just accept my login the first time.
ernie I think maybe you’re confusing a moral argument with a legal one. I and those who agree with me that identity epithets are not ok have been making a moral argument, not a legal one. We’re not claiming that people don’t have free speech rights to throw epithets around. We know they do; of course we know that. We’re just saying it’s unconscionable to use them that way.
Don’t be afraid to say X is dead wrong on the grounds that you’re taking away someone’s right to X by saying that. Many of the shittiest things we can possibly do are entirely legal.
Really? is this issue so complex? You can use whatever words you want, be it nigger, bitch, cunt, slut, pussy, prick dick, douche, faggot, butt monkey, camel jockey, porch monkey, kike, nip, slant eye… or a thousand others. I have yet to see anyone suggest you should be locked up for doing so. But you will be called on it, that’s all. You may be banned for using vulgar language in some places. I personally do not like vulgar language (even though I use it). But the point really is not vulgar language its specific sexist or racist language.
Btw anyone see the insurance company commercial where the buy comes out of the office walks up to two guys and says “ladies” wheres my report? He does this because calling a guy a “lady” is an insult, noone bats an eye at it though.
Ophelia, yes, I see you are making a moral argument against the users of the insults.
Is it the insulters you want to expose here? Or the people who make contrary arguments, the ones that have been called libertarians or universalists? Did you mean to include them? If not, I’m satisfied that it was just my paranoia asserting itself.
This is very much the case (just to comment from a legal perspective, where I am competent, as opposed to anything to do with technology, where the opposite applies). I suspect some of the difficulty that has emerged on this issue is to do with the very common conflation of law and morality among non-lawyers. It is important to remember that there is no necessary connection between law and morality.
Some things that are immoral are also against the law (eg, murder), but there are also many things that are immoral that are not against the law (ranging from adultery to indulging in abusive epithets). By the same token, many laws have no moral content at all (think, for example, of the Highway Code), and exist merely to solve coordination problems (it does not matter which side of the road people in a given society drive on, as long as they all follow the same rule).
One of the reasons law does not trespass too frequently into the moral realm is that it is a normative system. It tells you what you ought to do. If people disagree widely about what one ought to do in given circumstances, the best response is often not to pass a law at all. This is because a law that fails brings the law itself into disrepute, and the malaise has a habit of spreading.
If many people disregard the law when it purports to control activity y, it is very common to see those same people disregard the law when it comes to activity x, even if the law against x is widely supported in the general community. The classic example (taught to all beginning lawyers) is Prohibition, where so many people disregarded the law in this one area, that the US became a far more lawless and crime-ridden society as a result, including in areas where there was very little or no organised crime.
This means, where Caesar’s Writ Does Not Run, that people have to fall back on morality or informal social norms in order to establish behaviour codes, which is precisely Ophelia’s point. Much better to leave the law out of it.
Elevators and feminism – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X-Z8KUSTbE
I’ll save y’all the trouble of listening to the first half-minute of 7yadva’s video. Basically, MRA Rebecca Watson meets an MRA feminist and MRA Watson shares her story about the elevator incident being equivalent to rape, at which point the MRA feminist becomes gobsmacked.
Ophelia and Josh: Sterling work. I’ve appreciated both of your arguments here on this issue and agree wholeheartedly.
Probably no one is still reading this thread but, if you are there, Josh, I apologize to you. Upon reflection, I should not have used your exchange with another poster as an example without your permission. Sorry. I do enjoy the posts of you and the other regulars, even though I may disagree upon rare occasion.
As far as feminism, I liked Simone de Beauvoir’s thesis as woman as Other. In Group/Out Group dynamics explain so much in cultural issues.
Wow, who knew we’d be re-fighting the 1970’s gender wars?
As far as tone and tone-trolling, that particular classification has always bothered me because it enables people to dismiss legitimate concerns about “reminding people of their place” through sexist, racist, gay epithets. Example: A black person might react to being called Brotha or Boy by a white person, and have his reaction dismissed as tone-trolling. I mean, I know the whole tone issue exists irrespective of privilege issues, so it is difficult to apply a universal rule.
My point about the internet is that it is so easy to offend people, and so easy to be offended. A post goes out as a pebble but hits readers like a boulder. The internet is not for the meek, but we have generations of women (in America, at least), who have been raised to place compromise and indirect communication above confrontation. That is a generalization, and it may be changing, but I think it is one reason women are reluctant to join the fray of the secular/skeptical web community. It is not that women want to be treated differently, but rather that the rough and tumble debates, often devolving to name-calling, goes against their sensibilities.
Check out discussions on one of the many Jane Austen sites to see the difference in, dare I say it, tone.
Maybe I’m wrong in my assessment. Maybe it is generational. But discussions like this are valuable nonetheless.
Orlando (by Virginia Woolf).
Ernie, # 99
I don’t really know what you mean. Have been called where, by whom? Not here that I’ve noticed, apart from your (rather idiosyncratic) use of “universalist,” and not by me.
If you mean the comments on Abbie’s post, I don’t think the “libertarian” arguments made there are made in good faith. I can’t take seriously any “arguments” made in that stew of sexist epithets.
Shorter Peter: calling a woman a cunt or a twat should be socially acceptable, but being jeered and mocked and condemned for calling a woman a cunt or a twat is HELP! I’M BEING REPRESSED!
SallyStrange: Please explain how being PURELY denigrating as opposed to being denigrating, IN ADDITION TO other meanings, makes it acceptable to say, “Don’t be a cunt” Peter whereas “Don’t be a nigger” is out of bounds.
Well, obviously because I do not accept that the word ‘cunt’ as such is denigrating. As Josh has correctly pointed out, context matters. I also do not think that ‘dick’ and ‘prick’ as such are denigrating, which, at least according to Ophelia’s assertions, they would have to be, since they refer to one sex’s naughty bits. Quite a few people use such words without a) any denigration in mind and b) without any such denigration being perceived even by listeners of the ostensibly implicated sex. You may think that these people “don’t know what they’re doing”—but you may be wrong about that (in addition to patronising). That’s really all it would take for this whole fiasco to resolve itself: more people admitting that they might be wrong. I’m not asking you to respect whichever use of whichever sexually suggestive term somebody uses; what I am saying is that we should be able to tolerate even those things that we personally find revolting. Actually, those are the only things that ever need to be tolerated (as opposed to be respected), which means that if you don’t tolerate those things, you don’t actually believe in tolerance. And pace Ophelia’s assertion, I do think that tolerance is at stake here and that is not exactly “nothing” that can then be dismissed as “disgusting”.
Shorter Jenavir: I cannot be bothered to read, let alone even try to understand, what somebody says that runs counter to my dearly held prejudices.
Ophelia: Pay close attention. Seriously. Pay very close attention.
Your implication that I am neither paying attention nor being serious is more than unwarranted. The other day you objected to my being “pugnacious”—does that kind of rule apply only to others? Or is being condescending okay as long as you feel strongly enough about something?
“Cunt” is a purely denigrating term.
Look, I get that you feel this way. I have explicitly said so. I also added that nobody is trying to take that away from you. But you simply do not speak for all women on this matter. And this point is exactly what Abbie for one is making: some people, including Rebecca, presume to be able to speak for all women. Which is contrary to the goals of feminism.
If you don’t or can’t or won’t get that you’re just beyond clueless.
Which is another way of saying: ‘If you continue to disagree with me, I will never even consider the possibility that I am wrong but simply assume that you are clueless.’ That is no way to have a discussion, Ophelia. But maybe you think this shouldn’t be a discussion and you’d simply (and only) like to talk to people who agree with you on this. That would be fair enough, I guess, since it’s your place; but then you should just say so.
Peter, I said “pay attention” in response to your
I can’t make any sense out of the idea that “nigger” is (somehow obviously) a purely denigrating term while “cunt” is not, except by concluding that someone who says that isn’t paying attention.
Peter Beattie:
We have good reason to believe that in the current debate, some people are using such words with a) a deliberate intent to denigrate others and b) some listeners perceive the words as denigrating.
What are you really asking that we tolerate? Consider our hypothetical Frenchman who finds nothing wrong with using the word “cunt”. If he was regularly calling women “cunt” during conversation, would you possibly suggest that he reconsider using it in the presence of Americans given that you know it is likely to offend a not insignificant number of them? The alternative seems to be that you remain silent on the issue. Perhaps I don’t actually believe in tolerance, I don’t see the need to tolerate deliberate insults. The use of these words in this context is not benign, I’m hoping that you aren’t claiming otherwise.
You keep saying that “cunt” isn’t necessarily denigrating. To the best of my recollection, I’ve never heard it used in a manner that wasn’t denigrating. So hypothetically it could be neutral, in practice I suspect it nearly never is. Are you really arguing that those who are calling Rebecca Watson “cunt”, “Twatson”, “bitch”, or “twat” aren’t deliberately using denigrating language?
Earlier you wrote:
From my experience, the times in which words such as “cunt” are used in America such that it is “without any harmful intent whatsoever and in a situation that in no way reinforces a misogynistic interpretation” are extremely rare if such times exist at all. Do you have significant personal experience that suggests otherwise? Certainly in the current debate there is harmful intent. If in the vast majority of cases there is harmful intent and a misogynistic interpretation, it seems prudent to avoid all such uses if for no other reason than to reduce the likelihood of being misunderstood.
Why bother, Jeff? Peter’s not actually arguing with the level of precision you are. He’s using polysyllabic words to express a monosyllabic position: I haz right to decidez words aren’t offensivz!
” The latter came across as enormously condescending, like the brightest student in the school patting the slow kid on the head and saying ‘you did your best’.”
What I call “quality entertainment”.
This is a funny idea.
No it’s not; of course it’s not. The goals of feminism do not include agreeing with anything any woman says on the grounds that no one speaks for all women. Of course they don’t. Feminists have never agreed with anti-feminist women (about feminism; they might agree with them about other, unrelated things). There’s no “goal of feminism” that puts “not disagreeing with other women” front and center. Of course I don’t “speak for” Abbie and women who agree with her on this matter. I think she’s dead wrong, so naturally I don’t “speak for” her. But saying that X is feminist and Y is not is not presuming to be able to speak for all women; it’s just presuming to be able to make claims.
Ophelia, I was specifically referring to the goal of eliminating the idea that women need somebody to tell them how they feel or how they are supposed to act. Are you saying I am mistaken in thinking that a goal of feminism?
Peter I replied to what you actually said, not to a later gloss on it.
The later gloss is a tendentious way of putting it.
1. “And this point is exactly what Abbie for one is making: some people, including Rebecca, presume to be able to speak for all women.”
2. “the goal of eliminating the idea that women need somebody to tell them how they feel or how they are supposed to act”
How exactly is 2 a gloss of 1?
And how is saying ‘I’ll respond to my earlier interpretation of what you said instead of your clarification of what you meant’ not an attempt at winning a very cheap debating point?
And you’ve never addressed my point @ 27 –
Why are you making such heavy weather of this? Why is it so important to you to insist that if you called me a cunt you’d be insulting me but not degrading me? Why is it so important to you to insist that it’s ok to use the word? What’s at stake for you? What is the principle involved?
I can’t see it. I never can. I’ve said this before, but – if someone told me “that epithet you just used is the equivalent of ‘cunt’ in my dialect” I just wouldn’t use it again, and I would apologize. I wouldn’t want to go on using the word, and I wouldn’t want to argue about it. This isn’t like the Motoons; this is a different category. I do not see why you are so determined to argue that “cunt” is an acceptable thing to call people.
Oh, fuck, Peter – because you didn’t say you were clarifying; you said “I was specifically referring to” – which implies that I deliberately ignored what you said.
While I was at the Dublin conference, I was sound asleep when the elevator event took place. Thankfully.
However, the RD/RW spat did subsequently come up on the boards.ie Atheist + Agnostic forum, where after some by-now-normal back and forth, some of the forum regulars poked around and it seems that Watson may not always have held the same views on sexual objectification that she now holds.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73382190&postcount=699
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73383575&postcount=709
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73387815&postcount=716
While the signed skepchick knickers are unfunny, and the naked-women video surprising (to say nothing of the lyrics), I gather from the final link that Watson made a post in the Randi forums in which she said “I like the occasional random advance from a stranger”.
If the last is accurate, then I think Watson might do well to rethink her position.
Ophelia: you said “I was specifically referring to” – which implies that I deliberately ignored what you said.you said “I was specifically referring to” – which implies that I deliberately ignored what you said.
It implies no such thing. It says that you did not (for whatever reason) understand what I referred to. Why are you so eager to suspect sinister motives behind what I say?
And speaking of implications, it is you who has made completely unwarranted assumptions about my arguments. I have, for example, taken exception to your accusation of “macho posturing” before. Until you respond to that, I don’t think that complaints from you about allegedly implied motives particularly merit a response. If you won’t be held to your own standards, then I don’t see why I should be.
Ophelia: And you’ve never addressed my point @ 27
I have, in #107; and in #70 on the other thread, where, inronically, you did not address this very issue and instead just asserted, without an argument or similar backing, that something else I said was just ridiculous. I’m honestly getting tired of the constant rubbishing I’m getting from you on this topic. Why do you feel that is necessary, or that I particularly deserve it?
No you haven’t; those aren’t answers.
As for why – I think that should be obvious! For the same reason a Jew would get irritable with someone who insisted that “kike” is an acceptable word; for the same reason a gay person would get irritable with someone who insisted that “faggot” is an acceptable word; and so on. Because there is no principle that matters in insisting on the okness of words of that type, and doing so is a provocation. I don’t know how to make it any clearer. If you called me a cunt I would ban you; by the same token I don’t want you trying to tell me that the word is not misogynist. The whole point of epithets is that they’re inflammatory.
And I’d like you to drop it now, Peter. We’re obviously not going to agree, and it is my considered view that this line is ugly and aggressive. I’m just not interested in arguing with you about whether or not the word “cunt” is misogynist. That, to answer your question, is why I think you deserve it – I think this is incredibly bad manners, for the reason indicated – you don’t argue with people about the merits of vicious epithets that apply to them and not to you.
Leave it.
Robin@ #120,
I think you have missed the point by a country mile. Rebecca Watson, and the women (and men) who agree with the initial point she was making, are not saying that sexual advances are bad. They are not even saying that sexual advances out of the blue from a stranger are bad.
Hell, I’ve gone home with strangers myself and I’ve been the stranger making the advances. I am not afraid to be alone in company with a man I do not know. But would my spidey senses start tingling if a man who had had several hours in a social setting to talk to me but hadn’t, followed me into an enclosed space and (euphemistically but clearly) asked me for sex as the first words that came out of his mouth? Yes, very probably. I might not be afraid exactly but I would certainly be on high alert and be paying very close attention to his body language.
And I would probably walk away safely from the encounter, as Watson did, and not think “OMG all men are rapists ARRRRRGGGHHH!” but think “Well, he was a bit of a creep.” Just as Watson did.
CONTEXT MATTERS
To add to Embertine’s point, Watson explicitly noted in her Dawkins post that her views on feminism and women’s status had evolved. The sign of a good skeptic is mental flexibility when presented with evidence.
So to wave around videos Watson made when she was at the stage “Feminism is passé and I’m special anyway!” proves nothing except this: she was one of the young first world women who thought gender equality was a given until reality made her realize otherwise.
The Golden Rule is the tool rational people use to determine the morality of our actions. “How would I feel if that happened to me?” It’s a good tool, and serves us well in most cases. We see the problems when other criteria are used instead. Among the poor alternatives are scripture or tradition, etc.
But the Golden Rule is NOT directly helpful in this case. Because as males, when we ask ourselves “Would I feel offended if someone offered a casual complement of my physical attributes?”, the answer is almost always No.
I’m talking in normal setting, amongst adults. Locked in a violent prison is NOT a normal setting, and would be handled differently. No other similar situations occur to me. But in a normal setting on the street, on the job, on campus…if someone told me ‘you got a nice ass’, the response of any man wouldn’t be anything other than amusement and perhaps feeling a little flattered. When men apply the Golden Rule here, the answer is “I would not be offended if someone treated me this way.”
In fact, it leads us to opposite conclusions. “I would feel amused or flattered if I received this type of comment.” And also, “Having offered such a complement, I would not enjoy being chastened — those women are failing to apply the Golden Rule in their response.”
So what is being asked here id for men to ignore the Golden Rule, and instead, take it as given that the behavior is bad, without further evaluation. Rationalists are not good at that.
Hmm. Actually I think what you say indicates exactly why rational people don’t rely on the golden rule without qualification: rational people understand that different people want different things, and take that into account.
Surely one of the things people learn fairly early is that, broadly speaking, women don’t see stranger invitations the way men do.
Even elevator guy knew that; if he didn’t he wouldn’t have bothered with “don’t take this the wrong way but.”
Things got confused when the rules and conventions about sex loosened up, because it then became unclear whether women were not always thrilled by stranger invitations because they’d been socialized that way or because they really don’t want to go from zero to sex in 5 seconds. The war over this question is still raging.
@embertine – I haven’t missed any point, since I’m assuming you’ve not had time to check the links I included (I post in that forum using the login ‘robindch’; feel free to visit there and post if you wish). In case you’ve not had time, and for the record, I criticized RD’s initial posting as much as I supported RW’s; her’s was a very reasonable position which she brought up clearly, politely and with good grace. RD’s first post was way out of line.
Since that initial vlog, however, RW has adopted a position which I find is unsupported by evidence (wildly so), which flatly contradicts her earlier opinions (no problem with that, I just wish she weren’t so sanctimonious about the justice and universality of her current opinion) and which she expresses in a language and a tone which is, frankly, as inflammatory as it is divisive. And I believe she knows this quite well.
Check out the links if you’re interested understanding more, but to summarize, while her original post was quite reasonable, her subsequent ones are not. I’m a guy and have been involved with the skeptical and atheist movements here in Ireland for around ten years and neither I, nor any woman I’ve asked, have any experience of the grossly sexist opinions which she claims are universal. In fact, of all the different groups in which I circulate, I’d have said that the skeptics and atheists are the least sexist. But then again, neither I nor any of the women I know, pose naked or semi-naked, nor do we sign pink underwear and hand them out or sell them at skeptic/atheist conferences, so perhaps it’s quite understandable that her particular experience is different.
@ophelia – Thanks for thinking about what I wrote.
So when you say we shouldn’t rely on the Golden Rule without reservation……maybe. Might that be an instance of ‘special pleading’, where you explain why the general rules just don’t apply in my special case?
Is it similar to if a fundamentalist says, “It upsets me when you question my beliefs – if you were religious you would understand. Just accept that what you are doing is wrong.” ?
To answer the fundie’s question I would say “I apply the same standards to evaluating anyone’s beliefs. Yours are not special. From me you get civility, but not kid gloves, just as I would expect from you. The Golden Rule.”
Or, as a black man, I am always reluctant to use the “its a black thing and you wouldn’t understand.” Is this a ‘woman thing’, in the same way? I am uncomfortable with that explanation.
hillscottc – no, it’s not special pleading, it’s just a well-known problem with the golden rule. It’s ok as a quick way to explain to a toddler why she shouldn’t hit her friends, but that’s all. It just is true that people want different things, so asking oneself “what would I want?” is of very limited use. Or to put it another way, it’s a start, but only a start.
It’s not a woman thing at all, or a black thing or a man thing or a white thing. It’s a human thing.
Here’s an interesting resource on the subject.
Here’s another example…
Say I’m alone in a ‘scary’ elevator with a white man, and I suddenly look at him and ask for for the time. He might suddenly feel nervous and uncomfortable, and clutch his wallet close. Is this a reaction that I should just accept as reasonable? Or would I think the man is probably a cowardly racist basing his fear on his own faulty notions and fear of black people. The reaction doesn’t deserve to be understood, it should be pitied, as ignorance.
Is it not the same for a woman whose opinions’ cause her to cringe in fear or injustice if a man politely speaks to her? Perhaps it the feeling needs some soul-searching on the woman’s part, rather than an apology from the man?
I posted before I read your link…I’m checking it now.
No, I don’t think it’s the same at all.
I hope you’ll explain the difference. It seems very similar to me.
I hope you aren’t saying that the woman’s feelings should be valued and accepted, while the man’s needs to ‘tuffen up’.
Yes, pretty much. There are a lot of reasons – just for a start, asking somebody in an elevator what time it is is entirely benign and reasonable. Asking a total stranger to come to your hotel room at 4 a.m. is not – not even close.
Suppose one of the men invited the other to his hotel room at 4 a.m. Would you then think it cowardly for the invited man to feel uneasy or annoyed?
Not cowardly, I would call it homophobic if he felt that way. A man without homophobic prejudices would feel amused or slightly flattered. A response of fear or insult would indicate the man has issues to deal with.
So the reactions are wrong (though that word is probably too strong here), and for similar reasons. In each of these cases, its the response that needs to be examined, not the innocent remark. Very similar.
As a matter of fact, I would say the slim chance of a robbery occurring is higher than the slim chance of a rape occurring. Therefore the I white man, though wrong, is more justified to be afraid than the woman, if you look at the numbers.
And I admit I’m only assuming that robberies are much more common than rapes, without looking for data. Gosh I hope I’m correct there.
Hmm. I’m not sure I believe that, but if you say so (about the non-homphobic man’s response). But women don’t view stranger requests for sex that way. No, I really don’t think women need to learn to do better. I think women get to go on preferring at least some preliminaries – conversation, flirtation, googly eyes – to a bald invitation from some guy they’ve never seen before in an elevator at 4 a.m. I don’t think women are being rude or demanding or mindless in having their likes and dislikes.
Fair enough.
As I said, I think it’s too strong to say any of those ‘victims’ feelings are absolutely wrong. People are allowed to have their own personal feelings, I guess. And I wouldn’t call their feelings ‘mindless’. I would just say that they should probably be examined to see if the cause for them is reasonable.
Especially when the feelings aren’t kept to themselves, they are acted on. By very publicly accusing the person who made the remark of wrongdoing, rather than doing some soul searching, and having a little empathy for the person’s likely intent, and giving the benefit of the doubt.
No, sorry, I don’t buy that at all. She didn’t do anything to him; he did anything to her. No I don’t think it’s her duty to have empathy for him; he should have had enough empathy for her to leave her the hell alone.
I say this somewhat fiercely because I take it personally. I don’t like being hassled by strangers, and I don’t think anyone has any kind of obligation to be empathetic about rude uninvited self-centered middle of the night intrusions by strangers looking to get laid. I think it’s just ridiculous to say Rebecca should have had more empathy for “wanna come to my room?” guy. Backward.
Perhaps neither deserves empathy. Or they both do. But I can’t agree the woman deserves more. She isn’t a delicate flower, she’s an equal, right?
But I won’t belabor it, and I’ll think more about what you have said. I’m really happy you took time to discuss it with me – I always enjoy reading your blog.
Thanks, and please keep up the good work!
– Scott.
Scott would you go up to a woman in the supermarket (a women you’d never seen before) and ask her “Would you like to come to my place?” Would you think that was an ok, civil, reasonable thing to do?
Assuming I was not married. Would that be my first sentence? No, that would be silly. I doubt it was the first thing uttered in the elevator either. But after eye contact, a little talk…maybe. Every situation is different. If I honestly thought she would go for it, of course! If I misjudged, and she turns down my polite request, fine, maybe we talk some more, or politely go separate ways, no hard feelings.
If she turned me down, I would expect her to do so with the same politeness and civility I used when I asked her. If on the other hand she tries to loudly shame me, or publicly defame me on a wide public forum like the internet, she would be absolutely in the wrong.
As a matter of fact, I have done it before. Something like this maybe…
something like “…I got this cart full of fresh veggies, a bottle of wine…you know, I happen to be a GREAT cook…how would you like to come by and I’ll make us a wonderful dinner…”
if her response is to scream rape — i would say she needs psychological help to work through her issues.
Not after eye contact and talk. That’s the whole point. Not mutual flirting, just asking a stranger.
And if you’re implying that Watson shamed anyone, she didn’t; nobody knows who he is.
And seriously – that second one – unless you mean that too is after some definite flirting, I think that’s wildly rude and obnoxious. And the issue isn’t “screaming rape” – so how about not trivializing and ridiculing women’s right not to be requested to have sex by random strangers by saying “if her response is to scream rape.” Watson didn’t scream rape, so what is the point of saying that?
And this business of expecting her to turn you down with politeness and civility…aren’t you entitled. If she just doesn’t want men she doesn’t know pestering her in the supermarket, why should she be civil and polite to men who in fact pester her in the supermarket? The chances are really good that a woman is going to think a sexual invitation from a complete stranger is itself grotesquely rude; the idea that the stranger expects her to be polite to him is…………ludicrously self-centered.
You’re missing the point, hillscottc. When a fundie tells you that your questioning his beliefs upsets him you DO NOT, in fact, get to disbelieve him, because he is the only one who is in the position to determine how he feels. When you say “I apply the same standards to evaluating anyone’s beliefs. Yours are not special. From me you get civility, but not kid gloves, just as I would expect from you. The Golden Rule.” the implication is “I accept that this upsets you, but find that this discussion is important enough to continue it nevertheless”. This is where the analogy breaks down, because there is no goal to a sexual advance that would be served even (or even more) if it were offensive. Being blunt in a religious argument can have its purposes; being inconsiderate when trying to flirt is just goddamn rude and stupid.
Um… hello? Did you miss the entire last month in the atheist blogosphere, during which a thousand women explained in a thousand ways just WHY that sort of thing makes them uncomfortable?