|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 01/18/2013 : 23:43:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
If there was a hypothetical world where there was no sexual prejudice, discrimination or history of it... would it STILL be sexist to say "It's a guy thing". Or could we then perhaps just consider the possibility that biologically men are generally more inclined towards certain things? |
If everything were truly equal as far as opportunity and social status were concerned, then "it's a guy thing" would only apply to scientifically demonstrable differences. Having a penis is "a guy thing" (mostly), for example, and so the phrase becomes boring and clinical, at best.
Of course, there is no data to support Shermer's use of the phrase in the context in which he used it. There are plenty of activist, thinking, female skeptics/atheists, and there have been no studies done to compare their raw population numbers to those of similarly attributed men. Instead, we get idiots calling two (only two!) women and generalizing fully half (according to Shermer) the movement based on their responses. I can't :headdesk enough for that one.
But the really unbelievable part of the whole thing is that Shermer was asked why he thinks men are over-represented as speakers and activists within our community, and "it's a guy thing" doesn't actually answer that question, because the question really was "why is it a 'guy thing'?" Shermer was, in the most charitable light possible, being tautological and thus non-responsive. At worst, he was being a purposefully sexist ass.
Ophelia Benson chose a middle ground, attributing Shermer's folly to a probably unconscious bias; a societally reinforced stereotype. And for that mild criticism, he compared her to Hitler. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2013 : 23:47:59 [Permalink]
|
| So if you suspect something to have a sexual bias but have no hard evidence, it's sexist to utter that thought? |
 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2013 : 10:39:15 [Permalink]
|
It is true that women going to and speaking at skeptical conferences have been under-represented. It is not true that there haven't been efforts by the leading skeptical organizations to reach out to woman. Even DJ was dismayed at a drop in female registration at TAM before he cast about for blame. He went off in the wrong direction.
There isn't close to a male and female even split on skeptic forums. And we have often wondered why? SFN has never displayed any sexism on the part of its administrators. I'm confident in saying that we don't write nasty letters to women who leave our forum and we don't blame them for keeping woman away, and the women here are treated as equals. So what is it?
Michelle told me when I pressed her on why she doesn't post more, that she isn't interested in the daily debate. She is more interested in the big picture. She would rather write articles and do book reviews than take part debating with everyone she thinks has it wrong. Anecdotal? Yes. But perhaps not uncommon. In the context of a skeptic forum, saying "it's a guy thing" might not be so off the mark. What I do know with confidence is that woman are underrepresented on our forum. Perhaps I should point out that one of the co-founders of SFN was a woman. She left too. I have wondered if the debates that we have are just too testosterone driven? I dunno. Michelle is no shrinking violet, and can take care of herself. And yet she's not interested debating on a forum level.
I'm not giving Shermer a pass here. He had a chance to clarify is remark, and went off in a direction that was more about blaming others for reacting to his comments in the way they did than offering any support for why he would say such a thing. He doubled down. That is not the skeptical way. And yet the Skeptic Sociaty has shown no sexism. There are plenty of articles by women in their magazine, and many of those women are regular speakers at skeptical events.
On one hand, Dawkin's made a hugely unwarranted attack on Rebecca Watson's reasonable request. On the other, his organization funded child care at TAM so that more women could attend. And I know some women personally who were able to attend because of that. I don't know how his mind works, but somehow those two things, in his mind, were not in conflict with each other.
I'm somewhat perplexed by the whole thing. Are their assholes in the skeptical movement? Are there assholes in the atheist movement? Yeah! We know there are. Do they represent the larger movement? No. I don't think so. They sure don't make us look good, but I think they are in the vast minority of those active in our movements. But when they make threats against Surly Amy or Rebecca Watson and others, they have no place here.
There has been a lot of talk about the "old guard." Old white men who started these movements. But I don't see the sexism among them. To Paul Kurtz, sexism would have been unthinkable in his promotion of humanistic ideals. The same goes for Randi, Sagan, Asimov, Hyman, Gardner and so on. Old white men for sure, but not a sexist clique. As far as I know, they were all progressives in their thinking.
There are many more women playing active rolls in the movements now, and they have been actively pursued and promoted as speakers at our conventions. From TAM to CFI to any of the cons, they are there in numbers. So what's going on? Who are these people pushing back and why? For the most part, even though serious mistakes have been made, I pretty much don't agree that it's the real leaders of our movements. And the mistakes that I speak of seem to be mostly ego driven and not because of some institutionalized sexism coming from the top. The terrible messages that Amy gets aren't coming from the leaders, many of whom are woman now. Who the fuck are they, how does a movement control those who have no clue, and how have they gotten it so completely wrong?
From where I sit, too many people are painting with too broad a brush. (Both sides will deny it, of course.) If I listen to, or we link to Skepticality, am I really endorsing Shermer's views? If I link to an article that I find of value from the FtB am I really supporting an enemy of the skeptical movement as some believe it to be?
I'm a skeptical activist. It used to be fun to be a skeptical activist. Lately, it hasn't been. I'll still do it because I am what I am, and I think it's important. On the other hand, I have found that my idealism and my activities are feeling a lot like a chore, in large part because of all of the contention, and I'm getting perilously close to burning out.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2013 : 11:19:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
So if you suspect something to have a sexual bias but have no hard evidence, it's sexist to utter that thought?
|
In a cultural vacuum? Maybe not. In the culture in which we currently find ourselves in, the one in which women have been systematically oppressed, disenfranchised, and marginalized on basis of nothing more than ignorant stereotypes passed on as "common sense?"
Yes, it's sexist to be a part of perpetuating that imbalance on nothing more than unfounded speculation.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/19/2013 11:21:42 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2013 : 11:36:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Then we are in agreement: The bigots and asshats should be told to shut-the-fuck-up unless they have something productive to say. |
Yes. Like Michael Shermer who, while now tripling-down on a sexist remark he made a while back, has equated being criticized on the Internet with being hauled off to the concentration camps. Poor, persecuted Shermer. |
Yes, poor Shermer.
I lost my respect for him when he was peddling libertarianism as scientific.
I haven't had until now to dig deeper into this issue.
I think this particular part of the train-wreck (which came into full bloom/boom with Elevator-gate), started with the video of Atheist Q & A (around the 12minute mark).
Responding to Cara Santa Maria's comments about having a hard time to find women atheists to come to this show, Michael Shermer said "it's more of a guy thing".
Ophelia Benson ran with that: sure, "a guy thing" that's sexist.
Did Shermer use hyperbolic language and analogies in his response? Yes. Was it wise to do so? No. Should he have left them out? Abso-friggin'-lutely.
In the few seconds on the video which Ophelia refers to, Shermer also said "I think it probably really is fifty-fifty" and also mentioned latest TAM as an example where there were as many female speakers as men just to point out that they are out there. He also explained this in his piece at Secular Humanism.
Nothing of this was mentioned by Ophelia, only that Shermer paraphrasingly said "It’s all there—women don’t do thinky, they don’t speak up, they don’t talk at conferences, they don’t get involved—it’s “a guy thing,” like football and porn and washing the car."
I can't speak on Ophelia's true intentions since I can't read her mind. But it sure seems to me that she is out to nail Shermer's ass on the wall right next to Thunderfoot and Richard Dawkins, and is ready to lie by ommission to do it.
So, which is worse? A display of poor judgement by using unessesary hyperbole in his defence, or misrepresenting someone by lying by ommission and not leaving something open for the benefit of the doubt?
Of course Shermer gets defensive when attacked like that. I probably would too.
Having his probably-unconscious bias exposed in a magazine article and being criticized in a blog post for his public reaction to that exposure is just exactly like being dragged from his home, tortured and gassed.  My heart bleeds. |
My heart bleeds too, because I don't think Shermer deserved the hatchet-job he got.
Michael Shermer needed, a while back, to do nothing more than clarify his original meaning and perhaps apologize, but now he really, really needs to shut the fuck up.
|
As with all cluster-fucks, once the dust settles, everyone needs to share the blame.
As for Ophelia Benson, she definitly lost my respect when she sacrificed her integrity to score rhetorical points in the he-versus-she-war, especially since I considered Shermer more of a mostly-innocent bystander rather than an active combatant in the sex-war.
They came for Richard Dawkins, then they came for Thunderf00t, then they came for Sam Harris.
And now Ophelia came after Shermer, and I can understand why he get this weird feeling about it. I sense a historical analogy lurking around the corner, without the need for someone invoking a Goodwin's...
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2013 : 13:08:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Nothing of this was mentioned by Ophelia, only that Shermer paraphrasingly said "It’s all there—women don’t do thinky, they don’t speak up, they don’t talk at conferences, they don’t get involved—it’s “a guy thing,” like football and porn and washing the car."
I can't speak on Ophelia's true intentions since I can't read her mind. But it sure seems to me that she is out to nail Shermer's ass on the wall right next to Thunderfoot and Richard Dawkins, and is ready to lie by ommission to do it. |
Ophelia's article wasn't really about Shermer, though. It's about stereotypes that hurt women:
| 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. |
Shermer just happened to provide her with a perfect example to illustrate her point. When she says "It’s all there...," she's talking about the hidden assumptions contained within the stereotype itself. "...women don’t do thinky, they don’t speak up, they don’t talk at conferences, they don’t get involved—it’s “a guy thing."
Whether Shermer himself, as an individual, consciously thinks or believes any of these things is entirely irrelevant. Ophelia was pointing out what was problematic about his statement, not his character. Which is precisely why Ophelia had no obligation to present a "balanced" summary of the entirety of Shermer's views about women. The article wasn't about Shermer, it was about stereotypes.
The only person who made this about Shermer's character is Shermer himself. He was the one who decided that he couldn't disavow his statement without suffering some sort of loss to his reputation. He's the one who can't separate being criticized for perpetuating a harmful stereotype from having his personal integrity impugned. No one was out to "nail him." A bigger person would have simply acknowledged their error and moved on by now. Shermer took on the persecution pose all by himself. He nailed himself to that cross he finds himself on.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/19/2013 13:58:39 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2013 : 18:01:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Nothing of this was mentioned by Ophelia, only that Shermer paraphrasingly said "It’s all there—women don’t do thinky, they don’t speak up, they don’t talk at conferences, they don’t get involved—it’s “a guy thing,” like football and porn and washing the car." |
None of it was relevant to Benson's article.| I can't speak on Ophelia's true intentions since I can't read her mind. |
Why not read the posts she's written?| But it sure seems to me that she is out to nail Shermer's ass on the wall... |
Considering she only mentioned the "it's a guy thing" comment as an example of sexist stereotyping in a couple of paragraphs in a much larger article that wasn't about Shermer, she obviously set out to do no such thing.| ...and is ready to lie by ommission to do it. |
You need to read more of what she's written before you make such accusations.| So, which is worse? A display of poor judgement by using unessesary hyperbole in his defence, or misrepresenting someone by lying by ommission and not leaving something open for the benefit of the doubt? |
You're starting to sound like Shermer. What "benefit of the doubt" did she need to leave open? Did you even read Ophelia's piece?| Of course Shermer gets defensive when attacked like that. |
He wasn't "attacked." Good grief, next thing you'll be claiming she dragged him from his house, tortured and gassed him.I certainly hope not. Being "attacked like that" is called being mildly critical.| My heart bleeds too, because I don't think Shermer deserved the hatchet-job he got. |
That he received a hatchet-job is at best a myth, and at worst a lie.| As with all cluster-fucks, once the dust settles, everyone needs to share the blame. |
Not equally. Not at all equally.| As for Ophelia Benson, she definitly lost my respect when she sacrificed her integrity to score rhetorical points in the he-versus-she-war... |
When, precisely did she do that? I thought you said you couldn't read her mind.| ...especially since I considered Shermer more of a mostly-innocent bystander rather than an active combatant in the sex-war. |
And he still is. What he's not, any longer, is an innocent bystander in the realm of full-on Godwins.They came for Richard Dawkins, then they came for Thunderf00t, then they came for Sam Harris.
And now Ophelia came after Shermer... |
Okay, so now you have gone and made the Nazi analogy. Holy fucking shit.| I sense a historical analogy lurking around the corner, without the need for someone invoking a Goodwin's... |
But you just did. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2013 : 18:40:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I'm a skeptical activist. It used to be fun to be a skeptical activist. Lately, it hasn't been. I'll still do it because I am what I am, and I think it's important. On the other hand, I have found that my idealism and my activities are feeling a lot like a chore, in large part because of all of the contention, and I'm getting perilously close to burning out. |
I feel the same way sometimes, but then someone does or says something that makes me angry about sharing the same species with them, much less the same social movement, and I get fired up again and ready to do things. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2013 : 18:47:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
I feel the same way sometimes, but then someone does or says something that makes me angry about sharing the same species with them, much less the same social movement, and I get fired up again and ready to do things.
|
Holy crap! Who are these people? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2013 : 02:37:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
I can't speak on Ophelia's true intentions since I can't read her mind. |
Why not read the posts she's written?| But it sure seems to me that she is out to nail Shermer's ass on the wall... |
Considering she only mentioned the "it's a guy thing" comment as an example of sexist stereotyping in a couple of paragraphs in a much larger article that wasn't about Shermer, she obviously set out to do no such thing.| ...and is ready to lie by ommission to do it. |
You need to read more of what she's written before you make such accusations.
|
I read her article, but obviously I must have read some of it wrong since I came to such a different conclusion about what it meant. It's obvious I need to read it again, and her other articles about it. Question is, do I have the time and the energy to do it? Watching the Elevator-gate train-wreck have been amusing as well as saddening, as I considered myself of the sideline and think that most of the exchange of fire is unnessesary. What I read looked to me like Benson was using a mostly innocent bystander for target practice and/or ammunition, and I felt that was wrong.
I guess I owe Benson a re-read. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/20/2013 : 03:49:42 [Permalink]
|
Great... Now half the pages I want to read at secularhumanism.com are unavailable:
| We're currently experiencing some technical problems, and the site you're seeing right now is a backup from February 2012. We'd like to apologize for the inconvenience. We're working on getting everything back to normal as quickly as possible. |
This will have to wait for some other time when I have time and energy to spare.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2013 : 21:51:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
What I read looked to me like Benson was using a mostly innocent bystander for target practice and/or ammunition, and I felt that was wrong. |
And that was worthy of the anti-Nazi rhetoric?| I guess I owe Benson a re-read. |
The website is back up. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2013 : 12:11:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
What I read looked to me like Benson was using a mostly innocent bystander for target practice and/or ammunition, and I felt that was wrong. |
And that was worthy of the anti-Nazi rhetoric? |
No it wasn't. It was a large jug of over-reaction, which seems to be par for the course these days. It just makes me weary. I shouldn't have bothered entering the discussion at all, but let the people who are passionate about it dish it out to their heart's content. If you go out of your way looking for misogeny you're bound to find something sooner or later.
Edit:
I've re-read the article you linked to and it looks like a complaint against latent sexism that permeates the society. The thing is, I don't recognize the image she is painting. Granted, I'm obviously male and some feminists (I don't know about Benson) would say this disqualifies me from being an observer of sexism toward women. But I don't see this inequality where I live. But then, the country I live in is fairly socially developed.
Her part about Shermer was only a small part, but I still think she was misrepresenting him and used him for target practice and/or ammunition. And I still think she did it wrong.
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.
Shermer never said women are stupid. He didn't even imply it, as I read it. In fact he did note that the men/women ratio is closer to 50-50, and used TAM 2012 speaker list as an example.
And if Shermer is wrong, why aren't there more women on SFN?
Does Ophelia Benson have any explanations to offer why there weren't any women in the panel at The Point? Or here?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 01/24/2013 12:50:02 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2013 : 14:30:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
And if Shermer is wrong, why aren't there more women on SFN?
Does Ophelia Benson have any explanations to offer why there weren't any women in the panel at The Point? Or here? |
The American Secular Census points to one significant cause:
| Regardless of gender, all respondents who are or have been involved in the secular movement are asked: Have you ever felt unwelcome, discriminated against, or harmed in the secular movement? Women outnumber men 62%/34% in responding “Yes.” It is worth noting that women do not outnumber men when asked the same question about religious organizations with which they’ve been associated. It appears they are less comfortable in secular groups than in the churches they left. |
This is a problem. The skeptical community needs to take a real hard look itself and ask what they can do to change this. PZ lays out our options: | This is what a lot of us have been saying for quite some time. You have a choice of a few responses to reality: one is to deny it, one is to implicitly approve it, and one is to try and change it. |
I know which group I want to stand with.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Fighting back
