Year: 2013

  • To tell the world his daughter’s name

    Two weeks after being gang raped and penetrated with an iron rod in Delhi, India, a 23-year-old student died of massive organ failure resulting from her injuries.

    The brutal nature of the attack, the prevalence of rape in India (and especially in its capital city), and the inadequate police response triggered an unprecedented outpouring of public rage. The case has received widespread media coverage.

    The photos of Indian women, and some men, passionately demanding justice in public demonstrations have become ubiquitous, powerful images of a nation dissenting against a crime too often written off as, at best, the fate of women, and at worse, their own fault.

    Part of the anger stems from the reality that the Delhi bus rape is only the tip of the iceberg. It was a rare example of rape making headlines, where sexual violence largely occurs with impunity, in India and elsewhere.

    In a 2007 survey conducted by the Indian Government it was reported that 53% of Indian children said they had experienced some form of sexual abuse. In 2011, some 15,423 rape cases went to trial, with only 26% resulting in convictions.

    When the father of Jyoti Singh Pandey decided to tell the world his daughter’s name this week, he said he did so to give other women who have been raped courage.

    His is a message directed at an untold number of women and girls. Rape is the most under-reported form of violent crime in the world. It consistently has the worst statistical reporting, with many countries keeping no rape statistics at all.

    Somalian activist Hawa Aden Mohammed estimates that in her country, experiencing a torrent of sexual violence, 90% of rapes go unreported. She says the reason is that women know that nothing will be done, while they risk being shamed and ostracized for speaking out. Women in camps for the internally displaced are particularly at risk, and camp leaders are reportedly indifferent to the fact that women under their watch are hunted down like animals to satisfy the savagery of merciless, violent men.

    Hundreds of thousands of women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo live amidst a rape epidemic, the defining characteristic of the war there. The brutality is pervasive: it’s extensively documented that thousands of women are so mutilated from rape, sometimes with branches or bayonets, that they routinely require reconstructive surgery for fistula (though most cannot access treatment). In a state indifferent to them, many women experience numerous rapes. And many die from their horrific injuries.

    In the Congo and Somalia, rape is part and parcel of war, a highly effective means of destroying a society by brutalizing what is central to its social cohesion: its women. Yet even in the United Kingdom, with a vastly superior justice system, it is estimated that 75-95% of rapes are never reported.

    In the U.S. there is an average of 207,754 reported rapes and sexual assaults annually. In the town of Steubenville, Ohio, this week smaller protests are taking place in response to the alleged rape by young players of the local football team of a 16-year-old girl while she was unconscious. The case was only made public as a result of social media leaks of comments and photos related to the incident.

    In Pakistan, where one of the most notorious rape cases in the world occurred (the Mukhtar Mai gang rape), The Express Tribune alleges that reported rapes are a negligible fraction of those that occur. They write on December 31, the plight of women who have faced rape and sexual assault in Pakistan has been largely confined to formulaic articles in the press, slow-moving cases in the courts, and frequent dropped charges due to bribes, threats of further violence and family pressure on the victim to avoid further ‘shame’.”

    It is an all too familiar pattern, repeated around the world. Coverage of rape crimes is often sensational not because of the rarity of the crime, but the rarity of reporting.

    It raises the question of how many other vicious rapes have taken place on the streets of India, or on streets closer to home, where circumstances never coalesced to garner public or media attention. It is difficult enough to truly absorb the inhumanity of what Jyoti Singh Pandey endured the night of December 16th. How can we begin to imagine that her experience re-occurs day after day, night after night, for millions of women around the world, often in their own homes and communities? How can we begin to be open to the devastating truth that she is not the only one, but rather the only one that we know of in such grim detail?

    Rape carries on around us unshackled. Yet the reaction in India to the senseless loss of a young woman – a woman raped so viciously that it killed her – could mark a turning point. It could be the beginning of something, if we are prepared to confront the scale of sexual violence, the severity of its consequences, and the systemic impunity surrounding it.

    Nahid Toubiam is a Sudanese doctor who has campaigned tirelessly for women’s sexual autonomy. When she testified at the Vienna Tribunal on women’s human rights back in 1993, she stated, “These women hold back a silent scream, a silent anger that if it were to get out it would shatter the earth.”

    We cannot begin to fathom that our planet is a civilized one until the women and girls of this planet are free from sexual violence. And we cannot get there until we acknowledge the scope and gravity of what we are facing, and confront it with conviction. May the courage and rage of Indian women begin to shatter the passivity we’ve espoused for too long towards rape.

  • You just stop seeing it

    Wait, what? There’s such a thing as sexist sci-fi and fantasy book covers? Really? I thought only ugly feminists said that. Surely the BBC isn’t an ugly feminist.

    Science fiction and fantasy novels routinely portray scantily clad woman on their covers – a device that draws the heterosexual male eye but may turn away women readers. Lynsea Garrison finds one fantasy author aiming to zap gender
    stereotypes.

    By doing the poses himself, to amusing effect.

    Hines, a fantasy author, is posing like some of the female characters on science fiction and fantasy book covers he says objectify women.

    He gets into character by twisting his body into the same contorted positions as the female characters on the books.

    “The way women are portrayed is just so ridiculous, so often, you just stop seeing it,” Hines says.

    “I think posing has made people see it again – you see how ridiculous it is when a 38-year-old fantasy writer is doing it.”

    Well, a 38-year-old male balding glasses-wearing fantasy writer with stubble and armpit hair, at least.

    Many science fiction and fantasy readers are disappointed to encounter everyday sexism in a medium that is supposed to offer an escape.

    Covers frequently exhibit women’s bodies with revealing clothing unsuitable for combat, and fans argue that sexualising female characters sends a message to readers that women are sex objects.

    And that the only women who are of interest are the pneumatic hottie type.

    Gallo thinks part of the problem is that male artists greatly outnumber female artists in the industry.

    “You go to art school, and it’s 50-50,” Gallo said. “But professionally, it’s overwhelmingly male.

    “This is an unfortunate fact of the industry. These artists grew up with comics and gaming, so it’s easy to perpetuate these things without thinking them through.”

    Ah no no no no no!! You can’t say that. No no no. That’s Nazi witch-hunting inquisition stuff. It never happens that anyone perpetuates these things without thinking them through. Never never never!

  • It’s blasphemy to blaspheme against blasphemy laws

    Pakistan’s ambassador to the US, Sherry Rehman, has been accused of “blasphemy” for criticizing Pakistan’s blasphemy laws in a tv interview two years ago. There are a lot of people who take criticism to be blasphemy, aren’t there…

    Rehman has been a critic of the controversial laws, which have been widely condemned by rights organization and deemed discriminatory. In November, 2010, Rehman submitted a bill to parliament seeking to reform the blasphemy laws and an end to capital punishment. Rehman has since faced death threats from Islamist militants.

    Right. Gotta kill people who think “blasphemy” laws might need reform (notice she didn’t even say they should be eliminated) and that the state shouldn’t execute people. Anti-death people should be made dead.

    President Asif Ali Zardari’s government has come under sharp criticism from the country’s rights organizations and the West for refusing to reform the legislation despite the assassinations of Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian cabinet minister, and Salman Taseer, the former governor of the Punjab province. The two politicians were brutally murdered by Islamists in 2011 because they had dared to speak out against the laws.

    Death to the anti-death blasphemers.

    Fatimah Ihsan, who teaches gender studies at Islamabad’s Quaid-i-Azam University, said that the apex court was “hounding” officials of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP).

    “I think the decision of the Supreme Court to accept the petition against Rehman is to target the PPP again, and to damage its reputation,” Ihsan told DW in an interview.

    Ihsan believed that instead of reforming the laws, they should be repealed completely.

    Quite so. But be careful where you walk, Fatimah Ihsan.

     

  • Sherry Rehman accused of “blasphemy”

    The petition claims that Pakistan’s ambassador to the US committed a blasphemous act two years ago when she criticized Pakistan’s blasphemy laws in a TV interview.

  • The battle against sexist sci-fi and fantasy book covers

    Many science fiction and fantasy readers are disappointed to encounter everyday sexism in a medium that is supposed to offer an escape.

  • From hacking to acid-throwing

    Update for you creeps from the mildew pit –

    No it’s not that I think I’m that important, you assholes. It’s that you do. You’re the ones who act as if I’m pretty much the most important person in the world! Along with eight or ten others. You’re the ones who monitor my every move every hour and every day. You’re the ones who focus a creepy amount of attention on me. I don’t think I’m that important at all! I don’t think I’m worth that kind of attention – not from people who like me and not from people who hate me. No, I don’t think maybe someone will eventually attack me because I’m so important – I think that because you people are so fucking unhinged and obsessive and you keep ratcheting up the hatred. I am very small potatoes, yet there you are, staring and frothing and hating.

    I hope that clears that the fuck up.

    ————

    The Bolshoi sounds like “the atheist community.”

    The artistic director got acid thrown in his face yesterday. Apparently the Bolshoi is riven with deeeeep rifts. (That’s good, isn’t it? Riven with rifts? Same root, no doubt. I can’t say I use “riven” much. Every now and then though – well it’s the word that fits in the slot.)

    …even before police find the culprits – if they ever do – many will connect the attack to the ongoing squabbles and infighting that have been plaguing this jewel of Russian culture.

    Most of the squabbles that have affected the theatre have not been about money, but about personal competition, and they appear to have degenerated into nasty attacks on the talented dancer-turned-director.

    Before acid was used in Friday’s attack, Sergei Filin had already received numerous phone threats, and his email and Facebook accounts had been hacked.

    Interesting. One minute it’s just hacked Facebook accounts, the next it’s acid attacks. Maybe I should start wearing protection.

     

  • Acid attack on Bolshoi artistic director

    Sergei Filin had already received numerous phone threats, and his email and Facebook accounts had been hacked.

  • Waiting for the magic

    Ed has a good post on Michael Shermer’s exaggerated outrage at my criticism of him.

    His comment on the bit where Shermer says I turned the inquisition on him and that we inquisitors are trying to force him to defend himself –

    What does innocence until proven guilty have to do with any of this? That is a legal concept and you are not on trial, no matter how much you imagine yourself to be. You said something dumb and sexist in a public forum and someone else pointed out that it was dumb and sexist in a public forum. And the truth is that you are defending yourself, primarily by going on the offensive and accusing your critics of trying to destroy you and others the same way the Catholic Church, the McCarthyites and the Nazis did to their opponents.

    All of this is such an hysterical overreaction that it leaves my jaw agape. No one has been “purged” in any “inquisitions” or “witch hunts.” What they have been is criticized for saying dumb things now and again. You’d think that Shermer, who has spent most of his adult life encouraging people to think critically would recognize criticism when he sees it, but he squeals like a stuck pig when the harsh glare of criticism is turned on him.

    He does. And he goes on squealing, too. Apparently everyone was supposed to think he’s infallible, and yet, he’s a skeptic, so he must be familiar with the idea that no one is infallible. Vanity vanity vanity; it’s the orange-eyed monster.

    I like Michael Shermer. I’ve written for his magazine and had interesting conversations with him at a couple of events and I’m even sympathetic to his libertarian political views, unlike a lot of others in this community. But he is embarrassing himself here and the only reason I can think of to explain it is vanity. I wish he would stop. There’s still a serious discussion to be had about diversity at atheist events but it cannot be had with someone who is making these ridiculous claims of witch hunts, inquisitions and Nazi purges.

    And once again I am struck by how much this rhetoric mirrors that of people in stark opposition to the goals of atheists and skeptics. When Paula Kirby refers to Rebecca Watson and her defenders as “feminazis,” she is using exactly the same language used by Rush Limbaugh (who invented that term, or at least made it famous). When Al Stefanelli claims that Watson and her defenders just “hate white men,” he is using exactly the same argument used by right-wing Christians for decades. And when Shermer talks about witch hunts, inquisitions and purges, he is using precisely the same rhetoric that right-wing Christian anti-feminists have used, and continue to use, to describe not only feminists but the entire secular community as well. And he is acting just like those fundamentalist Christians who are practically addicted to false claims of persecution.

    Yes but when a sketpic acts like that it’s magically transformed into – wait…

  • Uglies v pretties

    Seen the 9 Ugliest Feminists In America thing?

    It ends with a bizarre non sequitur.

    Feminists want to be valued for their brainpower and ideas above all else, but they still engage in professional photoshoots to push the prettiest picture of themselves on their web sites and book jackets. I guess even feminism can’t completely demolish a girl’s desire to be pretty.

    Well one reason for that might possibly be the way people like this “Roosh” fella like to shame feminist women for being ugly.

    I’m fortunate to be too obscure to be on the list, but I certainly get plenty of shaming-for-being-ugly elsewhere, especially of course on the mildew pit (let’s give it a new moniker for a change). I get double shaming because I’m not just ugly, I’m also a million years old, so I get all the old AND ugly shaming. My name is Prune. This of course is because it’s a crime to be ugly, also to be a million years old, let alone to be both at once.

    This has always been the way – the hyena in petticoats, you know. But the Internet provides a cornucopia of new ways to disseminate the ugly-shaming. It’s no longer necessary to get on a bus in order to shout insults at ugly women. You can just set up a website or a forum or a blog for the purpose, and then besides there’s also Twitter and Facebook. Life is good!

    “Roosh” awards the top honor to my colleague and friend Jen McCreight. I’m not going to quote what he says, because it’s too vicious. I’ll just say that it’s there. It’s deeply sad that there are people who take pleasure in doing that kind of thing. Maybe they’re all psychopaths, so they simply don’t have the working bits of the brain that would prevent them – but that’s deeply sad.

    A former colleague of mine mused about this on Twitter

     Jeremy Stangroom@PhilosophyExp

    I wonder if it’s a coincidence that many of the “chill girls” who are vilified (for no good reason) happen to be very attractive…

    Well first I would want to know what is meant by “vilified.” But leaving that aside, it’s a good point. The unspoken bit represented by the ellipsis is of course “and the feminists happen to be very ugly.” Well spotted. The idea is that we hates’em because they’re so pretty and we’re so ugly.

    Well, actually, not all of us are, but that’s probably beside the point. At any rate I certainly am, and one should be enough to make the observation relevant. So is that what’s going on? Pretties on one side, uglies on the other? Uglies just pissed off because they’re not pretties, and pretties victimized by the ugly old cunts?

    Let’s say yes for the sake of argument. Sure. Whatever. Lucy Wainwright @Whoozley (a pretty) agreed with him, so that’s an objective outside view, so let’s say yes. But is it quite as simple as uglies hating pretties because the uglies are ugly? I think it’s not.

    One, the being pretty itself tends to shield women who are pretty from that kind of abuse, which can have an influence on how feminist they are. Rebecca has talked specifically about this. She used to be a “chill girl” herself…until people started calling her a cunt.

    Two, the fact that they don’t get that kind of abuse may make the pretties indifferent to that kind of abuse directed at the uglies. That might be because of the belief I alluded to at the beginning, that it’s criminal and immoral to be ugly. The pretties may well think, or half-think, or believe below the level of conscious awareness, that ugly people are bad people. There’s plenty of research that indicates we all believe that, and we uglies believe it just as much as anyone else. (Sad, isn’t it.) But we uglies also have the motivation to fight off the belief, while the pretties don’t.

    So…no, it may well not be a coincidence, but even if it’s not, that doesn’t necessarily equal simply “the uglies hate the pretties because the uglies are ugly” – which I think was the intended message.

     

  • Another gang rape on a bus in India

    The bus driver and his helper took the woman to an undisclosed address where five others joined the two men and raped her throughout the night, police said.

  • Distinctions

    Some things are even worse than colonialism – at least the people of northern Mali feel that way after months of being oppressed and tormented by Islamists. They wave Frech flags, they smile, they want the French to stay.

    Mali was one of the most successful democracies in Africa until insurgents began trying to take it over.

    Besides taking many lives, the insurgents have destroyed historic shrines in Timbuktu that date to the 15th century. The attackers say the shrines offend Sharia law.

    Such allegations have spurred the International Criminal Court to launch a war-crimes investigation, its chief prosecutor announced Wednesday. Fatou Bensouda said Mali’s government asked the U.N. tribunal to investigate in July, after Islamists had taken control of much of the country.

    “The international crimes committed in Mali have deeply shocked the conscience of humanity,” Bensouda said Wednesday. “The legal requirements have been met. We will investigate.”

    The ICC has found “reasonable basis” to support allegations of murder, torture, mutilation, rape and pillaging, Bensouda said.

    Well, “colonialism” is probably the wrong word. As the journalist in the video points out to the guy in the car who says the French should stay, France is the former colonial power in Mali – but all the same, there’s a difference between liberation and colonialism.

  • Both barrels

    One good thing – although really it’s only the undoing of a bad thing. Obama’s new moves on gun control included 23 unilateral orders, which included an end to a ban on gun-violence research by the CDC. A what? An end to a ban on what? Yes: a ban on gun-violence research by the Centers for Disease Control. The NRA has way too much power.

    NBC goes into more detail.

    Obama issued a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other scientific agencies to research the causes and prevention of gun violence — and he called on Congress to provide $10 million to pay for it.

    “We don’t benefit from ignorance. We don’t benefit from not knowing the science from this epidemic of violence,” he said.

    The move effectively reverses 17 years of what scientists say has been a virtual ban on basic federal research…

    A ban on research. Congressionally mandated ignorance.

    From the mid- 1980s to the mid-1990s, the CDC conducted original, peer-reviewed research into gun violence, including questions such as whether people who had guns in their homes gained protection from the weapons. (The answer, researchers found, was no. Homes with guns had a nearly three times greater risk of homicide and a nearly five times greater risk of suicide than those without, according to a 1993 study in the New England Journal of Medicine.)

    But in 1996, the NRA, with the help of Congressional leaders, moved to suppress such information and to block future federal research into gun violence, Rosenberg said.

    An amendment to an appropriations bill cut $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, exactly the amount the agency’s injury prevention center had previously spent on gun research. The money was returned to the agency later, but targeted for brain injury trauma research instead.

    In addition, the statute that governs CDC funding stipulated that none of the funds made available to the agency can be used in whole or in part “to advocate or promote gun control.”

    That doesn’t explicitly say “nobody can do any research on gun violence,” but the people at the CDC were scared off.

    The NRA attacked some scientists, trying to discredit their research, endangering their jobs and even threatening their families, Rosenberg claimed.

    “These were not mild campaigns,” he said. “When the NRA comes after you, they come after you with both barrels.”

    The whole thing is a scandal.

     

  • Obama unveils gun control proposals

    He signed 23 unilateral orders, including an end to a ban on gun-violence research by the CDC.

  • Islamists flee Timbuktu

    The people of Timbuktu are overjoyed. “Today everyone can do as they please. We would like the French to come to Timbuktu.”

  • The heroic standard is too high

    I’m thinking about the Romantic cult of the hero, and what a bad insidious idea it can be.

    Yesterday Sara Mayhew made a rather pointed remark on Twitter.

    If a retired US AirForce Col. who pioneered as one of the 1st female pilot and flight surgeons voices critique about your feminism, listen.

    Here again is what I quoted Harriet Hall saying in Shermer’s hit piece on me [update: with Shermer’s prefatory phrase added]

    As for why the sex ratio [among atheists and skeptics] isn’t perfectly fifty-fifty, Hall noted: “I think it is unreasonable to expect that equal numbers of men and women will be attracted to every sphere of human endeavor. Science has shown that real differences exist. We should level the playing field and ensure there are no preventable obstacles, then let the chips fall where they may.”

    I disagreed with that; Mayhew apparently thinks I should not disagree, on the grounds that Hall pioneered as one of the first female pilot and flight surgeons. She thinks I should instead “listen” and having listened, agree or obey. (I already had “listened,” obviously, or I wouldn’t have known what she said, and thus couldn’t have disagreed with it.)

    I do (as I have repeatedly said) admire Hall a lot for the pioneering. But it doesn’t follow that I have to agree with her “critique about my feminism.” I don’t agree with it, and that’s partly because I think she is making her own pioneering the standard for others, and that that’s a seriously bad idea. Here’s why.

    People shouldn’t have to overcome barriers that shouldn’t be there in the first place.

    That’s all. People who do overcome barriers are admirable, yes, but it doesn’t follow that everyone should be admirable in that way, if the barriers are human creations that are not necessary and are in fact retrograde and unjust.

    The Little Rock Nine were incredibly brave pioneers, and I admire them immensely. But they shouldn’t have had to be. It shouldn’t have required enormous courage for nine teenagers to go to school. Malala Yousufzai is brave beyond belief, but she shouldn’t have to be. Jessica Ahlquist bravely faced massive vicious harassment, but she shouldn’t have had to.

    Nobody should have to put up with a bunch of shit to go to school or get a Constitutional principle enforced or take up a profession.

    And most people don’t want to put up with a bunch of shit. The trouble with the cult of the hero is that it makes not wanting to put up with a bunch of shit seem cowardly or weak or self-indulgent – just less than what the heroic people do. That’s wrong.

    It’s wrong because not wanting to put up with a bunch of shit is basically a moral view. Distaste for the shit is because the shit is morally wrong. That of course does not mean that people who do put up with it are endorsing it! God no. But it does mean that they shouldn’t make it a reproach to everyone else, the way Harriet Hall apparently is, and the way Sara Mayhew explicitly is.

    No. Just no. Hall needs to be very wary of the idea that because she put up with a bunch of shit, other women should just shut up and take it. No, we shouldn’t. We should unite our voices in saying “remove the shit.” The shit is one of the preventable obstacles that Hall mentioned, and we need to get it out of the way. Women shouldn’t have to be hazed as a condition of entry into philosophy or math or computer science or gaming…or skepticism or atheism.

     

  • Paging Orac

    Oh yes I forgot one of my favorite things from earlier today.

    Shermer

  • In which I get closer to Shermer’s word count

    Ok so now Shermer’s “response” is online, so I can look at a couple of other details I omitted because I didn’t want to retype the whole damn thing.

    By the way I get to respond in the next issue. I’m going to do that. I’ll be briefer, and more polite, and I won’t pretend to think anyone is going to “come for me.”

    When self-proclaimed secular feminists attacked Richard Dawkins for a seemingly innocent response to an equally innocent admonishment to guys by Rebecca Watson (the founder of Skepchicks) that it isn’t cool to hit on women in elevators, this erupted into what came to be known as “Elevator­gate.” I didn’t speak out because I figured that an intellect as formidable as Richard Dawkins’s did not need my comparatively modest brainpower in support.

    When these same self-described secular feminists went after Sam Harris for a commentary supporting racial profiling in the search for terrorists, again I didn’t speak out.

    One, I wonder why he keeps saying “self-proclaimed/self-described secular feminists” that way. I don’t “proclaim” myself that, and I’m not sure I know anyone who does. I do talk about secularism a lot, and of course I talk about feminism a lot. So? Why does Shermer seem to be holding both at arm’s length as if they smelled?

    Two, no they didn’t. The same people didn’t do both. We’re not an army, we don’t march in unison. I haven’t said anything about Sam Harris since I reviewed The Moral Landscape for The Philosophers’ Magazine. I don’t find him very interesting.

    But perhaps I should have spoken out, because now the inquisition has been turned on me, by none other than one of the leading self-proclaimed secular feminists whose work has heretofore been important in the moral progress of our movement. I have already responded to this charge against me elsewhere,* so I will only briefly summarize it here. Instead of allowing my inquisitors to force me into the position of defending myself (I still believe in the judicial principle of innocence until proven guilty), I shall use this incident to make the case for moral progress.

    Could outraged vanity make itself any more apparent? (I said I was going to be more polite in the magazine. I didn’t say I would be more polite here.) The inquisition forsooth. This is self-importance at work: it can’t be that I simply criticised something he did actually say, no, because he is so important, therefore my audacity in criticising becomes an inquisition. And note “whose work has heretofore been important” – meaning, presumably, that it stopped being important when and because I lurched off the Path of Importance and inquisitioned him instead. And then note the nonsense about forcing him into defending himself, and the courtroom nonsense. Look on this example, oh ye mighty, and despair – or don’t despair, but do resolve never to let vanity get that kind of grip on you.

    As for why the sex ratio isn’t perfectly fifty-fifty, Hall noted: “I think it is unreasonable to expect that equal numbers of men and women will be attracted to every sphere of human endeavor. Science has shown that real differences exist. We should level the playing field and ensure there are no preventable obstacles, then let the chips fall where they may.”

    You don’t say so!

    Very few people actually think every sphere of human endeavor has to have exactly equal numbers of women and men. That’s a straw man. But we haven’t yet finished that little job of ensuring there are no preventable obstacles, so it’s way way way too early to let the chips fall any old how. The kind of thing that Shermer said, which is a kind of thing that lots of people say, is one of those preventable – or at least minimizable – obstacles. I’m trying to do my tiny bit to prevent that kind. That’s not an evil thing to do. Shermer seems to think it is, but he’s wrong.

  • Shermer responds. Again.

    So, that was interesting. I collected the big bag of held mail yesterday, and sorted it, and found the latest Freethinker with my column in it, and the latest Free Inquiry with my column in it. Late in the evening I flung myself down to read the Free Inquiry – and was brought up short on the contents page. “Oh? Eh? Wha? Really? Er…uh oh.” Because why? Because

    53 Response

    A Guy Thing? Secularism, Feminism, and a Response to Ophelia Benson

    Michael Shermer

    Huh, I thought. Huh. But he already did respond. At some length. With considerable heat. With, in fact, quite a large helping of righteous indignation. With an air of “who is this woman to criticize something I said?” He really needed to say more?

    Who knows, but he did say more, along with recycling what he’d already said. He said a lot more. He took up three pages (or two and a half, since there’s an ad on the last page) responding to my one sentence in a paragraph on sexist stereotypes. He said a lot.

    The issue isn’t online yet, and I don’t know if Shermer’s piece will be online when it is, so I can’t link to it. Update: now it is online. The gist is – we’re making great progress in including women in atheism and skepticism. But – there is “a McCarthy-like witch hunt” to get rid of all sexism and racism, real or imagined. This “unfortunate trend has produced a backlash against itself by purging from its ranks the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris” –

    Wait, what? Purging? Who has, what has? No it hasn’t. Many of us strongly disagree with Dawkins’s “Dear Muslima” but that isn’t purging him. Oddly enough, we don’t have the power to “purge” people. “This unfortunate trend” isn’t the KGB nor even the Stasi, and it can’t purge people.

    There are lots of women at the top, he goes on, but even so “much ink and emotion are spilled over trivial slips of the tongue that allegedly reveal hidden biases and unconscious prejudices.”

    Ok that’s for me – that was what that passage in my column was about.

    …atheism hasn’t always been very welcoming to women. Maybe there’s an idea that men created God so men should do the uncreating.

    Mostly, though, it’s just a matter of stereotypes, the boring stubborn wrong stereotypes and implicit associations that feminism has been battling since forever. The social psychologist Cordelia Fine sums them up in Delusions of Gender:

    Measures of implicit associations reveal that men, more than women, are implicitly associated with science, math, career, hierarchy, and high authority. In contrast, women, more than men, are implicitly associated with the liberal arts, family and domesticity, egalitarianism, and low authority.

    The main stereotype in play, let’s face it, is that women are too stupid to do non-theism. Unbelieving in God is thinky work, and women don’t do thinky, because “that’s a guy thing.”

    Don’t laugh: Michael Shermer said exactly that a week ago on a video panel discussion on The Point. The host, Cara Santa Maria, presented the question: why isn’t the gender split in atheism closer to 50-50? Shermer explained, “It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it, you know, it’s more of a guy thing.”

    It’s all there – women don’t do thinky, they don’t speak up, they don’t talk at conferences, they don’t get involved – it’s “a guy thing,” like football and porn and washing the car.

    It’s incredibly discouraging, that kind of thing. I thought (naïvely) that stereotypes of women as stupid and passive and bashful had been exposed as, precisely, sexist stereotypes decades ago, at least among intellectual and political and progressive types. I thought everybody knew they were not just wrong but also retrograde. Would Shermer have said that if the question had been about race instead of gender? Would he have said “it’s more of a white thing”? It seems very unlikely.

    So, yes, I spilled some ink over something he said that, in my view, revealed a sexist stereotype, of a kind that does damage. I think I’m allowed to do that. I don’t think that’s a particularly monstrous thing to do.

    But Shermer thinks it’s comparable to Nazism. Will Orac rebuke him? I don’t think anyone will bet on that.

    To date, I have stayed out of this witch hunt against our most prominent leaders, thinking that “this too shall pass.” Perhaps I should have said something earlier. As Martin Niemoller famously warned about the inactivity of German intellectuals during the rise of the Nazi party, “first they came for…” but “I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a…”

    Yes, he wrote that.

    He goes on to say that “self-proclaimed secular feminists attacked Richard Dawkins for a seemingly innocent response to an equally innocent admonishment to guys by Rebecca Watson…”

    Self-proclaimed secular feminists? Attacked? Seemingly innocent? “Dear Muslima” was “seemingly innocent”? Not in my book. And if Rebecca’s admonishment was also seemingly innocent, why – oh never mind.

    Then there’s Sam Harris and racial profiling, and a swipe at PZ. Then he says “the inquisition” (yes, he says that) has been turned on him, by me.

    I have already responded to this charge against me elsewhere [with a footnote to the URL], so I will only briefly summarize it here.

    Briefly?! Ya not so much. At great length. Most of this is the eSkeptic piece, a bit nastier in places (he accuses me of “redacting” what he said, when I simply quoted one thing he said, in its entirety).

    He concludes with a warning about the way social movements devour their young, and then republishes what Harriet Hall said about me in her email to him, with lots of repetition of my name in case lazy readers had already forgotten it. Then he gropes for an explanation for why there aren’t more women atheists and skeptics doing tv shows right now –

    …it is probably a legacy of the past socialization defining what women are expected to do.

    No. That assumes women are deciding not to do tv shows. That’s not it. They are not being invited. It’s odd for a skeptic to overlook that. As I pointed out, Cara Santa Maria later told Shermer that she had asked only two women to do her show. That’s not a big enough sample to conclude that women are deciding not to do them.

    But I’m a Nazi witch-hunting inquisitor, so what do I know.

  • Last geography lesson for now

    Taking off yesterday from San Jose, we flew straight south at first. I know, it’s to do with the prevailing winds, but I kept wanting to shout “Hey! North! Seattle is north!”

    But then we did the big turn to go the other way, and I had a window seat on the left side so I got a terrific view of Monterey Bay – the same view I’d had all morning from Cliff Drive in Santa Cruz, but from 30 miles away and higher up. I could see Point Pinos, where the Monterey peninsula turns the corner to Asilomar, right next to where I’d been staying. I could also see…the Santa Cruz wharf. That was a funny experience. It was the only human-made feature I could see on that whole crescent around the bay. Quite cool.

    It’s been slightly grim weather to come back to – colder than usual and dull. There’s a beautiful lurid sunset now though, so that’s all right.

    Pelicans. I love seeing Pelicans. There are no Pelicans around here at all whatsoever.

  • Synecdoche

    A tech writer writes about a sexist piece of advertising.

    ‘Play with my V spot’

    What does that advertise? A voice-control company. So it’s not what you think! That picture is all about her voice! That finger in her mouth is just a finger! And it’s pointing at her voice. And she does have eyes and a top to her head, but that would be completely irrelevant to the message of the ad, which is about voice-control.

    Sex sells, right? And disembodied female body parts coupled with Beavis and  Butt-head-level puns are super-sexy, right?

    Guys, this is why we don’t have more women in tech: It’s a cesspool. As long  as we’re passing offensive schlock like this off as marketing for a major  technology conference, we don’t deserve more women in tech.

    Voco calls these ads “playful.” Maybe “playful” is in the eye of the  beholder. Maybe the beholder doesn’t think of women’s body parts as playthings.  Maybe that kind of play isn’t in any way related to voice-control technology or  consumer electronics — you know, the kind that aren’t sold at Babeland.

    Or maybe they just pitched a journalist who isn’t in the mood to play those  pubescent, sniggering games anymore.

    Oh come onnnnnnnnnnnn. Don’t be such a sex-negative bitch.

    I think there should be stores that sell nothing but lips. Lips&Labia, they could call it.