Epithets
I’ve been engaging in yet another round of trying to challenge the dopy sexism that is so common in internet discussion, as if someone had declared the internet a boys-only domain. This time the dopy sexism was in comments at Richard Dawkins’s site, in a thread on that dreadful article by Nancy Graham Holm. Someone called her a stupid bitch and I said I hate her article as much as anyone but can’t we say how bad it is without resorting to sexist epithets? Stupidly, I always expect elbow-jogs of that kind to be 1) self-evident and 2) sufficient, so I’m always surprised when instead I get a big indignant idiotic argument. I got one this time, which derailed the thread, which was bad of me. I spent too much time yesterday trying to explain that epithets are fraught and that it’s stupid to try to defend them.
I said, and I still think, that one learns this at about age 6. You don’t call people names, with various obvious exceptions – trusted friends can do that in jest, etc etc (and even then things can go awry). You don’t call people names, and if you do call people names and someone objects, you don’t waste your breath and everyone’s time by explaining why it’s okay to call people names. As a general rule, it really isn’t all that okay to call people names. The presumption is with the badness of calling people names, not with the okayness of it. About two thirds of the humour of The Office has to do with this fact – with Michael (I’m talking US version here) constantly using epithets in a would-be hipster way, because he’s so down with the homies, while everyone for miles around looks at him in horror.
I also always think it’s enough to point out that the people doing the bitching and cunting would never say ‘that stupid nigger’ – but in fact yesterday it wasn’t enough at all; I got at least one guy insisting that it’s completely different. If there’s anything that makes my blood boil more than all this cunting and bitching, it’s that – it’s telling women essentially that they are not treated as inferiors.
So I spent too much time yesterday, and got absolutely nowhere, and ended up feeling frustrated at getting nowhere and regretful at wasting the time (someone is wrong on the internet!) and stupid for having derailed the thread. After I went away and did other, blameless things, the creeps I’d been arguing with filled another page with even nastier things – which stopped with comic abruptness after Richard commented at some length to say he wished threads wouldn’t derail into irrelevant flame wars but also that no as a matter of fact he’s not a fan of casual sexism, thanks, and he would much rather not have it on his site.
So there you go. I think those pathetic dweebs really did think that Richard was just fine with hipster sexism, and now they know better. Richard would like RDF to be a shining beacon to others in not being ‘one of those sites’ that treat epithets as rebellious ‘n’ cool.
Well, as Richard Dawkins himself said (in a slightly different context), the real work to be done here is in consciousness-raising. Hopefully, some people who were using those insults thoughtlessly will realize that, no, it’s not necessary or acceptable to demean all women in order to criticize one particular woman whom you have a disagreement with.
Of course, some people, atheist and theist alike, are incorrigible sexists and will continue to use those words regardless. But
by cultivating more of an attitude that such behavior ought not to be tolerated, we can ensure it doesn’t find a niche in RD.net or the atheist community in general – just as racist terms like the one you mentioned have been successfully banished.
Its not a waste of time to set a high and decent standard for argument. Good on you.
It’s probably in some part due to the fact that South Park viewers lost all sense of irony about half a dozen seasons ago. Platoons of twentysomethings are in bars at this very minute chatting each other up with Cartmen voices. It’s a horrible world out there, where wit is the lowest form of humor and scatology reigns poopy supreme.
Yes, I got frustrated on there too and was very glad to read Richard’s comment.
I agree that this is a worthwhile fight. Well done.
Indeed, I think insults are demeaning to all participants and readers. I wouldn’t participate in, or even read, a thread that degenerated in that way.
how on earth are “bitch” and “cunt” “sexist epithets”? unless, of course, you think that sexism equals everything that is insulting a _woman_, which is a sadly common musinderstanding among some feminists.
these words are simply gender specific insults, the same way as “dick” or “asshole” are. you will never hear someone calling a woman a dick or an asshole, these are reserved for insulting men. are you getting this upset every time when a man is called a stupid dick or asshole, because it’s oh so sexist? i doubt it.
this is equal treatment at its finest. complaining about it means you demand _special treatment_ and _extra protection from insults_ for women, even if you don’t realize it, and in this regard you become similar to muslims who expect non-muslims to obey their religion’s restrictions by not depicting muhammad. i don’t think that would be your goal.
let’s get it straight: sexism is simply the unequal treatment of someone simply for his/her gender, in situations, where their gender shouldn’t matter at all. this case is not that situation. ms holm was insulted, because she wrote some extremely stupid and disgusting things, not because she’s a woman. if it was a _mr_ holm, who wrote these, he would have received equally harsh insults, only instead of “cunt” and “bitch” it would have been “dick” and “asshole”.
your comparison of these words to “nigger” doesn’t cut it. the word “nigger” is an emblem of the time, when whites believed they are superior to blacks, and treated them like that. to receive it you didn’t have to do anything at all, except for being black. but even in the time, when women were treated as property, “cunt” or “bitch” were not the general epithets for women, they were simply reserved for extra-super-stupid and annoying women, as “dick” or “asshole” were reserved for extra-super-stupid and annoying men. so, “cunt” and “bitch” are not emblems of the oppression of women, unlike “nigger”, which is the emblem of the oppression of blacks.
i think you should be more careful not to cry wolf, because you risk not being taken seriously later, when you actually have a point, which would be a shame.
I don’t mean to do a “told you so,” but my comments on commenters on other sites a while back were slightly pooh-poohed and this kind of brouhaha is a result of the kind of thing I meant. I don’t know whether I’d have gone for “locker-room” as a comparison, but that’s probably part of it.
I’m also glad Richard came down decisively on the side of decorum. Not that that on its own will change everything, but he did hint that they were brainstorming on ways to make it so. It’s a double-edged sword; he has the high profile now to make things happen as nobody else can, but that means that a lot more traffic comes to his site and wants to have a say where not just the world can read it, but also Dawkins himself. Plus religious loonies (did you catch someone in comments speculating about the trolls who are actually religious but masquerading as atheists to give us a bad name?). So I think for that reason (and unlike here) a lot more gets written merely because people want their voices heard, not because they necessarily have anything vital to impart.
What I find particularly interesting (and it’s a shame so much time got sucked into that) is how the offensive epithets thing got so hot on a thread about offense of a different kind. No need to point out all the differences and similarities between the cases, but I think it’s worth bearing them in mind.
We’re a long way from being free of sexism. When Larry Summers opined that women of course couldn’t be expected to excel in math or physics, an appalling number of liberal men commenting on liberal websites agreed. It’s probably going to take at least another generation to turn this around, and lots of women who are not afraid to not be well-behaved.
And the “Missing the Point”-award goes to…
“And the “Missing the Point”-award goes to…”
…me?
rest assured i perfectly understand the _other_ point (using insults instead of arguments is childish and it only hurts the reputation of richarddawkins.net), and i wholehartedly agree with that. but ophelia tried to make _another_ point by complaining about the “sexism” of the insults, and with that point i cannot agree. in my opinion calling everything “sexist” without good reason hurts the feminist cause as much as resorting to insults on the most popular site of atheists (which is intended to be the lighthouse of reason) hurts the atheist cause.
Wice, among strangers, “nigger” does not have the same sting when used by a person of African heritage than it does when used by someone else, and “cunt” does not have the same sting when used by a woman than a man.* The difference in sting doesn’t seem to occur for women talking about men (i.e., using “dick”, “cock”), but that’s because we’ve gotten used to the fact that many boring men define maleness as dickishness, so it’s a perverse compliment when used by women.
In theory, your version of equality might win out if for some strange reason more women defined femininity as “bitchiness” or “cuntishness”, but the key there is that it would have to be self-deprecation. It doesn’t seem right for you to try to play the leveller from the outside, as if we’re supposed to be egalitarians with bulldozers…!
* The exception to this rule is “douche”, which is associated with women but is freely applied to both genders.
Benjamin, i have yet to see a man who took it as a compliment when he was called a dick by a stranger, let it be a man or a woman. but maybe we move in different social circles.
i don’t see any difference between saying that women are more sensitive to gender specific insults than men, so they must be treated with extra care, and saying that muslims are more sensitive to religion specific insults than eg christians, so they should be treated with extra care.
@wice: it was just so funny that you did exactly what Ophelia talked about in her original post: defending the use of “bitch”.
You’re assurance that you just object to the “sexist” label doesn’t help you much, though. So your argument is that it is not sexist to call a woman a bitch, because different words are used for men and women when they are being dumb? And you define “sexism” as different treatment based on gender? Are you sure you don’t want to rethink that argument?
And if you’ve never heard “bitch” used in a way that suggests that women should be considered to be like actual female dogs – obedient and property of their master – then you live on a different planet than the rest of us.
Yes, OB, good on you. However, I suspect, even though Richard has himself made his comment about not particularly valuing the mindless sexism that pops up so regularly on his site, that your time was probably mostly wasted. There is a deeply entrenched mindlessness about so many of the discussions on richarddawkins.net that I have given up bothering to comment there. I think Josh or Richard or someone managing the site should simply ban some of the posters, so that the level of intelligence in the discussions can be clicked up a notch or two. Failing that, the comments on the site will continue to turn the place into desert, rather than creating the oasis Richard would like it to be.
another thought: i think the feminists who insist, that “cunt” is sexist while “dick” is not, _because_ being a “cunt” is derogatory while being a “dick” is somehow complimentary, paradoxically enforce the stupid notion, that being masculine is positive, and being feminine is negative, which, in my opinion, is fairly more dangerous to the equality of women, than being called a cunt once in a while.
Deen:
so what you are basically saying is, that if someone says “this is how i see it, and those who think otherwise are stupid”, then anyone who argues against it is “missing the point” and is “funny”.
and the “logical fallacy of the year”-award goes to…
Deen:
“And you define “sexism” as different treatment based on gender?”
no, i defined “sexism” as _unequal_ treatment. if i defined it as _different_ treatment, then referring to women as “she” and to men as “he” would be sexist as well. you don’t think it is, do you?
“And if you’ve never heard “bitch” used in a way that suggests that women should be considered to be like actual female dogs – obedient and property of their master – then you live on a different planet than the rest of us.”
and if you never heard “dick” used in a way that suggests that men should be considered to be only sex toys – good for some fun, but otherwise useless – then you must live in a country where women still unanimously think of themselves as obedient little bitches. or you just never accidentally heard women talking among themselves, when they thought that no men can hear them. trust me, it’s a very enlightening experience.
” … or you just never accidentally heard women talking among themselves, when they thought that no men can hear them. trust me, it’s a very enlightening experience.”
Oh dear me, what a deeply unpleasant experience you have had – I do hope you didn’t feel objectified by it.
OB – I don’t think it was wasted time on your part (people need challenging when they’re being idiots), and I’m glad Dawkins stepped in.
wice –
“how on earth are “bitch” and “cunt” “sexist epithets”?”
They rely for their force on denigration of women for being women.
So they are epithets are sexist.
“or you just never accidentally heard women talking among themselves”
You do know you’re addressing a forum in which women are present?
But this is a debate about public behaviour in public fora.
I’m sure that black slaves used to have bad things to say about white slaveowners when they weren’t listening.
So what?
(For the avoidance of doubt, I make that comparison only because of your use of the “n—” example.)
@wice:
Yes, it was funny. At the very least to me. I could explain to you why doing exactly what Ophelia talked about was funny, but explaining jokes won’t make them funnier. I suspect others here have no problem recognizing the irony though.
It’s also funny how you keep missing the point.
Technically, it is sexist, yes. It just happens we have a gendered language that forces us to specify the gender of a person, even if it is totally irrelevant to the situation. It also creates all sorts of problems: what do you use when the gender is unknown, or you’re talking about a generic person?
Except, of course, I’m not the one arguing that it’s OK to call men “dicks”, or that it is in no way sexist to do so.
Come on, make us laugh some more. Explain to us why it’s not sexist to use different insults depending on someone’s gender – especially insults that compare a person with their sex organs.
I really miss having a “preview” button… Or better yet, an “Edit” button.
“Oh dear me, what a deeply unpleasant experience you have had – I do hope you didn’t feel objectified by it.”
no, i didn’t. it was a fun experience, realizing, that women are better than men only on the surface. and i don’t think there is anything wrong with it.
Well, I just had a similar experience on a role-playing forum where someone made a homophobic comment and when that was pointed out, people started defending the homophobe for being allowed his own opinion.
I think the danger is with thinking something is “self-evident”. I thought so, too, but when I reacted accordingly, it lead to a short flame war, and I ended up having to actually argue why homophobia might be not so good, and why not all opinions should just be accepted as such. Which still boggles my mind.
“”how on earth are “bitch” and “cunt” “sexist epithets”?”
They rely for their force on denigration of women for being women.”
sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. this case belongs in the latter category, while ice-t’s “i’ve got 99 problems but a bitch ain’t one” belongs in the former.
if you expect people to avoid words that _can_ be used in sexist connotations, then you should definitely get rid of the word “woman”. why? well, imagine me responding to a woman with “shut up, woman!”. an innocent word suddenly turns into a sexist insult, since it cannot possibly be interpreted otherwise as a statement that her opinion is worthless, _because_ she’s a woman. on the other hand “shut up, bitch!” _can_ mean that i’m just very angry with her. language is strange.
“I’m sure that black slaves used to have bad things to say about white slaveowners when they weren’t listening.
So what?
(For the avoidance of doubt, I make that comparison only because of your use of the “n—” example.)”
no, it was ophelia, who used the “nigger” example, and others insisted, that it’s the same as “bitch”, _because_ it happens that it’s used as an objectifying term for women. all i did was pointing out, that in that case “dick” is also sexist, because it is also sometimes used the same way.
btw, i find it highly amusing that you are afraid to write down the word “nigger” (and, let me guess, in speech you refer to it as “the n word”) even if you are obviously just _talking_about_ it, with an anti-racist attitude, and not _using_ it. your inability to see the difference explains a lot.
I find myself agreeing with wice. Semantically–both in the popular sense and the technical sense of that word–there’s zero difference between calling a woman a “stupid cunt” and calling a man a “stupid prick”. I suppose either usage is arguably sexist, but I think the intent of people using these constructs generally has a lot less to do with sexism and a lot more to do with a simple attempt to be deeply offensive.
Deen:
if i had your strange sense of humour, i would find it really funny, that you keep insisting, that it was funny, after i pointed out why it is stupid to say it is funny. but since i have a conventional sense of humour, i just find it a bit tiring.
but i admit, that your idea of sexism as noticing the differences between men and women (like, you know, that men have dicks and women have cunts), using english properly, and referring to sexuality in a not strictly clinical manner _is_ very funny. slightly depressing as well, but mostly funny.
thanks Robert. all i was saying that context is important. getting rid of a form of expression regardless of the context simply because it _can_ be used with an intent to erode human rights restricts freedom of speech unnecessarily. it’s a mistake very similar to the one ms holm made, when she found herself on the side of axe-swinging maniacs, ignoring the context of the publication of the cartoons.
Ophelia and Corylus,
I appreciate your effort on that RDnet thread. Although I started out trying to post calmly, I lost my temper, swore at someone and was promtly sent to the alt. thread. I left the site at that time to think about how I became so enraged like that. When I went back the next day I was happy to see that you both had the resilience to carry on as well as others too. Since then I’ve spent my time wondering if the positive support provided by that site is worth the significant negativity that I must bear along with it.
LaurieB
wice – I don’t defend the use of ‘prick’ and have stopped using it myself for precisely this reason. I don’t think it has the same wallop as ‘cunt’ but as I’m not the object of it, I don’t get to decide; it’s much simpler just not to use it. So your lectures on consistency are thrown away on me.
@Robert Bruce Thompson: but would they be equally deeply offensive if they hadn’t been sexist? I’ll admit that this may be somewhat subjective, but it seems to me that the sexism considerably adds to the nastiness of the words.
Besides, the intention of the user doesn’t change the fact that their remark can be sexist.
Finally, I have to point out that when someone gets called out for making a sexist remark, the response is rarely “I’m sorry, I didn’t intend to be sexist”.
“unless, of course, you think that sexism equals everything that is insulting a _woman_, which is a sadly common musinderstanding among some feminists.”
Yes that’s right, that is what I think – that is what the word was coined to mean. It’s not a misunderstanding among feminists, it’s a construction by feminists – it’s a feminist term. That’s just how it is.
“this is equal treatment at its finest. complaining about it means you demand _special treatment_ and _extra protection from insults_ for women, even if you don’t realize it, and in this regard you become similar to muslims who expect non-muslims to obey their religion’s restrictions by not depicting muhammad.”
No. It’s a secular, political, egalitarian objection, not a religious, anti-secular, god-protecting one. Black people not wanting to be called niggers, gay people not wanting to be called faggots or dykes, women not wanting to be called bitches or cunts, are not on a par with Muslims wanting universal piety toward Mo.
wice’s point that these epithets are gender-specific is rather narrowly north American. In British English, ‘cunt’ is most certainly used to refer to men. And it is, much of the time, by the far the worst epithet you can use. Strangely, even paradoxically, the word evidently has even more force in the US (in the UK it’s even, sometimes, used in television drama).
That this word is the worst word is surely evidence for its sexism. ‘Prick’ or ‘dick’ or ‘arsehole’ don’t carry even a quarter of the potential venom. (and I’m puzzled, if not alarmed, by the suggestion that ‘asshole’ should be gender-specific. This is evidently an anatomical point previously lost on me. Is it because I am gay?)
(On the other hand, in UK English it can, in certain circumstances be used almost affectionately. Weird thing, language, innit).
‘Cunt’ has huge force in the US – it’s very taboo indeed. This (as I keep monotonously saying) is one major problem with using it on the internets – people in the UK misjudge its resonance in other places. And make no mistake: its resonance in the US is savagely anti-woman.
The same thing applies, to a lesser degree, to ‘twat.’ Twat is pretty damn rude in the US while in the UK it’s practically empty. I intensely dislike the fact that there’s a commenter (male of course) on RDF called ‘Twatsworth.’ Sigh.
And another thing, ‘wice’ – the subject is epithets. I don’t think Mo should be treated with deference, but I don’t refer to Mozzies or towel-heads, either. Epithets are fraught and it’s childish to pretend otherwise. Childish or as Ben reminds me, South Parkish.
Ophelia:
my “lecture” was not about consistency. i couldn’t care less if you stopped using the word “prick” or “dick”, simply because you think that “cunt” is necessarily sexist, and you try to be consistent. i attacked exactly your presumption, that “cunt” is necessarily sexist, and tried to point out, that you are boxing with the shadow, instead of the boxer. it is the notion, that being a woman is somewhat inferior to being a man that degrades women, and this is what makes you feel, that being called a “cunt” is more insulting than being called a “dick”. failing to realize it, you fight against words instead of attitudes, when you label people as being sexist when they are not, simply because you associate their use of words with intents that simply aren’t there in that case.
btw, i think rap artists, who started to call themselves “niggers” proudly, did more for the dignity and equality of blacks, than those blacks who demanded extra protection from insults. “you can’t fuck with this nigger” is a much more dignified stance, than “help me, i’m being oppressed”. if you know what i mean.
Usually when an epithet, racial, sexual, etc., is used, it is attached to a person or thing, not an idea.
While ideas are open season to any form of criticism (constructive, destructive, satire, irony, humour, scatological or otherwise), I think the default position for people is one of respect.
Invariably the use of an epithet in a message signifies that the message is devoid of any real content or meaning.
Of course this does not apply to “meta-epithets”, i.e. when you are discussing the use of epithets.
Slightly off topic, but related, I personally find that comment systems that allow the comment to be previewed, optimally in the context of the thread that the comment applies to, gives one the chance to rectify statements made in the heat of the moment.
“”unless, of course, you think that sexism equals everything that is insulting a _woman_, which is a sadly common musinderstanding among some feminists.”
Yes that’s right, that is what I think – that is what the word was coined to mean. It’s not a misunderstanding among feminists, it’s a construction by feminists – it’s a feminist term. That’s just how it is.”
oh, in that case if i call you “stupid”, i’m being sexist, since i insulted a _woman_, but if i insult a man the same way, that’s ok, because men can be insulted. yes, i’m pretty sure that there are _some_ feminists who think this way. they can fuck off. i’m a die-hard feminist, but i side with those, who want equality, not privileges for women.
“No. It’s a secular, political, egalitarian objection, not a religious, anti-secular, god-protecting one. Black people not wanting to be called niggers, gay people not wanting to be called faggots or dykes, women not wanting to be called bitches or cunts, are not on a par with Muslims wanting universal piety toward Mo.”
because you say so? nice. btw,
1. muslims demanding from others to not depict muhammad is not “wanting universal piety towards Mo”. those muslims who take the trouble to riot over the depiction of muhammad feel as much hurt by it, as gays feel, when they are called faggots, because they were socialized to be insulted by it. you don’t want to be called a cunt, some muslims don’t want to see infidels depicting muhammad. same difference.
2. you seem to think, that just because an objection is secular, as opposed to religious, it makes it automatically right.
Laurie B
Sent to the alt – thread? Dear me! Play yourself some music and stop beating yourself up :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfZb26IZq9w
Wice,
“btw, i think rap artists, who started to call themselves “niggers” proudly, did more for the dignity and equality of blacks, than those blacks who demanded extra protection from insults.”
Hmm, I would have more time for this argument if the very same songs that proclaim their ‘dignity and equality’ did not also contain frequent references to ‘hos’ (hoes? – I am unsure of the plural, but I am not referring to the gardening implement) and bitches.
You don’t raise yourself up by pushing others down. It might seem as though you have for a time, but it is a transient effect.
‘wice,’ no, if you call me stupid you’re not being sexist, if you call me a stupid bitch (as a commenter did at RDF, which is how this got started) you are.
I don’t think you’re reading very carefully.
Hey, this is starting to sound like a thread on richarddawkins.net! And wice, you are getting tiresome. Epithets are heavy with all sorts of implied abuse. Does this really need extended discussion? The expressions ‘bitch’, ‘cunt’, ‘ho’, etc. are putdowns and lower the tone of any discussion.
Ophelia:
“Epithets are fraught and it’s childish to pretend otherwise. Childish or as Ben reminds me, South Parkish.”
where did i pretend, that “cunt” or “bitch” cannot have sexist connotations? all i wanted to point out, that it is _you_ who pretends, that these words have _only_ sexist connotations, regardless of context.
there was a mention of the use of “cunt” as an insult to men in the uk. i wholehartedly agree: calling a man a “cunt” to insult him is definitely sexism. and not because the word has something with sex (as an act), as some people seem to think what sexism means, but because it implicitly contains the notion, that being a woman is inferior to being a man, so a man _must_ feel insulted if he’s compared to a woman.
in this regard it’s similar to the word “godless”. it is used all the time, by some religious bigots, in reference to other (usually also religious) people, as an insult.
what does a silly atheist in this case? acts as offended as possible. “how dare you use it as an insult?”
and what does a smart atheist? he or she smiles. “you think that’s an insult? i’m fucking godless, and proud of it.”
@wice getting rid of a form of expression regardless of the context simply because it _can_ be used with an intent to erode human rights restricts freedom of speech unnecessarily.
Some interesting points here:
If the use of an expression in a public forum is criticized by other members of the forum, that probably does not constitute “getting rid of”. It is just pubic censure being applied to ideas that are considered reprehensible by some. One is still free to continue using and justify the use of the expression, with the concomitant risk of marginalizing ones self. This would not constitute censorship, this is just the normal give and take of argument in the marketplace of free expression.
In a non public forum, which to some extent most forums are, the owner of the forum is free to impose any restrictions what so ever. No one has the right to have their opinions published on that sort of forum without restriction, however in a free society you do have the right to start your own forum and publish at will. The problem there is that if your ideas are marginalized on other forums you may have trouble attracting other readers and contributors.
All in all, I think there is a good negative feed back loop at work here and the system takes care of it self very well.
Well if that’s all you want to point out, ‘wice,’ save your breath, because you’re wrong, I don’t maintain that.
You are, as Eric says, getting tiresome. You’re also inherently unpleasant because anonymous; it’s very easy to edge close to calling me a stupid cunt when your name is ‘wice.’
@wice:
It was either be amused or be depressed by you doing exactly what Ophelia wrote, using the exact same lame arguments that she referred to. I chose to be amused. For now. Your insistence that I’m being stupid for being amused rings rather hollow, considering that none of your arguments have been holding up.
No, noticing the differences between men and women is not sexist in and of itself. But pointing out what genitals someone has to emphasize how dumb they were? That’s quite definitely sexist. There is no reason whatsoever to bring someone’s gender into the discussion, let alone make it an insult. Is that really so difficult to understand?
By the way, I’m having a little trouble trying to figure out what you are thanking Robert Bruce Thompson for. He doesn’t exactly agree with you that such epithets aren’t sexist, you know. It can’t be that he points out they are used for their insulting effect, not for their sexist content, because you have quite explicitly stated that you were not concerned about that, only about the “sexism” issue.
I also can’t help but laugh (or cry, but for now I’ll prefer laughing) at your little rant about restricting certain types of speech, while you’ve already said that childish insults should be kept off richarddawkins.net, because it damages its reputation. I have no idea why you would want to ban childish speech without much of a thought, but are arguing at length to protect sexist speech at the same time.
I guess in Wice’s mind there are feminists at this very moment waiting in the bushes with an axe waiting to take their revenge. Somebody call Europe and tell them to plan for riots.
Ophelia:
“no, if you call me stupid you’re not being sexist, if you call me a stupid bitch (as a commenter did at RDF, which is how this got started) you are.
I don’t think you’re reading very carefully.”
i read it very carefully what you wrote:
“you think that sexism equals everything that is insulting a _woman_”
“Yes that’s right”
i call you stupid, you are insulted, you are a woman, so what i said was insulting a woman -> sexism. that’s what you said.
ok, i was joking, and actually i understood what you have meant. but there is another problem:
you would probably agree, that a man saying “women are inferior to men” is sexist. however, by your standards, a woman saying “men are inferior to women” is not sexist. as if you have a copyright for the word “sexist”. (it’s like the silly idea, that a black person cannot be racist, and if blacks hate and despise whites, it’s all ok, and we should celebrate it.) thinking like that may lead you from fighting against oppression of women by men to fighting for the oppression of men by women. i hope it’s not what you actually want, but if it is, then please let me know, and i’m finished discussing this with you.
“If the use of an expression in a public forum is criticized by other members of the forum, that probably does not constitute “getting rid of”.”
of course not. it’s the advocacy of “getting rid of”, and that’s what i criticized, trying to point out that it’s not a good idea.
No, ‘wice,’ that is not what I said – it is exactly what I did not say. ‘Woman’ is not an epithet; ‘cunt’ and ‘bitch’ are epithets. It’s really very simple.
Just a couple of other points to straighten out (despite resemblance to futile wrangling on that thread).
“let’s get it straight: sexism is simply the unequal treatment of someone simply for his/her gender, in situations, where their gender shouldn’t matter at all.”
No; sexism is the unequal treatment of women by men, just as racism is the unequal treatment of non-white races by whites. In a different world the words could apply impartially to all, but in that world they wouldn’t be needed and they wouldn’t exist.
Inequality isn’t just some random thing that floats around and adheres now to this group and now to that – it’s a difference in power and it refers to particular groups.
“ms holm was insulted, because she wrote some extremely stupid and disgusting things, not because she’s a woman.”
No that’s wrong. Holm was told off for more than a page for having written stupid and disgusting things, just as she was told off at Comment is Free; I did some of the telling off there myself, with much heat. Then some moron saw fit to add ‘bitch’ to the mix, and that’s what I criticized – so you have it exactly wrong.
“your comparison of these words to “nigger” doesn’t cut it. the word “nigger” is an emblem of the time, when whites believed they are superior to blacks, and treated them like that. to receive it you didn’t have to do anything at all, except for being black.”
And that’s exactly how ‘cunt’ and ‘bitch’ work. If you think they don’t you’re living in a dream world.
‘Ophelia’:
“Well if that’s all you want to point out, ‘wice,’ save your breath, because you’re wrong, I don’t maintain that.”
i’m sorry, but you do, when you are insisting that calling ms holm a “bitch” or “cunt” was sexist, ignoring the context that didn’t suggest anything like “she’s wrong _because_ she’s a woman”.
“You are, as Eric says, getting tiresome. You’re also inherently unpleasant because anonymous; it’s very easy to edge close to calling me a stupid cunt when your name is ‘wice.'”
how mature: complaining about the use of a nickname (which is, by the way, the same nickname i use everywhere, see for example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/users/wice) on the _internet_, simply because you chose to use your own name, as if it makes you morally superior and more “pleasant”. hi, my name is Balint Weisz. there, do you know anything important about me now, that you didn’t know before? do you find me more pleasant now? or should i give you my address as well, so you can send the ninjas with axes? (and yes, Benjamin, that was a joke.)
also, i really don’t understand you. you call me “tiresome”, you call me “unpleasant”. what did i do to deserve these attempts of insult? i was definitely as polite as possible, didn’t call you names, the only thing i did was disagreeing with you, and trying to argue my point. you tried to convince me, i tried to convince you, but we didn’t come any closer to an agreement. that’s fine, it happens, we can leave it like that.
it was a pleasure.
@Benjamin Nelson:
“It’s a horrible world out there, where wit is the lowest form of humor and scatology reigns poopy supreme.”
Yeah, have you read that Shakespeare guy? Half of it is fart and dick jokes!
Regarding the discussion propped up on one side by Wice:
I got involved in a conversation on sexism here a while ago, in which I tried to argue that accusations of sexism, especially on the internet, are often incredibly overblown. I also went on to make the point that several of the comments made by women on that thread could easily have been interpreted as being sexist if men were as sensitive to sexism as women are. (Because I restrained myself for calling these women out for their lack of self-awareness, Benson accused me of being unable to back up the claim. So I went back and found the examples, posted them, and while I never saw an acknowledgment from Benson that these were legitimate complaints, at least one other poster who had initially disagreed with my points seemed to agree that some degree of hypocrisy was being displayed.)
I tend to agree with wice, at least in part. If sexism is only committed by men against women, or if the criteria for “sexism” are more stringent when women commit it against men, then the concept of sexism is itself inherently sexist (in the sense of decreasing parity between the sexes). Women make stereotypes about men, and just because most men don’t seem to care very much doesn’t make it right and doesn’t make it less hypocritical.
And any time a sensitive, thoughtful male who actually does question gender roles points out the hypocrisy, the response from feminists is always the same: “Boo hoo, I bet that hurt SOOO much!” This very approach was taken against wice earlier. How is this not clearly sexist? You’re clearly attacking wice’s masculinity for being “hurt” by being stereotyped by women.
In the other thread, I pointed out that it’s very difficult to discern what does and does not qualify as sexism, and was roundly attacked for even daring to suggest such a thing. Threads like this make me think that the question gets negative reactions because feminists don’t really have an answer.
I suspect that most of the responses to this won’t be the least bit thoughtful or introspective. In fact, I predict that most of the responses will follow the formula that I am unable to see the sexism in my own behavior because I swim in male privilege like a fish, or whatever. I tend to think that women stereotype men just as much as in reverse (obviously with fewer negative social repercussions) and with just as little self awareness.
That said, I agree with Benson that using epithets in discussions is not helpful. And I think it was worthwhile to make enough noise on the thread that RD came in to set the record straight. I tend to think the best way to combat sexism is exactly that: prominent members of whichever community to speak against it in such a way as to make offenders red in the face. They may not outwardly apologize, but any RD fan who threw out the word “bitch” in that thread will probably at least think twice about it next time.
‘Ophelia’:
oh, one more thing. the wiki and the dictionary disagree with you.
sexism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism
racism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism
i won’t quote them, see it for yourself. you will find “especially against women” in the sexism definition, and “particularly by whites agains blacks” in the cultural dictionary of racism, so i have to point out, that neither “especially” nor “particularly” equals to “exclusively”, no matter how much you would like to think it does.
wice, anonymity is ‘unpleasant’ (as I put it) because it makes the person unaccountable. Yes, giving an actual name makes one more accountable. My use of my own name doesn’t make me more pleasant, granted, but it does make me more accountable. I wasn’t claiming moral superiority – but I do think anonymous provocation is suspect.
Sorry if I was unfair – but you didn’t even get what I was saying right.
Dan L, do you know what thread this was? I faintly remember what you’re talking about, but no specifics.
“but I do think anonymous provocation is suspect”
“provocation”? i didn’t try to provoke you: i just expressed my disagreement. i think i did my best not to sound like a troll, using arguments and all (even if you didn’t find them sound, which is, btw, mutual), instead of calling you names.
btw, as i recall, last time i commented on your blog (disagreeing with you, as it happens, since i’m not a fan of “you are sooo right” comments, i find it unnecessary to express my agreement with an article, unless there is an argument in the comment section), you treated me like a troll as well. of course, it may be entirely my fault, but it seems to be equally possible, that you are a bit impatient with people who criticize you.
PS, wice – nice job commenting at C is F! Seriously.
Look – there is a sub-rational element to all this. I said that at RDF, and it’s what I mean by saying epithets are fraught. I’m not purely making a logical argument (to put it mildly) – I’m saying ‘Don’t call us that, dammit!’ I just really don’t think epithets are defensible, or should be defended. One can say ‘Oh I’m sorry I didn’t mean it that way’ – one can explain – one can say ‘I was using it ironically’ – but one can’t just say epithets are no big deal so suck it up.
One thing I have to say is that I would never, in a million years, use an epithet and upon being called out for it try to argue that the epithet was not an epithet – the first thing I did would be to apologize and take it back.
I think people should be careful about this stuff. I think it’s a kind of moral duty. And I agree about both-gender sexism enough so that I don’t use ‘prick’ even though as far as I know it’s much milder than ‘cunt.’
“it seems to be equally possible, that you are a bit impatient with people who criticize you.”
Yes, that’s very possible! I try to do better…sometimes.
Dan L.:
:) interesting observation about me being stereotyped as a woman. i didn’t take it like that (more like “now you see how it feels for women to be objectified”), but if there was any such intention, it was completely misplaced: i wouldn’t feel humiliated by it, because i don’t think that women are worth any less than men.
Dan L.
Yes, you have a point. I *was* grumpy there.
Wice, I apologise for that statement.
This sort of “boo-hoo” strategy CAN be useful to point out a disparity in context, for example, someone stating well “I had a bad day too – my van broke down!” When the person to whom they are talking has broken up with their partner, lost their job, had their dog die* AND had their van break down. However, things were not at that stage so I shouldn’t have made the cheap crack.
*Appear to be channelling bad country music here – read ‘dawg’ :)
Okay wait just a damn minute. Dan L –
“You’re clearly attacking wice’s masculinity for being “hurt” by being stereotyped by women.”
Oh really! Where is that?!
wice, part of the ‘troll’ problem may be because of the affected spelling. I always find that distracting and attention-demanding, and it makes me irritable. If you really don’t want to provoke, then affected spelling isn’t doing you any service.
Dan,
I can agree with you in principle while at the same time, with all consistency, think that Wice’s version of egalitarianism is out of touch. That is, I think it’s correct to say that there can be such a thing as sexism against men. This isn’t a case of it.
Why? Because people self-identify in some ways instead of others, and it causes people to have reactions that are more or less justified depending on the target. Recall that I said that while women are less than impressed when you call them “cunts”, there are many men who would take “dickishness” as a compliment. Wice says we must “travel in different social circles” if I think that there are men who would take dickishness as a compliment. I don’t think he’s distinguishing between how he would like people to behave with how they actually behave. For, as far as the culture is concerned, to be a dick is sometimes equivalent to being courageous.
Is this culture itself sexist? Yep, you bet. Against men and women both. Are you right for having negative intuitions about the whole situation? Of course.
The question is, what are you going to do about it? Well, you can be a egalitarian Leveler like Wice, offering interesting suggestions about how people ought to self-describe themselves (with somewhat less than Shakespearean subtlety). Or you can believe in Equity, i.e., be an informed egalitarian who takes into account the differences in the social situations of different kinds of people, including how they would like to be treated (within some range of tolerance).
It is not a far stretch to say that many people have the intuitions of the Leveler. It’s close to the Golden Rule. That’s really too bad, because the Golden Rule is moral crap.
I dear I have been affecting my spelling as well!
I do like to use emphasis, but was unsure as to whether this comment box would accept HTML.
Hazel/Corylus no you haven’t! I meant the no capital letters affectation, which is much more intrusive than an occasional emphasis or whatever.
Praise Jeezis someone said it – it’s driving me nuts. Wice: it’s not that hard to use the shift key at the beginning of each sentence. And no, this is not a purely arbitrary complaint about preferred style. It’s actually difficult to read and comprehend smoothly and quickly without capital letters to indicate to the eye the start of a new sentence. Refusing to use capitals strikes the reader as indifferent, or contemptuous.
Benjamin
Very interesting, thank you.
“It is not a far stretch to say that many people have the intuitions of the Leveler. It’s close to the Golden Rule. That’s really too bad, because the Golden Rule is moral crap.”
I wouldn’t go so far as to say moral crap, but I do agree that there are limitations. It is egocentric and presumes that what helps, or what causes harm, is the same for all.
A relevant point here.
—
Ophelia – arh right!
Regarding “dick” versus “cunt”, I think it’s roughly a matter of “honky” versus “nigger”. Epithets directed at an oppressed class always have a lot more oomph and sting, whereas epithets directed at a privileged class always fall flat, lapsing into awkward unintentional comedy. Thus if some misguided SCUM Manifesto feminist tried to turn “dick” into a potent epithet against men, the results would just be sad and hilarious.
And there’s no double standard here, there’s a consistent principle at work. Thus if it were the other way around, with men oppressed by the matriarchy, then “dick” might be serious business and “cunt” a feeble joke. Thus if blacks oppressed whites, “honky” might mean something.
Ophelia:
i’m happy that you put it that way: now i think i finally understand you, but correct me if i’m wrong. these words simply subjectively _feel_ sexist to you, probably because you associate them with actual experiences where you were treated in a sexist way. as a man i obviously cannot fully imagine what it can feel like to you when you hear or see these words. you (and many other women) cannot help feeling offended by them.
on the other hand, as i said, i probably _should_ feel the same way about the words “godless” or “infidel”, which are obviously bigot religious epithets suggesting that not believing in a god is somehow inferior, but i _choose_ not to. instead, i wear these words as medals of honour, and suddenly everybody who tries to insult me with them looks extremely stupid, because not taking them as an insult takes away their power. it’s a strategy that actually works, unlike accepting the role of the victim.
which reminds me about a story, i think you will enjoy it: a couple of years ago, in a local radio of budapest, one guy (who is, btw, a catholic, and despite his good intentions, a total idiot) tried to be very intellectual and original (around christmas, none the less), so he started to talk about how beautiful it is, that in christianity, the saviour of humankind is a bastard (because he didn’t have a father). yes, it is a very far fetched approach, but he obviously didn’t mean it like an insult, being a christian himself. the local nazis were up in arms in no time (well, actually it was the smaller issue, but it’s unimportant here). the radio had a press conference, where they tried to explain what it was all about, and to say they are sorry if anyone was offended. the journalist of a right-wing paper asked them, how could they say, that jesus was a bastard, and one of the guys from the radio answered: “i don’t understand your problem: jesus was a jewish bastard, and that’s all”. a right-wing paper published a response to this: the author ended his column with “and let’s just get it straight: the jewish bastards are _you_.”
the point being here is: the guy “insulting” jesus as a “jewish bastard” is a very liberal anti-nazi, who sees nothing wrong with being jewish or a bastard. the journalist, who “defended” jesus by calling the staff of the radio “jewish bastards” is a nazi, who cannot imagine any worse insult than being called a jew, and he was probably lapping his own shoulder, thinking “there, that will show them”. and i lolled my ass off: “do you seriously think, that it insulted them?”.
@Dan L:
Except that in most cases (and this certainly includes wice’s case), this argument is only brought up after somebody has already been arguing that some remark wasn’t sexist, or that calling out sexism is somehow bad. In that context, pointing out that “women/feminists are sexist too” isn’t a very thoughtful argument to make at all. In fact, as you probably know, it is a logical fallacy known as a “tu quoque”. A sarcastic response to an obviously invalid argument isn’t really that unreasonable.
The fact that some people don’t get the sarcasm, and respond to it with something like “see, you’re being sexist too!” only makes it funnier.
Perhaps. On the other hand, the stereotypes themselves appear to have more negative repercussions for women than they do for men (wage gap, rape culture, etc etc).
I hope I was being thoughtful enough for you.
“these words simply subjectively _feel_ sexist to you”
No. They’re objectively sexist (though there are contexts in which they’re not, yes yes, but that thread at RDF isn’t one of them). However the intensity and the feeling are part of the issue – but then we already know that. Subordination isn’t just a dry neutral fact, people have strong feelings about it.
about my “affected spelling”:
1. i never use capital letters commenting on the internet. that’s a habit i find extremely hard to change. i’ve received about three complaints (including yours) in the last 15 years for it.
2. i find it extremely mannered, when other people use capital letters in comments. i choose not to complain about it.
3. i have no problems with reading comments without capital letters, so you shouldn’t either. yes, i’m insensitive like that.
Oh don’t be ridiculous – you might as well find it mannered when people obey traffic lights. Just because you always do something, that doesn’t make it a clever thing to do!
I take it all back. I wasn’t being irritable because you disagree with me, I was being irritable because you talk nonsense and your arguments are hopeless.
@wice:
Those are not exactly equivalent, though. “Godless” simply means “without god” and “infidel” means “unbeliever”, which are both perfectly accurate descriptions of an atheist – even though they have negative connotations from a religious perspective. I don’t see how “female dog” or “female genitals” are accurate descriptions for women, though.
Deen,
I doubt anything turns on etymological meaning. Otherwise we could expect “nigger” and “Chinaman” and “Yid” to be innocuous, and “honky” and “cracker” to be lightning in a bottle.
The central difference there is surely that between a chosen intellectual position and ontology.
This goes back to Holm, too. She has more or less chosen to write a stupid, terrible article; she simply is a woman. It makes sense to shout at her for writing a bad article, it doesn’t make sense to shout at her for being a woman.
Bejamin Nelson, wice:
For an example of a positively-tinged use of “dick”, see the dick/pussy/asshole speech in Team America: World Police. Being a dick, in some uses, involves being overly prone to righteous confrontation: i.e., it’s an excessive form of social courage.
OB, I’m not sure if choice will be the key factor either.
Some views are in your blood, unchosen, and not taking religion seriously might be one of them. Also, one might choose to crossdress or have a sex-change operation (no doubt due to unchosen aspects of one’s sexuality), and yet “tranny” can be quite the potent epithet.
You really are consistent in character. Ophelia had you pegged. Just because *you* don’t believe “cunt” should be considered sexist or offensive, the targets of that vile word shouldn’t either. Just because *you* don’t think the word “faggot” is offensive, the targets of it shouldn’t either. And you don’t owe your interlocutors the barest courtesy of acknowledging that they don’t want to be so labeled.
Just because *you* don’t have a problem writing and reading typographically difficult writing styles, no one else should either. And you don’t owe your interlocutors the barest courtesy – the minimal effort – of conforming to a writing style that helps them understand your point more quickly and easily.
Don’t you get why people react to you in a hostile way? You are *unrelentingly and mockingly* hostile, toward people who aren’t your enemies, and who would have been prepared to treat you as a conversational partner. And for that, you get what you deserve. Fuck off.
Hazel, no problemo.
Oh, to be sure, I think the Golden Rule is higher up on the moral ladder than the more powerful first impulse of “Do unto others what has been done to you”. But it’s deficient in exactly the way you articulated.
@OB:
“”You’re clearly attacking wice’s masculinity for being “hurt” by being stereotyped by women.”
Oh really! Where is that?!”
Hazel already owned up and apologized for doing it. I didn’t think she was intentionally being sexist, which was really my point; unexamined prejudice against men is relatively prevalent even if it isn’t employed (as often) to reinforce social inequality.
Here’s what she said, just so I don’t look like I’m trying to obfuscate:
“Oh dear me, what a deeply unpleasant experience you have had – I do hope you didn’t feel objectified by it.”
@Deen:
“Except that in most cases (and this certainly includes wice’s case), this argument is only brought up after somebody has already been arguing that some remark wasn’t sexist, or that calling out sexism is somehow bad. In that context, pointing out that “women/feminists are sexist too” isn’t a very thoughtful argument to make at all.”
This doesn’t in any way absolve women of unexamined prejudice against men. Let me bring in a quote from Benjamin, and I’ll reply to both of you at once:
“Recall that I said that while women are less than impressed when you call them “cunts”, there are many men who would take “dickishness” as a compliment.”
Right, and the assumption is clearly that because SOME men would take “dick” as a compliment that it’s therefore not sexist or less sexist to call a man a “dick.” But this assumption only holds up if you think of male attitudes as being defined by their gender roles. Making the assumption that I’m not as offended at being called a “prick” as a woman would be at being called a “bitch” is equivalent to assuming that my attitude towards that epithet is defined by my gender — and not by my own individual attitude towards gender roles.
The notion that sexism is a one-way relation (man-to-woman) bothers me a little as well. Having two left feet, ten thumbs, a greater-than-average degree of emotional volatility, and a fascination with both art and the natural world have branded me variously: nerd, spaz, dork, geek, but more saliently, sissy, fairy, and faggot. Males who defy common attitudes towards gender roles are discriminated against — one could even make the argument that homophobia could be at least partially result of this cultural enforcement of gender roles. (From what I understand, the same phenomenon applies to female-to-female interactions as well.)
That said, thank you all for defying my expectations in terms of the thoughtfulness of the replies to my post.
Dan
“Hazel already owned up and apologized for doing it. I didn’t think she was intentionally being sexist, which was really my point;”
Close, but no cigar. I owned up for being grumpy and unfeeling, NOT for unthinking sexism. You see, talking about subjective responses to emotive terms is a two-edged sword. By discussing such things and pointing out issues I lay myself open to someone in turn saying “Well you are not hearing me, either”.
If someone tells me that I am ignoring the experience of another, I drop everything, listen, and attempt to give both the person I am responding to and the person being discussed a good chance at engagement.
The fact that I was ignored and the person concerned threw teddy in the corner due to be asked to use a shift key is unfortunate, but really not a shocker.
“That said, thank you all for defying my expectations in terms of the thoughtfulness of the replies to my post. “
Thank you in turn for noticing this.
Dan,
No. Read the very next paragraph and you’ll find it says the opposite of what you’ve alleged. (There is such a thing as male sexism.) Then read the paragraph after that to find out why I think your point misfires. (The present case is not male sexism unless your favorite kind of egalitarianism is out of touch with real people in the world.)
If I have been unclear, then by all means say at what points, so that I can expand. But first please acknowledge the substance of what has been said.
*sigh*
the clever comments about my excuses for not using capital letters are not very clever, since i was _obviously_ joking. yes, i get it, you find it annoying, and i’m glad to hear it. sorry, but i won’t change my habits for you. feel free to draw any conclusions about me.
Drawn.
As a straight white male, I always find it highly amusing when other SWMs play victim. If only I were Christian…
@Dan L:
Which in turn doesn’t absolve men from using sexism against women. Tu quoque, remember?
As for the rest of your response, I think I have been quite consistent throughout this thread in saying that the use of words for male genitals to characterize males is sexist too.
However, I also have to agree with some of the other commenters that considering the history of male dominance in our culture, and its persistence in various parts of today’s society, the impact of sexism towards women is quite different from the impact of sexism towards men. Sexism towards women serves to preserve this status quo (whether intentionally or not). It’s therefore not irrational to be more vigilant about sexism towards women than towards men.
You’re quite welcome.
@Hazel:
To me, “suck it up and take it like a man,” (or in this case, “poor baby, I bet you’re so hurt”) is sexist. It tries to impose a particular interpretation of the male gender role on a male who may or may not accept that interpretation. It seems intended to make the male’s emotional responses to stimuli feel illegitimate — real men don’t mind being objectified by women. Real men don’t mind being called dicks — in fact, they love it. Perhaps that’s not how you intended it, but it’s certainly what I got from it on a first read.
By your own admission, you made the comment unthinkingly. From my perspective, this is “unthinking sexism.” Whether or not you agree with my definition of sexism, I’m going to call it as I see it.
@Benjamin:
“No. Read the very next paragraph and you’ll find it says the opposite of what you’ve alleged. (There is such a thing as male sexism.) “
I don’t understand what you’re objecting to. I understand that you agree there’s such a thing as sexism against men. I was responding to both yourself and Deen, using your comment as a springboard because it was, indeed, a good lead in whether you were using it sincerely or rhetorically. That is to say, I was responding to Deen’s comment with disagreement, and responding to yours with at least partial agreement. Sorry about any confusion this may have engendered.
Also, I was not trying to defend what wice was saying, so much as objecting to some of the objections to what he said.
I do take issue with your “dichotomy of egalitarianism,” but no more than I do for most dichotomies. However, I also think I see what you’re driving at, which is that it’s not really egalitarianism if you’re unwilling to listen to the perspectives of others(?).
Wice, for what it’s worth, I don’t care about your lack of capitalization. In fact, I don’t think anything at all can improve your words and sentences.
@Dave2:
Point taken. However, I don’t think there is a single deciding characteristic anyway that makes a word a merely bad epithet or an unforgivable one. But the etymology of a word is no doubt part of its history and part of what makes its usage worse.
@Deen:
“Which in turn doesn’t absolve men from using sexism against women. Tu quoque, remember?”
It would only be a Tu Quoque if I was trying to excuse sexism against women by pointing out sexism against men. Which I’m not. I’m just pointing out that this sexism thing may be a little more complicated than a lot of the people on the internet screaming “sexism” seem to think.
Other than that, we seem to be in agreement for the most part. I object only slightly to this:
“Sexism towards women serves to preserve this status quo (whether intentionally or not). It’s therefore not irrational to be more vigilant about sexism towards women than towards men.”
Sexism is culturally derived, and as many feminists insist, males can’t really fully be conscious of it. But if they don’t INTEND to be sexist, then how can it be immoral to be sexist?
The immorality lies in negligence — the failure to examine your own attitudes and behavior to see if, perhaps, you are acting unfairly.
But if this is the case, it is just as immoral for a woman not to examine her own behavior as it is for a man.
If I was a utilitarian, I might agree with you: sexism against women empirically causes more suffering than vice versa and therefore requires more attention. However, I am not a utilitarian and I think both sexes are equally morally obliged to try to see whether they’re making assumptions about how people should think and act based on their sexes.
Also, you can probably tell that I think the root cause of sexism is really the tendency for people to enforce cultural mores through public censure; I think this can only be resolved by getting people to accept each other’s choices regarding their own identities, and I don’t think either sex has more or less responsibility for that than the other.
Dan L. wrote:
Sexism is culturally derived, and as many feminists insist, males can’t really fully be conscious of it. But if they don’t INTEND to be sexist, then how can it be immoral to be sexist?
The problem is, that sexism against women has real-world consequences, from less opportunity in life, to loss of control over their own body, including everything in between. As such, it has to be dealt with strongly, by law, since that’s the only hope of redress.
Sexism against males, though it may be “immoral”, as you so quaintly put it, has no real world consequences, and exists mainly as a fantasy.
“I’m just pointing out that this sexism thing may be a little more complicated than a lot of the people on the internet screaming “sexism” seem to think.”
Why? Those people aren’t here, so why?
Dan. L
You know, I really am becoming heartily sick of you placing words in my mouth that I did not say. For example,
“To me, “suck it up and take it like a man,” (or in this case, “poor baby, I bet you’re so hurt”) is sexist. It tries to impose a particular interpretation of the male gender role on a male who may or may not accept that interpretation. It seems intended to make the male’s emotional responses to stimuli feel illegitimate — real men don’t mind being objectified by women. Real men don’t mind being called dicks — in fact, they love it. “
WTF!!??
“Perhaps that’s not how you intended it, but it’s certainly what I got from it on a first read.”
Oh I see, YOU get to decide what I mean from a first read. Scan it nice and quick now and make up your mind straight away.
“By your own admission, you made the comment unthinkingly. From my perspective, this is “unthinking sexism.”
Well, I guess I’d best roll over and accept your definition then.
Sigh, I am conscious of being a guest on a blog that I have not commented much on before, and not really knowing the regulars well, accordingly, I am on my very best behaviour. However, I really have to inform you right here and right now that (while not as old as Ophelia) I am way too long in the tooth to allow my terms to be dictated to me by some random internet poster. Do not mistake manners for intellectual inadequacy or timidity.
I let pass your implied assessment of Wice as, by definition, “a sensitive and thoughtful male” by virtue of his questioning of gender roles, because I did not want to assume that you are prone to sweeping assessments. Seems I was too charitable. Kindly, don’t try cast me in a derogatory light when I have done my best to be fair, honest and open to correction.
“Whether or not you agree with my definition of sexism, I’m going to call it as I see it.”
A more obvious indication of not being fair, honest and open to correction I have not seen for some considerable time.
We are done.
Really – that’s very annoying. There are lots of stupid people on the internet screaming lots of stupid things. Talk to them if you want to; have a SIWOTI blast. But why correct them here? Why clutter up this discussion with what people scream on the internet? Why beat a dead horse here, why take the straw out of a straw man here?
Ain’t but two or three people in the world as old as I am.
Hahahahaha!
Dan L isn’t a regular, Hazel. Now, I hasten to add that of course that doesn’t mean he should be treated roughly merely because he’s not In with the In crowd! But if you’re thinking ‘perhaps there’s a long history of good sense here and this is just an off day’ – well maybe there is, but I know no more about it than you do.
And I do frankly think this business of taking issue with what random people out in the world scream about, here, is pretty presumptuous. I’m not responsible for what random people scream about so why are you [Dan} fighting with me about it?!
Ophelia
“But if you’re thinking ‘perhaps there’s a long history of good sense here and this is just an off day’ – well maybe there is, but I know no more about it than you do.”
Phew – I was worried I was missing something.
Anyway, I fear have been dreadfully rude myself.
*Waves a belated hello to all.*
@Dan L:
You may not be aware of it, but that sounds rather condescending. Do you really consider us to be “screaming” on the internet? Why would you even assume that we have never put any thought to this?
Because they did not consider the consequences of their words. Intentions are nice, but consequences matter too.
Indeed. But I wonder how you would define “unfairly” if you don’t want to look at the consequences of your actions, but only at the intention…
I agree we have a duty to examine our own biases. But I suspect you may also agree we have a duty to point out when others fail to do so as well.
However, since we all only have limited time to chase after sexism and other bigotry, and engage in arguments that go on forever (like this one), on what basis do you decide what type of sexism to devote more of your time to:
– sexism towards males, which is rare and with comparatively mild consequences
– sexism towards females, which is pervasive and protects the status quo of a male-dominant society?
It’s past my bedtime now, maybe I’ll check back in tomorrow, if this thread doesn’t explode even further…
Dan,
I see. Good to have that cleared up. Let me see if I can say a bit more about the dichotomy I intended.
The distinction I make is a generalization of more common distinction that is made between the notions of equality and equity. Equality means treating everyone equally according to the law, full stop. Equity means going out of our way to provide others with opportunities that might be tempered by real world pre-existing inequalities that they can’t help. For instance, suppose I tell students my office is on the third floor in a building that only has stairs, and that everyone has equal opportunity to meet with me there. As far as equality is concerned, I have no special obligations to the wheelchair-bound student, because it’s (to use wice’s phrase) “equal treatment at its finest”. But as far as equity is concerned, I do have special obligations to that student (i.e., to build an elevator or whatever), because as a matter of fact about their locomotion entail that they don’t really have an equal opportunity to meet me there at all.
Suppose that by and large it is the norm for men to define themselves in a sexist way in our South Park culture, and women do not define themselves in a similar way. In this case, I think of the “Levelers” as people who just say, it’s equal treatment when I call you a cunt as when I call him a dick. That ignores the fact that it’s men who have gotten used to the way they define themselves in the first place, which mitigates the force of the locution. But it’s inequitable to ignore that fact.
Your point about individual distance from gender roles is perfectly well and good, and is especially more forceful when in the company of friends and familiars. But I’m not confident that it lets us evade the point in the company of strangers.
Thank you for tirelessly taking this on, OB. And thank you, Josh Slocum, Deen, Eric MacDonald, Benjamin Nelson, tomh, et al. for pointing out the massive differences in impact between “cunt” or “bitch” and slurs against men. It’s nice to see that male atheists are willing to confront this too.
In my observation hipster sexism is much more openly expressed than hipster racism, as OB noted in her original post. I’m not sure why. It may be something as simple as the fact that bigotry against black men tends to cast them as aggressive and violent, while bigotry against women tends to cast them as weak and unworthy. So the very bigotry that would lead you to want to use an anti-black slur would also make you a bit scared to do so. But not so for slurs against weak, unworthy women.
What a very, very perceptive comment, Jenavir. Absolutely. And, you could add:
“But not so for slurs against weak, effeminate, unworthy faggots.”
As thinkers far smarter and more subtle than I have pointed out, homophobia is just an elaborated version of plain old sexism against women. It’s like a baroque ornament to a fundamentally rotting core.
Josh Slocum,
Regarding number 4, the wish to avoid a hostile environment is understandable, but so is the wish to have an open discussion. Clearly these can pull in opposite directions, and I don’t think it can be counted on that reasonable people sort out the tension between the two in just the same way.
Dan L,
I think your invocation of utilitarianism is without merit.
Suppose we agree that sexism is a character flaw of equal viciousness in men and women alike. Suppose we go on to recognize that women have been and still are an oppressed class. Finally, suppose we prioritize the fight against the oppression of women as an especially important cause, so that an individual’s misogyny is seen as more than a personal vice, but an element in a system of oppression. At no point have we given a happiness-centered account of value, much less a value-maximizing account of right action. Utilitarianism is a red herring: this is just prioritizing, just being sensible.
Of course. But clearly, given what’s gone on in this discussion, it’s not a matter of wanting or needing to have an “open discussion” vs. civility. Like Ophelia said, this is a case of dragging all sorts of hypothetical discussions and propositions from all over the internet into this one, particular discussion. Then using that to justify unremitting hostility and jocular, spitting disrespect.
I’m not “counting on” anything, and you don’t get to characterize this local, specific dispute as evidence that people like me “don’t want to have an open discussion.” All of us have already stipulated that we value that. We’ve also explained – ad-fucking-nauseum – why that’s not what’s going on here and now in this discussion on B&W .
Furthermore, how many more people here are going to keep defending the red herring idea that this is all about open discussion vs. those Bad Old Butt Hurt People Who Can’t Discuss Semantics Without Personalizing It?
Hasn’t it been clear enough for you? Hasn’t it? What the hell else do you need to hear to understand that:
1. We could have had that conversation, if our interlocutors hadn’t been total boors by dismissing us
2. Enough of us (especially me) have been rubbed raw enough that we’re not interested in hearing anymore bullshit “complexifying?”
Sorry Dave2, I know you mean well, but give it a rest.
G Felis,
Thank you, I appreciate that, especially coming from one of the most erudite commenters here (and I’m not saying that to suck up, so don’t anyone go getting all wounded about ass-kissing in “in crowd”). I admit I’m so pissed off I’m having a hard time keeping a civil tongue in my head at this point. I’d better try harder.
Josh Slocum,
I think it’s pretty clear that you don’t want to have an open discussion. I say that with no antagonism: it’s an understandable view for you to have.
You don’t want a discussion that recreates the hostile environment experienced by the marginalized. You would like otherwise legitimate lines of discussion to be discouraged and ruled off-limits so as to give some “breathing room”, as you put it.
My only point was that it’s a trade-off, and that others on your side might balance the conflicting goals in a different way.
It’s clear you’ve completely misinterpreted me, and that’s sad. I’m going to sign off because I don’t trust myself not to give you the verbal thrashing you deserve, but before I do:
Go take your condescending armchair psychoanalysis, put it in your pipe, and smoke it. You condescending bastard.
Josh: yes, great point, you could say that about anti-gay slurs as well. And now I’m wondering about whether these sexist commenters are prone to homophobic comments as well, though I lack the stomach to check. Like Josh, this is the kind of discussion that gets me pretty raw (though with less excuse since he’s actually been participating in it for a good while!).
On the contrary, Jenavir, you have every reason to feel rubbed raw. I meant it when I said homophobia is just a nasty derivative of good ol’ fashioned sexism- it is. It’s ugly, it’s anti-human, and it’s nasty as hell.
Whatever form they take, those snubs are nasty and vicious. And those who try to justify them by accusing others of “not wanting to have legitimate conversations” are first-class assholes.
Josh Slocum,
I never attempted to divine any underlying psychological forces that might be animating you. I’m simply taking your words at face value, and I’m not even disagreeing with them. If you think I’m misinterpreting you, then I regret that, but I don’t see any other way to read what you’re writing.
And I honestly do not know why you’re being antagonistic.
Then you haven’t actually been reading what I’ve written.
From reading your comments, I can understand why you might be frustrated by the environment you find yourself in, but what I can’t understand is why you would be antagonistic towards me.
I’ve been catching up late in the day with this thread! I think deciding whether a term is sexist will depend on nuances of tone and context and will inevitably involve *some* subjectivity. I might be less offended by a man calling a man a cunt in a jocular way than by a man calling a woman whom he does not know (on a blog for example) something much milder – at Harry’s Place a while back there was an argument about whether the term ‘silly cow’ was sexist. A month or so later a Harry’s Place blogger referred to a woman in a main post (not a comment) as a ‘dozy mare’. I can’t remember who the woman was annoyingly. I thought this was mildly sexist and also, I felt, constituted a sniggering allusion to the ‘silly cow’ debate. I broadly agree with Ophelia about the resonance and power of sexist terms – there are more sexist terms for women than for men and they tend to have a stronger force – for cultural and contextual reasons. But I think there are contexts in which men can be disadvantaged and be victims of sexist treatment or language even though I agree with Ophelia that the dynamic of power may decrease the likelihood and/or soften the impact of this. As a female lecturer in a female dominated subject (English) I feel I need to be alert to any situation (discussing some broadly feminist issue in relation to literature) where a lone male student might feel uncomfortable. But for cultural and historical reasons I think a female student is more likely to feel uncomfortable in the reverse situation. Someone made a good point towards the beginning of the thread about how people who make sexist comments rarely apologise when these are pointed out to them – this is very telling. I’ve occasionally reflected that I’ve been in some mild way ‘xxxxist’ and changed my ways – but those who use sexist language generally don’t want to reform.
@Dave2:
Maybe because you thought it was necessary to lecture Josh and tell him what his own views are? That never goes down well. The fact that you do it in response to a post where he explains the hostile environment created by such arguments probably didn’t help either.
(For this one comment I break my oath, that I won’t negotiate with capitalists, so that my hostility towards capital letters don’t get in the way of understanding. Please, appretiate my sacrifice.)
Everyone, I have a modest suggestion: take a deep breath.
There’s really no point to getting all hostile about a socio-linguistic question. I understand, that the issue of sexism carries a big emotional baggage, but it seems like many of you let your emotions get in the way of objectivity and intelligent discussion. (I, for one, am definitely guilty in this, and I apologize for it.)
As far as I see it, the main question is, whether an epithet is _objectively_ sexist or just sometimes/regularly/predominantly _used with sexist intentions_.
I would think, that it’s fairly easy to answer: if there are situations, when it is used without sexist intent, then it is not objectively sexist. But of course others may argue, that if an epithet is perodminantly used as a sexist insult, it makes it objectively sexist. I don’t think it’s true, but I’m afraid it’s impossible to resolve this disagreement.
So, instead I would argue, that it’s counterproductive to accuse everyone with “usage of sexist language”, when they use said epithets. Many men (and women) have no sexist intentions with this, and use these words simply as any other vulgar insults. Yes, it would be nice, if all of them answered with “Sorry, I didn’t mean to be sexist”, but people ususally find it hard to be polite, when they are accused of something they feel not guilty of. They feel hostility, so they respond with hostility. I suspect this is the main cause, that you rarely hear an apology in these cases. Maybe instead of accusations, it’s better to simply ask them, whether they meant to be sexists, and pointing out, that you feel hurt by these words. Only a complete jackass would answer to it with hostility, and it probably would make them more sympathetic about your sensitivity. At least, this way you don’t risk antagonizing otherwise perfectly nice, anti-sexists guys.
Wice, the positions are still under contention.
For instance, you likened feminists (i.e., who are angry with language use) to religious fanatics (i.e., who riot). That’s silly, and deserves to be mocked. I don’t mean to alienate you, as a person, but I do mean to alienate the carriers of that dotty opinion, and you get to choose your own opinions.
Benjamin:
You misunderstood me. I likened the _feelings_ of one group to the another, not their reactions, which would be obviously silly.
If people are perfectly nice anti-sexists, they will not use sexist language.
Otherwise they are at best confused.
Come on Wice, grow up. If someone uess the words ‘nigger’ or ‘kyke’ we accuse them of racism, rightly. It’s just that simple. Same goes for sexist epithets. If you don’t like that, go somewhere else. There comes a point in a discussion when you just have to cut your losses, and the losses in this thread have been mounting up steadily. You’re in a debit position now. Want to go for bankrupt?
@wice: excuse me? Are you now saying we shouldn’t point out sexism because it upsets people? Are you kidding me? WTF is wrong with you?
1. I was as polite as possible, and kindly asked you not let your emotions get in the way of intelligent debate. Your answers: “grow up”, “WTF is wrong with you?”
2. I explained, why I find the _objective_ sexism of these words disputable. Your answers: “sexist language”, “sexist epithets”, “sexism” in reference of these words as an objective fact.
3. I explained, that _pointing out that you perceive sexism is ok_, but careful wording of your complaint is useful, because there is a fair chance of misplacing it. Deen’s answer: “Are you now saying _we shouldn’t point out sexism_ because it upsets people?”
Seriously, people: is this your idea of a debate? Ignoring everything your opponent said, and repeating your mantra, as if restating your position equals proof? Returning politeness with rudeness?
Well, maybe it is. Sadly, my definition of debate is different, so I don’t see the point of arguing with you. Now, excuse me while I don’t give a flying fuck about you anymore.
Why am I somehow not surprised that a thread that kind of migrated from Dawkins ends up at over 120 comments?
wice, I’m going to remain calm about all the above, for not all of which I had patience. Your last sentence indicates you’ve been a troll along (those who don’t want to write at others like that simply don’t, no matter what the provocation). If you’re not and that’s not the impression you wanted to make, I’m sorry to have to inform you: you made a mistake.
@Wice: you confuse being polite with being civil. While your language may have been polite, your arguments were vile, hypocritical and condescending.
You were basically arguing that we must change our mode of communication because it may upset people when pointing out possible sexism. Except that all the time you have been arguing that people should never be required to change their usage of possibly sexist words, because it restricts their freedom of expression. Why are you trying to restrict our freedom of expression, but not that of sexists?
You also pretty much blame the people who point out sexism for the arguments and hostility that follows. You even tell us that we should simply accept the hostility we get. You are placing a large burden of responsibility on feminists, while placing almost none on the people who use these problematic epithets in the first place – not even on those that refuse to simply apologize. Not only are you telling us that we should just accept that the playing field is not level, you’re actively trying to tilt the playing field against us.
Your insistence that these words are not “objectively” sexist is just a distraction. Words don’t have to be universally considered to be sexist in all circumstances to be best avoided as a way to address people, it should be enough that they are generally considered to be problematic. It should be considered common knowledge that “bitch” is not a safe word to use in public discourse.
Why did you decide it was a better use of your time to try and to educate us that “bitch” can sometimes be harmless, rather than try and educate others that “bitch” most of the time is not harmless?
I wrote this follow-up comment just to show we’re perfectly capable of refuting your ideas with actual arguments. Even in polite language. I just don’t think you’re really worth the effort anymore.
wice, I think we excused you yesterday if you didn’t give a flying fuck about us any more. Really – consider yourself excused.
Wice, fine, but your comment was: “i don’t see any difference between saying that women are more sensitive to gender specific insults than men, so they must be treated with extra care, and saying that muslims are more sensitive to religion specific insults than eg christians, so they should be treated with extra care.”
Your point, I take it, was that they’re equivalent cases in the narrow sense that they both involve accommodating feelings. Well, okay. But feelings are not enough for ethics. If we’re interested in “what must be done”, then the very point is to look at the consequences of how we enact our egalitarianism. So if you’re not comparing riots to unpleasant conversations, then I don’t know why the thing you’re saying has any relevance.
In a more proper and complete analysis, much is put into the “how we enact” part of the above statement. For instance, I’ve suggested that you have an idea of egalitarianism that is more fit for Robocop than for the rest of us. The alternative is what I called “equity”.
bleurgh.
I just finished reading through that entire morass.
Does this thread count as the most ‘unproductive & futile’ ever on B&W?
Sheesh, anonymous posters who aren’t interested in reading really can derail anything approaching rational argument.
Ho hum.
Oh I’m sure there have been even more unproductive and futile ones over the last seven and a half years. There were all those opaque debates with ‘john c halasz’ for instance.
Deen:
As you might expect, I don’t accept this characterization of events. I never “lecture[d]” Josh on his own views. First I said ‘hostile environment’ and ‘open discussion’ considerations pull in different directions, then he (clearly antagonistically) accused me of mischaracterizing his views for rhetorical purposes, then I identified the views of his I was referring to in his own words, then (by this time belligerently) he accused me of trying to psychoanalyze him, a charge I immediately rejected.
Note that I have not used bigoted epithets, nor have I defended their use. I done nothing to recreate the hostile environment faced by marginalized groups. The most that could be understandably said is that I should not have politely disagreed with a discussant who had been “rubbed raw” by previous discussion. But (i) even that would be mostly false, since I never even disagreed with Josh’s main contentions, and (ii) surely that would be giving far far too much weight to ‘hostile environment’ considerations at the expense of ‘open discussion’ considerations.
Finally, if someone disagrees with my main contention about hostile environments and open discussion, then I’d be happy to discuss that interesting issue.
Oh, and I’ll note a complication I haven’t noted thus far: sometimes by discouraging a hostile environment, you actually enhance the openness of the discussion, by welcoming in more of the marginalized. So it’s not as simple as saying they pull in different directions, though I think that’s still a good first approximation.
Dave2, okay, let’s go back to your substantive point.
“the wish to avoid a hostile environment is understandable, but so is the wish to have an open discussion. Clearly these can pull in opposite directions, and I don’t think it can be counted on that reasonable people sort out the tension between the two in just the same way.”
I know what you mean, but I’m not sure it’s really true as applied to this discussion. I don’t really think avoidance of epithets is in tension with open discussion – I don’t think open discussion depends on the uninhibited use of epithets.
The broader category of ‘the wish to avoid a hostile environment’ might be, and I’m always (uncomfortably) aware of that in these discussions. But the wish to avoid a hostile environment in the form of epithets, I think, is less subject to that.
I suppose that’s just because epithets add nothing of substance. If they add nothing of substance, then avoiding them doesn’t make discussion significantly more closed.
And of course part of my point, and it turns out to be that of Hazel and Laurie and Tatiana and no doubt quite a few other people as well, is that the presence of epithets in fact does make discussion significantly more closed, because it causes women to stay away. This effect is of course not obvious, because the women just stay away, they don’t say ‘Hey I’m staying away!’ – so the locker roomy fools who drove them away don’t realize they’ve done it and don’t realize how impoverished their ‘discussion’ is.
Jeez – I was just making the same point as your second, Dave2, probably at the same time you were making it. That keeps happening. It’s spooooky!
I agree about the uninhibited use of epithets. Barring their use doesn’t really stop any discussion.
What I was talking about the way some people defend the use of these epithets: i.e., the glib, superficial, unrealistic, dismissive, etc. way some people defend their use. That’s something that can recreate a hostile environment, but I don’t see how to bar that perspective and the people who would defend it without limiting open discussion.
@Dave2: I’m quite willing to accept that the events looked quite different from your perspective. After all, you know your own intentions better than we do. But as you seemed genuinely puzzled by Josh Slocum’s response, and Josh wasn’t likely to respond, I figured I’d offer you a different perspective. From here, it very much did look like you were saying that you knew his views better than he did (a more uncharitable interpretation could even have been that you accused him of lying about wanting an open conversation). Rejecting that perspective outright is not very helpful in this context.
Except for what you did again in this comment:
This can very easily be interpreted as dismissing the very real-world consequences of sexism that Josh has to live with every day (while you don’t) as being far far less important than an abstract and nebulous ideal like “open discussion”. While it doesn’t use bigoted epithets, it still marginalizes Josh’s experience.
No, neither do I – but I generally do just decide it’s not worth bothering with.
Which perhaps shows that people with bad arguments are self-limiting – they drive more sensible people away and are left with only each other.
But on the internets that’s a lot of people, and they can take over, which is unfortunate.
Jerry Coyne has told me more than once that he envies the level of discussion here.
Deen,
I think your point would apply only if I had used sexist epithets, defended their use, or something along those lines. But all I had done was politely disagree with Josh on some peripheral meta-conversation points, while still agreeing with him on his main contentions regarding sexism. So I don’t think your point applies.
To forestall misunderstanding, I’ll add that the “that” in “surely that” referred to the view that I shouldn’t have politely disagreed with Josh, etc. To be sure, if “that” had referred to the view that others shouldn’t use sexist epithets or glibly defend their use, then Deen’s point would have considerable force.
I appreciate those of you who re-articulated my position, and you did it accurately. Dave2, I don’t see you as an enemy, and I think you’re thoughtful, but I do think you didn’t understand my point about context (and the irritation of having wounds constantly re-opened when you’re pleading with people to let them rest).
Surprising as it may sound, I’m not interested in any more verbal combat, and I regret how much of it happened. I’m not sorry for anything I said above – I meant it. But I do regret letting my emotions get the better of me so completely.
But, please, try to see this as an illustration that you can only push reasonable people so far before they feel extremely provoked . I am, admittedly, hot-tempered by nature, and it’s not always an admirable character trait. I am not, however, dumb, generally unreasonable, or unresponsive to nuanced, debatable points, or even especially quick to go off half-cocked. I’m more likely than most people to be extremely blunt, but I don’t think my reaction to this conversation is much different, internally, than others here who’ve been troubled by it. More than likely, people with a calmer disposition than mine simply say nothing and go away, but I suspect they’re just as angry about it as I, only less given to being vocal.
Josh Slocum,
Thanks for that expression of regret, and I’ll join it with an sincere expression of regret for having (however inadvertently) re-opened wounds from earlier in the conversation.
Perhaps if I had been more upfront about my own views (I think the oppression of women is perhaps the most important social problem there is and that poisonous misogyny is an especially deplorable problem online and elsewhere), my comments about open discussion wouldn’t have had such a negative impact on you and perhaps others. But perhaps that’s still too optimistic or simplistic.
“Jerry Coyne has told me more than once that he envies the level of discussion here.”
And he’s usually right to do so. But B&W is a bit of an island in what might well be compared to a swamp, so one can’t ever guarantee something slimy won’t crawl up to the high ground and try to drag us all down to swamp level.
OB,
heartily agree with Jerry Coyne regarding the general level of B&W, and I regularly use it as a relatively shining example of well-moderated rational debate on other sites/to friends (my, that sounds so like ass-kissing), but do find the incidence of comments containing swearing (which seems to be becoming more common? or is that just me?) irritating/ineffective.
I know, free speech, modes of expression, etc, but when it crops up in arguments around here it’s just…disappointing, I suppose.
Ho hum.
I was responsible for most of that this round, and I’ll endeavor to do better. On the other hand, I rather think the substantive problems that went on in this thread are a bit more worrisome than my blue streak.
You mean mine Andy? I do drop the f-bomb occasionally in a post, always with misgivings, but also always with a sense of need for an extra level of outrage. It’s usually about some guy murdering his daughter and then gloating about it afterwards, or something along those lines.
I get the impression this is much like the intelligent design community promoting “teach the controversy”. ID with no theory and no evidence wants to be thought on par with evolution. So do those in power (white male straight christian etc) want any criticism of their actions to be construed as discrimination.
Of course I wasn’t arguing that you shouldn’t have disagreed with Josh, I was merely arguing that it could explain feelings of antagonism. Sorry if that was unclear. Again, to you it was a harmless argument in an interesting meta-conversation, but for others it means they are once again forced into a defensive position in a very real struggle for recognition.
@Dave2:
Thank you so much for that one. I was considering to add something similar to my 2010-01-08 – 05:45:28 comment, but I couldn’t get the wording right. I think it’s a very important point.
In the end, moderation of conversations comes down to some paradoxical questions: is it OK to be hostile towards hostile attitudes? Should you tolerate the intolerant? Can you censor the censors? I don’t think we will ever quite solve this.
[…] 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 […]
[…] Epithets Share this:FacebookTwitterEmailPrint Posted in Notes and Comment Blog Tags: Misogyny, Sexism « How dare you enforce the law You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. GA_googleFillSlot("Science_Embed1_300"); […]