Tag: Michael Shermer

PZ has some new information from Alison Smith. It’s…not exculpatory of Michael Shermer, to put it mildly.

It wasn’t actually the next day that I left Shermer’s room. The entire amount of time that passed between me asking someone to come get me after leaving the party and me calling again to say please come get me I need help and don’t know where I am was around two hours. Some commenters seem to think that I had some kind of morning after regret or something, but in actual fact I was calling it rape immediately.

The other part is – me asking Shermer to be on that panel for the Sex workshop wasn’t a reaction based upon victimization (like, it wasn’t that I was pushing aside how I felt about him in order to accomplish something; and I wasn’t in denial).

It was incredibly calculated – because I knew for an absolute fact that his views on consent were different from the other panelists.

I had a rape crisis counselor on the panel as well, and I was hoping, as the moderator, to steer the conversation over to date rape. I wasn’t going to ‘Gotcha’ him or mention what happened or anything – I just honestly believed that he could stand to have that debate with someone, and maybe learn a thing or two. That’s why I was nice in the e-mail – I didn’t want him to put together what I was doing. I actually laughed when I saw that he was using that e-mail as evidence, because I so carefully crafted it to not sound like I was up to anything. It’s actually proof OF what happened – not against it – and for a brief, wild moment I found that funny.

You know, it’s a real shame that Shermer has never had that conversation. It’s a real shame that he’s never been told that the stuff he does is not ok. It’s a real shame that he decline the invitation to be on that panel.

And there’s a very interesting comment by skeptifem:

oh yeah, and just so people know, my husband dated alison before me. She told him shortly after it happened, and she called it rape from the start. She just didn’t make a huge deal out of it (who would want to? all that happens is you get treated even worse). When the accusations came out we both knew it was true, but didn’t know if it was alison or someone else. Other women involved with coordinating TAM let me know that shermer was on the creep list unofficially circulated by women as a means of self protection.

I don’t know how she can put up with the bullshit people say about this. I hope she makes it through okay. It sounds like she has a ton of evidence. I hope she sues him for sexual abuse.

The creep list. The one that Dawkins and Coyne and Nugent are so pissed off at us for making public. That creep list.

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…

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.

I re-read some of Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things this morning, to refresh my memory. I’ve read that and Why We Believe and the odd article here and there. I’ve never liked his writing much. It’s not bad, but it’s a little loose and lazy. Characterless. Journalistic.

I was interested to see that chapter 7 is titled Epidemics of Accusations: Medieval and Modern Witch Crazes. The modern ones are the panics about “Satanic” abuse in the 1980s and about “recovered memory” in the 90s. They’re interesting subjects and ones I’ve read a fair bit about, thanks to Frederick Crews and Elizabeth Loftus among others. It’s terrible stuff – people’s lives ruined by ridiculous beliefs about Satanic rapes that never happened and “recovered memories” of Daddy committing a murder for which he was sent to jail with no other evidence. (He was let out after more than six years.)

While re-reading that chapter I became quite…annoyed that Shermer had accused me of witch hunting. He compared me to people who put innocent people in prison on the basis of absurd beliefs.

Think about it. I said he had perpetuated an insulting stereotype about women by saying that wanting to stand up and speak about atheism and be intellectually active about it was “more a guy thing.” He said I was a witch hunter.

Not quite proportionate.

Anthony K said a good thing on Crommunist’s post A Response to Lee today.

And this is what it comes down to.

This is why the skeptical movement has been largely so unsuccessful. If Lee, or Shermer, were at all interested in the putative goals of the skeptics movement, namely to make the world a more rational place, they’d be much less interested in justifying why they think skepticism is a “guy thing”, and much more interested in making it as much an “everybody’s thing” as possible.

But of course, they’re not.

The skeptical movement has never been about outreach. It’s never been about helping to make the greater community outside the skeptics movement itself more skeptical, or rational.

It’s always been a clubhouse for those who think of themselves as smarter than average.

This is why Jenny McCarthy cleaned the skeptical movement’s clock. This is why Sylvia Browne still makes money hand over fist.

Good luck with your little guild, Shermer.

It’s all leather chairs and humidors.

Shermer’s unleashed a lot of assholes on me (because I didn’t have enough of them before). I’m getting pretty tired of people saying I lied, I must say. I did not lie. I quoted Shermer accurately.

“Atheist Revolution” is pretty shameless about calling me a liar.

In his response, Shermer notes that he was quoted inaccurately and out of context.

He was not quoted inaccurately. That is not true. I don’t consider it out of context either, but that of course is always debatable. But inaccurately, no. I’m tired of people calling me a liar.

And he takes the additional step of pointing out the problems with some of
Benson’s more common tactics regarding labeling those with whom she disagrees as
sexists and misogynists.

I didn’t label him a sexist or a misogynist.

Did Michael Shermer make a sexist comment, and if so, does that make him a sexist? And most importantly, should his comment – whether it strikes you as potentially sexist or not – reduce his worth in the atheist and skeptic communities to zero?

What’s that got to do with anything? I certainly didn’t say his comment reduced his worth to zero. My article was about the stereotype, not about Shermer. I devoted one paragraph to Shermer.

Yes, it appears that this is the plan. Shermer’s contributions can now be dismissed and all because he made a comment that looks like it could be sexist in nature when presented without the context in which it was made. But even that
is not enough. Shermer deserves to be haunted to his grave, as nothing more than a social Darwinist douche and a “dipshit.” And what of Ophelia Benson herself?

She’s decided that labeling Shermer a sexist is not sufficient. He’s also “an anti-feminist.”

That tweet was yesterday, after he’d done several anti-feminist tweets. I “decided” that he was being an anti-feminist jerk because he had apparently been so annoyed by the responses critical of his post that he felt the need to talk a lot of libertarian bullshit about feminism.

And then one of the comments…

Note that the original interview, or whatever it was, happened in August. So, I agree about the manufactured outrage. I think there are people out there that are constantly trying to stir up controversey in the A/S community for no other reason than to pump their own egos. It’s shameful.

I wrote the column in August. I didn’t write it four days ago in order to stir up controversy, I wrote it in August as part of a column for Free Inquiry.

Talk about inaccurate…

I see that thanks to Michael Shermer I’m going to be having to do extra clean-up of falsehoods and misrepresentations for awhile. That’s skepticism for ya.

Here are some.

Jacques Rousseau‏@JacquesR

On the @michaelshermer talk where he’s allegedly sexist: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#feature … – ‘it’s more of a guy thing’ seems descriptive, not normative.

No. I didn’t allege that he’s sexist. I didn’t draw any general conclusions about him at all. I quoted what he said as an example of dopy stereotypes about women; I did not go on to say “therefore he is a sexist.” The column wasn’t about him.

Also, since the column was about stereotypes, it doesn’t really matter all that much whether Shermer’s remark was descriptive as opposed to normative. Stereotypes are descriptive, but that doesn’t make them benign.

Next.

Notung‏@NotungSchwert

Shermer on being called a ‘misogynist’. Agree with him, but still not sure why he’d say ‘a guy thing’, (unless joking): http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-12-12/#feature …

No. I didn’t call Shermer a misogynist. I didn’t draw any general conclusions about him at all. I quoted what he said as an example of dopy stereotypes about women; I did not go on to say “therefore he is a misogynist.” The column wasn’t about him.

It’s funny; Jacques R accuses me of hyperbole, being incendiary, reading uncharitably, drama, misinterpretation – yet he manages to accuse me of calling Shermer sexist when I didn’t. So it goes.

Where was I? There were some things I didn’t get to in the post this morning.

One of the things. Shermer is indignant about what I said about him. Here’s what I said about him.

You would think that nontheism and feminism should be a natural combination. Women have the most to gain from escaping religion, after all: monotheism gives men higher status, starting with their allegedly being made in the image of God.

But 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, well, forever…

The main stereotype in play, let’s face it, is that women are too stupid to do nontheism. 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 during a panel discussion on the online talk-show The Point. The host, Cara Santa Maria, presented a 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.”

I start with the stereotype – which is one that Susan Jacoby also talked about at the Women in Secularism conference – and then give an example of someone saying it. Well he did say it. I’m seeing a lot of weird explaining away, but that’s bullshit. I can easily believe he didn’t mean to say it, and that he would have put it differently if he’d been writing and thus had more time to think – but the fact remains that he did say it. And no, it doesn’t bear some other, less dismissive interpretation.

It reminds me of my brother-in-law, actually. Decades ago my brother and I were wrangling about a big desk that had belonged to my mother (a journalist) and that I said she had told me I could have, and my brother-in-law (older than both of us) suddenly cut in to say that a desk was a man thing. I don’t remember what I said or did; I remember only the rage.

No, a desk isn’t a man thing. No, wanting to stand up and talk about atheism isn’t a guy thing. No, wanting to go on shows about it isn’t a guy thing. Wanting to go to conferences and speak about it isn’t a guy thing. Being intellectually active about it isn’t a guy thing. They’re not more of a guy thing. I know this. I’ve done all the things Shermer lists, and I can think of a long long list of other women who also have. Saying it’s more of a guy thing is like saying the law is more of a guy thing, science is more of a guy thing, work is more of a guy thing, thinking is more of a guy thing. It is, in short, the same old shit. It would be pretty astonishing if Michael Shermer had never been made aware of an occasional whisper about this over the past 40-plus years.

So that’s one of the things. He said it. He could have just said it was a stupid thing to say, he was thinking on his feet and made a hash of it. But indignation at me for pointing it out? No. I don’t think he has a case.

The next thing. About the “why didn’t she email me?” again.

in journalism, as in science and all rational inquiry, there is an ethic of going to the primary source, and especially giving the person in question the benefit of the doubt. In this case, a simple email asking what I meant would have cleared up any misunderstanding.

I simply assumed he meant what he said. He could have emailed me asking what I meant, too, but he didn’t. Harriet Hall could have emailed me asking what I meant instead of emailing her thoughts to Shermer for publication. Everybody could email everybody about everything, but usually we address what’s on the page or in the podcast without emailing. That’s normal. Look at The Daily Show – it’s all about things people say.

That’s it. Back to stirring my witch’s brew.