Phil Torres wrote a post yesterday about censorship among the atheists and skeptics.

As some of you know, after I published an article that was critical of what I would describe as a strain of anti-intellectualism among some skeptic leaders, Michael Shermer sent me an email complete with vulgarities, personal insults (e.g., you’re a bad scholar and you’ll never be a good scholar!), and basically a threat to harm my career because I’m a “backstabber” (search The Moral Arc for some fun reading about how Shermer sometimes fantasizes about murdering “backstabbers”! Seriously).

Similarly, after writing a critique of Peter Boghossian and James A. Lindsay‘s gender studies “hoax,” both blocked me on social media and the former even blocked my phone number! I have also been permanently banned from Jerry Coyne’s blog for literally asking, “So, why not focus on something else?,” which he angrily claimed was a violation of the blog’s rules (it wasn’t).

Douglas Murray at the Spectator says there can’t be any sex any more because of all these women persecuting men for THE TINIEST THINGS.

We are in the middle of a profound shift in our attitude towards sex. A sexual counter-revolution, if you will. And whereas the 1960s saw a freeing up of attitudes towards sex, pushing at boundaries, this counter-swing is turning sexual freedom into sexual fear, and nearly all sexual opportunities into a legalistic minefield.

The phrase “sexual opportunities” is interesting. Often that’s the issue: the way some men see women in a work environment as “sexual opportunities” when the women are there to work and don’t want to be seen as “sexual opportunities” rather than competent colleagues.

The rules are being redrawn with little idea of where the boundaries of this new sexual utopia will lie and less idea still of whether any sex will be allowed in the end.

Don’t be schewpid.

But it is away from the law — tied up in the ‘#MeToo’ movement that followed Weinstein’s downfall — that the real revolution is happening. Accusations of genuine and monstrous abuse are being mixed with news that a cabinet member touched a woman’s knee many years ago. This week The Crown actress Claire Foy was forced to issue a statement saying she had not been offended after angry Twitter users pointed out that actor Adam Sandler had touched her knee — twice — during their appearance on The Graham Norton Show.

I don’t believe she was forced to. Who would have forced her, and how? He means she felt like it. She is free to say she doesn’t mind, and we are free to say that assuming women are fair game for casual touching is part of the problem.

A new generation is being encouraged to redraw the lines of acceptability in a way that goes too far. What once was gauche has now become unacceptable.

God, the smug blindness.

Yes, the people with more power considered sexual harassment merely “gauche,” but that’s the whole point. What’s “gauche” to the groper is not necessarily merely “gauche” to the gropee. Murray is talking as if the only point of view is the male one, and women are just objects – objects can’t have a point of view.

Foremost propeller of this is a form of modern feminism which is in fact barely disguised misandry. Take an essay from the sociology professor Lisa Wade, which argues that ‘We need to attack masculinity directly. I don’t mean that we should recuperate masculinity — that is, press men to identify with a kinder, gentler version of it — I mean that we should reject the idea that men have a psychic need to distinguish themselves from women in order to feel good about themselves.’ Or, as Lara Prendergast has noted in this issue, other women writers have taken it upon themselves to issue strict instructions for men on how they must behave. This ‘feminism’ isn’t producing guides for helping men. It is producing manifestos for torturing them.

By expecting them to treat women like fellow human beings as opposed to “sexual opportunities.”

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern report at Slate:

On Friday, the Department of Justice filed an astonishing appeal with the Supreme Court, urging the justices to intervene in the Jane Doe case that seemed to have ended last week. Doe, an undocumented 17-year-old in a federally funded Texas shelter, was denied abortion access by the Trump administration, which argues that it can force undocumented minors to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. On Oct. 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that Doe must be allowed to terminate her pregnancy, which she did the next day. Now the DOJ is urging the Supreme Court to vacate that decision—and punish the ACLU attorneys who represented Doe.

Gee. Here I thought we had an adversarial system, in which attorneys are allowed to dispute the government.

Make no mistake: With this filing, Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Justice Department has declared war on attorneys and groups who dare to oppose it in court.

The Justice Department is doing three things here.

First, it wants the Supreme Court to punish the D.C. Circuit for issuing a decision that it believes to be egregiously wrong by wiping the entire ruling off the books. Second, the DOJ wants to eradicate a decision that sets a legal precedent it despises. Doe’s lawsuit was initially brought as part of a class action, and the ACLU will continue to litigate its broader claim against the Trump administration’s absolute bar on abortion access for undocumented minors. As long as the D.C. Circuit’s decision remains on the books, those lawsuits are almost guaranteed to succeed. The Justice Department wants it gone so that it can litigate this issue anew.

Third, and most importantly, Friday’s appeal is a flagrant effort to crucify the individual attorneys who represented Doe, and to terrify likeminded lawyers into acquiescence. The DOJ thus asks the Supreme Court to force Doe’s lawyers to “show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken” against the ACLU—either by the court itself or by state bars—for “material misrepresentations and omissions” designed to thwart an appeal.

Of course he is.

It’s hard to imagine a more ironic choice for America’s next ambassador-at-large for women’s issues.

The position is tasked with overseeing State Department programs to end gender-based violence and empower women and girls around the world. So, naturally, President Donald Trump is reportedly considering Penny Young Nance, a far-right Christian activist who opposed reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act; recently cheered on an attempt to block a pregnant teen immigrant from an abortion; and has called on Hollywood to write more scripts featuring strong male leads.

She can be an ambassador for helping women around the world to be more submissive and helpful to their Husbands.

Nance is the CEO and president of Concerned Women for America. The group’s agenda, according to its website, includes “protecting and supporting the Biblical design of marriage,” “protecting the sanctity of human life,” “ending sexual exploitation by fighting all forms of pornography, obscenity, prostitution, and sex trafficking,” and “defending religious liberty.”

Trump doesn’t believe any of that shit – but he does hate women, and he is a sadist, so this is his idea of a fun thing to do.

Yet another way Trump has been and continues to be unprecedentedly disgusting and cruel:

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who walked off his Army base in Afghanistan in 2009 and was held captive by the Taliban for five years, was ordered to be dishonorably discharged from the Army by a military judge on Friday, but received no prison time for desertion or endangering troops.

At a sentencing that took only minutes, the military judge, Col. Jeffery R. Nance of the Army, also reduced Sergeant Bergdahl’s rank to private and required him to forfeit $1,000 a month of his pay for 10 months. Prosecutors had sought 14 years in a military prison.

President Trump, who has labeled Sergeant Bergdahl a “dirty rotten traitor,” quickly criticized Friday’s sentence, calling it “a complete and total disgrace to our Country and to our Military.”

…

Politics have dogged the case from the start. The Obama administration embraced Sergeant Bergdahl — the national security adviser, Susan E. Rice, said that he had served with “honor and distinction” — a portrayal that angered many Republicans. Then, last year, Donald J. Trump made Sergeant Bergdahl a staple of his campaign speeches, denouncing him and calling for him to be executed.

Calling for him to be executed. That’s such a squalid brutal horrible look in a president.

Outside the military courthouse here, Sergeant Bergdahl’s chief defense lawyer, Eugene R. Fidell, called the sentence a “tremendous relief,” and said his client was still absorbing it after an “anxiety-inducing” day waiting for the decision.

Mr. Fidell then took sharp aim at President Trump, whose harsh comments about Sergeant Bergdahl may have contributed to the decision not to sentence him to prison: Colonel Nance had ruled earlier this week that he would consider the president’s statements as mitigating evidence.

“President Trump’s unprincipled effort to stoke a lynch-mob atmosphere while seeking our nation’s highest office has cast a dark cloud over the case,” said Mr. Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School. “Every American should be offended by his assault on the fair administration of justice and disdain for basic constitutional rights.”

And he did it again today, making it more likely that someone will go after Bergdahl.

Once Mr. Trump was inaugurated, Sergeant Bergdahl’s defense team demanded that the case be dismissed. There was no way the sergeant could receive a fair trial, his lawyers said, since everyone in the military justice system now reported to President Trump as commander in chief.

Colonel Nance labeled President Trump’s comments about Sergeant Berdahl “disturbing” but declined to throw out the case. Then, last month, President Trump seemed to endorse his earlier sentiments about Sergeant Bergdahl, saying, “I think people have heard my comments in the past.”

After another protest by the defense, Colonel Nance ruled that he would consider the president’s comments as evidence in mitigation as he deliberated on a sentence.

People could conclude, the judge explained, that the president had “wanted to make sure that everyone remembered what he really thinks should happen” to Sergeant Bergdahl.

And now we know what he thinks should happen to Saipov.

Facebook

Oh, interesting. The Académie Française dit “non” to gender inclusive language.

The Académie Française, France’s ultimate authority on the French language, is under fierce attack for describing gender-neutral text as an “aberration” that puts the language in “mortal danger”.

The “Immortals”, as the 40 academy members – only five of whom are women – are known, have sparked a national row after declaring that “inclusive writing” has no place in the country’s grammar books, or anywhere else for that matter.

The thing is, having an “ultimate authority” on a language is a highly dubious enterprise to begin with from a linguistic point of view. I hate the way people say “it negatively impacted her” instead of “it harmed her” but I don’t get to enforce it. (Except when I’m editing other people.)

In a statement full of hyperbole, the academy condemned the increasing use of new spellings aimed at making written French less masculine, arguing that it could not see the “desired objective” of the changes.

French grammatical rules give the masculine form of a noun precedence over the female. Women on an all-female board of company directors are called directrices; if one man joins the board, they are referred to collectively as directeurs.

I remember being taught in school that rule that says “ils” trumps “elles” no matter how many “elles” there are and how few “ils.” If there are a billion “elles” and one “il” it’s still “ils.” It was an all-girls school, and we were deeply annoyed.

We weren’t wrong. That’s a stupid rule, and yes of course it sends a message.

I also remember someone saying to me a few years ago, “Oh, you’re an authoress.” A what? No I’m not. This is why “actor” is replacing “actress” and “wait staff” replacing waiters and waitresses.

For years, French presidents have addressed citizens as les Français et les Françaises instead of the strictly correct les Français, but the recent row was sparked by a new textbook aimed at primary school children that employs the inclusive style, and came into use for the first time this year.

After a vote last month, the Académie Française issued a unanimous “non” to the new style, deeming it far too complicated.

“Faced with the aberration of ‘inclusive writing’, the French language finds itself in mortal danger,” its statement read.

…

Established by Louis XIII’s chief minister Cardinal Richelieu in 1635, outlawed after the French Revolution and restored by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1803, there have been a total of 726 members, only eight of whom have been women. The first, Belgian-born novelist Marguerite Yourcenar, was elected in 1980.

Speaking of language police, that first sentence is a mess – “established by” and “there have been” don’t go together. But that’s by the way.

In 2014, the academy opposed the feminisation of job titles, making Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo’s subsequent insistence on being called Madame la Maire (and not Madame le Maire) grammatically incorrect.

Eliane Viennot, professor of literature at Jean-Monnet University in St-Étienne and author of the book Non le masculin ne l’emporte pas sur le féminin! (No the masculine does not take precedence over the feminine!), said: “They [the academy] are extremely conservative.”

“If you ask people to list their favourite écrivains (writers) they will only mention male authors,” Viennot told France24 television. “It’s not until you ask them to list their favourite écrivainsand écrivaines that they think of women.”

In an opinion piece in Libération, she called for France to “pull the plug” on the academy.

“For 30 years they have never stopped trying to torpedo any evolution of the French language towards equality,” Viennot wrote.

I guess they prefer fraternity.

The BBC on Tariq Ramadan three days ago:

French prosecutors are investigating allegations by two women who say they were raped by Tariq Ramadan, a renowned Islamic scholar and Oxford professor.

One of them, Henda Ayari, told a French TV interviewer that Mr Ramadan had assaulted her in a Paris hotel in 2012.

“He literally pounced on me like a wild animal,” she said.

In a Facebook post Prof Ramadan denied the accusations, calling them “a campaign of lies”, and said his lawyer was suing the women for “slander”.

Just like Trump.

He is a controversial and influential figure among Muslim scholars. He challenges fundamentalist Islam, but some critics accuse him of promoting political Islam.

A Swiss national, he is the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood.

Since 2009 he has been professor of contemporary Islamic studies at St Antony’s College, Oxford. He has also sat on a UK Foreign Office advisory group on freedom of religion.

That’s fairly typical BBC waffle. Ramadan “challenges fundamentalist Islam” only so far, and it’s not just a few eccentrics who can see that he promotes Islamism aka political Islam aka theocracy. And he’s been professor of contemporary Islamic studies at St Antony’s College, Oxford in a chair funded by Qatar.

Tendance Coatesey has a great deal of background and commentary.

I didn’t know Scott Pruitt had invoked the bible in his move to gut the EPA.

Pruitt used a story from the Book of Joshua to help explain the new policy.

On the journey to the promised land, “Joshua says to the people of Israel: choose this day whom you are going to serve,” Pruitt said. “This is sort of like the Joshua principle — that as it relates to grants from this agency, you are going to have to choose either service on the committee to provide counsel to us in an independent fashion or chose the grant. But you can’t do both. That’s the fair and great thing to do.”

Yet he is appointing people from industry to the panels. He’s pretending to think that EPA grants distort the research of scientists but also that a salary from an industry that the EPA regulates does not distort or shape the views of industry shills. Scientists have to choose between grants and panels, but industry shills don’t have to choose between salaries and panels.

“Greed is good.” I’m sure that’s in the bible somewhere.

April Ryan asked Sarah Sanders about the Civil War and “compromise” and slavery again yesterday, and it went as well as you’d expect.

Ryan initially asked what the White House thinks is the definition of compromise as it relates to slavery and the Civil War.

“Look, I’m not going to get in and relitigate the Civil War. Like I told you yesterday, I think I’ve addressed the concerns that a lot of people had and the questions that you had and I’m not going to relitigate history here.”

What are the chances that Sanders knows anything about it? Or knows anything about it other than the most reactionary Southern myths?

Ryan pressed again: “But my question was still lingering when you left, so I’m going to ask the question again,” she said. Sanders cut her off, telling her to not ask it in a way that “you’re apparently accusing me of being.”

Ryan asked, flat out, whether the President and administration believes slavery is wrong. Sanders rolled her eyes.

“And before you answer,” Ryan said. “Mary Frances Berry, historian, said in 1860 there was a compromise. The compromise was to have southern states keep slavery, but the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter that caused the Civil War and because of the Civil War, what happened, the North won—.”

Sanders cut her off.

“I think it’s disgusting and absurd to suggest that anyone inside of this building would support slavery,” she said, moving on to another reporter.

That’s how it’s done: a show of righteous indignation to disguise the fact that you have no idea how to argue the substance, then move on to something else.