Sarah Ditum startles and shocks by making a distinction between female genitalia and electronic equipment.

2. A laptop is a portable electronic device, a vagina is a body part
Does it whir? Does it make small clicking sounds? Can it be placed in a briefcase and carried around separately to its owner? That is a laptop. Is it a fibromuscular tubular tract located between a woman’s thighs? Vagina. Taking the former from a car would be an act of theft. Penetrating the latter without the woman’s consent would be a physical assault – and that’s true even if the woman has behaved in a way that makes it obvious that she has a vagina and sometimes uses it for fun! No one says to the victim of a beating: “Well, anyone could see you had teeth. You were just asking to have them broken with all the eating you do.”

Wull.

Ok.

But still. Don’t just go walking around wherever you want to. Or leave your laptop on the bus.

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

Good news: Colin Powell isn’t at all worried about the massive rate of sexual assault in the US military. He says everything’s fine and the system is working well. That will be a huge relief to all the women who were raped in that military, especially the ones who got punished while their rapists got promoted.

Despite the high rate of sexual assault and instances of convictions being overturned by commanders, Powell said the military justice system was working.

“There will always be a case where somebody disagrees with a judgment made by somebody in the appellate procedure,” he explained. “Well, lets examine that, but lets not toss out a system that I think has worked very, very well over the years. I have been in that position as a commander. I have been the appellate authority. I have decided who should get tried and who should not get tried, and I can tell you that in my experience as a commander, we take it very, very seriously.”

That’s greeeeeeeeeat! Isn’t it? Only, he might be a little bit wrong. Maybe his view of how well it’s worked is shaped by his job, his position, his ties, his friends – by all the things that make it a super bad idea to let people at the top of an organization decide how crimes inside the organization will be dealt with. Maybe, just maybe, he has the same kind of problem popes and bishops have dealing with rape in their organization. Maybe Bloomberg TV shouldn’t be asking him softball questions but should instead be asking why the fuck the military thinks it can deal with sexual assault within its ranks better than the Vatican does.

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

This week’s xkcd is so very apt…

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

I keep saying.

Where have all the women gone in movies?

Despite the success of recent female-driven movies such as “Bridesmaids” and the “Hunger Games” and “Twilight” series, female representation in popular movies is at its lowest level in five years, according to a study being released Monday by the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism.

I keep talking about this. You’d think women didn’t exist, looking at most movie trailers. Even the animated ones – all the toys or all the animals – they’re male.

Among the 100 highest-grossing movies at the U.S. box office in 2012, the study reported, 28.4% of speaking characters were female. That’s a drop from 32.8% three years ago, and a number that has stayed relatively stagnant despite increased research attention to the topic and several high-profile box-office successes starring women.

We also need stats on amount of speaking, screen time, billing, importance to the plot, action – a lot of things.

When they are on-screen, 31.6% of women are shown wearing sexually revealing clothing, the highest percentage in the five years the USC researchers have been studying the issue.

For teen girls, the number who are provocatively dressed is even higher: 56.6% of teen girl characters in 2012 movies wore sexy clothes, an increase of 20% since 2009.

Because that’s why they’re there. To be hawt.

This is a barrier. I’m not being an extremist ideologue in saying that.

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

Wow. Talk about not even “I don’t care who started it, both of you go to your rooms!” or “both sides are equally wrong, and I know this without knowing any of the  particulars,” but just plain “you were harassed, don’t ever come back here again.”

Christine Walkinshaw is a comic. She did a gig at a casino. Ten drunk guys at one table shouted “show us your tits!” and then “show us your bush!” She finished her act in spite of them and without engaging them.

When I get backstage, the headliner, Darren Frost is livid. During my set, he ran around the club trying to get manager and staff to tell the table to shut up, but they wouldn’t.

Um. Well maybe they were figuring she started it, by being up there on the stage and all.

Before I left that night, I approached the woman running the club. I’m terrible at confrontation. The worst. I’d rather put up with a little shitty behavior, not just as a comedian, but as a human being, than start a conflict. I’m the queen of saying things like, “It’s okay,” “I’m alright,” or “Don’t worry about me.” I don’t mean to sound pathetic. I’m actually a very happy person. I’ve been told I smile too much. (How creepy is that!) However, in this moment, I know I have to say something.

“Hey. The next time a bunch of guys are shouting ‘Show us your tits!  Show us your bush!’ you might want to tell them to shut up.”

Then I burst out crying. Oh for fucks. I can’t believe I’m confessing on the internet that I cried. I swear I don’t cry all the time. I cried during the movie ‘Big Fish.’ I also cried the first time I saw the music video to Taylor Swift’s ‘Ours.’ Other than that, I’m pretty tear free. The manager was taken aback.

“Oh. I thought you liked it.”

Do I need to tell you guys I didn’t like it? Probably not.

I endured it, but I didn’t like it. Still, I like to keep my relations with comedy clubs drama free. I accept her apology, then the second she left the green room, I opened the mini fridge, and shoved as many of those little, chubby casino size bottles of water in my purse. It was a small act of revenge, and most certainly passive aggressive, but it felt good. Free bottled water for all disgruntled employees of Casino Niagara! Who says I don’t stand up for myself?

That was Thursday; she did the Friday and Saturday. A year later they invited her again. She thought ew, a bit, but accepted anyway.

A week ago I got an email from my agent, saying the casino is axing me from the weekend, due to the night with Darren Frost and the “unruly” crowd.

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

A Fresh Air interview with Mel Brooks the other day played the sound from the “Puttin on the Ritz” segment in Young Frankenstein. I thought I’d better share that segment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co6-tYS9k1U

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

Oh honestly. Teresa MacBain was supposed to be on CNN this morning to talk about how atheists deal with tragedy – but CNN went and canceled on her, because they wanted to talk about the London events and religious extremism instead. Phooey.

It would have been good. Here’s what she said about it on Facebook, before they pulled the plug.

I just received a call from CNN. They want me to be on the Sunday Morning show to discuss how atheists deal with tragedy. I’m very glad that I have this opportunity. My goal is to continue the process of normalizing atheism and share how so many of us have stepped up to help those who are suffering.

That would have been great.

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

Huge demonstration in Paris to say omigodno about same-sex marriage.

French police says that 150,000 protesters are taking part in the march in central Paris, but the organisers say the number is closer to one million.

One demonstrator dressed in black, holding a scythe and wearing a mask of Mr Hollande, stood behind a coffin in which lay a mannequin dressed as Marianne – the emblem of France.

I don’t get it. I never do. It’s other people, being allowed to do something that a lot of people think is a good thing to do. It seems so bizarre to get that worked up about it. It’s not legal permission to marry you, against your will – it’s just legal permission to marry someone of the same sex. Someone. Not you. Someone. Someone else.

Du calme, du calme.

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

Tarek Fatah says it.

While ordinary Britons and non-Muslims around the world are bewildered by these never-ending acts of terrorism, the response of the leaders of the Islamic community is the tired old cliche — Islam is a religion of peace, and jihad is simply an “inner struggle.”

The fact these terrorists are motivated by one powerful belief — the doctrine of armed jihad against the “kuffar” (non-Muslims) — is disingenuously denied by Islamic clerics and leaders.

Yesterday, instead of calling on Muslims to shelve the doctrine of armed jihad, predictably, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) issued a quick press release claiming the “barbaric” attack has “no basis in Islam.”

Not true, MCB. As a Muslim, I can say without fear, the latest terror attack has a basis in Islam and it’s time for us Muslims to dig our heads out of the sand.

He says it. You don’t see that very often.

This was an opportunity for the Muslim leadership to confess they have failed and that the time has come to admit that jihadis cannot be fought without fighting the doctrine of jihad.

It is worth noting that not a single Muslim cleric since 9/11 has mustered the courage to say the doctrine of armed jihad is defunct and inapplicable in the 21st century. They rightfully denounce terrorism, but dare not denounce jihad.

If only they would.

Unless the leaders of British mosques as well as the Islamic organizations in the U.K. denounce the doctrine of jihad as pronounced by the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami, and distance themselves from the ideology of Qutb, al-Banna and Maudoodi, they stand complicit in the havoc that these jihadis are raining down on the rest of us.

They cannot have it both ways: promoting the teachings of Maududi and Qutb among Muslim youth, while concealing the same teachings from the rest of Britain.

If the Muslim leadership did denounce armed jihad, think what a blow it would be against “Islamophobia.”

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

Omar Bakri, founder of the banned UK Islamist group Al Muhajiroun, is excited about the “courage” of the guy who hacked Lee Rigby to death on a street in Woolwich.

What surprised me (is) the quiet man, the man who is very shy, decided to carry out an attack against a British soldier in the middle of the day in the middle of a street in the UK. In east London. It’s incredible.

“When I saw that, honestly I was very surprised – standing firm, courageous, brave. Not running away. Rather, he said why he carried (it out) and he wanted the whole world to hear it.”

No. That’s not courageous or brave. Nobody was going to hack him to death. The guy he hacked to death wasn’t given a chance to fight back. That’s not courageous, it’s not brave.

“The prophet (Mohammad) said an infidel and his killer will not meet in Hell. That’s a beautiful saying,” he said. “May God reward (Adebolajo) for his actions.”

That’s a disgusting thing to say. “Kaffir.” And he calls it a beautiful saying. It makes me feel ill.

Bakri said his organization Al Muhajiroun had nothing to do with the attack because members had not seen Adebolajo since 2005. However, Anjem Choudary, who took over the leadership of Al Muhajiroun when Bakri was exiled from Britain, has told Reuters Adebolajo attended the group’s events until about two years ago.

It seems to me people used to call Anjem Choudary a joke. He doesn’t seem to be much of a joke.

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

Just a small side thing, about reading and disagreeing with an opponent fairly.

A reader pointed out to me a post by Damion Reinhardt at Skeptic Ink about a post of mine. Here’s how he paraphrases my post:

Her argument seems to be something like this:

1. Skeptics assent unquestioningly to moral propositions of the form “You must not [commit atrocities against humans]” without stopping to ask for further evidence.
2. Checkmate, skeptics!

I may have missed out a step there, but that seems to pretty much cover it. My answer to this is twofold.

Here’s what I actually wrote:

One of the things that proud or “movement” skeptics like to say is “you have to be skeptical of everything.” No sacred cows!

But I don’t think even proud or “movement” skeptics really believe that, apart from a few psychopaths. I can think of lots of things I think no one should be skeptical of, and I’d be surprised to get much disagreement.

• you must not push small children in front of speeding cars
• you must not punch a child in the face
• you must not kill all the Jews
• you must not commit genocide
• you  must not kidnap and imprison women
• you must not force a woman to abort a pregnancy by first starving her and then repeatedly punching her in the abdomen as hard as you can
• you must not set fire to people’s houses
• you must not enslave anyone

They don’t match. What I wrote is not what he said I wrote.

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

Sorry, I had to make that earlier post private, because I was told it wasn’t a good idea. Sorry for any confusion.

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

Speaking of Quiverfull – one of the great panels at Women in Secularism 2 was the Women Leaving Religion one, with Maryam, Teresa, Vyckie and Jamila, moderated by Stephanie.

There was one part where Teresa was talking about the difficulties of leaving and of coming out, in particular the fact that her husband is still a believer, and they had always talked about everything – and she choked a bit on that word. Maryam reached for her behind the table. It wouldn’t have been visible to people much farther back (I was in the front row for a change). It made me get chokey. I love Maryam.

Photo by Monica Harmsen.

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

Via Brian Engler via Vyckie Garrison – some Quiverfull wisdom by one “Von” on how to be a Real Man.

Real men marry. Real men seek the responsibilities (and joys!) that God has called them to and seek, actively seek: a wife and children. A wife and children that will require work on a daily basis; work to feed and clothe them, work to share in their joys and sorrows, work communicating, fixing, kissing… real men take those responsibilities seriously.

Real men marry, and lead spiritually. They realize that, however little they know about God and Scripture, it is their responsibility to step up to the plate and lead their family. To learn and to lead. Every day, all the time.

However little they know about anything, and however much their wives know about everything, it is still their responsibility to be the boss. God said so. It’s theirs because penis, and it’s not wives’ because not penis.

Real men can really admit they have real problems; and know that that is what wise counsel is for. Their father, their father-in-law, the elders of their church, other wise men… real men aren’t (too) afraid to go to these men and admit that they have struggles, and listen to, and act on, their advice.

That’s a new one (to me). I haven’t seen that particular piece of contempt before. Women aren’t even good enough to talk to when men have problems. Not even that. Not even though the problems could be domestic or relational, and women are generally thought – even by Quiverfull types – to be good at that. No, it has to be father, or her father, or wise men. Wise men.

Real women marry, hopefully young. They know they are called to marriage in their youth, to a husband in his youth, and are not afraid of this.

Real women who understand that they are not called to ‘a career’ but a house. They are called to love their husbands, bear and love their children, and keep their house.

And none of this pesky modern shit about deciding that for themselves; none of that actually thinking about one’s life and how one wants to live it; no sir; real women are “called” to do one kind of thing and not all the others. End of story (in every way).

Real women realize the marriage is more important than the wedding. They don’t bankrupt their new husband or father, or delay their marriage for months while things are ‘planned’ to be just perfect. Real women marry and bear children; they don’t spend the rest of their life poring over their wedding pictures.

Real women obey their husbands over their fathers. While the honor that the young woman owes her parents is lifelong, and includes obedience to all of his lawful commands, she realizes that she now has a much more direct authority in her husband.

Real women are not afraid of submission. Well, maybe they are, but they do it anyway. They strive to give to their husbands the same kind of submission that the Church owes to Christ.

That’s Quiverfull! Maybe they are – maybe they do have qualms – but they do it anyway! They obey and submit. Booya, that’s what this is all about. Obey, god damn it!

Real women know that they are often called to listen when they would like to speak. That is more important to build their husband up than to put him down with their latest spiritual point.

Ha. Haha. Hahahaha. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

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

Imad Iddine Habib has run out of cash, and urgently needs more. I told him I would rally the troops.

Use this button to donate. Thank you Maryam!

We are with you, Imad.

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

I should post the real photo, because that was actually about something, something that matters. It’s Brian’s photo.

Photo by Brian D. Engler

Left to right: Stephanie, me, Brianne, Maryam, Jason, Kate, Miri, PZ, Ashley. All Freethought bloggers, you see. All in the one place so we thought what fun to get a picture, and of course Brian obliged. Freethought bloggers for international solidarity with atheist bloggers.

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

Dan Fincke did a great post a couple of days ago about WiS and the bizarre inappropriateness of the opening remarks.

It was especially troubling, from an optics point of view if nothing else, that he chose to do this specifically to feminists, a group defined primarily by the women associated with it. That he broke with traditional form of being a host rather than a critic when the event’s speaker roster was set to be all women and his audience was predominantly women sent a message, whether he intended it or not. It was that women don’t deserve the same basic respect and civility that is routinely afforded to your average conference speakers and participants. A crowd of women can get a stern talking to and skeptical querying about issues they are probably oblivious to in lieu of a welcome.

Yes. That is indeed a big, big, big part of the problem.

I’ve talked to quite a few people about this since getting back from DC, some of them people who go to a lot of conferences (unrelated to secularism or feminism). Nobody could think of a single instance of anything remotely like the reception we got. The normal thing is to welcome participants and say a little about the conference. The normal thing is not to decline to welcome participants (because participants were welcomed the year before) and then scold them. That’s not normal procedure. We’re not being weird or petty in saying that. It’s not normal; it’s special treatment.

Well why do we get special treatment? What’s different about us?

Oh right.

No, really. As Dan says, that sends a message, whether it’s intended to or not. A conference of women has to be lectured by a man before starting, so that they don’t make a mess of everything.

Particularly galling was Lindsay’s inability to adequately define privilege before criticizing it or to adequately explain how it works well in helping us analyze injustice against marginalized people before talking about potential abuses of it. As a philosopher, I am bothered by Lindsay’s laziness in understanding concepts before criticizing them and his blindness about feeling like he was in a position to criticize the concept to an audience of feminists without even taking any time to treat it in its strongest and most useful senses. This was, remarkably, an astounding instance of privilege induced blindness itself. It is staggering and upsetting that he managed to do that to open a conference on feminism.

That bothered me too, and it seemed uncharacteristic. It was so thin – so inadequate – so vulgar, even. It was a Fox News version of feminism. For cryin out loud, that’s the best you can do? Just a parody version to poke at? And you’re implying that we plan to talk nonsense like that? That is insulting.

Ron Lindsay was an egregious violator of civility principles by being such a disrespectful host and then poisoning the well against Rebecca Watson in his post replying to her counter post to his talk and to his first blog defense of it. And this is especially upsetting given that only this past spring he signed a civility pledge meant to set a standard for others in the community to follow. This pledge gave a ton of instruction to people engaged in emotionally upsetting fights, including to people who were on the receiving end of awful interpersonal abuse. I believe in the ideals of that pledge. I believe that even though it demanded people do difficult things that they are vital things that must be done if the movement is to have healthy debates about serious philosophical differences in the future.

And Ron Lindsay showed that he could not stick to the pledge the first time that he felt like someone made an uncharitable reading of his words in a very heated, public dispute after he signed it. The first time! He is asking women, specifically Rebecca Watson, to be bigger than a torrent of abuse that includes rape threats, death threats, sexually degrading photoshops, a website devoted to monitoring their every misstep, etc. And he cannot handle civil criticism from that same woman  that was not a fraction as abusive to him as what she has had to endure. And he showed this thin skin while being the host of a conference where she was a speaker and it was his obligation to respect the position that that role put him in as a host. This was an abuse of his position and an embarrassment.

So much so that he’s now withdrawn the most insulting thing he wrote in that post – but only that, and no more. The only slightly less insulting things are left unwithdrawn.

By highlighting his anxieties with the worst instances of feminist activism as though they were the most central and pressing concerns related to feminists Lindsay inadvertently sent this message: When I think about feminism the first thing that comes to mind is how feminists act counter to rational ideals. Given feminism’s vital accomplishments, feminism’s hugely important substantive goals, and the long history of women being misogynistically mistrusted as inherently irrational, Lindsay could not have sent a worse signal.

It was a good way to incite an even bigger torrent of abuse against us though. I don’t think he intended that, but he sure as hell didn’t give it enough consideration to cause him to re-think.

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

So Arizona State Representative Juan Mendez gave a secular invocation in the state House of Representatives on Tuesday. (Invocation. Honestly, what a word. Normally the legislators in Arizona call up spirits every morning. “Hellooo. Hellooooooo, is anyone there?” Then one day there’s a slip-up and one legislator talks sense for once.) Well we can’t have that.

American Atheists announced Friday that it has demanded an apology on behalf of all non-Christians for disparaging remarks made by Arizona state Senator Steve Smith on Wednesday. Smith’s remarks were in response to the secular invocation offered by state Representative Juan Mendez on Tuesday in the state House of Representatives.

Smith, a conservative Christian, opened Wednesday’s House session with not one, but two prayers, the second in “repentance” of the secular invocation offered the day before by Mendez. Smith invited the other lawmakers present to join him; about half of the sixty did. Smith said, “When there is a time set aside to pray …, if you are a nonbeliever, don’t ask for time to pray.”

Religious test for office. Dude, that’s a no-no. You’re not allowed to do that.

“Opening the legislative sessions with prayer is disenfranchising to anyone who is not Christian as demonstrated by Representative Mendez’ attempt to balance this outdated practice with a secular alternative,” said President David Silverman. “But for Senator Smith to say that a fellow lawmaker’s secular choice requires ‘repentance’ is reprehensible. His statement excluding nonbelievers is one of the most un-American remarks I have ever heard from a public servant and is a perfect example of why there should not be any prayer sponsored by government. Senator Smith should be ashamed. He owes Representative Mendez an apology. He owes non-Christians an apology. He owes the American people an apology.”

“For Smith to suggest that Mendez’s expression of Humanist beliefs requires our government to pray for repentance is really awful and insulting. I’m incredibly disappointed,” said Seráh Blain, Executive Director of the Secular Coalition of Arizona.

Stop trying to exclude and disenfranchise us! It ain’t right!

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

Obama gave a commencement speech at the Naval Academy today, and used the occasion to tell them to quit saying “shut up and listen” to their superior officers. No no I’m kidding, he used it to tell them not to do sexual assaulting.

President Obama used a commencement speech before Naval Academy graduates on Friday to urge them to follow an “inner compass” and to warn that rising numbers of sexual assaults in the military threatened to erode America’s faith in the armed forces.

No, it doesn’t “threaten to”; it’s already done it. It’s not so much eroded as gutted my trust in the willingness of the people who are in charge of the armed forces to do a god damn thing about rampant sexual harassment. They act like the Vatican and I don’t trust them at all.

The president praised the military as the nation’s “most trusted institution,” but took note of the recent cases in which service members have been charged with sexual assault. He said those people “threaten the trust and discipline which makes our military strong.”

“We need your honor, that inner compass that guides you,” the president said, essentially using the platform at the Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium to scold those who have strayed from that direction recently. “Even more than physical courage, we need your moral courage — the strength to do what’s right, even when it’s unpopular.”

Good, but also tell the people in charge do what they’re supposed to be doing. And could you make it so that crimes are not dealt with in-house? That’s not asking too much.

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

Why would anyone think otherwise??!

That fake account appeared a lot on #WISCFI during the conference, too. I don’t think I saw any other fake accounts of any other speakers; just that one. I’m special. I don’t know why, particularly, but I am.

Twitter deleted the account on Monday, but of course the genius behind it just created another one.

But that, as we all know, is not harassment. It’s dissent, it’s criticism, it’s disagreement.

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