Fun with names
How to get more traffic on your blog…write about elevator guy. Ha! That’s a good one. That’s a real thigh-slapper.
Steve Caldwell makes a different suggestion.
Apparently, the secret for a successful website (aka “blog”) is misspelling a person’s last name so the misspelled name includes a slang term for female genitalia.
That will get one over 1240 comments …
Quite, with the addendum that as of this moment the count is 1283. What fun all this would have been if Watson had had a couple of confederates, Rachel Unt and Rosalind Ussy. But then again what if the confederates had been named Rachel Igger and Rosalind Pade? Would the count have been higher, or lower, or the same?
My guess, and I’m willing to make a bet on it: far lower and far less toxic. If, that is, the blog owners actually had the guts to put those two terms — or equivalents for other groups — in the post. It still boggles my mind that whereas racist epithets are beyond the pale (except on explicitly supremacist sites), sexist ones are not merely acceptable but considered a badge of distinction by the Palin/Paglia copies and the MRAs they’re working overtime to appease.
Could be worse. He could be giving advice on how to be a friend.
Apparently we never really left junior high.
Ah, but standing up for the rights of people like Abbie to not be “slandered” in blog comments—while she lets cunt, twat, bitch, feminazi and the rest fly with abandon—is noble, progressive work. Hardy-har, Jerry, hardy-har. What a huge and unexpected disappointment.
You guys just totally lost me. I must not be reading the right blogs or something. I have no idea what the previous comments are all about. Maybe that’s just as well?
Athena’s comment #1 excepted, of course.
I think using any sort of obscene or rascist language in parodising a person’s real name or posting handle is unacceptable. Not parodising in and of itself – but do try to maintain some decorum; for my part I usually refer to ex-Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali as Nazi-Ally.
Harald, that’s probably a good thing. In this case, ignorance really is bliss.
Ah, good. I’ll stop reading the comments, then, in case someone tries to explain it.
You know, if you actually read the whole thread,(boy was it painful) there are really only like 5 people (and i’m pretty sure 1 of the 5 is a sock puppet of one of the other 4), who are making the ridiculous arguments. Then there are about a dozen or so people who obviously have no idea what the issue was about but are instinctively on Dawkins side, no matter what he said or did.
Oh and anyone who would use the term “Twatson” if you cured cancer tomorrow, I would rather die than accept the cure from you.
Wow, Dave. Um, ok, as long as you don’t try to stop ME or anyone else from accepting the cure on that basis.
He’ll have to check with the Great Leaders of the Gynocracy.
Same here. It also boggles that there are people who are willing – even eager – to defend that, explicitly. Peter Beattie did that just yesterday.
I keep finding out things I don’t want to know…
Ah, but words don’t mean just one thing! They can mean infinitely many things, and are as changeable as chameleons and as malleable as Play-Doh! And who are you to say that ‘bitch’ or ‘cunt’ means something degrading to women? *I* use the word ‘bitch’ to refer to both men and women! No, really, I do! Cross my heart and hope to die! You can’t DISBELIEVE me, because that’s mean and close-minded. And using it for both men and women makes it non-sexist!
/pathetic self-excusing bigot
You could get a lot of traffic if you posted Sale Courant’s definitive list of gender traitors. That way people could have a red carpet gala event as people step up to the stage to accept their award. I’m thinking of something kind of like the Emmys, only less spiteful.
Benjamin, your little obsession with or crush on me or whatever is becoming a bit awkward.
What, you don’t like the Emmys?
Oh knock it off, Ben.
Look, I wasn’t crazy about “gender traitor” two weeks ago or whenever it was, but given the “Twatson” thread, it now looks pretty descriptive.
Whatever you say.
Ophelia – the level of anger directed towards Rebecca Watson and anyone who disagrees with Abbie’s assessment is astounding. I posted a few comments over there that disagreed with the crowd and I tried to do so in a conciliatory spirit. But it was no use.
And I think that Abbie has discovered the Star Wars corollary to Godwin’s Law in this comment:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2011/07/dawkins_coup_de_grace_in_vegas.php#comment-4574198
She has compared Rebecca to Anakin Skywalker (aka Darth Vader) and has compared Stef McGraw to a “youngling” (Yoda-speak for child Jedi-in-training).
I’m pretty sure that Stef was an adult in her 20’s. And I certainly hope that Rebecca doesn’t have a Death Star or can choke a person without physical contact using the Force.
Jedi took kids from their families and turned them into galactic Robocops spouting pseudo-Buddhist platitudes and behaving like feudal lords. The Ottoman Turks did the same — the results were called janissaries. So the metaphor doesn’t work even if you take it at its own dumb context.
How specifically is he wrong about that? ERV, Skepchick, Miranda Celeste Hale and some other blogs have been getting lots of traffic because of the topic, more traffic than they were used to. Except for PZ, how is Coyne’s statement false? Eve if he is insinuating (wrongly or not) that people are talking about EG solely to drive up traffic, it does not negate the fact that this topic is obviously a popular one in the mostly american online secular/skeptic/atheist community and a post about it could be a surefire way to see a spike in traffic. Heck, I discovered a lot of new blogs from clicking on various links about who said what.
Concerning the term “gender traitor”, B&W actually linked to an article about that by Sally Feldman in 2008 with the byline:
Light searching turned up a strong association of that term with the kind of vile things you will find written on that 1000+ comment thread at ERV’s, although some of it is self deprecating. It seems to have been self-applied in a hyperbolic fashion by many women who voted for Obama over Clinton in the 2008 primaries, for instance. And it also appears to have been applied in the past to men who stood up for women’s rights. Margaret Atwood also used it in The Handmaid’s Tale as a term for gay men. So the term “gender traitor” has at least two inverted meanings: 1) people who do not conform to traditional gender norms and 2) women who work against women’s rights (sometimes by conforming to patriarchal notions of gender for females and also by supporting a man over a woman).
Look, I wasn’t crazy about “gender traitor” two weeks ago or whenever it was, but given the “Twatson” thread, it now looks pretty descriptive.
Yes. The mankids think that it is not possible for females to be sexist towards other women. So there is a lot of crowing that the likes of a few women like Abbie, Miranda, Steffi have rallied to the MRA cause.
Yes, you’ve put your finger on the real issue, Marie.
I’m sorry SC, I can’t read sarcasm online. The real issue (about EG) is sexism in the sketic/atheist/secular community but it it one issue that Jerry doesn’t want to talk about at lenght. Instead he made a remark (that some may consider to be sarcastic or snide) about how much traffic the topic is getting. Again, his remark is factual. And Ophelia stating how much ERV’s latest post about RW got traffic actually proved his point. Sorry if I’m not getting it. Is something lost in translation?
Yes, well…
Jebus. Fish in a barrel.
Jenavir,
the argument you mock so well is used routinely, and the people who use it consider themselves edgy intellectuals and fully expect to be taken seriously.
Marie,
are you familiar with the expression “dissecting gnats and swallowing camels”?
Steve Caldwell:
Jerry:
My comment (awaiting moderation):
Athena: No I did not know that expression. French is my first language, not english so I was unfamiliar with that english expression. Thanks for explaining your point however, which if I understand correctly means that you think I am criticizing this post or Ophelia Benson for minor offenses (Jerry’s comment being somewhat true because EG is a traffic-bumping topic) while ignoring major offenses (which would be either Jerry Coyne’s non-position position on Elevatorgate or/and what is going on in the ERV thread or/and the issue of sexism as problematized in the reaction to RW’s video). Have I got this correctly? I commented on the traffic thing because like I said, I don’t read sarcasm well and I interpreted the first sentences of this post “Ha! That’s a good one. That’s a real thight-slapper”as somehow saying this wasn’t a good joke because EG is not a good way way to get more traffic. Or that joking about EG getting blogs more traffic was in poor taste. Which is why I asked what is specifically wrong with Coyne’s remark.
SC: Je vosu emmerde.
Marie,
You’re a fool. This:
is a joke.
Jerry Coyne has not stayed out of this, publicly or privately. If you think he has, you don’t have a clue what’s going on. How could anyone need to point out – on his, this, or numerous other blogs – his numerous interventions in this? Are you not paying attention?
Which, if true (it isn’t), would be absolutely fine!
FFS.
which would be either Jerry Coyne’s non-position position on Elevatorgate
It is a lot more subtle and disturbing than that. For someone who apparently has no position on elevatorgate, Coyne has posted approvingly on ERV and worse, treated Ophelia very shabbily over a comment here which used the term ‘gender-traitor’ to describe Abbie Smith. He sent Ophelia a nasty email berating her comment policy and told her off or worse (Ophelia wont spell this out).
So Coyne’s snark is not aimed at ERV. Coyne’s pretence of taking the high road is just that- a pretence.
SC: It seems that you are the one unable to understand english. From what I followed by reading numerous threads (and not waging what seems like a personal vendetta and reporting in other blogs every single sexist comment made in the ERV thread as if being a special envoy that needs to reports ammunition to the “base”),Coyne has privately sent private emails to some people and left a few comments on some blogs (ERV mostly) as well as making *1* post about sexism (The Paula Kirby one in which he said to not mention RW). Plus that post with the joke about how to get traffic on your blog if you want to consider it. That doesn’t seems like talking at “lenght” about the topic of EG and/or sexism to me compared to PZ or Ophelia who devoted numerous entire posts about it.
But other than all of that, he’s said nothing! Marie, Marie, Marie…
*Oh, and the Mr Deity one, but ignore that.
Ah. Yeah.
SC: since when “not talking at lenght” was the equivalent of silence or nothing? Has he made numerous posts about EG or RW on his own blog, I meant website? No. We have a few passive-aggressive comments at ERV in which he mentioned Dawkins. He did not even explicitly stated his opinion on RW or EG or sexism at large in those comments. And a private email to Ophelia about Abbie being described as a gender-traitor. Again, if that is your opinion of Coyne’s “talking at lenght” about the issue of EG or sexism in the atheist-skeptical-secular community, then it is you who are a fool. On the other hand, he talks “at lenght” about free will.
Mirax: perhaps I badly qualified his “non-position position”. It seems obvious that Jerry do not want to appear as if he has a position on EG or RW even if he clearly has a position that he indirectly expressed. For example: his post about Paula Kirby in which he specifically stated that EG or RW must not be mentioned or his comments on ERV that was mostly on what he perceived as being the boycott/character assassination of Dawkins (sexist, misogynist). Even his email was not specifically about RW, EG or sexism but about objecting to the description of Abbie as being a “gender-traitor”. It is subtle and allows him to claim a non-position on the issue when he indeed has a position. That is what I meant but badly expressed when I wrote “non-position position”.
That’s reasonably at length.
Just…oh, OK, Marie, he’s boldly staying aloof from the matter.
You are not really this stupid.
So what you mean by subtle is dishonest.
His position may be dishonest but he is not talking at length about it. Like you do, like Ophelia does, like PZ does, like ERV does. At length definition:to talk about something fully, completly, in depth, for a long time, to the full extent, etc. That’s not hard to understand is it? Or has too much time obsessively reading every comment on the ERV thread addled your brain?
Also SC because I know, from your comments, you the type of person to read the worst into people’s words and to misrepresent them to suit your needs, I used the adjective “subtle” because it was the first one used by Mirax. Not because I have an appreciation for Coyne’s strategy.
Again, the combination of his public and private statements would, to many, constitute “at length.” Your “defense” is shabby, threadbare, and sad.
Oh, absolutely. That’s me in a nutshell.
Yes SC: 1 post about Paula Kirby on sexism, 2-4 comments on blogs and some private emails (about Abbie Smith) is talking at length about RW, EG and sexism! Words and expressions don’t have their commonly accepted meanings anymore if they don’t fit into your narrative. Like the expression at length that means talking about a subject for a long time and to a full extent (like PZ did on the topic of EG, devoting many posts and comments) and not one indirect post, a couple of emails about the term “gender-traitor”and a couple of comments on blogs. There is no need to talk to an imbécile like yourself. I have talked “at length” about it already: 7 comments, more than Jerry Coyne has devoted to RW or EG.
And my point was proven because of this comment ” so what you mean by subtle is dishonest”. Nevermind the word was already being used in a discussion.
It’s been three (including one very bossy) posts mentioning this issue, private emails about which you know virtually nothing, and other comments on blogs. For your comment about Ophelia’s post to make any sense, this context (especially his public and private comments about Abbie’s postings, an infamous one of which was a subject of the post) would have to be imaginary, which it is not.
You’re…interesting, Marie.
Since you can’t grasp sarcasm or nuance on the internet, I’ll explain. Ophelia’s post wasn’t about challenging the idea that posting about this matter would drive up blog traffic.
It appears you don’t care one way or the other.
Marie, I think the point has escaped you.
Whether Dr. Coyne has written at length on the subject, or no, it cannot be reasonably asserted that he has no point of view or that he has not taken sides–no matter how much you or I or any of his other fans may wish it.
Nor can it be asserted that he has remained silent. He has not.
The question is: Can a reasonable person discern that point of view, and if so, what is the appropriate position to take on the basis of it?
You, like Dr. Coyne, would like to claim that his posting very early in ERV’s pit o’ misogyny is not an endorsement. Yet, all one need do is look at the disparate treatment here: a nasty-gram to Ophelia for something that was said by a third party on her own blog, yet an implied attagirl for Abbie, who calls another woman “twat” with her own mouth. Dr. Coyne may fail to see the hypocrisy of it, but that does not mean that you must.
No one may decide for Dr. Coyne who his friends should be, or how he should conduct himself in those friendships, but let us not pretend that Dr. Coyne has, Solomon-like, floated above it all.
“Um, ok, as long as you don’t try to stop ME or anyone else from accepting the cure on that basis.”
By all means take whatever you like, I wont hold it against you. I have been known to “cut off my own nose to spite my face”.
I once lost a job I liked very much (and needed very much) because I couldn’t hold my tongue when my boss made a racist joke. I guess implying he was a racist douche wasn’t very tactful but I have never been known for tact either.
The thing is, about 15 years ago I would not have minded sexist jokes and might even have made some. (though never one so crude and dimwitted as “twatson”) its only been in the last few years that I have come to actually see the harm it does to people. Its real harm, its not a joke, and its not funny even to the smallest degree. But that is just my “rigid” thinking talking, don’t let it stop you from enjoying a good “nigger” or “bitch” joke.
Steve Caldwell @ 20 – I know, I saw your comments at Abbie’s, and the (entirely predictable) response to them. I think you’re seen as a [whispers] gender-traitor. :- b
Marie @ 22 – it’s not that the statement is false, it’s that it’s incomplete, and mote/beam – which is to say it’s a joke or mock of something minor which ignores something a good deal less minor. In other other other other words, I think “Twatson” and “fucking bitch” are a great deal worse than “gender-traitor.”
Marie
I blogged on the topic twice. It got hits – but not as many as blogging on Murdoch did.
Marie @ 34 (sorry to be boringly slow and methodical…)
No no; a personal vendetta is exactly what it isn’t. As a person I like Abbie (in some sense, given that I’ve never met her, and I don’t read her regularly etc) – I like her nerve and pugnacity. But I detest the content of that thread, and I report on some of it – certainly not every single sexist comment, good god – because I think sexist commentary matters. That’s not new; I’ve written about it at length here and elsewhere before.
It’s easy to confirm that last claim for yourself – just type sexist epithet into the search box at the top of the page.
Ophelia: It also boggles that there are people who are willing – even eager – to defend that, explicitly. Peter Beattie did that just yesterday.
When you say “explicitly”, please have the courtesy to refer to something I did actually say. To say that I think something should be tolerated (which I did say) is of course not the same as defending the use of that something (let alone in the sense that I encourage any generally denigrating content to be expressed; indeed, I said the exact opposite, i.e. that ‘twat’ and ‘dick’ do not necessarily have a denigrating sexist content and can, at least in such contexts, be tolerated).
I keep finding out things I don’t want to know…
And I will ask you again to consider the possibility that you keep “finding out” things that you actually do not know—and that in my case are certainly false. But you seem very eager indeed to believe them. Which, if anything, should make you more suspicious of your opinion in this matter.
Peter what else does this mean?
Perhaps you’re confused in the same way ernie was/is? Your distinction between tolerating and defending seems to suggest that. I’m not arguing that it should be illegal to say “cunt” – but I am saying it should be neither defended nor “tolerated” – socially tolerated as opposed to legally tolerated. I think it belongs in the box with nigger and kike and yid and kaffir: foul othering epithets all.
Hmmm… what’s more mature, and more in keeping with decent human values? Rebecca Watson and Stef McGraw disagreeing with each other in public? Or some third party jumping in to call Rebecca a twat and Stef a “youngling”(which if you’ve had the misfortune of seeing those SW prequels, you’ll know “youngling” refers to elementary school-aged children)?
“Stef is a little baby, and Rebecca is a twat for attacking a baby!” doesn’t seem like a position anyone should be proud to take, let alone defend.
My comment at Jerry’s will apparently not be appearing. I guess it didn’t meet the high standards that allowed the statement that EG has been “effectively raped” through. So it goes.
Deep sigh.
In what world, Mr. Beattie, does a civilized person argue/defend the idea that “twat” is free of denigration depending on context? Are you arguing/defending that Abbie’s use of it is one of those contexts? Based on the implied answers to the above questions, what more needs to be understood about your arguments prior to forming a reasoned conclusion?
Ophelia, look on the bright side. The next time someone asks you to define passive-aggressive, you’ll have another example handy!
Salty, your comment was modded at WEIT not on the basis of what you said, but because you were the one who posted it. I think this needs to be made explicit.
Coyne:
Nah, ya think? Who the fuck does this guy think he’s fooling?!
Don’t be too hard on yourself, Jerry. Realizing something that complex would require a functioning brain. SCORE!
Funnily enough, Rebecca Watson just did a bloggingheads interview with Ann Althouse, and Watson didn’t know that Althouse had been involved in her own epic feminism brouhaha where she criticized another feminist. That event is known as Breastgate according to rationalwiki.org.
@Aratina Cage
Ann Althouse wasn’t posting a criticism as one feminist to another. She was posting something nasty about another woman and her body in order to attack Bill Clinton, and then shielded herself from criticism over her sexist comment by claiming the feminist mantle.
Improbable Joe, that may very well be. In fact, I’m not sure I would be willing to label a conservative of any stripe a feminist. It just doesn’t seem right.
PZ: “Althouse is a clueless flibbertigibbet.” :)
Ann Althouse really really really thinks that conferences are there only for the possibility of sexual intercourse. So that’s what all those men have been doing for centuries at conferences without all those women–having sex with each other!
Ophelia: Perhaps you’re confused in the same way ernie was/is?
Thanks for trying to understand what I’m saying. No, I’m not talking about any legal sense of ‘tolerate’. I’m talking about the same social toleration that you are talking about: whether or not the use of a specific word in specific circumstances should be flagged with a strong label that says ‘hateful’, ‘inciting’, or something to similar effect (‘sexist’, ‘misogynistic’, ‘antisemitic’, etc.). In the case of the thread at Abbie’s, I do not think that such labelling is necessary, because it is pretty clear from what the people there said that they did not mean to convey any othering sense of the words they used. They used them as insults—obviously; but in the sense of degrading women per se, I don’t think so. To use a clarification that you introduced: I very much doubt that anybody over there would even dream about thinking of anybody’s genitalia as “nasty filthy [and] sinister”. To just assume that anybody would, simply because they used a word that refers to genitalia, doesn’t strike me as particularly rational.
Peter I’m sorry but “it is pretty clear from what the people there said that they did not mean to convey any othering sense of the words they used” is just ridiculous.
I’m apalled about that thread, probably the nastiest thread I’ve ever seen. I visit ERV fairly regularly and never saw anything remotely similar to that. I wanted to comment something Peter said.
I very much doubt that anybody over there would even dream about thinking of anybody’s genitalia as “nasty filthy [and] sinister”.
When I was starting to learn English I had to look up why “nigger” was a racial slur. We have only one word for black: “negro”, so early on I thought saying “black people” and “nigger people” was exactly the same. In other words, I was oblivious to the origin of the word and its connotations. Eventually I learned why using the word is not nice. I could learn too why words like cunt or twat are not nice.
I’d say it’s easy to understand: if identifying a woman with female genitalia is used as an insult, it implies two things: 1, it reduces the woman to the genitalia; 2, it assumes the genitalia is bad, because otherwise it couldn’t be an insult; it would be a neutral statement or a compliment depending on whether genitalia is considered neutral or good respectively. Having that in mind, I think what Ophelia said becomes clear: “Somebody saying that to you is telling you not to act like a woman’s genitalia. That denigrates all women while telling a man not to “be” (that is, act like, meaning the condition is temporary) like women, who are nothing but their nasty filthy sinister genitalia.” That’s the reason why those words aren’t nice to use. If I used it, I would be (voluntarily or otherwise) validating these connotations, perpetuating them. Luckily, I won’t be doing that because I’ve learned what the word implies.
Peter,
This psychologizing that is getting you into trouble. It’s the same problem you had earlier, when you assumed that the use of racial epithets among a racialized group were for purposes of teasing. Sometimes they are, sometimes they’re for shittier purposes — and the out-group member is pretty much always the last to know which is which.
What’s so filthy about this EG issue, that WEIT has to be kept clean of it? Mocking it and people who think it’s an important issue is fine but actually discussing it is off limits. That itself is taking a very clear stance on the issue.
Oh well, I found so many new great blogs following the discussions in the past weeks I’m not going to miss that one. I haven’t commented on the EG thing so far, but I want to thank you Ophelia for your great commentary and analysis. And for having great commenters too.
Thanks Hertta.
WEIT just added another blog post about the topic that is not discussed on WEIT.
Which I suppose is fitting — it’s a blog that isn’t a “blog” that doesn’t want to discuss the topics it raises.
@Screechy Monkey
So Jesus ‘n’ Mo joins the MRA circle? Posted: July 27th, 2011. Title: girls. Tags: dogma, feminism, sexism. *sigh*
@Screetchy Monkey: Yes. This has always been my all-time favorite blog approach: Post, but close comments to avoid the fall out.
What? J and M? Oh no…………….
Oh Dave…………………………………
I really really really hope the J and M toonist hasn’t joined the MRA circle. I’m hoping he hadn’t seen Abbie’s thread…
Jerry is surprised to find a nasty comment about women on that post. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, bummer. So much for Jesus and Mo, then, at least for me.
Eh, I give humorists like the J&M artist and Mr. Deity a little latitude in these things. And I think the “Watson doesn’t speak for all feminists” point the J&M strip makes, while a bit of a cheap shot and non sequitur, is not really an “MRA” position.
Yeh; it’s not. He hadn’t seen Abbie’s thread and emphatically doesn’t endorse it.
The best possible interpretation of this particular cartoon is to put it in the category of “going off half-cocked.” The cartoonist is also mansplaining on several levels as well as doing the “I’m edgy and above the fray” snark.
I rarely read J&M, and can now cross it off my list with no regrets. Life is finite.
Ophelia: I really really really hope the J and M toonist hasn’t joined the MRA circle.
What exactly makes you even suspect that?
I’m hoping he hadn’t seen Abbie’s thread…
Apart from the fact that at least three of the four panels rather accurately reflect what has been said by prominent members of one side (inasmuch as there are any sides) of this kerfuffle, what do you suggest that would change about the cartoon?
Beattie, you could not buy a clue if I loaned you a $100.
Please read the cartoon more carefully.
“A Guide for Confused Girls”?
Really? No, I mean, REALLY? Sweet Jesus in a banana hammock, women have objected to being called “girls” at LEAST as long they’ve objected to being called cunts, twats, and bitches.
Did you grow up in a sound-proof booth or something?
Marta, you do realize that the art of satire often involves writing fictional dialog for fictional characters. It’s Moses who is using the offending term, not the author.
Yeah, I fail. I’ve re-read that last panel, and I see some irony there.
But there’s no avoiding the distinct point of view of the other three panels, which seems to represent only one side of the discussion. Maybe the cartoonist hopes that the cartoon will work like a mirror for the reader, reflecting back what he or she already thinks. Maybe. But it seemed incredibly one-sided to me.
Peter: the barmaid says no, she doesn’t get belittled by the males in the atheist community. In light of the thread at Abbie’s, that’s a ridiculous, clueless answer. If Author had seen Abbie’s thread, that would have to mean he thought it wasn’t belittling women.
Just as, of course, your commenting there taints what you say here.
To me, it seems to be implying that Rebecca and others, simply in response to an answer to a question like that about her personal experiences, feminists are condescendingly and dogmatically going after her to go along with everything we say. It’s bizarre in that what actually happened is that a woman talked about her personal experience in context and made a mild suggestion for change and then was criticized and attacked and had that experience diminished by some men and women. Then her response to one of those (quite condescending) criticisms from another woman was further attacked. I suspect in this case they, like so many others, don’t really know the story enough to make an intelligent comment on it. In any case, they haven’t made an intelligent comment on it that I can discern.
Let’s see how I would have answered Moses’s question for reals.
By the privileged white males? I don’t know. I don’t always know who is privileged or who is white; I don’t necessarily even know who is male. I don’t get hit upon or sexually objectified, certainly, being both repellent and surly, not to mention the fact that I don’t get out much. But patronized, dismissed, belittled? Hell yes. I’ve been called a useless putrid twat. There’s a blogger who posts patronizing dismissive belittling crap about me often, including remarking on my lack of tits and other sexually rebarbative qualities. I’ve had to realize the “atheist community” is replete with people who think it’s edgy and funny to call women twats, cunts, and fucking bitches. Not all of them are men, but in the nature of things, most of them are.
So, leaving out the “privileged white” part, the answer is yes, you bet.
Actually I guess complaining about my lack of tits is sexually objectifying, so being hit on is the only box where I can check ‘No.’
I admit I’m not sure what points the J&M artist is trying to make there, but there’s plenty of irony built in:
It’s <i>Moses</i>. you know, Teh Patriarch. He–a literal patriarch–accuses the barmaid of being a gender-traitor, brainwashed by the patriarchy, and he–the male patriarch–is giving a lecture on proper feminism, for ‘girls’.
Moses is the buffoon here. Whatever the point is supposed to be.
I think it might be trying to suggest that feminists are acting like dogmatic patriarchs. But it’s not entirely clear to me, either.
Ophelia: In light of the thread at Abbie’s, that’s a ridiculous, clueless answer.
I don’t see how that has anything to do with the thread at Abbie’s. As far as I can see, the first panel in the cartoon is a direct reference to Paula Kirby and RW at the two Dublin panels.
your commenting there taints what you say here.
Just the simple fact of me commenting there, or some specific content?
Just the simple fact of me commenting there, or some specific content?
You’ve not exactly distinguished yourself here, either, but regardless, nothing you wrote at ERV’s pit o’ horrendous is hall of fame material.
If it is, it’s quite stupid. Paula Kirby wasn’t some woman being asked in a general way about her personal experiences. She was speaking on a panel about women in atheism and had the obligation to look beyond her personal experience and listen to what other women have been saying for the previous few, y’know, years. That she apparently didn’t take them seriously enough to do this is condescending on her part. And anyone clueless enough to suggest that people look to the evidence of women appearing as speakers at atheist/skeptic events is evidence of a lack of sexism in the communities really should not be publicly lecturing on the matter. Second, as Ophelia’s trying to point out, even if anyone were so blind as not to have recognized the sexism and misogyny in the communities a couple of months ago, the evidence of the response to Watson and particularly Abbie’s thread should make them look very out of touch indeed. If it really did refer to Kirby, the premise is both a false hypothetical that twists reality and a silly one given subsequent public events.
That’s how I read it, and then I looked at the title and the tags and thought that those confirmed it. Oh, and it’s not “feminists” who are acting like Moses but “girls”. Silly girls being all dogmatic like Moses! Hahahahahahahaha-ha-ha-ha-ha–ha–ha–ha—ha—ha…ha. Or maybe it is saying that feminism is old and irrelevant and patronizing to women like the Laws of Moses, but then that isn’t funny either. Oh well, I don’t see the humor in this one.
I see the misogynist hate fest is still going on… ;>
Well, maybe you’d like to try some McCarthyism light for variety?
Post 1098 by Beattie at the cesspit.
1. denial of misogyny at that thread even as he was wallowing nose deep in it.
2. the McCarthyism jibe aimed at Ophelia and B&W even as the man was whinging here that he was debating in good faith.
It is a little disappointing to see The Artist resorting to the “any atheist who disagrees with me is being dogmatic just like religious people!!!!!” trope that is so beloved of accomodationists.
mirax: 2. the McCarthyism jibe aimed at Ophelia and B&W even as the man was whinging here that he was debating in good faith.
One ounce of intellectual honesty would have let you see and acknowledge that that was directed at one specific comment. Please go read it before you judge others.
There’s a blogger who posts patronizing dismissive belittling crap about me often, including remarking on my lack of tits and other sexually rebarbative qualities.
Seriously? There are too many sad loser bastards on the internet.
Amusingly, posted (about Josh, FFS!) well after Ophelia had described Jerry’s behind-the-scenes attempt to bully her into silencing me.
If we stipulate that, how is it honest to portray Kirby as a barmaid and Watson as a patriarch? How would that make sense?
I read the joke as being, not about feminists in general, or even Rebecca Watson in particular, but about one particular mansplaining male patriarch who thinks he can lecture all women how to feel.
Except the unintended irony, which I implied in my earlier comment, is that the cartoonist himself is doing exactly the same — using the cartoon to lecture women about how to feel/think “correctly”, aka mansplaining.
@Sigmund
OK, then why no mention of that in the tags or title? Why no allusions to squid or octopodes or some such? There is nothing connecting Moses to PZ in that comic, is there?
SC: Amusingly, posted (about Josh, FFS!)
Not about Josh, but about what he said, which was indeed amusing for its utter lack of self-awareness. Is it really asking too much for a distinction to be made between a person and what they say?
well after Ophelia had described Jerry’s behind-the-scenes attempt to bully her into silencing me.
I don’t follow. What does that have to do with me taking exception to being told that I had to prove that I can “be trusted”?
@Sigmund: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2011/07/20/is-it-cold-in-here/
The bold words “sisters in skepticism” and “diminishing” come from Jennifer Ouellette’s. “Brainwashed by the patriarchy” exists on Pharyngula but has nothing to do with this event.
Aratina, what event?
Elevatorgate.
I can’t find “privileged white males” on Pharyngula either having anything to do with Elevatorgate.
Will you try to read a bit less stupidly? You referred to Josh’s comment as “McCarthyism light,” which certainly suggests that you’re saying that Josh is engaging in some form of McCarthyism for suggesting that he doesn’t trust you to have his back (nor do I). In any case, people very frequently say “your comment about X” when they mean “your comment about X’s comment and how you read it.” It’s utter lack of self-awareness? Are you intentionally trying to be dense?
Saying that he, as a member of a threatened group, doesn’t trust people who defend those who use slurs to degrade people in threatened groups has zero in common with McCarthyism. Trying to bully people behind the scenes into silencing others on their blogs, however, does.
If this is supposed to be about PZ, it’s truly odd.
Peter – get a clue – if you’re going to Abbie’s “Twatson” thread to complain about comments here, then that’s a tacit endorsement of Abbie’s “Twatson” thread and complaint about mine. Given the pattern over there it amounts to inviting them to call Josh and me and everyone who comments here cuntsfuckingbitchestwats and all the rest of it. If you’re not a fan of calling people cuntsfuckingbitchestwats then you’re just crazy to comment that way there; I don’t think you’re crazy; therefore I conclude that you’re a fan of calling people cuntsfuckingbitchestwats. You’re also, weirdly, pretending otherwise.
mirax @ 104 – oh yes. And yes, I know.
Do we actually know the gender of the author of Jesus and Mo?
Do we actually know the gender of the author of Jesus and Mo?
May I ask you why you think the artist’s gender is relevant?
Use of male pronoun, probably. Anyway yes. He’s anonymous but not as secretive as all that; he’s let it be known via a link at J and M that his name is Dave. Besides I know who he is, and have for a long time (he told me). We’re friends, at least in my view, despite not having met.
Ben Goldacre’s actually met him! </ jealous>
I don’t, because I don’t care about what Jesus and Mo says.
But I notice that Athena assumes it’s a male in order to talk about “mansplaining”. I was wondering whether that was an assumption or a fact.
Ah, cool. Good to know.
Ophelia: Peter – get a clue –
Is that can of Condescend-O ever going to run out?
if you’re going to Abbie’s “Twatson” thread to complain about comments here, then that’s a tacit endorsement of Abbie’s “Twatson” thread and complaint about mine.
Bullshit. I linked to one specific comment. Wilfully ignoring that just to paint me into your favourite bogeyman corner is not cool. As to the merits of that comment, Hitch has made a very reasonable observation about that kind of thing on another thread here.
Given the pattern over there it amounts to inviting them to call Josh and me and everyone who comments here cuntsfuckingbitchestwats and all the rest of it.
Also, bullshit. This is not about you , no matter how many times you make assertions to the contrary. But this is the actual crux: you say you can speak for all women in this matter, i.e. that what the guys over there are doing is an insult to all women. Which is exactly the point they are contesting. (Just in case: yes, I have read all comments there. I actually know what I’m talking about.) Take your own advice: get a clue.
Peter, it’s not how many comments, it’s choosing that as a place to complain about them/it. It’s a dog whistle – hey guys, look what people say over at that bad place.
No the can is not going to run out, because the longer this goes on, the worse you seem to be at reading accurately and at writing carefully.
I have never once made any assertions that “this is about me.” I do not say I can speak for all women. Saying X is an insult to women as such is not the same as saying one can speak for all women.
I asked you yesterday to drop it. I repeat: please drop it. I’ve said repeatedly why I don’t think it’s a subject that needs to be argued, and why it usually isn’t. I don’t want to argue about it with you. Please drop it.
Remember folks, you can say whatever slurs and bigotry you want about a group as long as you can get at least one member of the group to say it’s ok! Then, when somebody complains, you wave that permission slip in their face and say “you don’t speak for all members of that group!” and they have no choice but to be stunned and shamed into silence at the compelling rebuttal you have provided.
Ben, when I posted that comment I knew the J&M cartoonist was a man. Unlike many people, I do my research before I open my mouth (a scientist’s habit).
Screechy, bingo!
Hmm, the plural of “in-group gossip” isn’t “research”. But — thanks, Science!
You’re funny, Ben, though not the way you intend. I knew because I had communicated with Ophelia off-list. You should try research yourself sometime, it beats pendantic juvenile snark.
So just to be clear — your response to my calling your belief “gossip” is to say: no, that’s not true, because you covertly shared information with someone on the subject of somebody else’s private affairs? That’s like a thief saying, “I didn’t do it officer, honest, I’m no thief, I just stole some stuff from the guy.”
No it isn’t Ben!
I wouldn’t call it research myself, but I also wouldn’t call it gossip. It’s not “somebody else’s private affairs”; as I said, he comments as a guy at Jesus and Mo, which is public.
Looks like the author of Jesus ‘n’ Mo created the “girls” comic after reading the standpoint of Three men make a tiger and the discussions for that piece and for another piece by Zen Buffy. 3MMaT says that feminism and “any ideological movement based on ideals and aspirations has dogma, and as such is separate to skepticism” while adding that “the irony of dogma getting into skeptical movement shouldn’t be lost on skeptics“. Then Zen Buffy had a big problem with her blog being linked to (and subsequently unlinked to) by Jennifer Ouellette, and the “anti-dogmatists” came out in force there with 3MMaT leading off the thread with a complaint about some of the phrases highlighted in bold in this Jesus ‘n’ Mo comic strip.
Urgh. Thanks Aratina.
Oph — “personal affairs”, then. Amounts to the same.
Anyway, thanks.
Personal? Really? Just saying what gender someone is? It can be a nosy question in some contexts, granted, but I don’t think it was especially personal in this one. Maybe it was though…it’s so long ago now…
I gotta go. Fresh air, quick.
Oph, in this case, yes, I’d say so. Any meaningful and unobvious detail is personal in a case where the person keeps themselves in a state of anonymity/pseudonymity.
By contrast, I wouldn’t say that Brad Pitt’s sex is a personal detail (even though it is a part of his ‘personal identity’ in some other irrelevant sense). So yeah, context matters.
From the comment box at Jesus ‘n’ Mo:
I’m sure there is irony there somewhere.
What? As part of the skeptical movement, I want people to learn and practice skepticism; for a skeptical perspective to be accepted; for religious and other silly and unevidenced claims not to be considered immune to challenge; for skeptics/atheists challenging superstition not to be attacked, ridiculed, discriminated against, caricatured; for public policy to be made based on clear concepts, reason, and evidence; etc. These are skeptical ideals and aspirations. A movement that lacks ideals and aspirations for social change is not a movement.
…for religious and other silly and unevidenced claims not to be considered immune to challenge; for skeptics/atheists challenging superstition not to be attacked, ridiculed, discriminated against, caricatured; for public policy to be made based on clear concepts, reason, and evidence; etc.
In other words, for an end to certain forms of privilege.
For heaven’s sake. The author gave an interview to a blog not two weeks ago under his real name, Ben. Still wanna accuse O of divulging “personal information” improperly?
@Peter Beattie – Mcarthyism? Me? For objecting to your smug and vile defense of faggot cunt bitch twat? Bless your heart.
Josh, nope — because I didn’t say anything about impropriety.
This whole episode has been extremely disappointing. How such a mild suggestion could be warped into FEMINAZI MAN-HATER and the rest of what followed speaks of something truly ugly within our community. I can’t even entertain the notion that most of this is the work of trolls anymore given how many high-profile atheists seem to have joined in with the negative portrayal of Watson – sometimes combined with sexist language. So much for putting my head in the sand.
And then there’s surprise when misogynists feel encouraged to post blatant bigotry… It’s absurd how oblivious people have proven to be.
@Aratina, I think you may be right with regard to the inspiration for the Jesus and Mo comic, but it’s probably a little wider than just my blog, as I’m definitely not the only person who’s been utterly (and very publicly) trashed for daring to disagree…
You brave soul.
@SC, I didn’t ask for your sympathy, so there’s no reason to provide it in such a passive-aggressive manner.
You seem to be confusing mocking and sarcastic with passive-aggressive.
And I’ll be more clear: that was 0% passive and 100% aggressive. You’re a full-blown twit.
Jennifer, have you been called anything equivalent to “Twatson”?
That’s a genuine question; I don’t know the answer. My guess is that you haven’t, but I certainly don’t know that. Please do say if you have, so that I can jump all over it. I’m beyond sick of all this twatting and cunting.
I’m not sure what might be the equivalent of “Twatson”, since my surname doesn’t meld quite so easily with a derogatory term. I’ve certainly been called names, both in the past, and as a result of my recent blogs though (in fact, even right here in this comment thread), if that’s what you’re asking.
I don’t particularly care for the “Twatson” moniker – I don’t agree with Watson, but I’d rather attack the argument than the person, and that’s just attempting to discredit the argument she’s making by calling her a twat, which is, frankly, lazy arguing.
Jenniefer, no, that’s not quite what I’m asking; I’m asking if for instance you’ve been repeatedly called a twat, a cunt, and a fucking bitch, as Watson has on Abbie Smith’s long thread. I ask because you said (in # 144) that you’ve “been utterly (and very publicly) trashed for daring to disagree…” I’m wondering if you’ve been as thoroughly trashed as Watson has, and if the way she’s been (and still is being) trashed worries you at all.
Quite right, James.
There was a brief opportunity, early on in the ERV pit o’slime, for any of the “high-profile” atheists to have written a single sentence to the effect of “I don’t disagree with what you’ve said, but the way you’ve said it, NOT GOOD.” Except for PZ (who was excoriated in the comments) none did. Their lapse enabled and empowered the cretinous language that followed.
Jennifer – I’ll elaborate a little. You said you didn’t ask for SC’s sympathy, but in fact, saying you’ve “been utterly (and very publicly) trashed for daring to disagree” is at least partly a bid for sympathy.
You’re apparently claiming that the inspiration for this Jesus and Mo was the fact that you and others have been utterly (and very publicly) trashed for daring to disagree [with Watson or about Watson]. I’m wondering how that works, given that Watson too has been utterly (and very publicly) trashed for daring to disagree, as have people who agree with at least some of what she said. PZ for instance has been called a dictionary’s worth of names, especially “gender traitor” type names like girl, pink, etc.
From what I’ve seen, the names from the anti-Watson “faction” have been more numerous and vastly more malevolent than those from the anti-anti-Watson “faction.” By all means tell me if I’m wrong about that.
Meanwhile, and totally predictably, the Jesus and Mo thread is filling up with sexist shit. Nice work, Dave.
…quips the anonymous troll.
Do you have a point, Ben? Has Jennifer in fact been “trashed” to anything like the extent that Rebecca has? (Maybe she has, but if so, she forgot to say where.)
Speaking of Jennifer…let’s see…
But that’s not the only possible version of equality and non-different treatment. Another version would be that women and men are free to go to work and to atheist and skeptic conferences without being sexually solicited, and women and men are free to think about something other than sex in non-sexual contexts.
Sure! My point is that the person who posts under the name of Salty Current is a coward and a hypocrite. I thought that was obvious, sorry.
On the wider issues — if these are issues — I’m wheezing and Solomonesque:
– I don’t think Keane was especially harmed, though I think Ouelette’s behavior was pretty silly.
– I also think you’re probably right that the hordes of entitled mansplainers is probably more numerous than the vengeful fembots. But I don’t think anyone here has a monopoly on mendacity.
– Peter is not thinking through what he is saying or listening very carefully to the advice being given, so his gesticulations to the contrary are breathtaking. But he shouldn’t be grouped with hordes of shit-disturbers just because he singled out one comment on another blog.
– I don’t care what the author of Jesus and Mo thinks about the price of rice, and nobody should. Ever.
– Coyne acted inappropriately by barging in on your email box and demanding that you to punish the aformentioned coward and hypocrite. In the interests of furthering human dignity, the feelings of cowards and hypocrites deserve to be closely attended to, so long as one has the energy and inclination to try to unwarp the wood.
Additionally — just to add a complaint that isn’t just gossip — I am disturbed by this wider pattern of behavior, where people use “tone” as an excuse to silence dissidents who are reasons-responsive. You in particular have been subject to some pretty fantastic bullshit. In your case, I’m not sure this is about dealing with others’ passive privilege as much as it’s about the fact that you’re a dissident who is being actively and intentionally deprived of dignity.
Benjamin, this behavior is creepy.
I don’t see anything particularly cowardly or hypocritical about “you brave soul.” I tried to find some utter and public trashing of Jennifer Keane and could find nothing at all, which doesn’t mean it’s not there but does mean it’s not obvious. Given that, I do find the complaint rather self-pitying given the ordure that’s been heaped on Rebecca Watson. Therefore I don’t think it’s particularly out of line in a bit of sarcasm.
Granted SC is anonymous, and I’ve said things about anonymous ordure-heapers like “Tom Johnson” and others in the past, but Josh Larios has sort of persuaded me that I shouldn’t go after anonymity as such.
I’m not exactly grouping Peter with the people on the ERV post, but I do think less of anyone who comments there for any reason other than to dissent. Peter hasn’t talked the same kind of crap as the worst of them but he takes them seriously as interlocutors. Deal-breaker.
Thanks for reasons-responsive though. I keep thinking I try to be that, so why…what…
Ugh. Ew. Miranda loves the J and M to bits. Miranda thinks it’s brilliant and spot-on. Miranda has been conspicuously silent about all the twatting and cunting of Rebecca Watson by her allies at ERV. Ugh ugh ew.
@Jennifer Keane (zenbuffy)
It probably is, but I noticed the author of Jesus ‘n’ Mo commented directly on a blog post of yours and appears to have picked up words used there by 3MMaT and incorporated them (and 3MMaT’s discourse on dogma) into the “girls” piece.
Really? After you had been told that your Elevatorgate musings were but a mere point of data for the “Is It Cold In Here?” post and not what the entire post was about, you called that a “minor slight”. Then, when Ouellette unlinked to your blog, you called that move “pathetic” and implied that Ouellette lacked integrity and was lazy. As it is, I’d be more inclined to say that you trashed Ouellette in that case and not the other way around. Is there some other instance concerning Elevetorgate that you were thinking of when you said you were trashed?
It’s weird that people confuse their legal right to free speech with a moral right to call a woman a twat or a cunt without being called a sexist asshole in return. It’s like “my speech has to be so utterly free that your speech must be censored to exclude any criticism of me me me me me”.
I’m guessing that a number of feminists just joining the online community and watching the public trashing of Watson are going to be inclined to post under a pseudonym.
I’ll note that many of the people involved in this, on both “sides,” know my name (and in some cases much more). They’re people I trust. I may decide to start posting under my real name in the future. If I do, nothing about my comments will change.
No, I’m pseudonymous. I’ve been posting under the same name for three years.
Oph, I’m not arguing against anonymity. I understand completely if people want to be anonymous. But I find it ridiculous when anonymous trolls take up a posture as advisors on what counts as risk when they’re talking to people who bother to put their names out there. It’s pretentious and hypocritical, because they don’t (and wouldn’t) know. And you take this position too, as you mentioned. So that shouldn’t be an issue, then.
On Peter’s acts — I guess there may be some room for interpretation.
SC, for my part, I mis-spoke — you may not be a coward and hypocrite (I don’t really know, and should not have pretended to). Maybe this is just supposed to be part of your internet persona. However, your behavior is hypocritical and cowardly in the present context.
Perhaps you feel as though declarations to that effect violate your integrity. If so, then it seems to me that you have a degenerate sense of entitlement towards your own self-image. To use an analogy, it is consistent with human dignity for me to refer to a genuine thief as a thief. The thief may think it is disrespectful for me to say so, but it seems to me that dignity is more important than respect, for moral purposes. And if a thief says, “You constantly calling me a thief is creeping me out, dude”, and I’m always forced to be in the same public space as the thief, then — well, that’s too bad for the thief. In short: I am not a creep for calling you on your mendacious “100% aggressive” bullshit, any more than Ophelia is uncivil for calling Coyne on his.
Sad and creepy.
If it helps at all, Ben, if I had to pick someone to trust between you and SC, I’d pick SC.
Aw, thanks.
Nelson, jeepers. Let it go, man. Yes, we get it. It is not necessary for you to keep on with it. I don’t say this lightly, but your continued fixation on SC is pinging my “strange” meter.
I don’t get it, but I don’t care.
@173: you’re not the only non-US poster here, you idiot, so you don’t get to lay down the law about the Commonwealth. Honestly, the quality of troll you get these days. Pitiful.
Oh, buzz off, you tedious jackass.
Oh, buzz off, you tedious jackass.
…at #173.
None taken :) :) :)
@173. Oy. Thanks to you, Munkhouse, I’m about 5 IQ points dumber. This is not the direction a woman of my consequence should be taking.
I love that “you, plural” – because in fact I don’t, but other people do, so it makes perfect sense to say “you” do when addressing me even though I in fact don’t. snort
?
Ah but Munkhaus it wasn’t rotten from “us all.” You yourself said you wouldn’t know it was, because you said you read “a few” blogs, not all of them.
You’re not a very careful writer. As for my narcissistic behavior – why? Because I disagreed with you? Because I corrected you? Because this is my site?
Marta, I’d be happy to stop criticizing that poster’s behavior once they stop saying silly things that warrant critique.
Now, if you find this strange, or difficult, then I can’t help that. The fact is, you probably don’t know what I think about the ethics/politics involved in these discussions, or how I think they relate to these broader concerns. And if you don’t have even a basic glimmer of an understanding of what matters to me, then I don’t blame you (or SAWells) for distrust — you have almost no other options, really. That’s very human.
The problem, of course, is that SC is spreading distrust in other parts of the community. She has harassed and harangued a great many people from this board who I consider to be thoughtful and heartfelt. Hence, Miranda Hale, Hitch, James Croft, etc. If you don’t see this as a problem, then — you kind of creep me out, too. (Not saying you do believe these things, or that you’re a creep — but if you did, then.)
That’s not true. Here is a reasoned critique: Dawkins said something inappropriate, because Watson was talking (in a very mild way) about harms as social norms, and wasn’t talking about physical or legal harms. That means his remarks were irrelevant, and only had the point of sticking it to Watson.
That is false. (James Croft, incidentally, posted supportively on my blog recently.)
Benjamin, it seems that what matters to you is attacking SC. That’s creepy. Now, I’m not saying you’re a creep, I’m just saying that what you’re doing seems really creepy.
I agree with your 184, though.
Benjamin, look. I agree with you on many occasions. You seem to me to be literate and thoughtful, and by and large, I think you’re a plus.
But even my stupid cat is starting to notice that you have a fixation on SC. Let it the hell go. I basically don’t notice a thing until, like a rake handle, I step on it and it whacks me in the head, and what I’m saying is, I don’t think you’re strange, but you’re working overtime to change my mind. Don’t do that.
Marta, that’s all fine and good. And I understand how my insistence might seem peculiar.
But here’s what it comes down to. I’m not going to stop critiquing behaviors I find reprehensible and unreasonable. If she keeps up with venomous bullshit, I’ll call her on it. If that’s the level of debate she wants to set in a pattern of posting, fine — I’ll engage on that level because, under normal conditions, that is her preferred register. (I mean, really it is — just do a Google search of site:B&W and type in her monicker if you doubt it.) That’s just what’s fair and expected.
And frankly, I don’t think there’s any other way of talking to certain sorts of authoritarian personalities. It’s not unique to this situation or this particular poster (who could be anyone of that kind, really). It’s about what counts as appropriate rhetoric in the context of certain kinds of people, whose social expectations are set up in a certain kind of way. If she treats outsiders like dogshit, and if (I assume) she’s an autonomous and anonymous person with a reasonable degree of self-awareness and a comfortable degree of self-control over how she presents herself, I have to infer that she wants to be treated like dogshit too.
The only other ways of looking at it are: a) she is not reasonably autonomous; b) her rancor ought to be indulged. I think (a) is false, since she is clearly intelligent and has some self-awareness of conversational norms. What I find arresting is (b), which strikes me as totally unmotivated and unproductive (in addition to being unfair). It’s a claim to entitlement that is undeserved.
I guess if all you’re saying is that I’ve made my point, and at this moment I’m beating a dead horse, then I can accept that. I’ve certainly spent more time on this than I ought to have.
Ben, I think you’re a loon.
Munkhaus,
Well, all reasons are set up to support assertions. So yes, it is my assertion that Dawkins said something inappropriate. That’s to be expected.
It’s true that I think he was speaking to Watson in a kind of sarcastic feigned open letter style. Anyway, that was my reading of his response, and it seems pretty plausible.
If it’s true, then it seems to follow, given the evidence, that either a) he’s using an analogy in order to conflate different senses of ‘harm’ in order to ridicule Watson ostensibly on her own terms, or b) he’s trying to make an analogy which has nothing at all to do with any ongoing conversation (i.e., in order to ridicule Pharyngulans). Given his later remarks, when people asked him what he was getting at, he seemed to suggest that (a) was the point: “zero harm”. If so, then he was exploiting an equivocation (concerning the idea of ‘harm’), which is a fallacy of ambiguity. If not, then his later clarifications make no sense. But even so, (b) is still unreasonable, precisely because it is uncooperative: it’s saying something at a moment and in a context that isn’t really trying to engage with the other person.
It doesn’t matter whether he was frustrated or sublime. If he thinks there’s something wrong with psyching people out for personal benefit — e.g., a problem with the Catholic Church engaged in psychological child abuse — then he ought to have a problem with women in hotels trapped in a small space with a drunken non-listening stranger at 4AM.
I wanted to defend Kirby, reflexively. She sounds like a nice person. But then I saw the video, and pretty much had the same reaction that other folks on the feminist side had. I mean, she says a bunch of good stuff at the start, and then she just seems to lose the thread. FWIW.
“Privilege” is an interesting term in the epistemology of ignorance. It can be used point out relative access to needs which obscure the facts from a particular point of view. But it fails to be general enough to describe relative deprivation of experiences, which aren’t associated with power or status. For instance, as a Canadian, I do not consider myself beneath an American status-wise. But I simply do not appreciate the sheer magnitude of religious bullshit that goes on in the USA. If I display ignorance on that subject, despite all my efforts to get a feeling for it from afar, I don’t think I can be said to be privileged for that. Rather, I’m relatively deprived of the required experience with the crazies. And the same might be said of the American who is trying to understand why Canadians care about the dumb things Canadians think about; and they are relatively deprived of the experience of not being inundated with crazies.
I think “privilege” was probably used correctly with Dawkins, but really I wouldn’t know. But there’s no doubt that he’s relatively deprived with respect to the background of his critics, and vice-versa.
I thought the Skepchick non-campaign campaign was pretty over-the-top, but it’s also perfectly understandable. The sheer amount of unwarranted abuse that Rebecca Watson and the rest had to put up with is hard to deal with while smiling and acting nice. Watson herself, all things considered, comes across as almost Buddha-like when compared to some of the vitriol out there.
Well Marta, you clearly don’t care that much, so I won’t take it personally.
Ophelia quoting Jennifer Keane
“Equality” can be more complex than Jennifer suggests here. Should one discuss equality without discussing the wider social and cultural context in which the persons exist?
Here’s an example showing how “equality” may be more complicated than just equal treatment by the law:
This obviously isn’t a gender-related issue but it does look at differences in power and privilege related to economic class.
Listen, Benjamin, you’re not critiquing or calling me out on anything. There is no “venomous bullshit,” and you’re treating these people in a patronizing way. I’m happy for anyone to do a search on my moniker. What they’ll find is that my harsh responses to people have been in response to their harsh talk about others or indifference to the suffering of others (who may themselves have been harsh, but the point is that I’m not going out of my way to speak harshly to people who are just participating in a discussion and being respectful of others). No one familiar with events is going to believe that my remark about Abbie and Miranda came out of nowhere (and I’ve posted much less harsh things about Abbie here). People can read their words, including Hale’s absurdly hyperbolic post about the Skepchick “campaign.” I’m not following an individual around and sniping at and haranguing them. That’s what you‘re doing.
If you think I have an authoritarian personality, you’re a terrible judge of personality.
I don’t have any idea what you mean by “outsiders” here, and don’t care. Your admission that you’re intentionally going out of your way to treat me like dogshit should make people very wary of you. You’re basically announcing your intent to harass someone – it’s exremely creepy and totally unacceptable. Others have asked you to knock it off. Knock it off.
I won’t be replying to you further.
I also think your focusing on SC is odd, to say the least, Benjamin. She’s arguing in good faith—what’s your problem with that?
While it doesn’t mean anything objectively to you or this conversation, SC is a real person, with a real name, and a real life. She’s not a sock puppet or a provocateur. I’ve had knock-down, drag-out online fights with her myself (owing just as much, I’m sure, to my own obstreperous personality), but they were always honest disagreements. SC can be a very harsh critic (as can I). Passionate people with short tempers (I hope I’m not impugning you here, SC, I think the same thing of myself) can be brutal and might sometimes wish they had a little more patience after the fact (again, talking about me mainly).
But short tempers and tart words don’t equal “authoritarian personalities” or “venomous bullshit.”
And frankly, your verbose condemnations and dissections are particularly unpleasant; you affect to be above it all, but you come off as a pompous ass windbag who takes 17 pages to say what could be expressed in two sentences. This is a flaw in your writing I remember noting at least two years ago here on B&W. Fix your own wagon.
Super. Benjamin, that horse is dead.
@ Nelson
SC is a very direct and yes, sometimes harsh, commenter. But she is really no worse than say Josh (and Josh is one of my favourites here) and it is striking that you focus on her alone.
It sort of clicked when you mentioned Miranda Hale.You are attempting to pull off a Coyne. It is not your job to police this site or protect Hale’s or Zenbuffy’s tender skins. They are after all tough cookies who live in the brave new post-feminist world. I dont notice that Hitch or Croft have particularly complained about SC or even been driven off by SC and SC alone.
It has been very depressing to counter the tsunami of mansplaining that’s swamped us and as a woman I would rather have SC at my back.
Benjamin, that horse was dead before it even evolved into a horse. You’re beating an Eohippus.
What mirax said. What others said too, but that especially. Ben, it’s not your job to police B&W. It’s my job. My site, my job. Not yours, not Jerry Coyne’s, mine. I told you two days ago (or was it three) to knock it off. You said (in 189) that you’re “not going to stop.” Yes you are!
Here, that is. You’re going to stop here.
Some ad hoc policing goes on all the time – commenters police each other all the time; I do it myself; that’s ok. But once the host tells you to stop…then you have to stop. (You even said ‘whatever you say’ to my ‘knock it off’ the other day, but apparently that was irony or something.)
Wow. Thanks, guys.
This is an anemic view of equality here. Someone posted a comment about this sort of argument at Pharyngula (I think), which I should have saved but didn’t, so I’ll post my own version. I want to live in a world in which sexual assault doesn’t happen and women are safe in the knowledge that they will be free to say yes or no. I want to live in a culture in which women aren’t routinely put down and women’s accounts of sexual assault aren’t treated the way they often are now. I want to have my communicated wishes and intents and boundaries respected by other people and not ignored or superceded because of their wants, recognizing that I’m not, as a woman, in a state of constant availability and openness to their desires for whatever – to relate to me as a fully autonomous human being. I want people to try to understand that we don’t live in a society free of sexual assault, to try to understand the perspective of those who are most likely to be the victims of it, and to adjust their behavior accordingly. To deny realities and claim equality as “men and women…free to express their desires, and men and women…free to say yes or no” is bizarre. Men being “free” to express their desires always in any circumstances and regardless of what women have communicated about their own wishes does not spell equality; and even if we removed the unequal cultural context, women doing the same thing wouldn’t be any great state of fairness, but an equality of objectifying, selfish assholes.
Mirax, no, because I’m not at all removing SC’s voice. That’s totally wrong. But I am saying: “I don’t agree with your behavior, I don’t agree with your words, and I don’t think you’re really trying.” And, sometimes: “I think that’s really, really funny.”
People like Josh can see “good faith” in evasion, and smugness in explicitness, and so on. Fine. But then that’s because people develop warped attitudes towards things that are impossible for them to hear. So one minute they’re praising you for getting right to the facts of the matter (when they agree), then next they’re saying you’re the next Judith Butler (when it’s on a subject they don’t agree with). You can make a post of 20 words, and they’ll accuse you of being a windbag. Etc. In their minds, it’s par for the course, or gets to be chalked up to the loss of temper or whatever, when actually it’s just replacing ‘good judgment’ with ‘things you might get away with saying’. It’s not trustworthy, so I interpret them appropriately.
Ophelia, I thought you were referring to the phrase “gender traitor”. I didn’t mention any more of that, as you asked. I trust your judgment and sincerity, and defer to you. So just to be clear — are you saying that I can’t criticize SC for her assertions and beliefs? Is that something I’m not allowed to do?
Ben – oh, I see, miscommunication, ok.
No, not really saying that; that would be absurd. I’m saying don’t police her. Don’t make it your mission to single her out for pouncing-on because you object to what she says elsewhere as well as here. Act like ya got good sense, as the saying goes.
Or he could start his own blog where he can stew in his obsession. Even give it a catchy title like You’re Not Helping…
Ophelia, sure. So you’re saying, stick to one case at a time, don’t bring in other grievances. That sounds reasonable to me. Or you might mean: don’t be so eager to fight somebody else’s battles when they’re being treated like garbage. Well, sure, I probably shouldn’t go to great lengths to do anything more than post a quick “Haha, no”. Fair enough.
But since we’re focusing on context, consider this one. The most recent issue is that I made a relatively benign joke at her expense, specifically after she said something that I thought could be critiqued as hypocricy. The idea is that, if you’re anon (or pseudonon — as if the distinction mattered), you don’t get to mock them on the subject of courage and get away with it. I think it’s okay to put things in perspective. And that’s not obsessive, it’s the spirit of sustained critique.
I am having a hard time seeing how this point could have been missed by anyone who reads with their eyes. But sure enough, some relatively sincere and thoughtful people didn’t get the point, despite it being expressed in a weighty and difficult four word sentence. So then I clarified with a weighty and difficult 20 word sentence, in a post that was otherwise occupied with entirely different matters (and was fairly equal-opportunity with light jabs). So I can’t apologize for any of that, unless you want the discussion to have a less confrontational tone.
He appears to be incapable of that when it comes to me. Look how he’s used almost every single response here to elaborate on his earlier smears under the guise of attempting to explain himself. He’s no more interested in having a reasoned discussion of pseudonymity than Rosenau was in regard to Tom Johnson. When several other commenters and the blog owner are telling you your pattern of behavior is creepy and problematic and that you should stop and you still persist, you’re not acting like someone who knows how to use good sense. You’re acting like an obsessive kook.
He’s also being intentionally dense: the gist of my remark wasn’t mocking her on the subject of courage but on her claim about having been utterly and publicly trashed simply for daring to disagree in the context of what we’ve witnessed happen to Watson, as was explained by you long ago @ #160.
Hm. Just think of it as your King Charles’s head, Ben – or if you prefer, think of it as readers here seeing it as a King Charles’s head-type thing for you. Think of it that way and try to act accordingly. Or maybe I should just say “Yes, in the case of SC, because of your King Charles’s head, just go around her if you disagree with something.”
Something new I learned today. :)
I won’t link directly to The Shameful Thread, but…wow:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/07/episode_ccxxxv_the_cuteness_it.php#comment-4632791
OH MY GOD!!!!!!
Is she out of her fucking mind?!
Mirax, no, because I’m not at all removing SC’s voice. That’s totally wrong.
That’s not something I said or thought. Coyne wanted a harsher condemnation of SC ( rather than her voice removed) than Ophelia was willing to give and you are doing the same, directly. I am amazed that SC and SC alone can rouse so much of your ire. Certainly, given the sheer nastiness of the various characters who’ve crawled out of the woodwork in recent weeks, SC has been a poster of substance and consistency. I am glad she took the oh-so-precious Zenbuffy to task and cheer her on.
I personally have far less time for the shallowness and hypocrisy of say, Miranda Hale whereas you appear to have the highest respect for her. Clearly, our values and tolerance are calibrated differently.
But I am saying: “I don’t agree with your behavior, I don’t agree with your words, and I don’t think you’re really trying.” And, sometimes: “I think that’s really, really funny.”
t
You went a lot further than that on this thread alone. You want to cut venomous monsters down to size? SC, for all her faults, is NOT one. Go to ERV where you can hunt to your heart’s content.
First thing’s first:
[Nah.]
Geez. I haven’t been on the Internet much over the last few weeks, and aside from the occasional blip here and there, I was only interested in the technical aspects of what people had been saying in the ‘debate’.
As someone who’s come to not like Rebecca Watson for reasons other than ElevatorGate (or whatever it’s called), I have to say it’s pretty easy to criticise the phrase ‘Rebecca Twatson’ as obviously abusive, misogynistic language. I’m surprised that some people seem to have some difficulty in addressing the matter.
I really don’t see how it’s necessary, useful or even not-counter-productive to resort to abusive othering language in order to criticise some of the points made by RW/PZ/Et al, much less defending (or at least going easy on) people who do. I’m still planning to take a scalpel to some of the things RW/PZ have said re privilege (i.e. to dislodge what I think are the important bits, off of the wooly, critical theory-like rhetoric and hyperbole), but cripes, I hope not to be supported by the kind of bile ERV’s dishing up!
Some of it I can attribute to this kind of thing not being discussed when it should have been, along with cognitive dissonance and a little loyalty in the heat of the moment, all which is to be expected. But not all of it. A good part of it has just been disappointing. I had higher hopes than this a few weeks ago.
Woden, I haven’t said anything about the “Dear Dick” campaign because I haven’t seen it (though I have seen references to it) and haven’t (yet) looked it up. I have however said anything about “dick” as an epithet in the past: mostly that I don’t use it, for the sake of consistency (though I think it’s a good deal less savage than any of the female-genital-words, because of the power differential).
All this stuff you say you’ve seen is interesting but it doesn’t apply to me, so there’s little point in your railing at me about it.
One other thing about the “Dear Dick” campaign: it’s addressing Richard Dawkins, and “Dick” is a common nickname for Richard. I’ve met more than one Richard who preferred being called Dick. I don’t think the “Dick” in the “Dear Dick” campaign was referencing the insulting use of that term.
Stupid comment Munkhaus. Lacks substance.
Oh yes, Woden…I was going to leave that comment there, but then I remembered what you called me at ERV. Nope.
Ophelia, not an appropriate phrase, considering that the critiques here have warrant. They are saturated in, drowning in warrant. So there’s nothing “Charles’s Head” about the present critiques — they’re rational, based on and motivated by reasons.
And I say this with some confidence, since you never really responded to the point I made. Actually, quite the opposite, you sort of admitted that it would be most consistent for you to agree, but then you went and disagreed anyway. With all due respect, you’re making a case of special pleading that is specially motivated, and I don’t see why you’re making the case, apart from keeping the peace.
In the interests of making you see how this is not so much a “Charles’s Head” issue, all I can do is keep trying to point out the meaning of a relatively minor quip. Bottom line: I don’t think an anonymous poster gets to give potshots about courage without being mocked, because the irony is too overwhelming to suffer in silence. Also — here’s a passion, if one is needed — I feel an instinct to protect newbies, regardless of gender. That’s the meaning of “outsider”, in this context.
So I can be nimbler about these jabs, or more focused perhaps, or maybe even nicer. I can make them in haikus, if that will take the edge off. But I confess that it really, really bothers me when regulars take on relative newcomers, especially when they are anonymous trolls, and they are attacking people who have given up their anonymity. I think that’s unfair. So I’ll mock it.
Look: I want fairness, not [thunder clap] revenge on the internet. And, incidentally, I don’t care a lot what the anonymous chorus thinks about this issue, because it’s not really something I trust them to care about. So for instance, I sort of care what Josh thinks, and I certainly care what you think. But of course the rest aren’t going to get the picture. I don’t think you should care either, frankly, but I’m not in charge of that.
Mirax, then you read my comments selectively. For instance, you haven’t noticed how equal-opportunity I am when I comes to jabs against people acting pretentiously. In this thread, I mocked Athena because founded her skill in gossip in her degree in science, and Coyne for being autocratic, and some others. And there’s something worth noticing about that latter one: in that case, I actually defend SC’s right to post whatever she likes, and to not be bullied by Coyne. So if I have an obsession, I’m clearly not very good at it. Points off for incompetence?
Ophelia Benson, you are fucking pathetic. You can’t deal with dissent and criticism, so you censor them instead? If you aren’t willing to have an honest debate, then you don’t deserve to be taken seriously. Enjoy this mental vacuum which fills your precious echo chamber, then, you small-minded piece of filth.
Wait… “What I called you at ERV”? I don’t recall having ever mentioned you there, prior to your deletion of my comment. Indeed, searching through my small number of comments there, I can not find a single comment prior to August 1st, 2011, 3:26 PM in which I had so much as said your name or referenced your comments or blog in any way. Quite frankly, what the hell are you talking about?
Step off, Woden.