tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post8473366301416444533..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: The misogyny warsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger210125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-16548849539660460222014-03-01T16:59:14.481-05:002014-03-01T16:59:14.481-05:00My first comment will be , this is good.My first comment will be , this is good.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16316194766279333609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-59144268041727134012012-07-24T14:18:05.748-04:002012-07-24T14:18:05.748-04:00What I can't seem to wrap my mind around is th...What I can't seem to wrap my mind around is that so <i>many</i> people are happy to defend the policy based on their perception of its intent rather than what it actually <i>says</i>, including several commenters who in other circumstances and on other blog networks vehemently decry this very thing. <br /><br />Intent is not magic and words have meanings, as one often hears.<br /><br />Let's compare this briefly to the Canadian airline regulation that prevented passengers from boarding aircraft if their gender presentation did not match their legal ID. Despite the fact that it practice no one could show the regulation to have resulted in a trans* person being prevented from boarding an aircraft, the regulation was objectionable precisely because of its language technically required it (whether intended or not on the part of lawmakers). Points were made that the existence of this regulation, even if unenforced, could have a chilling effect on trans* people travelling by air.<br /><br />This policy is a poor one not because of how it is enforced or intended, but because of what it unambiguously <i>states</i>, i.e. that all touching requires explicit verbal permission. Even its staunchest defenders here say it doesn't really mean that, so why not just alter the language so it reflects intent and the reality of enforcement? Saying it's fine to leave it as is despite the fact that it fails on this count is obvious heel-digging on the part of those defending it.<br /><br />PS. I am not equating these two situations on a moral level, just that they involve similar instances of regulatory language that exceeds the intent and enforcement of regulators.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72196144297654687592012-07-20T18:40:29.154-04:002012-07-20T18:40:29.154-04:00Hey, cupcake, you kinda make my stomach turn...the...Hey, cupcake, you kinda make my stomach turn...the white male privilege in you is strong, maybe you could work on it. <br /><br />Stop dehumanizing women. If you want to hug us ASK first. What the fuck is so wrong about that? You want to get rid of harassment policies because men have to ask before they touch a women? OMG! Women aren't just fuckable sex toys! You may not be a rape enabler yet, but you really are getting close.<br />Why not get rid of all laws because you don't agree with the details? Ugh.Emilyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17431668440099114393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-85254999672877260442012-07-20T03:20:52.422-04:002012-07-20T03:20:52.422-04:00Frank B, bulls in china shops tip toe around the c...Frank B, bulls in china shops tip toe around the china, I saw it in Mythbusters, and men can do the same around women if they are unsure.<br /><br />Triple Dot, I like the way you write more than anyone else in this post, but I'm still getting to grips with it. Might reply more, later.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17837568151923071332012-07-18T21:10:08.565-04:002012-07-18T21:10:08.565-04:00Skeptical principles insist on evidence and analys...Skeptical principles insist on evidence and analysis which is the stuff of science. Science is best with quantifiable outcome variables. It becomes less useful as your ability to test declines. Consider that scientific and rational arguments have been abused to support all sorts of social and political positions. <br /><br />The modern humanist outlook, which I suspect we share, may be wonderful, useful and valid in our world - but it does not come from science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40453603548796720182012-07-18T20:44:08.130-04:002012-07-18T20:44:08.130-04:00Interesting. I guess we've been lucky at the a...Interesting. I guess we've been lucky at the atheist/agnostic organization I belong too in the US -- although, having moved to the other side of the world, I don't attend anymore. We started it, in late 2004, I believe, as an offshoot of the whole "Brights" thing -- not long after the start we abandoned that label. Anyway, what I wanted to say was that we never had a problem, or even discussions, about women. From the beginning we had women there, and it was never an issue. I have an impression that they actually might be majority at most of our monthly discussion meetings (which have from 15 to 30 people, depending on the popularity of the theme). The current president is a woman, as is the secretary/treasurer.<br /><br />Actually our "can of worm" is the non-presence of "non-Whites", more pointedly blacks. And that we have discussed and wondered about. Very few atheist black people have ever showed up for our meetings, and when they do it is usually just once, and never to be seen again... We have no clue why.J. Marcelo Alveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09967299561849915314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-36487519014805370302012-07-18T13:28:10.538-04:002012-07-18T13:28:10.538-04:00Wow. I have been watching this conversation in the...Wow. I have been watching this conversation in the atheist community for a while now, and I am just amazed at our apparent inability to communicate effectively about privilege when it occurs in our own circles. For a bunch of relatively smart, nice people, we have dropped the ball on this one. <br /><br />Harassment occurs. Inappropriate behavior occurs. It occurs a lot more than many of the comments above would seem to indicate. If you've never been the target of this kind of behavior and you make sure you have permission (verbal or otherwise) to touch or sexually proposition a woman before actually doing so, why would you care about a policy that is designed to clarify that this is the accepted behavior? You're already doing it. Good for you. But the fact of the matter is that people already feel alienated and unwelcome (and sometimes even unsafe) at some of these conferences, which I think already does a lot to "to chill human relations, to make the gatherings less enjoyable, and to undermine a sense of community." Do you really think so little of your female counterparts that you are concerned they would cry "harassment!" if you held out your hand to be shaken and she took it, just because there was no verbal exchange stating that it was ok? This sounds, to me, as if you are saying, "we know women are often harassed and made to feel unwelcome in our group gatherings, but we think it's more important that we don't open the door to allowing them to be unreasonable about whether or not they feel harassed." <br /><br />Guess what? You're already where you seem to be saying you don't want to go. It's such a non-issue to me, I'm just baffled about the blow-up. Try the policy if it will make women feel better about attending, and see how it goes. It's not written in stone. And it's very difficult to see how it could possibly make things worse, since the issue has already completely divided the community.Sarahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18397642111968115893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65645382016202434752012-07-18T11:34:28.346-04:002012-07-18T11:34:28.346-04:00Jason,
this is obviously completely a side thread...Jason,<br /><br />this is obviously completely a side thread, but really? How would a man (or a woman) let another human being (of the same or opposite sex) that s/he is interested in her/him? Telepathically?<br /><br />Yes, most people do correctly estimate the likelihood that an advance will be welcome / unwelcome, but there will always be a certain amount of error involve in such estimates. The normal thing to do if an advance is indeed unwelcome is to apologize and move on. No harm done, right?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89618003722447866802012-07-18T11:32:12.382-04:002012-07-18T11:32:12.382-04:00In even more fairness, he wasn't impeached at ...In even more fairness, he wasn't impeached at all.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17998514590229672052012-07-18T11:00:17.708-04:002012-07-18T11:00:17.708-04:00(shrug) There are ways to look for companionship t...(shrug) There are ways to look for companionship that don't involve making unwelcome advances to strangers. Unfortunately, not everyone is savvy enough to know what is or isn't appropriate or what will or will not make someone uncomfortable.Jason Heavensrunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11019670207512666459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-16823733996631513672012-07-18T10:54:29.507-04:002012-07-18T10:54:29.507-04:00In fairness, he wasn't impeached for the blowj...In fairness, he wasn't impeached for the blowjob, he was impeached for lying to congress about it.Jason Heavensrunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11019670207512666459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-56962990030773694752012-07-18T09:35:17.304-04:002012-07-18T09:35:17.304-04:00"No. They criminalize physically harmful beha..."No. They criminalize physically harmful behavior"<br /><br />No, actually. The contact doesn't have to be physically harmful, just offensive.<br /><br />"the accused get to confront evidence against them in court, there is a judge who isn't part of their close community, etc."<br /><br />And the same goes for conferences, unless you think someone will be evicted for brushing up against me in passing.<br /><br />Thanks for admitting you had no point in saying anti-harassment policies don't prevent harassment.<br /><br />"I read a post showing where it came from - a successful policy that had its limiting clauses obviously, ostentatiously excised."<br /><br />So the answer to my question is "no".<br /><br />I took the liberty of contacting Dave Silverman of American Atheists to ask him if Kazez or Blackford (both of whom wrote criticisms of the AA policy) contacted his organisation to provide feedback so AA could adapt their policy. Again, the answer was "no".<br />Funny, since one of the criticisms these they voiced of the people they refer to as "FTBullies" is that they just write blog posts and don't do anything constructive.<br /><br />"due to incompetence, malice, leftist victim favoritism, stupidity, failure to think ahead, or some other deficiency"<br /><br />Thanks for showing your true colours.Magicthighshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09033533069813329577noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63755480887335037072012-07-18T08:17:22.353-04:002012-07-18T08:17:22.353-04:00Melody,
I'm not sure what I am supposed to ap...Melody,<br /><br />I'm not sure what I am supposed to apologize for. Did you miss my clarification? Here it is again:<br /><br />P.P.S.: Since it's clear from early comments that the point of my P.S. wasn't clear, I am clarifying it now. I meant the above as an example of the sort of trolling that goes on in these instances and is entirely unhelpful to a reasonable debate. I did NOT believe that I was going to be branded a rape apologist and be banned from discussion groups.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18692838123584915332012-07-18T07:36:10.718-04:002012-07-18T07:36:10.718-04:00"I suggest remaining on friendly terms--and i..."I suggest remaining on friendly terms--and if a man finds himself interested in a woman-- let her make the first move."<br /><br />This is great advice for anyone who wants to stay single forever.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07890247476626589820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77109027398001724592012-07-17T23:11:48.359-04:002012-07-17T23:11:48.359-04:00I understand why that happens now, but I'm at ...<i>I understand why that happens now, but I'm at a loss to figure out what to do about it.</i><br /><br />I expect it is frequently the case of the tail of self-righteous anger wagging the dog of rational discourse ... <br /><br />Not that knowing that does much to alleviate the symptoms or causes. Although I find that, periodically and in some cases at least, pointing out the self-indulgent nature of the beast tends, mixing metaphors, to take the wind out of their sails ....Steersmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472826917686907104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42009134654848785082012-07-17T23:01:44.664-04:002012-07-17T23:01:44.664-04:00People might be interested in this YouTube video f...People might be interested in this YouTube video from 2007 on hugging in schools. It describes “two recent news stories of students being disciplined or held in detention for hugging a friend”. The bottom line of the blurb is:<br /><br /><i>These stories are yet another example of the flawed sexual harassment policies that permeate all levels of American education.</i><br /><br />I thought one of the panelists made a sensible observation [at 00:57]: “Zero tolerance almost always means zero sense.”<br /><br />Improperly thought-out rules frequently tend to be the proverbial cures worse than the disease. <br /><br />[YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeOpcE-o0vo]Steersmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472826917686907104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61570452227475705852012-07-17T22:24:06.383-04:002012-07-17T22:24:06.383-04:00Ugh, I meant to point out, and I mean to be better...Ugh, I meant to point out, and I mean to be better at this, that the 'plight' of having privilege is no plight at all in comparison to being unprivileged. Definitely first-world-problem territory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-31726459210883888782012-07-17T22:22:29.845-04:002012-07-17T22:22:29.845-04:00Also, Massimo, I did read your whole post, and I v...Also, Massimo, I did read your whole post, and I very much appreciate it, especially the idea that having privilege does not automatically preclude someone from speaking intelligently about issues facing the unprivileged. Certainly it's harder, but it can be very frustrating to work very hard at doing so, only to have your thoughts dismissed out of hand.<br /><br />Because I don't spend my days in the feminist blogosphere, I think I avoid dealing with a lot of MRAs. The more blog posts that I read about this subject, the more I encounter, and they are, to put it bluntly, infuriating. They're as bad as the worst presuppositional apologists; the shifting goalposts, the unfounded assertions posing as questions, the nitpicking and derailing...<br /><br />If I had to deal with that on a regular basis, I can see where my ability to discern friend from foe would quickly deteriorate. So many people who deny that the concept of privilege exists, or that misogyny is vastly more common than misandry, sound reasonable at first. <br /><br />I used to wonder why it was that when I criticized small but real missteps in feminist reasoning or policy, like the AA policy, other commenters suddenly started treating me like a rape-apologist. It takes pages of posts to get to a point where they start acknowledging the actual arguments that I've put forward instead of straw-men.<br /><br />I understand why that happens now, but I'm at a loss to figure out what to do about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-55009747086091972152012-07-17T22:22:11.871-04:002012-07-17T22:22:11.871-04:00What I said applies to the criticisms I have read ...What I said applies to the criticisms I have read about sexual harassment policies. I am not going to name names except that Jean's blog wasn't one of them, as I didn't read it. I was not lashing out at you. I was disappointed with one sentence you wrote and I was hoping for a clarification or apology.Melodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10442764146995748273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90754573005373805912012-07-17T22:12:01.492-04:002012-07-17T22:12:01.492-04:00jrhs, Frank,
I think Massimo's point is that ...jrhs, Frank,<br /><br />I think Massimo's point is that it's hard to come up with a reasonable scenario when abiding by this rule would provide measurable comfort and protection for women.<br /><br />First of all, let's read the actual wording in question:<br /><br />"You are encouraged to ask for unequivocal consent for all activities during the conference. No touching other people without asking."<br /><br />Taken at even a reasonable reading, you would, necessarily, need explicit permission to shake hands. I think that everyone agrees that that outcome is not the intended result of the rule, so let's rephrase to eliminate that ambiguity..? Now you're starting to get into the tall weeds.<br /><br />Let me put it a different way: there are already social rules for engaging in a handshake or not. There are already good social rules for engaging in a hug or not (i.e. the "wanna hug?" open-armed gesture etc.). There are already good social rules for most kinds of physical contact, like tapping someone on the shoulder to get their attention if they can't here you. The question to proponents of the above wording is this: What is the use-case? Where will this rule apply where current standards of behavior fail?<br /><br />e.g. We already have laws prohibiting people from being on private property without permission. Do we need an additional law prohibiting parking on private property without explicit permission?<br /><br />Instead lets take a step back and consider what it is that a harassment policy needs to accomplish:<br /><br />1) Clearly spell out unacceptable behavior and its consequences<br />2) Explain the harassment reporting process<br /><br />If you take a look at the CfI's harassment policy, you'll notice that it does just this: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/pages/policy_on_harassment_at_conferences<br /><br />The Secular Student Alliance's policy does the same, and by all accounts their recent conference was harassment-free and personal-comfort-full.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19919096129538982312012-07-17T22:02:32.718-04:002012-07-17T22:02:32.718-04:00...,
well, we may be reaching the point of dimini......,<br /><br />well, we may be reaching the point of diminishing returns here.<br /><br />> it serves to dismiss the validity of women's complaints as being not as important. No, harassment doesn't compare to murder. Neither does theft. <<br /><br />Nobody is trying to dismiss women's complaints, but hugging rises to the level of harassment only under very unusual circumstance, and it is significantly different from other crimes, from rape to theft to murder. There are important distinctions to be made.<br /><br />> So now we're left with this hugging policy, one which has been demonstrated as moot for those who do not cause harm. <<br /><br />We have explicitly stated what the potent problem with the policy is: to chill human relations, to make the gatherings less enjoyable, and to undermine a sense of community. That's pretty concrete. Do we have empirical evidence of this? No, nobody has done any study of atheist conventions that I know. But by the same token also all the talk about hugs being a problem is rather empirically vacuous.<br /><br />Melody,<br /><br />> I haven't read your post, Jean. I have read the opinions of those who irrationally criticized Rebecca Watson for saying something rather innocuous and followed their abuse of her and others throughout the year. <<br /><br />I find this rather bizarre and disappointing. So you (and Rebecca, unfortunately) are saying that you lashed out at Jean, Russell and me because what we wrote could be misused by others for irrational purposes? Wow. Whatever happened to considering arguments on their own merits? Or recognizing that people who agree with you in the great scheme of things may actually disagree on the details, specific applications or tactics to be deployed?<br /><br />More generally, I find it interesting that so many people on this thread focused on (and argued vehemently about) the "no hugs" issue, which in fact was only mentioned in passing in a postscript to the main post. I do wander what people think of my main points, or even whether they've read the darn thing.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-43778592605556563002012-07-17T21:58:56.223-04:002012-07-17T21:58:56.223-04:00Melody, Thanks for your reply, but in his July 16 ...Melody, Thanks for your reply, but in his July 16 4:53 comment, Massimo reminds you that he's talking about AA's "ask before you touch" policy, and that he's agreeing with what Russell says about it. What's the point of saying "any talk" you've seen from critics of harassment policies is from people "who have made a hobby of trying to hurt these women", when Massimo is explicitly presenting you with a new critic, someone he's recommending as "thoughtful"? Why keep your focus on these misogynistic haters of Rebecca? Naturally, I assumed you had looked at the post being discussed here, half of which is about my own post. But OK, you didn't. I guess, then, case closed.Jean Kazezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06297159994901018071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39927797387093350032012-07-17T21:51:33.306-04:002012-07-17T21:51:33.306-04:00Frank B,
You are right that you didn't say th...Frank B,<br /><br /><i>You are right that you didn't say the problem doesn't exist, but that comes pretty damn close.</i><br /><br />Looks to me like you – and others here – have your thumbs on the scales. Massimo has said repeatedly, in various ways, that:<br /><br /><i>(I hope it’s clear that I’m talking about actual borderline cases, not instances of men brazenly groping women in public, or making threats of rape via Twitter.)</i><br /><br />Doesn’t look to me much like any assertion that “the problem doesn’t exist”.<br /><br /><i>The comments of people who have experienced harassment is the key to understanding. There are a lot of women who do not want to be touched. Policies need to reflect that.</i><br /><br />Nor is he denying that some “have experienced harassment”:<br /><br /><i>But I take it the relentless attacks [Rebecca Watson] has been subjected to lately have taken a bit of a toll.<br /><br />But reading the comments of some major figures ... it’s clear to me that there is a problem.</i><br /><br />Looks to me like the policy that you and others have in mind is one that you think would, supposedly or potentially, address the problem of “men brazenly groping women in public” while his concern – and that of others including, apparently, various feminists – is that that policy – at least as it was written for the AA – is likely to be unworkable for any number of reasonable reasons.<br /><br />Just insisting on that policy without addressing those potential problems doesn’t look like a reasonable way forward. Although the CFI alternative suggested, as good as it appears to be, may have a few problems of its own – devil in the details and all of that ....Steersmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472826917686907104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-66280494108127969072012-07-17T21:10:17.837-04:002012-07-17T21:10:17.837-04:00SallyStrange,
I will also note that your conflati...SallyStrange,<br /><br /><i>I will also note that your conflation of "men" with "people who criticize feminism" reveals your own prejudices.</i><br /><br />Gosh, I didn’t think they were showing .... But seriously, apart from the fact that I don’t see what your “people who criticize feminism” is actually referring to, I really don’t see how you can reach that conclusion as the closest candidate – “some men have justifiable arguments against feminist dogma” – was anything but a categorical statement: it referred to <b>some</b> men, not all of them; nor did it exclude <b>some</b> women. Maybe a bias in play there? <br /><br /><i>Men can be sexists, men can be feminists. Women can be sexists, and women can be feminists.</i> <br /><br />So. Men – and women – are either sexists or feminists? Seems that would be a rather narrow way of looking at things – somewhat suggestive of the highly problematic “you’re with us or you’re against us” .... And maybe even suggestive of “gender feminism” ...Steersmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472826917686907104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-80154754696418469942012-07-17T20:24:46.535-04:002012-07-17T20:24:46.535-04:00Massimo said, "I have been in countless socia...Massimo said, "I have been in countless social situations, both at and outside of conventions, and I haven't seen a single example of the problem the AA policy is supposed to address."<br /><br />You are right that you didn't say the problem doesn't exist, but that comes pretty damn close. When women want to make nice and avoid confrontation, of what use are your experiences? The comments of people who have experienced harassment is the key to understanding. There are a lot of women who do not want to be touched. Policies need to reflect that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com