Over on my post about the UK rape survivor campaign, John Greg threadjacked the entire comments thread to be about the ongoing so-called Great Rift between various factions in the skeptic and atheist blogosphere over Rebecca Watson’s trip to Ireland and into the “right to flirt” rabbithole, which I’ve covered extensively in the past. Part of this fight is about feminism, about the inclusion of feminist ideals in the skeptical and atheist communities, and about splash damage that some ostensible supporters of these ideals are taking during fights with various trolls.
I sympathize that good people might be getting hurt by the pushback against misogyny in our community when they point out that some folks are being emotional rather than rational, but I empathize (which is significantly stronger than sympathy) with the people who are getting emotional because I get emotional when I see my friends and allies getting shit on over nonsense, and other friends and allies not even lifting a finger to rebut.
So this stuff needs to be talked about. Yet again. And yet again, at the explicit demand of the people who claim that we’re the ones stirring the pot.
However, it was cluttering up a perfectly good thread about helping rape victims get the help they need, so I’ve moved it here.
I’ll make this very clear up front — I believe John Greg is very wrong about a lot of things, especially about his full-throated support of Christina Hoff Sommers who believes that there’s such a thing as a “gender feminism/equity feminism dichotomy” where every feminist who recognizes that women are getting the shaft (err… so to speak) in society and point such out, are in actuality advocating that men are somehow the enemy. A corollary to this is that anyone who advocates for anything less than treating men and women identically in all circumstances is somehow also the enemy. Both of these positions are, as far as I can tell, strawmem, or should I say strawwomen — I have never encountered even the most radicalized (in the other sense) of radical (in the “get to the root” sense) feminists who hold these positions.
So I don’t believe the “gender feminism/equity feminism” construct is in any way useful, especially not in dealing with people who do not in fact want to kill or subjugate all men to the evil gynocracy — down that road lies MRAs of the sort that Manboobz covers. So it really surprised me to read that John Greg largely agrees with a good number of things that many feminists here at Freethought Blogs and elsewhere in the skeptic/atheist blogospheres actively espouse, myself included. I’ve moved this thread here because, while it was wrecking the post on rape, it probably deserves to be read.
The comments I’ve moved are here:
Jason, perhaps hell just froze over, or something like that. Anyway, I thought you’d be interested to know that I agree 100% with this statement:
“However, I do have to take issue with the idea that there’s such a thing as a “real man”. This idea of masculinity drummed into us of stoicism, taking our “lumps” and walking them off, is nothing short of toxic. And the adjoining idea, that if you are unable to “walk it off”, you are not a real man, is every bit as toxic. The demand that men, if they are to conform to the gender roles to which they are consigned, must show no emotions and no weakness if they are to be considered appropriately manly, damages these very men. It puts them into an unwinnable situation when they are emotionally injured, where they are forced to compound their own injury.”
Glad to see someone stating this issue clearly and with a reasonable amount of eloquence fairly devoid of sensationalism.
Now, please don’t do a PeeZus and ban me for agreeing with you.
John Greg @9: You might find you agree with me about a lot, if you weren’t so fixated on your disagreement with those posts where I’m defending women.
Jason said:
“You might find you agree with me about a lot….”
Yes, and no.
Yes, because only a true blue fool would claim that sexism and misogyny do not exist in the world. And I have certainly never made any such stupid claim. Also, for the record, I tend to not post when I am in agreement with a post for the simple fact that I believe that, for the most part, posts stating agreement are kind of empty and meaningless rhetorical gestures.
No, because where we fundamentally disagree is not about the existence of sexism and misogyny, but, for lack of better words, the location and instances of them.
“… if you weren’t so fixated on your disagreement with those posts where I’m defending women.”
But that is where you really do me an injustice by misrepresenting my position. I don’t disagree with your so-called defense of women. That is far, far too broad a brush. It is the specifics of certain instances of what you label sexism and misogyny that I frequently disagree with. I really do wish you would pay closer attention to my supposed sins and maintain some accuracy in your pointing them out and call a spade a spade, rather than labelling the entire deck as evil black.
For example, you and other FfTB bloggers and commentors have labelled me sexist and misogynistic because I disagree with and do not trust a small group of gender feminists. And such labelling is misrepresentation of my position. Disagreeing with and not trusting a small group of gender feminists is no more sexist nor misogynistic than not wanting to sit beside the smelly and unwashed homeless tramp on the bus is racist because as well as being smelly and unwashed he also happens to be black.
Jason, here’s an idea. Why not post a list of the top ten, or five, whatever, issues you think define feminism and/or feminists. I’ll respond by noting which issues I agree with and support, and which issues I do not agree with and do not support. And I absolutely promise to play fair. That should help clarify whether or not I meet your, not my, but your definition of what a feminist is.
You can even have fun with it by perhaps posting a second list: Top ten reasons why John Greg is an anti-feminist.
C’mon, give it a go, Jason. You’ll have fun.
Greg, you’re a disgusting fraud.
You cruise FtB, pretending to be the voice of reason, only to scurry back to your lair to giggle over “twats” and snicker over those stupid people on “freefromthoughtblogs”. You’re a two-faced slimeball.
Don’t even try to pretend. When you “promise to play fair”, I know you’re just going to lie harder.
PeeZus, do grow up won’t you? Stop projecting your own juvenile neuroses onto others. I do not giggle over twats; don’t even use the word. And I don’t snicker over FfTB bloggers and posters. Some of them I roundly disagree with and say so; some of them I sometimes agree with, though I usually don’t. I have even posted some agreement here with some of the things Jason has pointed out.
And as for my playing fair, I will. And how about pointing to some of these supposed lies I am just going to tell more of? Hmm?
I think my comment to Jason is more than reasonable and fair, and is in point of fact a productive and constructive way to set up a running commentary on different individuals’ concept of feminists and feminism.
Jason has called me an anti-feminist several times. I am only suggesting he take advantage of the medium and, you might say, prove it by listing what he considers to be the primary characteristics of feminism and/or feminists. Does that really upset you so much?
Anyway, if he doesn’t wish to do so, for whatever reason, then so be it.
Nice. “Where have I lied?” Well, how about you see the other thread you were commenting on where it was pointed out to you where you lied. Or do you thinking asking the question repeatedly will change the answer?
And as for my playing fair, I will. And how about pointing to some of these supposed lies I am just going to tell more of? Hmm?
I suggest you stop doing this, seeing as how you still haven’t taken the time to defend yourself the last time you did this and got called out.
Marshall and Zvan: links, quotes, and citations are your friends girls and boys.
I did answer Jason’s claim that I had lied; I answered it specifically. To wit:
As I said to Jason, in regards to the post where I supposedly told a lie:
“Yes, I remember the post too, but I do not remember what its title/Heading was, so I cannot find it, so, sorry, but no linkage. Anyway….
“Well, I think calling that a lie is a bit of a thin stretch. I would say that my statement that you “explained on one of [your] other blog posts a few weeks ago why masculine/male gender epithets are completely harmless, tons of fun, and when judiciously applied quite appropriate, whereas feminine/female gender epithets are bad, bad, bad mojo and proof of indefensible horribleness” is more of a slight misrepresentation and a somewhat egregious exaggeration than a lie. But, if you insist, okay, I lied. Nasty evil me.
Myers, as is his way, has implied, without providing any evidence, that I am a pathological liar (“Don’t even try to pretend. When you “promise to play fair”, I know you’re just going to lie harder”). It could be argued that he has also implied, without providing any evidence, that I have and/or will tell serial lies. He has not, as is also his way, provided any proof. How you can accept such groundless inflammatory accusations from someone claiming to be an authority and an academic in any field is beyond my understanding. But, so it goes. You claim to be critical thinking skeptics, not a horde of frightened theists. Prove it.
Myers’s hysterical rant is irrelevant anyway, and is clearly an intentional attempt to stir up irrational anger to derail my highly reasonable comment. I provided Jason with what could be a productive and constructive opportunity to to set up a running commentary on different individuals’ definitions of feminists and feminism. That such a reasonable comment for such a reasonable dialogue would cause so much fear is quite interesting.
Lastly, after having made accusation after accusation for months now about my habitual and continual telling of lies, I think both Jason (and Myers who has provided no evidence) needs to provide something more than one simple, basic misrepresentation as evidence of my evil nasty self.
John, have you ever considered that part of the problem might be the way in which you act in a consistently condescending manner towards people? That you make statements and then refuse to back them up while hypocritically insisting that anyone who calls you a liar back up that statement even after you have admitted yourself to misrepresenting people’s statements (which you’ve done SEVERAL TIMES, by the way)? Personally, my problem with you began when you called me a ‘hymen’ in response to a post that wasn’t even directed at you in the first place. I suggest you stop acting like you’re better than everyone else and start thinking about WHY you might be receiving the responses you are.
In any event, you DESERVE to be banned at the nearest opportunity. You’ve been dismissive and mean spirited from your first appearance on this blog. You’re shitting all over threads that could be opportunities for worthwhile discussions with your patronizing nonsense. That you haven’t been banned yet is a testament to what Jason is willing to put up with in order to allow open comments. I would not have lasted so long.
Marshall said:
“John, have you ever considered that part of the problem might be the way in which you act in a consistently condescending manner towards people?”
Sure. But at least I don’t shriek at people and groundlessly accuse them of being disgusting frauds who scurry back to thier lairs to giggle over bad words and snicker over those stupid people on other blogs, or of being two-faced slimeballs who only pretend to promise to play fair when really they’ll just continue lying harder.
Marshall, I am willing to provide back-up, evidence, quotes, citations, and links when and where I can.
Here is another completely reasonable request: How about you provide a top five list of which specific statements of fact or other claims (other than basic opinions) I have made that you would most like to see backed-up?
My comment, with the highlighted salient point that John is “challenging” me over, as well as a link to clarify something I said:
I can call you bigoted, mean-spirited sophists who aren’t afraid to stretch the truth, or even lie, to make the case that certain people are calling out as bad behaviour certain behaviours that you yourselves enjoy far too much. I can call you ponces, pseudointellectual assholes, possessing of precious little actual worldly knowledge except how to offend, and so steeped in your various antifeminist dogmas that you can’t come to common ground with anyone to argue honestly about it. I can call you arrogant and foolish bloviators. I can even go so far as to call you assholes.
While I was generalizing, John was very helpful in saying this:
Well, I think calling that a lie is a bit of a thin stretch. I would say that my statement that you “explained on one of [your] other blog posts a few weeks ago why masculine/male gender epithets are completely harmless, tons of fun, and when judiciously applied quite appropriate, whereas feminine/female gender epithets are bad, bad, bad mojo and proof of indefensible horribleness” is more of a slight misrepresentation and a somewhat egregious exaggeration than a lie. But, if you insist, okay, I lied. Nasty evil me.
Except that I said “stretch the truth, or even lie”. This easily counts as the former, and the latter only by John Greg’s own admission. Several clauses in the italicized bit are blatantly wrong. Mischaracterizing someone intentionally is certainly falsehood, and I presume the tactic is intended to distract from the fact that the type of behaviour we’re calling out is your own.
Regardless of whether you think Sommers’ idea of feminism (that people who want equality are good, but people who think women actually have it bad in some ways right now are in actuality trying to tear down men instead of elevating women) is the correct way of looking at things, and regardless of whether you believe she, your intellectual forebear, did not engage in calling people “gender traitor” by titling her book Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women while anyone who claims to be a feminist saying “I disagree with you” to a woman is engaged in calling them a “gender traitor”, it doesn’t honestly matter. I know I’m not going to convince you of anything. Bystanders, on the other hand, might benefit from seeing you demonstrate, time and again, how you’re an intellectually dishonest troll at every instance.
Marshall is wrong. The only thing this shows is that I’ve been working too damned much these past five days, and simply haven’t had the will or energy to play John Greg’s ridiculous games. If you want to write up five points about my feminism and how it’s “gender feminism”, and how Sommers’ idea of feminism (or hell, about *anything*, given her conservatism) is valid in any way, you feel free. You don’t get to come on my blog and dictate what I must spend my precious little time doing if I’m to drag a rational and intellectually honest debate out of you. Especially since at this juncture, I seriously doubt that you’re capable, your exhortations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Hey Jason, I apologize for presuming to know things I could not possibly have known. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, and I shouldn’t be trying to speak on your behalf.
This was an interesting thread until John Greg tried to make it all about him.
Anyhoo, back on topic–I very much agree with Giliell, here:
…feminism 101 is fine and dandy but probably not the right time when the main goal is to reach out to a male rape survivor who identifies with traditional masculinity.
The ad’s targeting men who do so identify. It’s OK to simplify the message a bit in order to reach people–trying to say too much or unpack the “real men” trope would dilute the ad’s power.
Except, Stacy, if you read my actual comments you will see I really did no such thing until I came under attack.
My first comment, currently #9 (#comment-50829), stated full agreement and support with some things Jason said. That is certainly not about me.
My second comment, currently #16 (#comment-50829), was in partial agreement, partial disagreement with Jason, and included a bit where I tried to clarify what I felt was an inaccurate representation of my socio-political outlook. That’s not making it about me; that’s trying to answer a previous comment’s innaccuracies.
My third post, currently # 17 (#comment-50936), was a playful invitation for Jason to join in a sort of round-robin dialogue trying to create a definitive list of characteristics that define feminism. That’s certainly not about me.
And then the Bullfrog arrived and started telling his porkies and misrepresenting me in an altogether unpleasant and slanderous way (which, as was his intent, opened up the gates for others to follow suit), so of course I had to try and defend myself. That’s what we do when unfairly attacked, don’t we?
So c’mon Stacy, stop telling porkies and stay with the program.
Stacy is dead on, you narcissistic piece of filth. That first comment isn’t about the issue but about whether you approve of Jason, just like the rest of your commentary on this blog, John. You could have left a comment without that. Or, rather, a decent human being could have left a comment without that. You didn’t. You just kept going with the same crap that’s been clogging up Jason’s comments for months now. On a post about getting help to rape victims.
No, I’m not going to link to where you were told you were already told where you’d lied. Everyone who cares in the least knows where it happened. Your objections don’t change the fact that you’ve characterized Jason’s statements in ways that simply aren’t true and that it was easy to point out the moment you tried to adopt a mantle of innocence.
Just like the five people who give the tiniest of shits already know that you know nothing about feminism but have latched onto the manufactured objections of the right wing without understanding that they give you nothing more than labels. Funny how you’ll reply to Stacy, John, but can’t be bothered to do the work Jason set you.
You realize you’re only here because he enjoys testing himself against your ideology, right? Fail to actually produce anything of substance (again, still), and he has no reason to keep you around. He’s not intimidated by your pretensions of being arbiter of all that is fair and honest in the atheist blogosphere. He just wants to hear your arguments.
Though probably not on this thread. It was here for a different reason, asshole.
“Funny how you’ll reply to Stacy, John, but can’t be bothered to do the work Jason set you.”
Patience young Steph, patience.
Like Jason, I happen to be quite busy this week, and Jason’s comment requires a lot of response. My reply to Jason, including my list of some issues that I think characterize and/or define feminism and feminists, at least the feminist paradigm I support, is in the works.
lol. “It’s not all about me…I said this…then I said this…then I….”
Men’s Rights Activism. Because somehow, somewhere, someone thinks the world doesn’t revolve around you.
For the record, here are some issues that I feel are critical to (and should define and characterise) feminism, whether it’s equity feminism, gender feminism, or radical feminism.
1. There is no doubt in my mind that sexism exists in many ways and places throughout the world, and effective concsiousness raising and awareness education should be the goal of anyone who claims to be, or wants to be, a feminist.
2. I believe that birth control, and other critical issues of family planning such as abortion, should be provided free of charge to all women (and men), and should absolutely be free of moral and or social shaming and/or condemnation.
3. I believe that equal pay for equal work is an obvious, and to ignore such an obvious is profoundly wrong (I would expand that this issue should cover all such disparities, not just between women receiving less pay for equal work than men, but the obverse/opposite of that as well as class, colour/race, and other such socially constructed instances). I believe that there exists a wage gap in some places, in some careers, and to varying degrees around the world; however, I have not yet found any unambiguous evidence of consensus of how severe and to what varying degrees and specifically affecting whom the problem exists.
4. I believe that feminism should encompass a broad range of humanist disparity issues, and not focus solely on women-only issues to the expense and cost of critical issues of disparity involving men, colour/race, class, and other socially consturcted divisions and disparities.
5. I think that all people, of all genders, sexes, colours/races, social classes, and so on, should be provided the same opportunities to employment in light of having the same capability to do the job.
6. I believe that all people, of all genders, sexes, colours/races, social classes, and so on, should receive the same general rights as determined and provided by a democratic, non-gender biased political process.
Wow. I agree with everything but the “however” clause in 3, and the distinction of “gender feminism” vs “equity feminism” considering they are entirely constructs built by Sommers and are largely in opposition with every wave of feminism with which I’m familiar, John.
So, what the living hell do you hate so much about the Freethought Blogs feminists that you must disparage us as baboons and “free from thought” at every possible juncture? Is it just the language thing, the disdain for certain people who use certain verbal “tells”, for being very likely to be significantly misogynistic in certain thought and action patterns because they defend words that most women consider to be slurs?
I have the feeling I’m going to regret asking this, mostly because this is the first glimmer of humanity and decency I’ve seen from you.
“I have the feeling I’m going to regret asking this, mostly because this is the first glimmer of humanity and decency I’ve seen from you.”
No, no, I don’t think you’ll regret it. Except maybe for my usual long-windedness.
In all honesty, Jason, I think the biggest problem, not the only one, but the biggest comes down to the challenges of effective online communication.
For example, the issues between people who do not share a specific localized culture and language (you’re IT; I’m English degree with a decade of technical writing — not worlds, or nations apart, but sometimes far enough), and a strong sociological, and/or socio-political agreement.
Another of the biggest challenges of effective online communication is the lack of the unspoken visual cues — nods, head shakes, smiles, frowns; all those little things that help immensely to facilitate smooth communication. There’s a shitload of research pointing out how important all those online unattainable things are to effective communication.
And let’s not forget about all the subtle sub-vocalisations that take place in personal communications, the grunts of disagreement, which don’t ruffle feathers, but which help guide the conversation in a different direction; the quiet hmms of tentative agreement which give the speaker extra confidence to extend their thought processes and to experiment with things they never thought before, like maybe even agreeing with an opponent’s heretofore disagreed-with position.
“So, what the living hell do you hate so much about the Freethought Blogs feminists that you must disparage us as baboons and “free from thought” at every possible juncture? Is it just the language thing, the disdain for certain people who use certain verbal “tells”, for being very likely to be significantly misogynistic in certain thought and action patterns because they defend words that most women consider to be slurs?”
I think that series of questions, and the answers that would go with them, are actually much more complicated, or perhaps convoluted and sophisticated, than they appear on the surface. And in all seriousness, I suspect each one of them could take us through an hour’s worth of conversation at the pub because in each instance they would bring forth from each of us calm yet strongly held disagreements and agreement that would expand the conversation into sophisticated territories that cannot be convered here, and which our slightly different cultural language — IT; tech writer — leads to confusion online, but a confusion that can be straightened out in person. We live in different provinces, though, so that’s a no-go.
But I do not think this is really the ideal place to answer those questions. Aside from the issues of the challenges of online communication versus face-to-face, I also have little doubt that folks like Myers, Zvan, Laden, Aratina, julian, etc., are champing their bits in the wings just itching like poison ivy to charge forth and call me a sick liar, a disgusting skuzzball, a narcissistic piece of filth, a disgusting fraud, a two-faced slimeball, etc., ad infinitum — and maybe even to accuse you of having been taken in by John Greg’s pathetic fraud.
If you have any interest in it, I’d be glad to carry this on over email, but I know that that is probably even a less effective approach.
If you really, really want me to put myself in harm’s way (an exaggeration and stretch of the truth, I know, but it is intended as sardonic irony) I can even carry on in this comment thread.
You may be surprised to know that I too agree with pretty much everything in John’s #32. As for why I seem to find myself “on the other side”, well… I’ve said it a few times already, but I’ll try again.
It’s pretty much the same reason that courts will throw out evidence, no matter how damning of the defendant, if it was obtained illegally: because if you’re willing to abandon the rules for a specific cause, then those rules become meaningless – and in the long run, you’ll do damage not only to your own cause but to other worthy causes as well.
No matter how important you think the cause is, it’s never ok to abandon honesty in its favour. Wait, strike that. The more important the cause, the more important it becomes to stick to the rules of honest discourse.
Now, this next is going to sound incredibly harsh, but try to believe me when I tell you that this is my honest opinion.
What I saw with elevatorgate and everything that followed afterwards was a wilful, even gleeful shedding of all standards. Blatant misrepresentations, guilt-by-association, fields of strawmen, all the tactics that would chewed up and spat out by the regulars here if coming from a creationist… suddenly were coming from the regulars here. As long as there was a merkin of deniability, certain leaders were quite happy even to misrepresent their own past selves – and the followers lapped it up (I’m looking at you, Stephanie Zvan and “Dear Dick”). Everything and anything was suddenly a-ok, as long as it was in support of the tribe.
Yes, there were a few (a very few) really nasty characters arrayed against you. Yes, they deserved to be slapped down. But they should have been slapped down honestly – not for their sake, but for your own. Instead, a wave of shit was sloshed in all directions – it was certainly effective on most of the real nasties, but a whole bunch of it got onto people who really didn’t deserve it, and a remarkable quantity splashed right back onto your own community.
I have a challenge for you (and for anyone else who’s interested): go back to some of those old threads, and read through them with fresh eyes. Don’t read for content so much, though: try to ignore the names on each comment, and just focus your attention on who’s being honest and who’s just decided to lose themselves in the fight. Then come back and tell me I’m wrong.
Like Jason, I happen to be quite busy this week, and Jason’s comment requires a lot of response.
And then the self-centered asshole blathers on and on. Seriously, Jason, he’s just made this whole thread all about him, at length, and he’s no doubt reveling in all the attention paid to him. Shut him down.
We have a difference in styles, PZ. To my own sanity’s detriment, I feed trolls.
However, everyone has a point in that this “tribal warfare” stuff has no place on this thread about getting male rape victims the help they need. Expect a bunch of comments here to disappear into their own post as soon as I can manage.
So let’s hear it, then, John. What exactly — specifically, with links, if you can manage — caused you to side with Franc Hoggle et al, those nasty nasties who “should have been slapped down honestly” who believe Rebecca Watson is somehow either a liar about what happened to her, or is cynically manipulating the situation, or is overzealous about her feminism to the point where it’s getting in the way of all the serious man-business of skepticism and atheism? Why would you sacrifice your pretensions toward intellectual honesty at the altar of delusion about Watson rather than actually just listening to what she has to say, considering so many others are saying the same damned things — that there are certain actions, like hurling sexist slurs for instance, that create a chilly climate for women in the skeptic/atheist movements? And that folks like you are evidently more concerned with intellectual honesty coming from the people who are reacting emotionally and negatively to instances of that tonedeafness to sexism, than from your own side?
I fully realize I’m feeding the troll, and that if John Greg is any bit as narcissist as he’s shown himself in past threads on FtB, Scienceblogs and elsewhere, all I’m going to do is invite more bloviating and unsubstantiated nonsense about past butthurts at best, and at worst invoke yet another incursion from the folks at ERV’s slimepit threads to tell me that I’m a “long-winded prat” (I’m looking at you John). Or call me a baboon. Or “free from thought”. Or my personal favorite, “Justin Bieber”. But whatever. If you commenters don’t want to participate in the shitstorm this post is going to cause, more power to you.
But do remember, this is my pub, so I set the topics of conversation. I’d actually like to hear what John Greg thinks is the core problem here, and if he’s honestly willing to engage in some bridge-building, I’d be very pleasantly surprised. I don’t pretend he’s going to, though.
And as the pub owner, expect this topic to be heavily moderated for my own sanity’s sake, whether I actually engage in proactive moderation or not. If you don’t like that possibility, fuck right off. That comment field is not for you.
Where, O where have you been kind to me and honest with me, John Greg? Where? All I can recall hearing from you by now is insult after insult and a lot of what seems to me to be disingenuous arguing about Pharyngula (now FtB), feminism, and anti-woman and anti-gay bigotry.
I think that paragraph of yours I quoted above is exemplary of your past behavior. I have not and had not said jack shit about you in the thread about male rape survivors in the UK, but you still felt the need to caricature me as if any of that was something I would do. I don’t want you to answer me about that; I’d rather observe your answers to Jason et al without comment. I just would like you to reflect on your own part in these interactions for once.
—
And Jason, some of your links are borked (they are missing the “/lousycanuck/”).
Jebus. In converting it back and forth between visual and HTML editors, WordPress somehow decided to convert every single link into a relative one, even links where that made no sense. It was doing stupid things like linking “../../pharyngula” where that would send you to https://the-orbit.net/lousycanuck/2012/02/pharyngula, for instance.
Thanks for pointing that out. They should all be fixed now.
From #32, John Greg says:
“4. I believe that feminism should encompass a broad range of humanist disparity issues, and not focus solely on women-only issues to the expense and cost of critical issues of disparity involving men, colour/race, class, and other socially consturcted divisions and disparities.”
This is one of the most annoying arguments from anti-feminists. All John Greg is saying is that he wishes feminism wasn’t feminism. Gee, how surprising.
I don’t recall much about JG, but I’ve read the linked thread and am curious if the conversation will continue here. I DO remember the chaos of elevatorgate, though, so hopefully I can follow along.
Not knowing the other history, I’m left hopeful that there may really be some core of misunderstanding that might be understood if not resolved, and I’m awfully curious as to what that might be.
#3 Ben
I had a similar thought, only not as hostile. Feminism is operationally for me a sub set of my skepticism. I am skeptical of established gender roles, and when I’ve looked into it I’ve found the assumptions that they are based on not just wanting, but flat out WRONG.
Although I get what you mean. I think I glossed over his phrase “at the expense of” there, which is the sort of thing usually used to derail a conversation: yes, women get paid, on average 15% less for the same work, but AIDS!
I am hard pressed to think of any pro-feminist position that advocating for would be done ‘at the expense’ of racial disparities or any of the others. Every time someone applies it, it is to argue that the person taking the pro-feminist position is doing some harm to the racial one only by taking the time to advocate for the feminist position. NOT that the position, itself, does the harm.
I don’t know if that’s what JG here is doing, or will do, though.
Fully agreed with besomyka — the argument that people who are advocating against certain social conventions are not, generally, doing so “at the expense” of anyone else advocating for other sorts of social change. It is a false dichotomy to say that someone being offended that someone uses the word “cunt” liberally is not properly fighting against income disparity, or that people who protest against women being raped are all for males being raped in prison, or that people concerned with the ways gender roles hurt women are completely okay with the ways gender roles hurt men.
The thing is, I kinda sorta get his point here, (Although I think Tristan makes it quite way more clear) and agree with it, at least in theory. There’s a theoretical line, and that line differs for everybody, where rational discussion and debate turns into irrational tribalism. Now personally during Elevator-gate, I don’t think that any of the main participants, or at least the main participants from this side crossed that line.
People might disagree. People are free to disagree. But the proper response to that isn’t to wage war against those you disagreed with. You simply remove them from your bookmarks and move on with life. That’s what I’ve done in the past, and what I’ll do in the future. Maybe it’s awkward if you simply don’t like specific writers on a network, but that’s why it’s good that FTB isn’t just a big group blog. (I’m not really a fan of the format).
The sad thing about this is that the people who have really crossed the line here are the people like John who are still bringing it up constantly, for whatever reason.
Thank goodness. I thought I was the only one who saw the visual resemblance between Justin Bieber and Jason Thibeault. Now that my insanity has been laid to rest, I can die happy.
John Greg OP #32
Translation: Those nasty feminists are concerning themselves with feminism instead of those topics I’m more interested in.
Damn you, John Greg, for using my first name as your last name. I had it first, give it the fuck back.
So… we can’t just agree that we’re all anti-patriarchy and leave it at that? The status quo is bad for everyone.
– Women because it’s shoehorned us all into boxes labelled ‘overly emotional, weak, greed-motivated, mentally stunted, alluring yet evil, generally inferior baby factories that need to be controlled and guided so they don’t hurt themselves.
– Men because it’s created the idea of the strong, impervious, emotionless woman-shielding Adonis shooting machismo from their very nipples, taught to both fetishise and shun women as sexual but evil objects.
– LBGQT people don’t even factor in and are therefore deviant and evil (if they exist at all according to the mindset).
We’re all aware of this, why do we insist on dividing the issue further along the already blurry gender lines and attack the problems separately? I’m aware, of course, that as the traditionally repressed gender, we woman have less of a voice overall and therefore tend to need to shout louder to be heard at all. It’s grossly idealistic, but a united front of anti-partriarchists supporting each other’s positions from all gender positions would be akin to a gosh-darned force of nature. Gender activists of all genders working together to dismantle the status quo?
*eyes glaze over*
(yes, yes, I know. I’m dreaming. I still don’t understand the strawman dichotomy we seem to have erected though.)
Jason, I respect your invitation for me to speak my piece, but you have booby trapped the stage, and have immediately set me up to fail before I even start, with your dismissive and insulting misrepresentations of my position.
You begin your invitation with what amounts to an attack on me, and a message to your followers to dismiss me right from the get-go:
“John Greg threadjacked the entire comments thread to be about the ongoing so-called Great Rift between various factions in the skeptic and atheist blogosphere over Rebecca Watson’s trip to Ireland and into the “right to flirt” rabbithole….”
That is a misrepresentation, especially in that there are rifts (which you also diminish and dismiss by dismissively calling it the “Great Rift”) in the community, and most of the rift is not about Watson’s trip to Ireland, nor your ridiculous supposition that it has anything to do with the “right to flirt”. Complete misrepresentation of the many so-called anti-Watson people in the community. Completely disingenuous on your part. Bascially, what you are saying to your followers is, folks, you really don’t need to pay attention to him. He argues in bad faith and hijacks comment threads, and he is part of a hostile community that believes in things that we wiser folk know don’t exist, and he exaggerates minor and meaningless mole hills into vast mountains. Dismiss him. I have.
Then you say:
“I believe John Greg is very wrong about a lot of things, especially about his full-throated support of Christina Hoff Sommers who believes that there’s such a thing as a “gender feminism/equity feminism dichotomy” where every feminist who recognizes that women are getting the shaft (err… so to speak) in society and point such out, are in actuality advocating that men are somehow the enemy.”
So, you not only intentionally mischaracterize me and misrepresent my position — I have stated on more than one occasion that I do not give Sommers any such thing as “full-throated” support; that I think she has some good ideas, which is not the same thing at all — but you also intentionally misrepresent Sommers in your dismissing her with bias as not being worth acknowledging at all anyway because she has invented an argument about something that does not exist, and you further imply that Sommers, and supposedly myself, are the only people in the world who believe there is any such thing as equity feminism, or the other splits in the feminist community such as the mad group of feminists known as radical feminists who populate the radfem hub (http://radicalhub.com/).
Listen, I offered you some examples of my beliefs in good faith and with honest intent. If the best you can do to continue this conversation is to booby trap the stage from the get-go, and to dismiss my commentary right from the beginning, and to implicitly invite your followers to attack (I mean, fuck, just look at the tone of the comments and I havent even opened my mouth in this thread), well, Jason, forget it.
Yes, yes, you can all holler flounce as much as you want, but if you had even a smidgen of self-awareness and self-honesty you would know that that is not the case.
I am really disappointed. I thought this might be an opportunity to heal some of the anger between our so-called sides, but clearly you do not want that; you do not want communication; you do not want discussion.
“Sabotaging the stage”? By explicitly outlining how I view the situation and where I disagree with you?
Cry me a fucking river.
I never realized a spotlight could be considered a booby trap.
John, Jason is giving you space to speak. Use it to present your views on the issues and we’ll read what you have to say. Some may attack you personally, but not all. Jason tries to be fair and you should take advantage of that (in a good way). The level of suspicion may be too high on both sides for anything constructive to happen, but can you at least give community reconciliation a try?
I think Jason is interested in that.
Ah, yes. Tristan’s “On the internet, ‘dick’ can only mean penis, so you lie when you say you didn’t call Dawkins a penis” “argument”.
No, my “in 99.9% of all conversations, anywhere, ‘dick’ means penis, so you are either very dishonest or very stupid when you say you didn’t mean people to think you had called Dawkins a penis” “argument”. There’s a subtle difference.
“Come into the FTB realm, where it’s been well-established that the denizens shall delete comments at will, then demand you reply after banning you. Come, join our card game, the deck is only a little marked, some of the dice unloaded, and we almost promise to play fair.”
If one cannot trust you to provide a level playing ground, even when inconvenient, then there’s really little point.
If you wish to argue in a truly level playing ground, you know where to find us.
#16:
Da fuck??
You’re still claiming that “Dear Dick” was meant to be a chummy term of address for someone called Richard – although the someone has never chosen to be known by that nominal abbreviation – when it was transparently designed as a subtle (? Perhaps as much so as your collective brains could come up with, anyway) insult against one of atheism’s most productive and effective proponents.
You would gain respect (just a trickle; some of us won’t forget this childish outburst of petulance) if you just fucking admitted that your intent back in the day was to belittle your addressee by using the word as an upfront ad hominym.
Concentratedwater, where did I ever claim I was being remotely chummy or not insulting Dawkins by using a diminutive form of his name?
Tristan, why is a penis an insult?
If you wish to lend an imprimatur of intellectual respectability to the ghetto we’ve carved out for ourselves, make our day and come over to our house. ‘Cause really, we started out feeling defensive about Elevatorgate, worked ourselves into a lather about that, defended some indefensible positions and people, and now frankly we got nothin’.
Steph, don’t play dumb. As any english speaking person over the age of 5 knows, “dick” is an insult because it’s shorthand for “showing one or more of the negative qualities stereotypical of males” (although I’m fairly sure no 5-year-old would phrase it quite like that…). Qualities such as abrasive, arrogant, cocksure, aggressive… basically a way of saying that you’re thinking with your penis – i.e. letting your testosterone rule over your brain.
Indeed – so why don’t you let go of all that baggage, leave the ghetto and come and discuss things like adults over at ERV?
Tristan, nice try, but it can’t have escaped your notice that John derailed a thread over here with his whining.
He sabotaged a thread about a serious problem facing men. He had nothing substantial to say on the topic.
He was offered a space in which to say anything he wanted to say.
In return he provided excuses.
Hate to break it to you, but while you’re certainly free to express yourself, you’re not entitled to anyone’s interest.
Personally, I don’t give a rat’s patoot what goes on at ERV. But Jason–for reasons that probably have more to do with scrupulosity than good sense–has provided ya’ll with a chance to have what you crave: our attention.
Use it or don’t. Don’t make me no nevermind. Supta you.
“What’s that plopping sound?” “Oh, nothing but some slimeballs from the slimepit bubbling up to the surface.”
I’d say Sommers isn’t entirely wrong. The group she calls gender feminists does exist. They were bigger in the 1970s than now, but were never big and are hardly the forefront of the feminist movement. Her books are largely about sexism hurts men and boys, too. Contrary to what she leads the reader to believe, this is something the vast majority of feminists would agree with. I’ve read everything, but I’m still not entirely clear what John Greg’s complaint is. There are other problems besides sexism against women? No one said otherwise. Don’t like the word feminism? We won’t make you use it. Yeesh.
Sigh. I rest my case. This well is irrevocably poisoned.
I’m not playing dumb, Tristan.
For the record, you’ve gotten the answer wrong. “Dick” was a class-based insult based on the prevalence of the name. It meant you were common. The “penis” meaning also came from Richard/Dick being incredibly common; i.e., everyone has one. It’s only as Richard/Dick has become a less common name that the meanings have started to overlap.
However, the reason I asked was because I wanted to be sure that you commented after Concentratedwater. Why? Because your concern for honesty is, and has been throughout, distinctly one-sided. Yes, yes, it such a great concern of yours and of John’s…but only when someone talking about feminism might be accused of being dishonest, no matter how you have to warp their words to get there.
PZ Barnum? Where? I don’t see him.
Boy, I do enjoy Aratina’s wit and valuable insight. How our atheist/skeptic community is blessed to have such a person.
Yup. If you really want to be that way, I guess there’s almost always something more “important” than the issue at hand. But if we only ever tackled the most important issues, we’d never get anything done.
So advocacy groups have a focus. Since when did that become a crime? Should the EFF just cease to exist because Internet privacy is a less important issue that famine in Sudan?
Phew! That last angry slime was a bit more sulfurous than normal.
Sorry but as none of you believe words can carry those types of meanings and implications reliably or predictably across different conversations I’m going to call you full of shit. Tristan, you are full of shit.
My issue with ‘there are bigger fish to fry’ is there’s no reliable rubric for measuring the size of said fish. Is the work of a young cancer researcher more important than the work of a school teacher?
Bias points me towards the cancer researcher but, honestly, what are the odds they will produce research, treatments or experiments no one else would have thought of? What’s the realistic impact they’ll have on cancer research?
And would it matter what grade, school, subject ect when evaluating the teacher’s contribution? Is a biology teacher teaching good solid science in the Bible belt more important than a teacher providing good sex health information in the projects of New York?
Not to say there aren’t cases where there’s one unambiguously more important issue. Just that I don’t understand why this argument is so popular when the places it’ll fit are so few and so narrow.
I’m an atheist who tries to be skeptical.
I’m not sure what you mean by depending on your views. I think some words are worse based on effect, history and context.
For example, I don’t think calling a woman who cut you off in traffic a bitch is as bad as telling an abused 6 year old they’re a waste of meat and no one will ever love them. Of course I think the former situation carries a lot of implications about society and possibly the speaker but that’s a different story.
PZ turned up again, has he?
Julian:
That’s pretty cool, and I have to agree 100% with you. Those words don’t mean a thing to “us”.
Just like “Muhamad is the biggest pedophile in all of religious history” (not a single bad werd there) or “Jesus took a spear up his ass on the cross” (no bad words either, by pharyngula standards) don’t mean jackshit to “us”. Although, some other words seem to mean a lot to you.
Care to explain?
Care to try and explain why some words are worse than others, depending on your views? Keeping in mind you are supposed to be a skeptic atheist?
So John Greg lacks the maturity and moral courage to put out his case in a forum specifically set up for him to do so. Why am I not surprised?
Greg and his cronies have the chance to explain, justify and excuse their hatred of women. Come on, Giordana and Tristan, give us your reasons why you know “bitches ain’t shit.”
The key, to me, is tradeoff. If we focus on X, what happens to Y. In your drowning child situation if action to stop the racist abuse is taken the child will likely drown whereas racism would likely continue even if that specific instance was (or could be) corrected. And even if we were to ignore the racist abuse inorder to save the drowning child we could always come back to it (although the victim would still have to suffer that specific instance of racism) and try to minimize or fix whatever damage had been done.
Tis:
What hatred of women?
I presume you don’t mean Stef McGraw or any other woman who has the temerity not to have the same view as Rebecca Watson, or Ophelia, Greta, etc.
So, where exactly is this hatred for women? Oh, and don’t confuse criticism of Rebecca, Ophelia and Greta as “hatred” for ALL women. Stop dealing in generalisations.
It does seem unreasonable to me. What kind of friend chides their friend about their tastes or the texture they like their food to be? It just screams “lack of empathy” when people do that. If it were said in a way that was more of a friendly jab, then I’d probably find it reasonable, however.
Did I say anything to you or about you, Phil?
Phil, I was commenting on the multiple balls of santorum that had popped up on this thread, especially that specific one who doesn’t seem to be able to stop obsessing about PZ; I was not referring to you or to John Greg.
I didn’t need to be TOLD that, I could see it plainly from this:
If there’s a point, I can’t even find it through all the violins. Exude some actual rational discussion if that’s what you’re so concerned about.
Phil, I’m sorry to say that it looks to me like you are hopelessly lost.
Just google it, Phil.
The issue of “there are more important bad things happening” is quite complex; at least I think so.
I can think of examples where this is reasonable:
A child is drowning, and on your way to save her you witness some racist abuse.
I’d say in this situation you should not even remotely care about the racism – you should concentrate all of your efforts to save the drowning child.
…and where it is not:
A friend recently lost their father. You tell them to stop mourning, as many Syrians are recently mourning their WHOLE family.
This seems heartless and unreasonable to me.
Now, in the first case you can do something about it, and in the second you cannot. Is that really the difference though? What about this:
A friend gets upset because their steak is a bit chewy, and demands a new one. You remind them that there are some in the world who vainly struggle to find enough food to stay alive.
Now, in this case you aren’t in a position to help those who die of starvation, but reminding your friend of this fact doesn’t seem to me to be unreasonable.
So, my question is, what are the necessary conditions for us to reasonably say “there are more important bad things to worry about”?
What are the underlying issues in this conversation? It seems to have deteriorated into various flavors of name calling, again. Is this nothing more than a gang war with two sides banging away at each other for no reason except their respective shibboleths?
Back at the beginning it seemed like maybe Jason and John Greg were going to get a rational conversation going, but that didn’t last long. Should we back up to the last point where we were on track and try again? Or is this just hopeless?
Yeah, everybody who read the thread already knew that. Protip, not directed to anyone in particular: if you act like a thread-hijacker, don’t accuse people who point it out of trying to make you look like a thread-hijacker.
Take responsibility for the fact that people have independently reached that judgment.
Unless, of course, you are arguing in bad faith. If that’s the case, you’d do better to act all butthurt, accuse people of poisoning the well, and run like hell.
–Stacy
(from work)
He has nothing to do with this thread. Nothing. Now, please, do your homework and stop derailing the thread!
Tis Himself:
“Greg and his cronies have the chance to explain, justify and excuse their hatred of women. Come on, Giordana and Tristan, give us your reasons why you know “bitches ain’t shit.””
I don’t even know where to start. Seriously. Would your fucking higness care to show where John, myself, or our “cronies” ever explicitely stated that “bitches ain’t shit.”? Aside from quotemines?