“Maybe you misread him?”

Aug 6th, 2013 11:30 am | By

Update: Ok I knew this when I wrote the post but I refrained from saying so (for the time being), but PZ posted about it a little before I did and he got a ton of emails all saying is it ___? and saying the same name. The guy in this account is Ben Radford.

____________________________________________________________

Oh gosh, sexual harassment again. Again? Yes, again. (Also, still.)

Karen Stollznow reports on hers at the SciAm blog.

“I was sexually harassed for four years,” I admitted to  a colleague recently. “That’s awful!” he bellowed in outrage and  genuine concern, before he promptly changed the subject. Sexual harassment  is an uncomfortable topic to discuss with colleagues, especially when you’re the victim.

Well sure. You might start talking about a buddy of theirs.

Sometimes we don’t even know how to identify sexual  harassment because its methods are changing. Today, sexual harassment  is not always as bold, brazen and blatant as the boss who slaps his  secretary’s ass. It doesn’t have to involve leering or groping. It happens in a virtual work environment as much as it happens around the water cooler. More people are telecommuting although physical distance doesn’t prevent staff from being targeted by a harasser. Harassment from afar can include sending unwanted communication of a sexual nature, including emails, texts, instant messages, mail, tweets, phone calls, images, Facebook “pokes”, and stalking on networking sites.

Yes. Yes it can.

Confronted with these stereotypes and influenced by  the various forces of social conditioning, we often don’t know how  to react to sexual harassment anymore. Here are some of the attitudes  and opinions expressed to me, both directly and indirectly, when I began speaking out about my situation.

When they didn’t know the details, some people reacted with  concern that was tempered with cautiousness. “Could you be overreacting?”  or “Maybe you misread him?” There was suspicion over the delay in  reporting the incidents, “Why didn’t you say something sooner?”  and, “Why did you continue to work with him for so long?” Not observing  the harassment was a cause for doubt. “I couldn’t tell there was  anything wrong!” Some were prejudiced by their positive personal experiences  with the harasser, “I know him. He’s a good guy. He wouldn’t do  that!” My claims were also dismissed with the old adage that boys will  be boys. “It’s a guy thing,” and, “That’s just how men behave.”  One man offered a backhanded compliment, “Hey, what guy wouldn’t be interested in you!?”

So what you’re saying is, people haven’t learned anything over the past thirty or forty years.

As often happens in these situations, the blame is  shifted to the victim. Like the woman in The Drew Carey Show, the victim  may be labeled a prude or “uptight”. She lacks a sense of humor.  She’s crazy. She may be portrayed as a troublemaker by the accused  and his supporters. To undermine her claims, she might be branded a  serial complainer, where sexism and sexual harassment are often confused,  “You know, she’s accused other men of sexism before.” The case  may be demonized as a witch-hunt, and become a cautionary tale told  by those who fear that they too could be branded a “harasser” over  the slightest comment or glance. “Watch out, or she’ll accuse you  too!” I was held up to scrutiny in this way too. According to gossip  about me, I gave him mixed-signals, I led him on, I’m flirtatious,  and I’m a dirty little slut.

Demonized as a witch-hunt? Surely no one would go that far!

Alternatively, both the accused and accuser are blamed  for the situation. Those who didn’t know the extent of the harassment  reacted as though we simply don’t play well together in the sandbox.  “Why don’t you two just get over it and move on!” The matter was  misconstrued as a lover’s tiff, or that we were a couple in an on again, off again relationship. Others didn’t have time for my problems,  “I have my own worries.” One person was surprised that I confided  in him, saying, “It’s none of my business.” A number of people  commiserated but then moaned, “I’m sick of talking about sexual  harassment!”

Some were sympathetic, but from a safe distance. They  chose to stay out of it, because they “hate drama.” I didn’t ask  to become involved in a real-life soap either. I feel stigmatized by those who feel too awkward to face the situation, or me. I had a mutual friend who barely contacts me anymore, as he is unable to take a “side”.

All familiar.

From late 2009 onwards I made repeated requests for his personal  communication to cease but these were ignored. He began manipulating the boundaries by contacting me on the pretext of it being work-related.  Then came the quid pro quo harassment. He would find opportunities for  me within the company and recommend me to television producers, but  only if I was nicer to him. One day the company offered me an honorary  position that I’d worked hard for, but he warned me that he had the power to thwart that offer. I threatened to complain to his employer,  but he bragged that another woman had accused him of sexual harassment  previously and her complaints were ignored. According to him, she had been declared “batshit crazy”.

Uh huh. Aren’t they always.

Sometimes an organization under-reacts to the claims.  This was my experience. Following “Elevatorgate”, the company introduced  a “zero tolerance policy for hostile and harassing conduct”. When  I approached them with my accusations they appeared to be compassionate  initially. I spent many hours explaining my story over the phone and  days submitting evidence. Then they hired an attorney to collect the  facts and I had to repeat the process. I provided access to my email  account. I also devoted two days to face-to-face discussions about my  ordeal. This “fact collector” also collected a lot of hearsay from  my harasser, about how I’m a slut and “batshit crazy”. This tactic  of the accused is so common it’s known as the “nut and slut” strategy.  I soon learned that the attorney was there to protect them, not me.

Five months after I lodged my complaint I received  a letter that was riddled with legalese but acknowledged the guilt of  this individual. They had found evidence of “inappropriate communications”  and “inappropriate” conduct at conferences. However, they greatly  reduced the severity of my claims. When I asked for clarification and  a copy of the report they treated me like a nuisance. In response to  my unanswered phone calls they sent a second letter that refused to  allow me to view the report because they couldn’t release it to “the  public”. They assured me they were disciplining the harasser but this  turned out to be a mere slap on the wrist. He was suspended, while he  was on vacation overseas. They offered no apology, that would be an  admission of guilt, but they thanked me for bringing this serious matter  to their attention. Then they asked me to not discuss this with anyone.  This confidentiality served me at first; I wanted to retain my dignity  and remain professional. Then I realized that they are trying to silence  me, and this silence only keeps up appearances for them and protects  the harasser.

The situation has disadvantaged me greatly. I have  lost a project I once worked on, I have had to disclose highly personal  information to colleagues, and I don’t think that I’ll be offered  work anymore from this company. Perhaps that’s for the best considering  the way they have treated me. I have since discovered that this company  has a history of sexual harassment claims. They also have a track record  of disciplining these harassers lightly, and then closing ranks like  good ol’ boys. Another colleague assured me this was better than their  previous custom of simply ignoring claims of sexual harassment.

Maybe in a century or so companies will do better than this…if they’re not all under water by then.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


I love how

Aug 5th, 2013 6:04 pm | By

Meta meta meta. Discussion of discussion of discussion.

Discussion of discussion of Tim Farley’s post on oolon’s block bot.

farley

The stupid burns, says Travis Roy. Tim Farley comments:

I love how the follow-on blogs are all entirely focused on one section, about 10% of the 4,300 word post. Principle of Charity? What’s a principle of charity?

That’s annoying. That’s very annoying.

There is no rule that says you’re not allowed to disagree with one part of an essay or blog post. That rule does not exist. Now if an essay or blog post is one argument and nothing else, such that it’s not possible to address only a part of it, then fine. But that was far from the case with Farley’s post. The part about the list of credentialed people who, in his view, should not be on the block bot list, is separable from the rest of the post, which is much more technical. And people have told Farley that – I’ve told him that, and I’ve seen other people tell him that. It’s not hard to figure out, in any case. The principle of charity has nothing to do with not disputing one part of a long piece of writing unless you address all of it.

He could have used the time he spent complaining that people were focusing on part of the post, to reply to what people said about that part of the post, instead of just repeating that people were focusing on part of the post. I don’t know what the name of that principle is, but it’s a good one.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


When talking to a woman, be sure to add gratuitous insults

Aug 5th, 2013 12:52 pm | By

That seems to be the policy of Willis Eschenbach, who wrote An Open Letter to Dr. Marcia McNutt, new Editor-In-Chief, Science Magazine. He found a picture of her, too, which confirmed that she is indeed a woman, just as her name would suggest.

Eschenbach’s open letter is about the tragic decline of Science mag due to its move from science to advocacy, specifically on climate change. Nothing to do with the fact that McNutt is a woman, one would think, yet Eschenbach drags that in anyway, for the sake of gratuitously insulting and patronizing her, as if that really were written down in a real book of rules.

He patronizes her from the outset, patronizingly congratulating her and including the picture of her for no apparent reason. Then later he gets down to the real thing.

With a new Editor-In-Chief, I’ve been hoping that might all be in the past. Unfortunately, after taking over at the helm, you’ve chosen to reveal your … umm … well, let me describe it as your newness to the concept of “scientific journal editor” by following in the foolishly activist footsteps of your immediate predecessors. I’d hoped you might be smarter than they were, and indeed you might still show yourself to be. But to jump into the middle of the climate debate and stake out a position for Science magazine? Why? That’s suicide for the magazine. Science magazine should never have an editorial stance on the science it is discussing and overseeing. Leave that to Mother Jones magazine, or to National Geographic, or Popular Science. Your magazine taking a strong activist position on climate science is just evidence that you have abandoned all pretense of being concerned with climate science itself. When the science is strong it doesn’t need defenders … and if the Editor-In-Chief of Science feels it’s necessary to defend some part of science, that simply proves that the “science” involved must be of the weakest.

And regarding you personally taking a position? Well, that’s interesting. The problem is that you are extremely well educated, strong, strikingly good looking, and a wickedly-smart woman by all accounts … and while those are all good things, that’s a scary combination. One downside of that particular melange is that as a result, it’s very possible that people, particularly men, haven’t told you the unvarnished truth in years. So some of what I have to say may be a surprise to you.

Persuasive? You be the judge.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Guest post: Very Naturopathy

Aug 5th, 2013 11:29 am | By

A guest post by SpokesGay.

Socializing as a liberal in Vermont is sometimes difficult, and for non-obvious reasons. Last night was a potluck at Neighbor’s house. About 20 people. The kitchen was, as usual, filled with people eating and drinking, the table overflowing with food. Crowded and convivial.

“Mommy” is one of the social circle. She has two children and a third on the way in about a month. She believes the physical travails of pregnancy—including her difficulty having an orgasm with Daddy in her third trimester—make up the most compelling cocktail chatter. “Maybe that’s the secret to not having another late baby,” she mused in a recliner with a can of sparkling water infused with 100% all-natural essential berry-ness. “If I can orgasm enough in the last few months maybe that will get things moving.”

Most of her maladies, you see, are due to how long it took her to figure out Western Medicine didn’t Know Everything. Here are some excerpts from her conversation with neighbor’s housemate:

Mommy: “I can’t believe I just tried coconut oil—it’s so much better for my rash. Sure, the hydrocortisone makes it go away, but it also makes it come back—it’s treating the symptom, not the problem. Although I am having a hard time determining the dosage of coconut oil.”

Housemate: “You should probably dilute it. The body works better when it absorbs trace amounts of ingredients. Your system is just overwhelmed. I’ve been doing this with tea tree oil. . blah. blah. . blah.”

Mommy: “Oh, my doctor is a naturopathic doctor and she recommended the same thing. She’s so great, so non-judgmental.”

Mommy’s second-most-scintillating topic is Her Children. “Higgins” and “Agatha” (not their names, but so that type of name) come to every party, every event. They are 7 and 8. The family travels with a portable toy store to keep them busy. Reasonable enough, sure. But these children are indulged.

They are sullen unless they know you. They’re not shy, or awkward. They have no vocabulary deficiencies. They’re voluble with all the “aunts and uncles” that make up our circle. But they will stare straight at me with a Village of the Damned look and walk away if I try to talk to them. No response. Nothing. Joking, praising their toys. . nothing works.

Back to the potluck. As I said,  the kitchen was super crowded, and there was an abundance of food; fried tofu, pasta salad, chips, salsa, guacamole, fresh bread and oil, green salad, spring rolls. Anything one could want from bland to spicy.

Mommy nudged her way into the corner near the sink (no mean feat considering the size of her belly, and you’d better be considering the size of her belly) and started opening cabinets. Neighbor asked her what she needed. “Oh, a pot; Higgins wants me to make him macaroni and cheese.” I had to turn away because I couldn’t control the look on my face. With that bounty of food, and an entire table taken over by crayons and Jenga, and toy cars. . . Higgins needs boxed macaroni and cheese made for him at someone else’s house in a too-crowded kitchen.

It was, of course, Annie’s mac and cheese. Because a box with a hippy-dippy fun font and rustic cartoon bunnies makes it Wholesome, not “boxed macaroni and cheese.” Because if you make Kraft Dinner you’re not being very naturopathy.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: , , ,


Time passes, people change

Aug 4th, 2013 4:31 pm | By

It’s a theme among the people who hate feminists dirtying up their atheism their skepticism their skeptoatheism and atheoskepticism, that we dirtying-up feminists are in some way outrageous for doing feminism instead of or in addition to skepticism or atheism or athoskeptolibertarianism.

Huh.

That’s a strange claim. What’s outrageous about it? I guess if they’re talking about people who have prominently displayed somewhere a solemn oath always to talk/write/tweet about atheism or skepticism and nothing else, then…those people broke an oath. But even then – an oath to whom? Who cares? Why would anyone swear such an oath anyway? And why would anyone else care about it?

I’m in a fortunate position, myself, because I never said or implied or hinted I was going to blog or website-edit or write about one thing only. I never signed up to anything in particular. I’ve always felt free to talk about anything I want to. I have a point of view, of course; I have a lot of strong opinions; I have interests; but I haven’t promised to adhere to them and only them forever and no matter what. Tomorrow I could develop an interest in hang-gliding or ballet. And? People could skip those posts, or not – but either way I wouldn’t have done a bad thing. I wouldn’t have cheated anyone.

I saw a post from the “they’re contaminating the clubhouse” school of thought, by someone called Shane P Brady. It’s full of this unreasonable indignation about other people’s changes of attention.

This desire to mix progressive politics has even creeped into the skeptic movement, highlighted first to me by a panel at TAM9 where the idea of expanding the skeptic movement to tackle issues like drug legalization or minimum wage might be good ways to expand the skeptical movement.  I could write lots on how wrong this is, but if you want to read something well done, check out Barbara Drescher’s website www.icbseverywhere.com.

Why is this push lately? Why are people wanting this?  Why are sites like Skepchick (a name that contains a word that many women I’ve worked with find offensive, btw) writing more and more politics and feminism and less and less actual skepticism?

So my question is this:

“Do you even really care about skepticism anymore?”

What a strange question – as if skepticism were an abandoned lover. People who talk this line seem to have a surprisingly emotional view of skepticism, one that would make more sense (to me at least ) about, precisely, a progressive political movement. Union organizing, civil rights campaigns, working to defend asylum seekers or immigrants, feminism, LGBT rights – movements like that inspire loyalty (for good and ill), but skepticism?

Meh. Skepticism is, basically, a tool. It’s a skeletal thing to get passionate about. It’s useful, it’s necessary, and all the more so in a combination of culture and technology that is so good at deluding and seducing people – but it’s not more than that. It’s not something we should be pushed to “care” about. Skepticism isn’t pissed off because we never bring it flowers any more.

And then, Skepchick…One reason Skepchick is writing more about feminism and (perhaps – I really don’t know) less about skepticism, is because people keep giving the women at Skepchick a lot of sexist shit.

Here’s an interesting fact: if you give women a lot of sexist shit, it tends to push them in the direction of feminism. Startling, I know, but true. I write a hell of a lot more about feminism now than I did three years ago. Sexist shit will do that to you.

But in any case: what of it? Why is anyone policing other people for the quality and quantity of their skepticism? Why is it an issue?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Apologies and threats collide in midair

Aug 4th, 2013 12:52 pm | By

Tony Wang of Twitter UK issued an apology for the harassment yesterday.

Twitter’s UK boss Tony Wang and senior director Del Harvey have apologized profusely to Caroline Criado-Perez, Stella Creasey and the leagues of other women who have received tweets that threaten death or rape in a response to their activism — including a handful of female journalists who have received bomb threats.

Ok.

And now, the changes: Wang says that an in-tweet “report abuse” button was in the latest version of Twitter for Apple smartphones, and from next month on it will be available on Twitter.com and Android phones — in other words, users don’t have to use the “Help” page to report abuse. The Twitter Rules page has also been updated to reflect their no-abuse policy.

And, one hopes, the rules themselves have also been updated to reflect their no-abuse policy, so that people who report genuine abuse will no longer get messages saying this here abuse doesn’t violate Twitter rules so you’re just going to have to suck it up.

Anyway, hours after the apologies, Mary Beard received a bomb threat.

The classicist and TV presenter Mary Beard has been sent a bomb threat on Twitter hours after the UK boss of the social networking site apologised to women who have experienced abuse.

Prof Beard, who has faced abuse on Twitter previously, told the BBC she had reported the new message to police.

It used similar wording to a tweet sent earlier to a number of women, some of whom have also received rape threats.

That’s not good.

Prof Beard told BBC Radio 5 live: “I think it is scary and it has got to stop.

“To be honest I didn’t actually intellectually feel I was in danger but I thought I was being harassed and I thought I was being harassed in a particularly unpleasant way.”

Which is what the people who send such tweets want the recipients to feel. They want us to feel like the objects of hostile, potentially violent attention and rage.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


A string of subtle but demeaning comments

Aug 4th, 2013 11:42 am | By

The journalist Olivia Messer was pleased to return to her home state of Texas to write about the legislature. She quickly realized there was a down side.

Within weeks, I’d already heard a few horrifying stories. Like the time a former Observer staffer, on her first day in the Capitol, was invited by a state senator back to his office for personal “tutoring.” Or, last session, when Rep. Mike “Tuffy” Hamilton interrupted Marisa Marquez during a House floor debate to ask if her breasts were real or fake.

Thankfully I never experienced anything so sexually explicit. Instead, I encountered a string of subtle but demeaning comments. One of the first interviews I conducted for the Observer, in February, was with a male senator about an anti-abortion bill. I was asking questions about whether the bill would reduce access to abortion. At the end of the interview, as soon as I turned off my recorder, he said, “How old are you, sweetheart? You look so young.”

And random guys kept hitting on her.

At a certain point, after enough of these run-ins—which included male staffers from both chambers, some of whom I knew to be married, hitting on me, making comments about my physical appearance, touching my arm—it finally occurred to me that, when I was at work, I was often fending off advances like I was in a bar.

The Texas legislature is not a bar. Working there should not feel like being in a bar.

What surprised me was how many women who work in the Capitol—legislators, staffers, lobbyists, other reporters—felt the same way. Everyone, it seemed, had a story or anecdote about being objectified or patronized.

But isn’t that just what you deserve for the crude mistake of being born not male? No, it’s not.

Even the most powerful women in the Legislature experience it. When I started interviewing women lawmakers, they all—Republican and Democrat, House and Senate, rural and urban—said that being a woman in the statehouse is more difficult than being a man. Some told of senators ogling women on the Senate floor or watching porn on iPads and on state-owned computers, of legislators hitting on female staffers or using them to help them meet women, and of hundreds of little comments in public and private that women had to brush off to go about their day. Some said they often felt marginalized and not listened to—that the sexism in the Legislature made their jobs harder and, at times, produced public policy hostile to women.

Yet, despite their strong feelings, women in the Capitol rarely talk about, except in the most private discussions, the misogyny they see all the time. It’s just the way the Legislature has always been.

It’s normal. So many things are normal. Stereotypes are normal. “It’s more of a guy thing” is normal. Microaggressions are normal. Harassment is normal.

Women comprise more than half of the state’s population, yet only about 20 percent of the Legislature—just 37 of the 181 members of both chambers. Women in leadership positions are even more scarce. There have been two female governors of Texas, zero female lieutenant governors and zero speakers of the House. That means neither chamber has ever been led by a woman.

That history makes what happened on June 25—when Sen. Wendy Davis filibustered a restrictive anti-abortion bill for 11 hours—so remarkable. When the mostly male GOP majority cut her off and tried to pass the bill minutes before a midnight deadline, Sen. Leticia Van de Putte had had enough: “At what point must a female senator raise her hand or her voice to be recognized over her male colleagues?” The largely female crowd in the gallery erupted and, over the next 15 minutes, shouted the Senate into paralysis. It was a rare moment when women seized control of the Capitol, and the first time I’d heard a woman lawmaker in this state publicly admit she felt sidelined.

But the moment was fleeting. Three weeks later, in a new special session, the Legislature passed the anti-abortion bill, and Gov. Rick Perry signed it. Texas politics, briefly upended, returned to normal.

Misogyny, as I had come to learn, is rampant in the Texas Capitol.

So we have to holler back.

 

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


Affirm, not swear

Aug 4th, 2013 10:48 am | By

So Barney Frank came out as an atheist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmtIIzWUbDc

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Captions

Aug 3rd, 2013 5:44 pm | By

Via Gnu Atheism on Facebook.

Photo

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


There was that stolen apple, too

Aug 3rd, 2013 5:17 pm | By

There’s a Kenyan lawyer, Dola Indidis, who is trying to sue Israel for…

…now take a deep breath…

…for the “trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ.”

Um. Statute of limitations, bro. Also – lack of evidence. Story. Story not evidence. The Iliad not evidence of the murder of Hector.

A Kenyan lawyer has filed a petition with the International Court of Justice in  The Hague, suggesting that the trial and crucifixion of Jesus Christ was  unlawful, and the State of Israel among others should be held responsible,  Kenyan news outlet the Nairobian reported on Friday.

Dola Indidis, a  lawyer and former spokesman of the Kenyan Judiciary, is reportedly attempting to sue Tiberius (emperor of Rome, 42 BCE-37 CE), Pontius Pilate, a selection of Jewish elders, King Herod, the Republic of Italy and the State of  Israel.

I can think of more urgent violations of human rights than that one.

When asked about the case, an  official from the ICJ told legal news website Legal Cheek, “The ICJ has no  jurisdiction for such a case. The ICJ settles disputes between states. It is not  even theoretically possible for us to consider this case.”

I wonder if the Jerusalem Post accidentally picked up a story from the Onion.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


In order to use the licence fee efficiently

Aug 3rd, 2013 4:13 pm | By

The BBC sent a boilerplate response to all the complaints about the block bot and the BBC’s vile attack on the character of people the BBC never mentioned.

The report on Newsnight on 30 July which featured The Block Bot was part of an ongoing news story on the use of Twitter and its consequences, which has generated a great deal of debate across all forms of media. We received a number of contacts about this broadcast and in order to reply promptly and to use the licence fee efficiently we are sending a single response to everyone. However we would like to reassure you that your concerns about the programme were brought to the attention of Newsnight and senior BBC management.

At no stage in the Newsnight report was any individual named as being on The Block Bot’s list. The report also did not mention how the list of names might be obtained. As you are probably aware, the list of names on The Block Bot is updat…ed constantly and numbers many hundreds.

Although the script explained that The Block Bot was self-policing, and the report clearly showed on screen that The Block Bot has different levels of blocking, the report could have explained those details more clearly.

In a subsequent report on Newsnight on 31 July 31 the programme reported the ongoing debate on the use of tools like The Block Bot, including the fact that some of those who are blocked by it object to their blocking. Again, no names were mentioned.

I hope this address your concerns. Thank you for taking the time to raise them with us.”

Now kindly fuck off.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


An “intellectual romance”

Aug 3rd, 2013 12:27 pm | By

The New York Times had a piece about Colin McGinn yesterday, and (better) about the implications for paying attention to sexism in philosophy and universities.

While the status of women in the sciences has received broad national attention, debate about sexism in philosophy has remained mostly within the confines of academia. But the revelation this summer that Colin McGinn, a star philosopher at the University of Miami, had agreed to leave his tenured post after allegations of sexual harassment brought by a graduate student, has put an unusually famous name to the problem, exposing the field to what some see as a healthy dose of sunlight.

“People are thinking, ‘Wow, he had to resign, and we know about it,’ ” said Jennifer Saul, the chairwoman of the philosophy department at the University of Sheffield in England and the editor of the blog What Is It Like to Be a Woman in Philosophy?

“I think that’s unprecedented,” she added.

The case, which was first reported by The Chronicle of Higher Education, has set off voluminous chatter among philosophers on blogs and social media. The discussion has been fueled partly by Mr. McGinn’s own blog, where his use of the cryptic language of analytic philosophy in attempts to defend himself seems to have backfired.

Is that what that was? The cryptic language of analytic philosophy? I didn’t recognize it! I thought it was much more the thuddingly banal language of the wannabe hipster dude who thinks he’s funny.

Two open letters, posted online in mid-July and signed by more than 100 philosophers, including a majority of Mr. McGinn’s colleagues at Miami, criticized some of the posts on his blog as “retaliation” against the student.

The first letter, at Feminist Philosophers, says this:

We are members of the philosophy profession concerned for the graduate student at the University of Miami who filed a complaint about the conduct of Dr. Colin McGinn. We are also concerned for other graduate students who may conclude from this case that, although a student pursues a complaint against a professor through the proper channels while purportedly retaining anonymity, she may have her scholarship, work performance, or conduct negatively characterized in a public forum by a powerful professor with no response or defense from her university.

We write to urge the University of Miami to protect this student from negative public assessments of her work or character by or on behalf of Dr. McGinn. Whether or not Dr. McGinn’s observations on his blog are intended to be retaliatory, they have some of the same deleterious effects as intended retaliation. We recognize Dr. McGinn’s right to free speech and his right to criticize whatever treatment he may have received by his employer, and we appreciate his stated desire to defend himself. However, the student is not in a position to defend herself publicly. We ask that her university discharge its duty to protect its students from acts that amount to de facto retaliation from professors about whom they have complained.

The second one, sent to Brian Leiter and posted on his blog, includes:

Universities have procedures and protocols in place for receiving the complaints of students in order to protect the rights and interests of those who are vulnerable. We have every reason to believe that the University of Miami investigated the matter in question carefully and judiciously. We urge those without access to all relevant details to show caution in speculating upon the situation.

As members of this department, we take the matter very seriously and support our colleague who filed the complaint. Whether or not any given complaint has merit is for the University to decide. But no student who files a complaint, regardless of whether the complaint is judged to be with merit or not, deserves retaliation and intimidation.  Such behavior serves to silence others who would come forward, and undermines the policies and procedures the University of Miami has in place to protect individuals with limited power to protect themselves.

But McGinn is still saying the same crap, apparently unabashed.

In Mr. McGinn’s telling, his relationship with the student, a first-year doctoral candidate who worked as his research assistant during the 2012 spring semester, was an unconventional mentorship gone sour.

It was “a warm, consensual, collaborative relationship,” an “intellectual romance” that never became sexual but was full of “bantering,” Mr. McGinn said in a telephone interview. The terms of his agreement with the university, he said, prevented him from saying much more. But “banter referring to sexual matters,” he added, isn’t always “sexual banter.”

The student, through intermediaries, declined to be interviewed for this article, citing concern that it might damage her academic career.

McGinn continues to babble freely while he knows that she can’t.

Amie Thomasson, a professor of philosophy at Miami, said the student, shortly after filing her complaint in September 2012, had shown her a stack of e-mails from Mr. McGinn. They included the message mentioning sex over the summer, along with a number of other sexually explicit messages, Ms. Thomasson said.

“This was not an academic discussion of human sexuality,” Ms. Thomasson said. “It was not just jokes. It was personal.”

Mr. McGinn said that “the ‘3 times’ e-mail,” as he referred to it, was not an actual proposal. “There was no propositioning,” he said in the interview. Properly understanding another e-mail to the student that included the crude term for masturbation, he added later via e-mail, depended on a distinction between “logical implication and conversational implicature.”

“Remember that I am a philosopher trying to teach a budding philosopher important logical distinctions,” he said.

And there is no other way to do that than by talking about hand jobs. No other way at all. Simply cannot be done in any other fashion.

Whatever the facts of the case, many philosophers say that the accusations of misbehavior against Mr. McGinn are the edge of a much bigger problem, one that women have long been unwilling to discuss publicly, lest it harm their careers.

Many credit the blog What Is It Like to Be a Woman in Philosophy?, which in 2010 began posting anonymous stories of harassment, with helping to highlight the issue. “Just about every woman you talk to in philosophy has experienced first- or secondhand some form of sexual harassment that is egregious,” said Gideon Rosen, a philosopher at Princeton. “It’s not just one or two striking anecdotes.”

There are signs that the publicity surrounding the McGinn case may be encouraging more women to step forward. Both Ms. Saul and Peggy DesAutels, a philosopher at the University of Dayton and a member of the American Philosophical Association’s Committee on the Status of Women, said that in recent weeks they had each heard from several graduate students who were considering filing complaints.

Oh noes – they will scare away all the women and then the philosophy departments won’t be able to boast that they’ve pushed their percentage of women all the way up to 21%.

Scholars in all disciplines have disagreements. But philosophy is unusual, many say, in its tradition of developing ideas through face-to-face and sometimes brutal debate. “People in other disciplines think we’re just thugs,” said Louise Antony, a philosopher at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

That reliance on debate can pose a particular dilemma for women, she added. Argue aggressively, and they’re branded shrews (to put it nicely). Hold back, and they’re not good philosophers.

“Many people have called philosophy the combat sport of academia,” Ms. Antony said. “But if you can’t have those conversations, you’re at a disadvantage.”

“Shrews” of course is NY Times for “bitches” and “cunts.”

In an essay on implicit bias in the forthcoming book “What Needs to Change: Women in Philosophy,” Ms. Saul recalled the terror of overhearing faculty members at Princeton, where she earned her Ph.D., casually sort graduate students into “smart” versus merely hard-working — or worse, “stupid.”

Women, she said, are more likely to be categorized as “stupid,” to the detriment of the field as a whole.

Fear of being labeled not smart “is bad for philosophy,” Ms. Saul said. “It makes you not want to take risks.”

This is a job that may take some time.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,


The link between status and virtue

Aug 3rd, 2013 11:12 am | By

This question of credentials, accomplishments, fame, status, titles, and what it has to do with whether or not someone can behave badly. As I discussed yesterday, Tim Farley seems to be claiming that fame and titles in the skeptic/atheist world are incompatible with acting like a shit. I say “seems to be” because it’s not clear exactly what he’s claiming. I’ve asked him to clarify but so far he’s said only that that’s a small part of the post, which doesn’t help and is frankly beside the point.

He says

the list of Level 2 and Level 3 blocks reveals people, many of whom I know personally, who are deeply involved in the atheism, skepticism, secularism and humanism movements all around the world.

He lists 10 examples of such involvement; he says

These are not anonymous trolls. They are not likely to be arrested anytime soon. Most of these people regularly speak at national conferences to audiences from several hundred to over a thousand people.

And that a quick scan of their Twitter feeds turns up little in the way of “attacking, threatening or spamming”; and that

these well-respected people are being listed right alongside some vicious troll accounts, and not being clearly distinguished from them.

He does not say “these people are important and famous, therefore they can’t possibly be intermittently or steadily unpleasant on Twitter.” But he hints at it. That seems to be what he wants us to conclude, even though he doesn’t spell it out. (If he had, he probably would have noticed how silly it is, and either deleted it or done a better job of arguing it.)

What’s the hidden premise here?

I suppose it’s one that I share, in a way. It’s something like people who do good thoughtful work are thoughtful people, and thoughtful people don’t harass or pester or jeer at other people on Twitter.

I do think that, up to a point. It’s why I keep being surprised by people who are thoughtful in other contexts, being astonishingly childish or malicious or brutal on Twitter or blogs. But at the same time I also know better – I know that if only because I’ve had so much experience of it over the past couple of years. But it’s not only that; I do know it from other sources. Doesn’t everyone?

Isn’t it notorious that fame and status can make people feel entitled and reckless? Hello? Bill Clinton and Air Fuck One? Every rock star ever? Bernie Madoff? Dominique Strauss-Kahn?

And no, intellectuals and academics are not immune. Far from it. There is no preener like an academic preener.

So no. It’s sad, but no, being a star in the (tiny) atheist/skeptic movement is not a guarantor of always-thoughtful-behavior.

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


An argument from false authority

Aug 2nd, 2013 6:17 pm | By

Our friend Tom at Dubito Ergo Sum has an excellent, thorough post about Tim Farley’s objections to the block bot.

He too quotes the list of credentials and then comments on it.

This would make for a great game of spot the fallacy, wouldn’t it? Farley lists all these qualifications, but none of them are “noted anti-spam crusader” or “longtime anti-bigotry activist,” not that those would be excuses either. See, none of these qualifications are inconsistent with “abusive [...] anti-feminists, MRAs, or all-round assholes” or “annoying and irritating”3. It’s possible to be an Emmy and Golden Globe award-winning comedian and also be an annoying asshole who delights in baiting feminists with disingenuous arguments, just as it’s possible to be a Ph.D. biochemist who believes in intelligent design. This is a pro hominem argument, an argument from false authority, that these people’s lofty credentials make them somehow incapable of being bigots, jerks, trolls, abusers, or just antagonistic assholes to specific groups of people.

The last paragraph there is a doozy of arguments from ignorance and unstated major premises. “I see little evidence” is very different from “there is no evidence,” and the mechanics of Twitter mean that offensive tweets are often lost to the depths of a person’s timeline after a relatively short amount of time. But there’s plenty of evidence that prominent skeptics are capable of being petty, antagonistic, obtuse, bigoted (both in overt and unintended/unconscious ways), and asshole-ish. Some skeptics love poking various hornets nests, some love directing snide comments and thinly-veiled insults at people/groups they disagree with on social media, some keep dredging up sexist/racist/homophobic arguments and tropes time and time again even after hearing repeated responses/debunkings, some hyperbolically respond to the slightest criticisms with howls of NaziCommieStasi witch-hunt inquisitions. Farley’s right, they’re probably not going to be arrested anytime soon, but that’s because being an annoying, antagonistic asshole isn’t a crime.

The unstated major premises here are that “only anonymous trolls (and certainly not people I consider friends) behave in ways that would merit mass blocking,” which I dealt with above, and “only behavior that is illegal merits mass blocking,” which is the usual response to those complaining about harassment: if it’s not illegal, it’s not really harassment; if it was real harassment, why didn’t you call the police? I’ve responded to this notion, so has Stephanie Zvan, and the fact that Farley is able to spout off with it in such a casual manner shows just how insulated from this stuff he really is.

Yes. Very well said. Read the whole thing including comments, some of which are from Farley.

 

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Just a casual scan

Aug 2nd, 2013 5:37 pm | By

Yesterday Tim Farley wrote a piece about the block bot and some objections he has to it. One objection he has is that it blocks some people whom he considers…I’m not sure what, exactly – too good to merit blocking, I guess is the clearest way to put it. He considers them people who shouldn’t be blocked, because they don’t deserve to be blocked. But he makes this case in a very odd way.

The community needs of this very specific group (“Atheism+”), combined with the lack of auditing and transparency of control, has resulted in some (in my opinion) very strange choices. I am familiar with many of the people in these communities.  I know many of them in real life as well as online.  Scanning the list of Level 2 and 3 blocks makes me repeatedly scratch my head in puzzlement.

I’m not going to get into exact names here, as I do not want to discuss the pros and cons of blocking particular people.  That is not a productive line of discussion.  The bottom line is that if the users of this bot (or any Twitter user) want to block these people, that is their right.

And I will agree with that piece of text quoted above that implies that most would agree that the people blocked in Level 1 deserve that status. I scanned some of these accounts, and some I have seen before, and they are pretty heinous offenders.  No argument there.

However, just a casual scan down the list of Level 2 and Level 3 blocks reveals people, many of whom I know personally, who are deeply involved in the atheism, skepticism, secularism and humanism movements all around the world.

Yes…So what? Is the idea that people who are deeply involved in the atheism, skepticism, secularism and humanism movements all around the world cannot also be shits who harass women and/or feminists? Apparently that’s exactly the idea.

 They include:

  • A Research Fellow for a U.S. think-tank who is also deputy editor of a national magazine, and author of numerous books
  • A Consultant for Educational Programs for a U.S. national non-profit
  • A long-time volunteer for the same national non-profit
  • An organizer for a state-level skeptic group in the US
  • A past president of a state-level humanist group in the US
  • A former director of a state-level atheist group in the US
  • An Emmy and Golden Globe award winning comedian
  • A TED Fellow
  • Co-founder of a well known magazine of philosophy and author of several books
  • A philosopher, writer and critic who has authored several books

These are not anonymous trolls. They are not likely to be arrested anytime soon. Most of these people regularly speak at national conferences to audiences from several hundred to over a thousand people.

Again: so what? That doesn’t stop them being shits. I would love it if it did, but it doesn’t. The bit about the award-winning comedian, for instance – what, because comedians are never ever sexist? Ever? No comedian has ever relied on familiar old contempt for women to get laughs?

And all the rest of them too. None of those credentials are incompatible with being a shit. They certainly don’t confer some kind of fame-based immunity or extra leeway…or rather, they do, but they shouldn’t.

 Starting from the publicly available block list you can click the names to go directly to their  Twitter feeds, I see little evidence that these people are attacking, threatening or spamming anyone.

Attacking, threatening and spamming are not the only ways there are to be unpleasant and harassy. Not even close.

Now I’m not dumb, I know that many of these people have had very public disagreements with people allied with “Atheism+” who use this bot.  And let me reiterate: if people want to block others that they disagree with, that is their right.  

But these well-respected people are being listed right alongside some vicious troll accounts, and not being clearly distinguished from them.

That “disagreements” thing pisses me off. It’s right up there with “FTBullies” for repetitive fakery. It’s not about disagreements. It’s about picking fights, stalking, sneering, pestering, monitoring. Even people who direct state-level atheist groups, even TED fellows, can do stuff like that, and it’s not any kind of misbehavior or attack on free speech to block them on Twitter.

And by the way credentials don’t equate to well-respected. I don’t respect everyone who has a credential of that kind – why would I? You can have a credential and be an asshole. You might even have a credential because you’re an asshole.

The credentials are, on the contrary, often a source of wonder and disgust. “This is the guy who does such good work? Jeez. Who’d have thought it?” Maybe Farley is thinking that once people have credentials they’ll be inhibited from acting like assholes because they have more to lose. I’ve often wondered about that. Why isn’t ___ more worried about tarnishing the credentials? It can be puzzling, but that’s not at all the same thing as a slam-dunk reason to think assholitude is out of the question.

So, no. Credentials are only credentials. They’re not a free pass for being a creep on Twitter.

[I should add that Tim Farley did me a favor last year by talking to the guy who sent me the strange emails about how in danger I would be at TAM. I remain grateful for that. But I think this suggestion that important people can't be nasty people is very mistaken.]

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


How it works

Aug 2nd, 2013 4:47 pm | By

Bjarte has a new cartoon.

@OpheliaBenson The @stickfigure is suing @The_Block_Bot for libel! :-O

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Protect Nahla Mahmoud

Aug 2nd, 2013 3:40 pm | By

Nahla Mahmoud is being threatened, and the police won’t do anything about it.

From the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain:

Following an interview on Channel 4 on Sharia law, Islamists have threatened Sudanese secular campaigner and Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain Spokesperson Nahla Mahmoud with death, calling her a ‘Kafira’ and ‘Murtada’ who has offended Islam and brought “fitnah”. The threats have been reported to the police who have closed the case and advised that nothing could be done.

We the undersigned are extremely concerned about the safety of Nahla and that of her family in Sudan. We ask the authorities to investigate the threats made particularly by Mr Salah Al Bandar.

Nahla writes: “I am most concerned with the harassment by Mr. Salah Al Bandar. Not only is he endangering my health and sense of safety and security in the UK, but he is also organising against me back in Sudan in ways that are potentially very dangerous for both myself and my family. As a consequence, my younger brother has been physically attacked in Sudan, my mother has been seriously threatened and I continue to get threats and have had to endure a number of cyber stalking episodes by Mr Al Bandar or his associates.”

Mr Al Bandar claims to be a “democratic, liberal Muslim” who has been politically active and until recently a councillor with the Lib-Dem Party in Cambridgeshire; he is a director at the Sudan Civic Foundation in the UK. He has attempted to silence Nahla with his threats which include the following:

On 22nd January, Mr Al Bander posted an article in Arabic on the Sudanese Online Website (one of the most widely read websites in Sudan and throughout the Sudanese diaspora) entitled “A Sudanese woman announces that she is a ‘Kafira” on British TV”.  In some parts of this article he says:

“I will not forgive anyone who wants to start a battle against Islam and the beliefs of the people…”, “Be aware of this ‘fitna’ and I know who is behind it and I will never have any mercy on her here…”, “I will have no tolerance for anyone here who talks about freedom of belief or freedom of thought or any of the other clichés…”

On the 25th of January 2013 he posted a new piece saying: “infidel Mohamed Mahmoud Kassalawi is the one who organised this scandal from A to Z.  He is looking for someone like Nahla to pass his scandalous agenda. ….I am against those who use her to offend people’s sanctities….”  [Dr. Mohamed Mahmoud is an academic and director of the Critical Centre for Religious Studies in the UK.]

On 29th January 2013, Mr Al Bander added an article featuring Nahla with Maryam Namazie and Mohamed Mahmoud ‘photoshopped’ together with a background of a Facebook page he made up and named ‘Sudanese Atheists’ Page’.  He also discussed the relationship of the three in a post on 8 February. The article is full of fabrications, including that Maryam Namazie “trained” Nahla in “public activities against Islam” and that Mohamed Mahmoud “created this idol Nahla and presented her as a champion of freedom of expression”. Also, he posted a screen shot of Nahla’s article published in ‘Left Foot Forward’ about ‘Sharia implementations in the UK and elsewhere’ after adding a main headline into the article to read  “Freedom of practicing ‘Luat’ and promoting it” (“ Luat” is a derogatory term for homosexuality).

On the 10th of February he posted “I forbid anyone from trying to change Nahla’s scandal to a case worthy of support… It will all get back to them… Be cautioned! Be cautioned!… No excuses for those who have been warned! ”

On the 22nd of February he added a new post entitled “She sold her faith for a legal status… The second episode of Nahla Elgaali’s series” where he said:  “January 2013 is an unusual month for the Sudanese diaspora in the UK. For the first time a Sudanese young woman goes public provoking the feelings of those in and outside the country. Not publicising her own beliefs, but joining a group which promotes atheism among the Sudanese diaspora”. He continues:  “the topic is now being discussed outside this website. It has spread to include in-country platforms. A ‘Khartoum newspaper has done an interview with Mrs. Huda Mohamed el-Khair, Nahla’s mother, exploring the background of Nahla’s complicated journey.”

His posts against Nahla and his labelling her ‘Kafira’, ‘Murtadda’ and ‘Zindiga’ has resulted in governmental and official bodies such as the ‘General Administration of the Sudanese Armed Forces’ , Blue Nile Channel , and the official Sudanese governmental newspaper,  ‘Elentibaha’  speaking against “the infidel woman in Britain who offends Islam and promotes nudity”. These include: al ‘Khartoum’, ‘el- Sudani’, ‘el-Ayam‘ ,  and ‘el-Ray el Aam’, ‘el watan’ , ‘Hurriyat’  and a number of other local newspapers. A number of online platforms also considered it their headline news over a few weeks, including Sudan Motion, Sudan.Net, ‘el-Nilain’, Sudanile, Sudanforall, ‘el-Rakoba’, Sudaress, Mugren Net  and others. A few Middle Eastern websites also reported the incident such as ‘el-hiwar el-mutamdn’, ‘Kitabk’ and Alhurra TV.

We the undersigned call on the authorities to investigate Salah Albandar’s bullying, harassment and threats against Nahla Mahmoud, prosecute him and guarantee Nahla’s safety and security.

Anne Marie Waters, Spokesperson, One Law for All
Christopher Roche, President, Bath Atheists, Humanists and Secularists
Clive Aruede, Lola Efuntade-Tinubu and David Walters, Organising Committee, London Black Atheists
Deeyah, Music Producer and Filmmaker
Gita Sahgal, Executive Director, Centre for Secular Space
Hala Ahmed, Sudanese Non-Religious Out Loud Campaign
Ibn Warraq, Writer
Imad Iddine Habib, Founder of Council of Ex-Muslims of Morocco
Lloyd Newson, OBE, Artistic Director, DV8 Physical Theatre
Marcin Lysuniec, Chairman, Polish Atheist Association
Marieme Helie Lucas, Founder, Secularism is a Woman’s Issue
Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson, Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and Fitnah – Movement for Women’s Liberation
Mina Ahadi, Spokesperson, Council of Ex-Muslims of Germany
Mohamed A. Mahmoud, Director, Centre for Critical Studies of Religion
Nadia El-Fani, Tunisian Filmmaker
Nina Sankari, European Feminist Initiative in Poland
Salah Sid Ahmed, Sudanese Humanists Group
Stephen Khan-Evans, Founder, Council of Ex-Muslims of New Zealand
Tarek Fatah, Founder, Muslim Canadian Congress
Terry Sanderson, President, National Secular Society
Waleed Al-Husseini, Founder, Council of Ex-Muslims of France

You can sign it by commenting to say so below the article.

 

 

 

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Milking it

Aug 2nd, 2013 2:49 pm | By

Tauriq Moosa alerted me to an example of “there is no depth too low.” What is it? Harassing a child who has leukemia? Torturing a kitten in front of the kitten’s weeping human? Firebombing a picnic just for the lolz?

No, it’s harassing Amanda Berry for going outside and having fun – Amanda Berry, who spent ten years not being able to go outside and have fun because she was imprisoned in a house by a filthy human being who kept her locked up there.

On CNN over the weekend, Nelly told Erin Burnett, “What stuck with me most was that she had a smile on her face. That’s one of the most impressive things to me, considering everything she had been through … I thought, wow, that was special.” But Burnett was too busy being amazed that “She looked totally normal.”

Burnett’s concerned astonishment was charitable compared to what the lowest form of opinion generators – Internet commenters – had to say about Berry’s newly reignited social life. “It’s just odd given the years of abuse she suffered. Normally she would not have that kind of trust or comfort. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t make sense,” wrote one concerned ABC News commenter, while another more bluntly decided, “It seems to me she was enjoying it and is gonna use her ordeal to cash in.” Many were concerned that she appeared with a man who stood behind her and warmly put his arm around her and kissed her neck while she was onstage. Or, as some of the ABC commenters decided, he was a “dirt bag hanging all over her,” who “groped” and “pawed” her. A CBS News commenter more generously decided she looked “pretty hot.” And 645 comments later on NBC, Berry had plenty of well-wishers but also comments about her eyebrow piercing, and how she doesn’t look like “a real victim….lol.” And of course, if you want to plumb the absolute bottom of the barrel, there’s YouTube, where Berry is being  accused of “milking everything she’s getting.”

Uh huh. She did it for the blog hits.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Alex’s list

Aug 2nd, 2013 12:33 pm | By

Alex Gabriel has a list of 100 Irish and British atheists who don’t fit the stereotyped image of what an atheist is. It’s a great list. I know a few of them, know of many of them, am pleased to learn of the ones I don’t know of.

25. Jane Donnelly is Atheist Ireland’s Education Policy Officer, and has spoken widely on the need for secular education. Recently, at Empowering Women Through Secularism, she also gave a presentation on secularism and human rights. You can find her writing and updates on AI’s dedicated Teach Don’t Preach site. [Email her] [Tweet her]

44. Yemisi Ilesnami - proudly feminist, proudly bisexual, proudly atheist – can be found at FreethoughtBlogs since joining them this May. She’s also Nigerian, now resident in the UK. Beyond her blog Yemmynisting and her book Freedom to Love for All: Homosexuality is Not Un-African, she has a law degree, works occasionally as a plus-size model and has worked in the past for the Nigerian Labour Party and the International Trade Union Congress. Recently she spoke on the ‘Atheism is not enough’ panel at FTBcon, and her YouTube vlog focuses on atheist identity and LGB issues. [Message her] [Tweet her]

49. Sinéad Kennedy spoke at Empowering Women Through Secularism on politics and acampaigner; she teaches English and Media Studies at NUI Maynooth, and campaigns for access to abortion with Action on X and Ireland’s Abortion Rights Campaign. She drew some people’s ire bycrediting her secularism and feminism to her Marxism, but personally, I’m glad she did. [Email her] [Tweet her]

A list to keep.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags:


Priests who brooked no opposition of any kind

Aug 2nd, 2013 12:11 pm | By

There’s a little book published in association with RTE (Raidió Teilifís Éireann) in 1986, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Girl. It started as a series of radio interviews with writers, who then lived up to their job titles by writing up what they’d said. Polly Devlin included in her account a look at the grip the church had on Ireland in the 1950s.

As a social system our Catholic religion constituted a tyranny – not within the confines of our family but certainly outside it. We as a family were brought up in a dispensation that was different from that heavily medieval Catholic one that obtained in the parish…My father had been brought up in an enlightened way so that not only was there no bigotry in our house, there was a real tolerance. The parish, however, was run as a great many Irish parishes were run at that time, by priests who brooked no opposition of any kind. The men were mixed with the office to an intolerable degree, so that if you had any quarrel with the man, as it were, you then had a quarrel with the whole church. Quite often at church on Sunday priests would denounce from the altar things that they had no business denouncing; secular affairs, the parishioners’ own private business. There were of course good priests and there were bad priests; there were priests who did their best and priests who did their worst. For me, it constituted a tyranny, because there was no escape, no court of appeal. They were the people to whom you confessed, but they were also the people who judged you. There was no other tribunal.

Can.you.imagine.it.

It sounds suffocating and horrible beyond endurance. One of the things I hate most about the harassment-abuse is the constant prurient watching and peering and monitoring, the relentless gathering of material for new denunciations from the altar – the pack of slavering strangers with their noses all up in my business. How much worse it must be to have it coming from all-powerful priests.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Posted in Notes and Comment Blog
Tags: ,