Hey remember sexual harassment? Those were fun times, weren’t they?

The implication is that a combination of awareness, women’s growing economic power and legislation that began with the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act and has been updated repeatedly, has stamped out the problem.

Laura Bates, who set up the website Everyday Sexism earlier this year, isn’t so sure. Like those 1970s speak-outs, her site allows women to share their experiences, and over the course of six months 7,500 entries have poured in, “thousands of which pertain specifically to workplace harassment, workplace sexism and sadly, in many cases, workplace sexual assault and even rape”. “What I don’t know is whether the prevalence has diminished or not [since the 70s],” she says. “But I do know that an Equal Opportunities Commission report in 2000 said that 50% of women still experience sexual harassment in the workplace.”

Problem not so stamped out then.

So why is there this idea that workplaces are so much better now? Part of it, perhaps, is that sexual harassment affects women at different times in their lives. Endean says it is a particular problem, for instance, for young female apprentices in male-dominated workplaces and, anecdotally, many of us are affected by the issue when we start work in our late teens and early 20s. It’s an issue of power. As individual women get older and more personally powerful, sexual harassment often has less effect on them, and so they believe it has been left behind in another era.

Paula Kirby please note. Not all women are treated the way Paula Kirby is treated, therefore what Paula Kirby knows from her own experience is of limited utility for understanding what women in general experience.

Not only is classic workplace sexual harassment still going on, says Bates, but technology has created new forms; in the space of six months, she has seen several thousand abusive emails, including rape threats and death threats. As those 1975 feminists knew, what’s important is to stop the silence around the issue. “I think there’s an idea that women have to put up and shut up,” says Bates. “They’re told they’re whining, being uptight, frigid, sometimes even blamed for causing it in the first place.”

Oh surely not! Surely that never happens.

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

Here’s Rebecca at the Humanists of Florida conference last weekend, with EllenBeth introducing her. Two of my favorite women!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez8gs-C53ic

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

The Women in Secularism issue of Free Inquiry will be out in late November. Here is what it will look like on the front.

Via Melody Hensley

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

Like army chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani for instance, who visited Malala in the hospital and took the occasion to talk comfortable pious bullshit. He

said Malala has “become a symbol for the values that the army, with the nation behind it, is fighting to preserve for our future generations.

“These are the intrinsic values of an Islamic society, based on the principles of liberty, justice and equality of man.”

Oh really. Is that a fact. Then why is Pakistan such a shit-hole? Why are all “Islamic societies” such shit-holes? If an Islamic society is based on the principles of liberty, justice and equality of man [sic] then why do so many people think it’s based on the principles of coercion, brutality and inequality of women and men? Why is there no Islamic society on earth that looks to outsiders like one that’s based on the principles of liberty, justice and equality?

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

Stephanie has some thoughts on Reap Paden. Who? I don’t know, really, except that he’s a friend of Justin Vacula’s. I saw a comment by him, or a mention of his podcast, or something, during the short period in which I was attempting to get Vacula to correct his misrepresentation of me on his podcast. (So many guys, so many podcasts.) That was all. I had no opinion on him until last Saturday, when someone pointed out a shouty podcast he’d just done and I listened to a bit of it. Man, it was shouty all right. He spent the first several minutes shouting at Stephanie louder and louder and louder and LOUDER. Calling her a fucking bitch over and over again. Not much substance, just louder and louder fucking bitch.

I skipped ahead and listend to a bit more – some more guys had joined him and they were talking about Rebecca (why? I have no idea) by pretending to be talking in her voice, saying, “I’m a stupid cunt” and “I’m a dumb cunt” and laughing a lot. Oh, so that’s who that is, I thought. Another one to avoid.

I see people saying it’s good they talk like this, because that way people can realize what they’re like. Huh. I don’t think so at all. It would be much better if they weren’t like it. Talking like this is what makes them like it, so if they stopped talking like this, they wouldn’t be like it, and that would be better. If people talk to me and don’t call me a fucking bitch or a cunting cunt, then that’s better than if they do and so I find out what they’re like. I don’t want to find out what they’re like if they’re like that, I want them to hide it.

So anyway this Reap Paden commented on Stephanie’s post. He showed us what he’s like again.

You already lost Stephanie. You are just too damn dumb to figure it out.

Listen to this well-

I don’t give a fuck what you say I don’t give a fuck what you do. There is nothing you can do to stop me from doing/saying what I feel needs to be said.

I’m one of those people you won’t make quiet. You can’t win

It doesn’t matter what simpletons like you say about me. Intelligent people will figure it out while you spin your wheels trying to make yourself look good.

Anytime you open that hole under your nose about me and I hear about it, I will have a reply to it.

In the future if you don’t want to be called a bitch I would suggest you refrain from being one, seems simple enough to me.

That last bit is especially interesting. He will call us bitches because we are bitches, and it’s our own damn fault that he calls us bitches, because we’re too bitchy to refrain from being bitches.

I have my doubts.

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

I heard a long report on BBC World about Malala Yusufzai a couple of hours ago, including a big chunk of an interview with her. On top of everything else, she’s fluent in English. I looked for it via Google and thought I’d found it but was surprised at how cheery the reporter sounded – then I belatedly looked at the date: it was last January. She starts reading from the diary she wrote for the BBC at 1:25 in.

The report I heard today interviewed the New York Times reporter Adam Ellick, who got to know her in 2009. He posted a photo to Twitter. The other guy is her father.

 Nighat Dad tweeted pictures of herself with Malala.

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

Charlie Fuqua, a Republican candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives, wrote a book called (frighteningly) God’s Law. It’s not a satire; he really thinks there is such a thing and that he knows about it. One item of god’s law is that rebellious children should be subject to the death penalty.

The Huffington Post quotes from the book via The Arkansas Times.

The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21:

This passage does not give parents blanket authority to kill their children. They must follow the proper procedure in order to have the death penalty executed against their children. I cannot think of one instance in the Scripture where parents had their child put to death. Why is this so? Other than the love Christ has for us, there is no greater love then [sic] that of a parent for their child. The last people who would want to see a child put to death would be the parents of the child. Even so, the Scrpture [sic] provides a safe guard to protect children from parents who would wrongly exercise the death penalty against them. Parents are required to bring their children to the gate of the city. The gate of the city was the place where the elders of the city met and made judicial pronouncements. In other words, the parents were required to take their children to a court of law and lay out their case before the proper judicial authority, and let the judicial authority determine if the child should be put to death. I know of many cases of rebellious children, however, I cannot think of one case where I believe that a parent had given up on their child to the point that they would have taken their child to a court of law and asked the court to rule that the child be put to death. Even though this procedure would rarely be used, if it were the law of land, it would give parents authority. Children would know that their parents had authority and it would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents.

See he’s not really urging that children should be executed. He’s just saying there should be a law on the books that would allow them to be executed for not giving proper respect to their parents. Moderation itself.

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

I’m finding a lot of commentary and some (possible) news about Malala Yousafzai on Twitter (via #Malala).

The important item is a new update on her condition.

Doctors at the Saidu Sharif Medical Complex said that Malala was out of danger after the bullet penetrated her skull but missed her brain.

“A bullet struck her head, but the brain is safe,” said Dr Taj Mohammed.

“She is out of danger,” he added.

Dr Laal Noor, from the same hospital, confirmed that the bullet broke her skull but missed her brain.

“The bullet struck her skull and came out on the other side and hit her shoulder,” he told AFP.

The same item includes more evil shit from the Taliban.

SWAT: The Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) which attacked National Award Peace winner Malala Yousafzai on Tuesday have said that they will target her again if she survives because she was a “secular-minded lady”.

A TTP spokesperson told The Express Tribune that this was a warning for all youngsters who were involved in similar activites and added that they will be targeted if they do not stop.

…

Taliban spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan said his group was behind the shooting.

“She was pro-West, she was speaking against Taliban and she was calling President Obama her idol,” Ehsan said by telephone from an undisclosed location.

“She was young but she was promoting Western culture in Pashtun areas,” he said.

One item claims that Imran Khan says it’s about the drones.

According to Imran Khan, Pakistani Taliban’s violence is a reaction to drone attacks. Was #Malala a drone pilot?

God hates women and schoolgirls.

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

A 14-year-old schoolgirl in the Swat valley in Pakistan has been shot in the head. The Taliban says it did it. Malala Yousafzai is also a campaigner for girls’ education. She was attacked on her way home from school in Mingora. She’s reported to be out of danger.

Ehsanullah Ehsan told BBC Urdu that they attacked her because she was anti-Taliban and secular, adding that she would not be spared.

Clear and to the point.

She kept a diary for BBC Urdu starting at age 11.

Correspondents say she earned the admiration of many across Pakistan for her courage in speaking out about life under the brutal rule of Taliban militants.

One poignant entry reflects on the Taliban decree banning girls’ education: “Since today was the last day of our school, we decided to play in the playground a bit longer. I am of the view that the school will one day reopen but while leaving I looked at the building as if I would not come here again.”

She has since said that she wants to study law and enter politics when she grows up. “I dreamt of a country where education would prevail,” she said.

The Beeb has some of it translated into English.

Saturday 3 January 2009

I had a terrible dream yesterday with military helicopters and the Taleban. I have had such dreams since the launch of the military operation in Swat. My mother made me breakfast and I went off to school. I was afraid going to school because the Taleban had issued an edict banning all girls from attending schools.

Only 11 students attended the class out of 27. The number decreased because of Taleban’s edict. My three friends have shifted to Peshawar, Lahore and Rawalpindi with their families after this edict.

On my way from school to home I heard a man saying ‘I will kill you’. I hastened my pace and after a while I looked back if the man was still coming behind me. But to my utter relief he was talking on his mobile and must have been threatening someone else over the phone.

A schoolgirl. 14. She wanted to go to school, and she wanted other girls to be able to go to school. Bang.

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

Hey look, Salman Rushdie is on C-Span live right now. Well actually not right now, the woman who co-owns Politics and Prose is on right now, introducing him. Melody was on before that.

Now Robert Siegel is talking.

So watch and listen!

I’ll live-blog it, that’s what.

Paraphrase: It’s very difficult to write about duration. It was like the pampas, as Borges described it. You can’t take a picture of it, because it looks like a field. You can only get a sense of it by traveling in it, and then it just goes on and on, and it’s always the same, and it goes on and on, and it’s always the same, and it goes on and on.

The fatwa was like that.

One of the greatest things about the history of literature is that writers have always taken on ogres. When Mandelstam wrote about Stalin he knew who he was. When Lorca wrote about Franco he knew who he was. Writers have always stood up to tyrants.

The Satanic Verses wasn’t primarily a novel about Islam. It was primarily about migration.

I have less religion than you could inscribe on a chewed-off fingernail. [applause]

After he signed the absurd statement of religious faith, he felt like throwing up. “At that point, I just thought the hell with it. No more appeasement, no more apology. Fuck it.”

Out of that moment – it was an awful moment – he became the person he is, the person who could say what he says.

It was Christmas Eve 1990. Weirdly enough, I remember it. I was horrified that he’d made a “statement of faith.”

We can’t live in a world where what we can say is determined by violence.

[On the bounty] No one’s ever taken this old gentleman seriously, even in Iran, because he doesn’t have the money.

That’s one of the problems with Iran is that even the liberals are assholes.

What you need when you write for children: you need lots of jump.

It’s strange coming to Washington with Christopher not here.

We invented this game of titles that didn’t quite make it. A Farewell to Weapons. Toby Dick. aka Moby Prick. Blueberry Finn.

They weren’t close friends until the fatwa. They became close friends because he wanted it that way.

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

I’d forgotten about NonStampCollecter (and that that was his name) until Theo Bromine posted a video in The return of snipping this morning. So that’s who NonStampCollecter is! I saw the name in another context but didn’t know who it was. Oh hooray. Boy do I like NonStampCollecter.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk&feature=share&list=PL6D440558124742F5

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

Update: this item is from 1996. [hides scarlet face]

There’s an Alabama State Senator (Republican) running for Congress, who says slavery was a good thing for the people who were slaves.

Mr. Davidson referred to Leviticus 25:44 — “You may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you” — and quoted I Timothy 6:1 as saying slaves should “regard their own masters as worthy of all honor.”

“The incidence of abuse, rape, broken homes and murder are 100 times greater, today, in the housing projects than they ever were on the slave plantations in the Old South,” he wrote. “The truth is that nowhere on the face of the earth, in all of time, were servants better treated or better loved than they were in the Old South by white, black, Hispanic and Indian slave owners.”

Is that a fact. That’s what it was all about, was it? Being kind and loving to “servants”?

Like hell it was. It was about money. Slavery exploded as farmers started settling in Mississippi and raising cotton there. It was horrible, unhealthy work, and it could be hugely profitable provided you could get the labor. Cotton and slavery combined to make slaveowners rich. There was no love involved.

Speaking of the issue at a news conference, Mr. Davidson said today that although his ancestors fought in the Civil War, they did not own slaves.

“The issue is not race,” he said. “It’s Southern heritage. I’m on a one-man leadership crusade to get the truth out about what our Southern heritage is all about.”

Well that’s what the slavery part of “Southern heritage” is about – gouging cheap labor out of black people, first via slavery and then via Jim Crow laws. And by the way it’s insulting to a lot of Southerners to call that “Southern heritage.”

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

Taslima has a chilling little graphic…

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

From Maryam Namazie and Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All:
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All are calling on everyone to join the Day of Agreement.

It’s quite easy to do.
On 10 October, upload the day’s logo as your avatar on social media, Tweet #dayofagreement or try it with your colleagues, family and friends.

You can also join our five minute flash-mob at 12 noon in central London. (Email for more details).

Just remember, you can’t disagree with anyone – your colleagues, spouse, lover(s), mates, neighbours, children, bosses, or even politicians…

You are not allowed to dissent, ‘offend’ or question.

And before anyone gets too excited, they have to remember that they must also agree with everything you say. It’s only fair…

Seems impossible?

But that is what is expected of those of us who question, criticise or choose to leave Islam, including many Muslims and ex-Muslims…

Try it.

And while it all seems a bit of fun – on October 10 International Day against the Death Penalty – don’t forget that there are many living under Sharia law who are daily facing threats, imprisonment and execution for merely expressing themselves.

Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

BM Box 1919

London WC1N 3XX, UK

Tel: +44 (0) 7719166731 +44 (0) 7719166731

exmuslimcouncil@gmail.com

http://ex-muslim.org.uk/

One Law for All

BM Box 2387

London WC1N 3XX, UK

Tel: +44 (0) 7719166731 +44 (0) 7719166731

onelawforall@gmail.com

www.onelawforall.org.uk

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

An unpleasant little story from India.

…a 12-year-old boy was allegedly chained by authorities of a local madrassa to prevent him from escaping from the school.

According to Medak town police, the boy has been studying in ‘Minhaj-ul-uloom’ religious school for the past three years and had earlier made several attempts to run away from the madrassa, as he was not a quick learner and had a stammering problem.

The police said that the madrassa management had chained the boy a few days ago to prevent him from escaping.

To prevent him from “escaping” – as if he were somehow legally obliged to be there.

“There is no compulsion in religion.” Oh really?

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

It’s interesting to see the Washington Post columnist Sally Quinn unabashedly announcing that theism is part of citizenship in the US.

This is a religious country. Part of claiming your citizenship is claiming a belief in God, even if you are not Christian. We’ve got the Creator in our Declaration of Independence. We’ve got “In God We Trust” on our coins. We’ve got “one nation under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance. And we say prayers in the Senate and the House of Representatives to God.

Excuse me. I am a citizen. I don’t have to claim anything (and neither does any other citizen), and I certainly don’t have to claim a belief in god. Nobody has to. Nor does anyone have to claim a disbelief in god.

Up until now, the idea of being American and believing in God were synonymous.

No, they were not.

It’s slightly shocking to see a political columnist betray such ignorance of political basics. A majority opinion is not at all the same thing as being any particular nationality. The claim is both absurd and bossy.

Fortunately there are many comments pointing out how wrong that column is, along with some predictable sexist dreck.

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

Have you read the Leiter and Weisberg review of Thomas Nagel’s book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False? It’s pretty entertaining.

First there’s theoretical reductionism: it’s all physics. Nobody thinks that, so it’s silly to bother with it. Second there’s naturalism: what there is is what there is. (That’s my version. Theirs is the proper one.) Lots think that, so what’s Nagel’s problem with it? Well he reads “widely in the literature that explains contemporary science to the nonspecialist” and he notices that science often contradicts common sense.

This style of argument does not, alas, have a promising history. After all, what could be more common-sensical, obvious or evident than the notion that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth?…Happily, Nagel does not attempt to repudiate the Copernican revolution in astronomy, despite its hostility to common sense. But he displays none of the same humility when it comes to his preferred claims of common sense—the kind of humility that nearly 400 years of nonevident yet true scientific discoveries should engender. Are we really supposed to abandon a massively successful scientific research program because Nagel finds some scientific claims hard to square with what he thinks is obvious and “undeniable,” such as his confidence that his “clearest moral…reasonings are objectively valid”?

In support of his skepticism, Nagel writes: “The world is an astonishing place, and the idea that we have in our possession the basic tools needed to understand it is no more credible now than it was in Aristotle’s day.” This seems to us perhaps the most startling sentence in all of Mind and Cosmos. Epistemic humility—the recognition that we could be wrong—is a virtue in science as it is in daily life, but surely we have some reason for thinking, some four centuries after the start of the scientific revolution, that Aristotle was on the wrong track and that we are not, or at least not yet.

See what I mean? Entertaining.

And then, Nagel thinks there are objective moral truths, and that that fact shows that naturalism is wrong.

 there is nothing remotely common-sensical about Nagel’s confidence in the objectivity of moral truth. While Nagel and his compatriots apparently take very seriously their moral opinions—so seriously that they find it incredible to suggest that their “confidence in the objective truth of [their] moral beliefs” might, in fact, be “completely illusory”—this can hardly claim the mantle of “the common sense view.” Ordinary opinion sometimes tends toward objectivism, to be sure—often by relying on religious assumptions that Nagel explicitly rejects—but it also often veers toward social or cultural relativism about morality. Whether morality is truly objective is a philosopher’s claim (and a controversial one even among philosophers) about which “common sense” is either agnostic or mixed.

Sam Harris notwithstanding.

And then Nagel argues for teleology. I’m beginning to be tempted to read the book now.

Or perhaps not.

We conclude with a comment about truth in advertising. Nagel’s arguments against reductionism are quixotic, and his arguments against naturalism are unconvincing. He aspires to develop “rival alternative conceptions” to what he calls the materialist neo-Darwinian worldview, yet he never clearly articulates this rival conception, nor does he give us any reason to think that “the present right-thinking consensus will come to seem laughable in a generation or two.” Mind and Cosmos is certainly an apt title for Nagel’s philosophical meditations, but his subtitle—”Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False”—is highly misleading. Nagel, by his own admission, relies only on popular science writing and brings to bear idiosyncratic and often outdated views about a whole host of issues, from the objectivity of moral truth to the nature of explanation. No one could possibly think he has shown that a massively successful scientific research program like the one inspired by Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection “is almost certainly false.” The subtitle seems intended to market the book to evolution deniers, intelligent-design acolytes, religious fanatics and others who are not really interested in the substantive scientific and philosophical issues. Even a philosopher sympathetic to Nagel’s worries about the naturalistic worldview would not claim this volume comes close to living up to that subtitle. Its only effect will be to make the book an instrument of mischief.

That’s unfortunate.

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