So I searched the posts archive and found the last time I had occasion to mention Matt Dillahunty: it was in February and March 2018 and it was about the fact that he and Sam Harris were booked to do an event with Lawrence Krauss despite accusations of sexual harassment against Krauss.
It makes me tired all over again, just reading the posts. The whole idea of going anywhere – even from one room to another – to listen to those three wowing us with their giant male brains makes me want to hibernate. The one from February says why:
I suppose this is a built-in hazard of having these all-male Celebrations of All the Brain Things That Women Can’t Do Because They’re Stupid – one or more of the men will turn out to have a long string of sexual harassment and downright assault in his or their past or pasts.
Do they go together to some extent? This peacocking vanity of pretending to be
movie starsThought Leaders and this unfortunate tendency to trip and fall onto women?Yes, I think so. If they get a little fame they get a lot of immunity and looking the other way along with it. “Oh Doctor Professor Man sells tickets, we can’t possibly not invite him when he’s so kindly willing to perform, we’re sorry about the gropes or the insults or both but THE MAN SELLS TICKETS thank you for understanding.”
The allegations that convinced him are not public
I don’t see anything about Dillahunty and “transphobia” – I don’t know if I missed it or just didn’t say anything about it.
Comments
13 responses to “Always the men”
Matt’s first steps down the genderist path came when he hosted another youtuber of the semi-professional sceptic variety, Rationality Rules. The host of that show spoke a bit about physical advantage trans women have in sport, and was of course immediately declared evil and so on by the usuals. Matt scrambled to comply with the public trashing of that host, but within a few days walked that trashing back a tad. That was enough to cause the usuals to froth and foam at Matt this time, and I did not follow the saga beyond that.
That was perhaps two years ago, and in that time it seems he learned that it is easier to throw scepticism away rather than take a principled stand. He now has a lefty-approved new target for his bullish brand of debate: women.
Memories of Maureen in “The allegations that convinced me.”
God I miss Maureen.
Whenever I see her name on a comment, I always read it as “Maureen Brain”. I know that’s wrong, but I can’t not see it.
Well it certainly fits. (Also, I read it that way too.)
I’m assuming that audience capture has a lot to do with this sort of thing though compared to the Trumpies there’s probably less carrot and more stick.
I met Maureen when I went to a meeting she helped organise in her home town with…….
PZ MYERS!
And do you know who else was there…………?
JAMES BILLINGHAM!
If you don’t know what to do with that information, I don’t blame you. I don’t either.
latsot, I had the privilege of meeting with her a few years ago. We spent a day exploring the area with two other awesome women with whom I’d only previously interacted online. We got to do so much, and had such a wonderful time, it feels in my memory more like a fortnight.
I also had the sadder privilege of visiting her in hospital shortly before she died. I wish we’d had more time together.
You went to that meetup because I insisted you had to. You were havering and I said stop, you MUST go.
Yes! And you were quite right, and I’m very grateful.
I meant latsot! I don’t recall you havering – but if you did and I talked you out of it, go me!
Re success and sexual assault…I’m going to share this idea (again, pretty sure I’ve written about it elsewhere) because for some reason (possibly my impending job change) it’s been on my mind.
We often hear ‘men are overrepresented in leadership roles and powerful positions because women are typically risk averse, not ambitious, and uncomfortable with power. It’s just a thing; probably biological.’ I realised that in actuality the benefit/cost ratio for ambition for women looks, unsurprisingly, entirely different than that for men.
There seem to be four categories of benefit to occupying an organisationally/socially powerful position:
First, influencing your organisation, and the world, for the better. Having your ideas and opinions taken seriously. A good motivation for a woman to be ambitious, and a significant one, and both men and women gain this benefit, but women to a lesser extent than men because in general women and our ideas and opinions are taken less seriously.
Second, the formal and informal perks of the job–salary and benefits. Again, both men and women achieve this, though women much less so.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gms-first-female-ceo-is-paid-half-of-male-predecessor/
Women in powerful positions also get the benefits that having such a position gets for men–invitations to parties, access to ‘elite’ events, box seats at the sportsball games, personal air transport, etc.–but I suspect these things generally mean less, and weigh less, for women. I also suspect that the kind of benefits women might actually value and appreciate aren’t on the menu in these kinds of roles. And I know, from my limited experience as an executive, that often when we ask for and expect the kind of personal support male executives routinely expect and get we’re viewed as unfriendly, unlikeable, conceited, ‘above ourselves’ (because any woman in power is by definition ‘above herself’).
Third, the motivation Adam Smith ascribes to ambition–the respect and admiration of our fellow men. We obviously don’t receive the kind of praise and deference that men get from being in these roles. No one says ‘SHE’s the CEO of whatever’ in the same tone of voice that people say ‘HE’s the CEO of whatever’. Women don’t get the fawning celebrity treatment shown to the male CEO/entrepreneur. I guess the only kind-of exception I personally can think of is Elizabeth Holmes and we all know what happened to her.
Fourth…sexual access to conventionally attractive women, or any women in their presence. Obviously there’s no equivalent benefit for women in these positions. I’m sure I’m not the only person who’s heard men explicitly state that they consider this a perk of a powerful position, for themselves and for other men, from the president of the United States down to a factory foreman.
So on balance it’s pretty clear and sensible why ‘women aren’t ambitious’–the risk profile is entirely different, and for women the benefits will generally not outweigh the costs.
Ophelia@9
Yes! I knew it must have been someone else’s fault!
But it was certainly good to meet Maureen. So interested in everything and everyone.