Author: Ophelia Benson

  • There is no low too low

    Fucking hell. I keep thinking they can’t go any lower, but they always do.

    Remember when all the FTB-haters were retweeting that post on bullying by “Wooly Bumblebee” at Is God a Squirrel? She’s an expert on bullying, she said. The haters were way impressed.

    Today she has a post shitting on Jen McCreight’s father for writing a blog post saying boo talking shit on the internet and yay Jen.

    Yes you read that correctly. Wooly Bumblebee/Is God a Squirrel wrote a longish blog post shitting on Jen McCreight’s father for writing a blog post defending his daughter.

    You could light a small city with me right now.

    Here’s some of Wooly’s shitting:

    But, some parents are abject failures, such as Jen McCreight’s father. He has written a short blog post for and about Jen. He has come to her rescue, like a parent does for their small child, only Jen is not a child… She is an adult. Well, an adult in the sense that she is over 18 and looks older than 12. But apparently she still needs daddy to come to her rescue when she gets emotional. She still needs daddy to kiss her boo-boos and frighten the monsters away. She needs this because her daddy failed as a parent and never equipped his daughter with the tools she needs to get through life. It’s quite sad, and a great example of bad parenting.

    When you coddle your kids constantly, refuse to see them as their own person, and feel the need to constantly prop up their ego, you get people like Jen. Jen should be completely embarrassed by the fact that her father wrote what he did. If she had any self-esteem she’d be furious that her daddy felt he had to come out and publicly chide everyone as if we are all 5 year olds because she got a boo-boo. She doesn’t because she is just like a child, and doesn’t see her daddy saying what he did as him actually infantilizing her.

    This has to be the most pathetic thing I have yet to see. A grown woman being rescued by her daddy. It’s a fucking joke, and speaks volumes as to why she can’t handle the slightest little bump in the road. She is completely incapable of functioning as an adult. I rather pity her, and that is not a good thing.

    Congratulations daddy dearest, and thank you for proving once and for all how completely incapable your little Jen really is.

    Unfuckingbelievable.

     

  • A hassle

    I’ve turned on comments registration for awhile. The trolls have stepped up their merry pranks, so it can’t be helped. Sorry for the inconvenience.

  • Happy to be described as a traitor

    An anti-corruption cartoonist in India has been arrested for sedition.

    Mr Trivedi was arrested on Saturday for a series of cartoons lampooning politicians. He refused to apply for bail at Monday’s hearing, and said if telling the truth made him a traitor then he was happy to be described as one.

    Cartoons lampooning politicians – if there’s anything you’re supposed to be able to do without interference from the state, it’s lampooning politicians.

    Government officials say that while they are in favour of free speech, there is a thin line between that and insulting national symbols, the BBC’s Sanjoy Majumder in Delhi reports.

    No…That’s doing it wrong. Really. You don’t want to make it a crime to “insult national symbols.”

    But Indians have condemned Mr Trivedi’s arrest, calling it a “wrongful act”. Protesters on social networking sites said it was shameful that corrupt politicians were being let off while those who highlighted corruption were being jailed.

    “From the information I have gathered, the cartoonist did nothing illegal and, in fact, arresting him was an illegal act,” the chairman of the Press Council of India, Markandey Katju, told The Hindu newspaper.

    The arrest of Mr Trivedi comes after other recent controversy over cartoons in India.

    In April, police arrested a professor in the eastern city of Calcutta for allegedly posting cartoons ridiculing West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on the internet. He was later released.

    A month later, a row over a cartoon showing Dalit icon BR Ambedkar in a school textbook disrupted the Indian parliament.

    Cartoonists have been taking a lot of heat lately. India: do better.

     

  • Laurie Penny on…er…Naomi Wolf’s Vagina

    Vagina, as has been observed across the mainstream reviewing press this week, is a very silly book.

  • India: anti-corruption cartoonist arrested

    Aseem Trivedi was arrested on Saturday for a series of cartoons lampooning politicians. He is being charged with sedition.

  • Not reading Naomi Wolf

    The UK neuroscientist who blogs as (and at) Neuroskeptic reviewed Naomi Wolf’s new book for the New Statesman blog. I was surfing Twitter the other day at the moment when there was a deluge of tweets about Wolf and the book because everyone was watching Paxman interview her (and because I follow a great many people who watch things like that). Most were funny, all were scathing, and taken together they made for a hilarious few minutes. The review, however, just makes me cringe.

    NS starts with an extract.

    Words, when deployed in relation to the vagina, are always more than “just words”. Because of the subtlety of the mind-body connection, words about the vagina are also what philosopher John Austin, in his 1960 book How to Do Things with Words, calls “performative utterances”, often used as a means of social control. A “performative utterance” is a word or phrase that actually accomplishes something in the real world. When a judge says “Guilty” to a defendant, or a groom says “I do”, the words alter material reality.

    Studies have shown that verbal threats or verbal admiration or reassurances can directly affect the sexual functioning of the vagina. One suggests that a stressful environment can negatively affect vaginal tissue itself…

    Ogod make it stop. When deployed in relation to the vagina? Oh jeezis on toast does she do that throughout? Does she use “in relation to the vagina” for “to/at/around a woman”? Does she drag in seriousy-looking stuff to make it sound more seriousy ‘n’ true? Does she pretend the vagina has some kind of special receptivity to words?

    NS comments on the extract.

    True of course, but it’s nothing to do with vaginas specifically. Threats, admiration and reassurances all influence our stress levels, and stress can affect the function of the vagina. But the same could be said for any other organ: stress also affects the heart, the stomach, and even the penis.

    So apparently she does. Ogod.

    There’s a good deal more along the same lines.

    Why would anyone do that? Write about neuroscience without being a neuroscientist?

    It makes me cringe.

     

  • 15 items or fewer

    What’s the deal with people talking about sexism and someone asking “So is this only for women who experience sexism?”

    The dialogue continues.

    Someone: Women, then. I guess sexism doesn’t happen to men.

    Replier: Always “What about the menz?”

    Someone: No… always what about everyone. We ALL deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.

    Well duh, but why does that mean we can’t talk about sexism without being jostled and chivvied and harried for talking about something that happens to women? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t include a coda saying nobody must ever talk about or resist violations of the rights of particular people.

    Shut up about racism, because what about everyone. We ALL deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Shut up about xenophobia, because what about everyone. We ALL deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Shut up about human rights in Iran, because what about everyone. We ALL deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Shut up about rape in DR Congo, because what about everyone. We ALL deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Shut up about anything particular, because what about everyone. We ALL deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.

    There is sexism. We can be against it. That doesn’t mean we want to take away your rights. Singling out one form of oppression doesn’t entail approving of all the others.

    Isn’t this just a little obvious?

     

  • Everyday sexism 2

    An ad I keep noticing here and there. The copy says

    How Cruise Lines Fill All Those Unsold Cabins

    And the image is

    QuiBids

    It couldn’t get much cruder, could it. (Well it could. It could skip the bikini and aim the camera up between her legs. But other than that…)

    Hay! Look! Legs bum sex! Now click on the ad.

    (I suppose they fill all those unsold cabins with women’s bums? That must be it?)

  • Baggini and Krauss on philosophy and science

    There are important questions that remain unanswered when all the facts are in.

  • Pribble’s project

    Martin Pribble discusses the results of his 3 Questions project, Part One.

    The first question was

    How does your worldview, (atheism, skepticism or agnosticism, whichever is applicable to you), influence your life?

    Martin summarizes the replies:

    It seems to me that atheism/agnosticism/skepticism is either seen as a platform from which to build all of life’s experiences, or that it is just accepted as “the way things are”. In either case, it does inform parts of the respondents’ lives, particularly when it comes to the analysis of doubtful claims.

    What it does show is that, of the 326 respondents, there is a level of certainty about how their worldview of atheism/agnosticism/skepticism influences their lives, and that most respondents did see this as an important part of them being themselves.

    Many of the replies that Martin quotes are skeptical more than atheist; I chose to answer as an atheist. Atheism is more close to the bone, in a way – it’s about rejecting one tyrant, one Big Boss, one imposed celestial dictator. Theism is the model for all kinds of tyranny, so it shapes our thinking in bad ways. The Boss in question is a big deal, and makes big demands on us. Not believing in it makes a difference specifically because of that. I replied from that point of view.

    My atheism frees me from thinking I have to obey a mysterious hidden god that I’ve never met or encountered or had any communication with. It frees me from thinking I have to obey rules I think are vicious and horrible. It frees me to judge moral questions in human, this-world terms.

    I never stop being grateful for that.

  • The faux-masculine shibboleths

    Don’t miss Bruce Everett’s great piece, “…assuming the mantle”.

    I’ll give you a teaser to make sure that you don’t.

    I didn’t get it, and I haven’t got it for most of the time. I’m only just getting it – the faux-masculine shibboleths that I’m expected to observe, in order to be ‘one of the guys’.

    Especially the degradation of women as rite of passage.

    Don’t get me wrong…

    I’m nobody’s knight in shining armour (I think this will be the last time I repeat this for some time), and I don’t believe in chivalry towards women – chivalry, as opposed to decency, assumes that women are frail objects to be protected like delicate porcelain in a world they’re not equipped to deal with. Women are no such thing.

    I’ve got an interest in this. If pseudo- and actual misogyny are used as defining criteria for what it is to be masculine, then I consider that an imposture. I don’t want that group identity lumbered on me, and moreover, I’m willing, if imposed upon, to fight for my stake in masculine culture to the exclusion of other men.

    Gentlemen, if you’re going to make an asshole out of yourself in the first instance, I’m not going to take much notice when you make squeals of indignation, when you get a little comeuppance. That is unless, I find it justifiable, useful, and entertaining, to laugh at you.

    Seriously though, some men really shit me. The things that some of you expect me to take on board as normal, or healthy, or unappealing-but-otherwise-not-rebarbative.

    Read the whole thing.

  • Proxy decisions on genital snipping

    Brian Earp is unimpressed by the American Academy of Pediatrics ’s (how do you make a possessive out of that, anyway?) revision of its policy on circumcision.

    They now say that the probabilistic health benefits conferred by the procedure just slightly outweigh the known risks and harms. Not enough to come right out and positively recommend circumcision (as some media outlets are erroneously reporting), but just enough to suggest that whenever it is performed—for cultural or religious reasons, or sheer parental preference, as the case may be—it should be covered by government health insurance.

    That turns out to be a very fine line to dance on. But fear not: the AAP policy committee comes equipped with tap shoes tightly-laced, and its self-appointed members have shown themselves to be hoofers of the nimblest kind. Their position statement is full of equivocations, hedging, and uncertainty; and the longer report upon which it is based is replete with non-sequiturs, self-contradiction, and blatant cherry-picking of essential evidence. Both documents shine as clear examples of a “lowest common denominator” mélange birthed by a divided committee, some of whose members must be well aware that United States is embarrassingly out of tune with world opinion on this issue.

    Child health experts in Britain, Germany, Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada say there is no meaningful benefit and it shouldn’t be recommended. Seems fair. There is no meaningful benefit, so don’t snip off a bit of the penis. Err on the side of not snipping off, because no meaningful benefit.

    In view of this empirical uncertainty on the medical question, it is problematic to assert, as the AAP does in its new report, that a person does not retain the right to decide whether he wishes to keep his own healthy foreskin–and preserve his genitals in their natural form–and that the right belongs instead to his parents.

    Which is odd, because they have their own genitals. Why don’t they alter their own if they want to alter? Why is it always vicarious?

    A more reasonable conclusion than the AAP’s, then, is that the person whose penis it is should be allowed to consider, for himself, the available evidence (in all its chaotic murkiness) when he is mentally competent to do so—and make a personal decision about what is, after all, a functional bit of his own sexual anatomy and one enjoyed without issue by the vast majority of the world’s males.

    Ah but liberals. Choice. Secularism. Community. Just ask Giles Fraser.

  • …assuming the mantle

    I didn’t get it, and I haven’t got it for most of the time. I’m only just getting it – the faux-masculine shibboleths that I’m expected to observe, in order to be ‘one of the guys’.

    Especially the degradation of women as rite of passage.

    Don’t get me wrong…

    I’m nobody’s knight in shining armour (I think this will be the last time I repeat this for some time), and I don’t believe in chivalry towards women – chivalry, as opposed to decency, assumes that women are frail objects to be protected like delicate porcelain in a world they’re not equipped to deal with. Women are no such thing.

    I’ve got an interest in this. If pseudo- and actual misogyny are used as defining criteria for what it is to be masculine, then I consider that an imposture. I don’t want that group identity lumbered on me, and moreover, I’m willing, if imposed upon, to fight for my stake in masculine culture to the exclusion of other men.

    Gentlemen, if you’re going to make an asshole out of yourself in the first instance, I’m not going to take much notice when you make squeals of indignation, when you get a little comeuppance. That is unless, I find it justifiable, useful, and entertaining, to laugh at you.

    Seriously though, some men really shit me. The things that some of you expect me to take on board as normal, or healthy, or unappealing-but-otherwise-not-rebarbative.

    [Trigger warning: There isn’t anything explicit beyond this point, but the subject matter is rather dark, delving into the dank, unsanitary world of misogyny, as it does].

    ***

    Back in the early 1990s, I liked to particularly geeky genres – anime and horror. And I don’t mean just any old anime – the big budget stuff, with watercolour landscapes and the like. As for horror, I liked a good dose of black humour and slapstick – not the sadism that passes for a horror movie these days.

    So… I was introduced by one of The Guys, to another one of The Guys, who knew a thing or two about anime – this guy was really nerdy, as in poor social skills, and never talking to women. All the same, I took the guy’s recommendation on face value.

    I had no idea what I’d unleashed.

    So I forked out $35 on a VHS cassette of some anime that I hadn’t seen before, that was horror, and was R-rated. Nothing on the cassette, at first glances, even suggested what sadistic crap I was going to be exposed to (and keep in mind, my revulsion, even though this stuff was heavily censored).

    Basically, the Internet being what it is, people are going to have some idea of what I ran into. Rape, murder, torture, cannibalism, all sensationalised and eroticised, little of which even the cutting of swathes of footage managed to hide particularly well.

    (No, I’m not advocating censorship – I’m pointing out how rotten the uncensored product, and the mind of its creators, must be).

    This wasn’t a horror movie, although I was horrified – traumatised into disbelief, at first, actually. This was animated snuff for sickos.

    And the sickest part, you ask?

    The level of acceptance amongst some of The Guys. Hell, there was backslapping, and in-jokes, and ideations, and apologetics, and… You don’t want to know.

    Suffice to say I conveniently lost contact with all of the individuals concerned by the end of the 90s, before I lost all control and went on a rage.

    ***

    I didn’t get then, that the degradation of women was expected as a practice amongst the group members. Why would this be necessary?

    It gets worst, it seems, the older the guys get. Or at least, the older and lonelier the guys get.

    (It never occurs to them, that being like they are, being left well alone may actually be on balance, morally desirable – context like mental health care, to be taken into account).

    Months ago, while the Internet, and in particular the atheist part of it, were arguing about male privilege, and neckbeards, and sexual harassment, and sexual liberalism, and the like, I was gradually, and unwittingly extricating myself, via conflict, from the company of a few sad old men. I treated it, as a one-on-one, man0-a-mano (if you’ll allow the mistranslation), arrangement, where I’d pick my differences with one of the guys, and nobody else was bound to pick a side.

    As I whittled my way though acquaintances, as the remainder of the group became smaller and smaller, my understanding became deeper, and my barbs more articulate. Eventually, I was able to cut to the wrongness underpinning people’s behaviours – self-pity, the objectification of women (and girls), sexual entitlement bias, selfishness, victim-blaming in matters of sexual harassment, and so on.

    Once the penny had really dropped, all of a sudden, my one-on-one style of conflict, which had unanimously been agreed to be a virtuous approach, was up-ended, and the remainder of the group simply rounded the wagons and cut me off. The group, defended as a group, and as far as I’m concerned, marked themselves as pathetic in the process.

    Don’t think though, that I’d reverse the consequences – I’m much happier now.

    ***

    It’s not just the sexually pathetic, though. Old rockers, old punks, and other aging edgy sorts, too often when meeting me for the first time, use the words ‘cunt’, ‘slut’, ‘scrag’, ‘bitch’, and the like, the way the occasional rapping grandpa uses a back-to-front cap. ‘What’s up, my dawgs?’

    This does not impress me.

    Why on Earth do I have to take just an even share of the masculine group identity with this sad bunch? Why am I expected to assumed the mantle shared by yet another tragic victim of the male menopause?

    Men can be better than this.

    And don’t go all old school on me, you ‘Women Know Their Rights Too Well These Days’ tragics. You know what’s also a masculine tradition? Stepping outside.

    Yes, I know it’s a stupid tradition – I just find it odd that while some guys think it’s stupid as well, they’re still happy to hold onto the misogyny.

    ***

    There’s a silver lining on this aerial-turd of a dark cloud. (If you think this is a mixed-metaphor, wait ‘till it starts raining).

    I’ve literally spent years ruminating on this garbage, which has made me investigate, which has made me sick and depressed, which has made me ruminate, which has made me… ad nauseam.

    (This actually has, ultimately, induced nausea and vomiting).

    During the less sane, more-damaged periods of my life (1998-2001), while not actually making me dangerous, this culture of misogyny has driven me to scary, unpredictable, social ineptitudes, miscues, and miscommunications. I’ve since fought back from there, obviously, but it’s still been perplexing and frustrating.

    The upside, if you can call it that, is that I can intuit this kind of thing now. I’ve got a feel for what makes these guys tick, and I don’t have to engage in any lengthy study to get the needed grasp. I don’t need to damage myself anymore, through the high-fidelity surveying of the sewers of the woman-hating mind.

    I’m now a position to retaliate, with less risk to my own mind.

    No, I’m not about to single anyone out, or psychoanalyse them. I have no business deploying professional diagnostic tools in such a capacity.

    My angle is playing on the insecurities, the infantile pettiness, and the absurdities that underlie this broken, failed masculinity. If anyone will be outed, it’ll be the neckbeards outing themselves in fits of rage, if they choose to retaliate.

    I enjoy being a man. I don’t enjoy having my satisfaction disrupted by men who need to feel bad about women, just to feel good about being men themselves.

    This is my shtick – where there is entitlement, and self-pity in these matters, I’m going to be unsettling. I’m not responding so much to recent events in the atheosphere (although there is that), and again, I’m not singling-out or piling-on.

    A need to do this has been around longer than the recent clashes in my social proximity, and it’s a need that’s at least deeply engrained within me – carved into me.

    I hope to unsettle, to induce doubt in misogynists (and racists, and ablists, and racists, and homophobes, and so on), through short fiction, poetry and satire, directed at the commonplace. I want to implicitly suggest uncomfortable questions, and yes, I will enjoy watching certain types of people squirm as they doubt themselves.

    I shall not assume the mantle that is expected of me.

  • 550 complaints

    The historian Tom Holland came close to saying Mohammed may not have existed at all in that Channel 4 documentary on Islam last week. Result: almost 550 complaints to both Ofcom and Channel 4. Also lots of outraged tweets. (Well that goes without saying at this point.)

    The Islamic Education and Research Academy has published a lengthy paper denouncing the programme. But historians have rallied to Mr Holland’s defence.

    The Academy claims the programme’s assertion that there  are no historical records detailing the life and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad is flawed, saying:

    Holland appears to have turned a blind eye to rich Islamic historical tradition.

    Ofcom, which has received 150 complaints about the programme’s alleged bias, inaccuracy and offence caused to Muslims, is  considering an investigation.

    I like the flourish of “rich Islamic historical tradition” – as if a “rich” tradition were the point instead of an accurate one.

  • Every snowflake

    Renee Hendricks has her facts wrong. She has a post on The Women Behind AtheismPlus, and she says there are three, and I’m one.

    I’m going to try very hard to make this the last spiel I have on “Atheism Plus”. It’s hard simply because I hate seeing the community I’ve come to love be so divided and actually hampered by the creation of a group intent on co-opting not only the term “atheism” but also a logo (apparently the A+ logo on http://atheismplus.com is from a tee-shirt that has been available on Richard Dawkins site for over 4 years). What is more distressing and pertinent to women is that there are 3 women behind the “movement”: Jen McCreight, Ophelia Benson, and Rebecca Watson.

    Nooo, that’s not right at all. It’s wrong on two counts – it counts two who aren’t and omits many who are.

    Rebecca has said explicitly she’s not joining. I’ve said explicitly I consider it a description or label rather than a movement. Neither of us had anything at all to do with starting it or setting it up.

    Hendricks of course considers her inclusion on the list as blame, while I’m disavowing the credit. Other people have put in considerable effort on the project and I haven’t, so I don’t get credit for doing so.

    Normally, I wouldn’t give 2 shits about these women or the movement. But they are actively and divisively stripping apart atheism and attempting to bring together a happy little club of women and sycophantic men under the guise of being more socially responsible. Nothing could be further from the truth. These women are simply angry that they’ve been slighted/harassed/sexed in some way, shape, or form and feel their best course of action is to create a “special snowflake” clique.

    We’re stripping apart atheism? Really? I wouldn’t even know how to begin. Also, atheism isn’t stripped apart. And then the “special snowflake” thing – that seems to be very popular with Hendricks’s clique. It’s kind of an ugly concept, at least it is if it’s applied too broadly. Sure, some people are way too quick to take offense. That doesn’t mean everybody is. It depends. There are particulars. Just calling everything “”special snowflake” doesn’t further the discussion.

    She goes on to assert a whole bunch of things about all three of us that she can’t possibly (and doesn’t) know. She also says we don’t know what “misogyny” means, then tells us what it means, which I already knew.

    Other than that, a valuable intervention.

     

     

  • Making an example

    Another petition you can sign, this one recommended to me by Bruce Everett. It’s to put some heat on Alan “destroying the joint” Jones. Formally it’s to urge advertisers to get him to apologize, but really I think it’s to get him to take some heat. (I mean who cares if he apologizes, really? What good is that? But some heat might décourager les autres.

  • Curiosity Rover samples the air on Mars

    The robot sucked the air into its big Sample Analysis at Mars instrument
    to reveal the concentration of different gases.

  • Reform call as madrassa teacher guilty of child cruelty

    They would still have the same curriculum though.

  • Rimsha Masih released, removed by helicopter

    A Pakistani military helicopter plucked her from a prison yard on Saturday and flew her to a secret location after she was granted bail.