I posted earlier today about the difference in gender representation in academia and among school children. A few of the boys in the comments section were critical about either the way I chose to frame my remarks or the importance of the question, en face.
But, this is not the only place in my life I am watching an Isis-induced discourse between men on how we discuss issues of equality/harassment/the advancement of women. It's interesting to me to watch men discuss these issues. Dialoging about how to keep the discourse civil and productive. Having discussions about how women could communicate more effectively if they were only more civil, provided more concrete examples, and attempted to include men equally in the conversation.
Figure 1: Scolding for not keeping the feminist discourse more civil
But these repeated discussions on how to keep the discourse civil, discussions in which women cannot participate with equity, are ridiculous. It's easy to consider a civil discourse when you've never had your ass grabbed by a colleague, been called "young lady" in front of your peers, or been asked about your reproductive plans. It's easy to ask the participants to be calm, and minimize profanity, when you don't have to keep in the back of you mind which which men to avoid at a meeting when they've been drinking.
I am confident that, if men were placed in this position, the discourse would be anything but civil. I think there would be open brawling in the streets. And, frankly, I have more respect for a man who will stand up to misogyny with me with a hearty "fuck you" than a man who will tells me he agrees with me, but then also question whether my anger was expressed in a way that contributed to his development.
Comments
I could have my dangly-bit count wrong, but I think we're at ~6 boys talking about how boys should talk about equality/harassment/the advancement of women. There is also one dangly-bit-endowed-whackaloon speaking critically of how you, Isis, have chosen to talk about that topic (but what else do you expect from Uncle Solly The Trolly?).
Now, in other corners of the bloggosphere there are a number of others talking about what works for humans discussing gender deconstruction. But anyone expecting that discussion at this blog is bound to be disappointed. Everyone knows male scientists can't get away with Naughty Monkeys.
Posted by: becca | May 20, 2009 12:44 AM
http://www.historiann.com/lessons-for-girls/
This post reminded me of the one about anger.
Posted by: jc | May 20, 2009 2:16 AM
Gee Dr. Isis, I'm sure Susan B. Anthony never complained about men who gave her helpful suggestions about her tone. Aren't you serious about fighting inequality?
(I just stay out of most of the discussion threads here because the trolls do get me all annoyed and wordy.)
(( And becca, in a just world dudes could totally choose to wear Naughty Monkeys too. ))
Posted by: Peggy | May 20, 2009 2:22 AM
It's easy to consider a civil discourse when you've never had your ass grabbed by a colleague...I am confident that, if men were placed in this position, the discourse would be anything but civil. I think there would be open brawling in the streets.
I suspect you're right. After all, what happens to outed gays in the military just so Jonnie Goodboy Tyler doesn't feel uncomfortable while showering? Civil discourse my ass.
Keep up the good work, Isis.
Posted by: Moses | May 20, 2009 3:37 AM
Civil? We're expected to be civil when facing all kinds of gross inequality and bigotry? What exactly is 'civil' about discriminating against a person for being female? Of course we're going to be angry about it. Responding 'civilly' to behaviour that is the opposite of 'civil', let's face it, isn't going to get us that far. While I don't condone angry reason-immune rants, it's only by showing that yes, we ARE upset by this behaviour, and we ARE going to speak up against it, that we will get anything done about it.
Posted by: Ace | May 20, 2009 4:48 AM
Only? Innteresting.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | May 20, 2009 6:08 AM
This reminds me of one of my favorite Onion articles!
I think you're spot on, Isis. I didn't have time to get into comments on the other thread, and this week I don't think I have the energy to go into that fray, now that I know where the bickering went. So much eye rolling would make me dizzy.
Posted by: volcanista | May 20, 2009 8:26 AM
An honest question:
If it's okay for women to be more aggressive in discussing sexism than would normally be considered "civil discourse" because they have been subjected to sexism and harassment, then does that make it okay for men to do that on behalf of women?
After all, as these men will agree, *they* haven't been subjected to it.
Or is it okay for anyone to discuss any important issue uncivilly? People die in wars, so if I'm talking about war, and Bob disagrees with me, I can call Bob an asshole.
Right?
Posted by: Dave Munger | May 20, 2009 10:06 AM
Depends Dave, is Bob laying out his disagreement with you in cogent, arguable terms, or is he telling you that your opinion doesn't matter because either a)you shouldn't worry your pretty little head about it or b)your opinion is chipping away at his right to an unopposed opinion from the likes of you, you inferior being?
The former, uncivil discourse is not appropriate. The latter? Bob's a fucking asshole.
And yes, I (I couldn't bear to presume to speak for the Goddess on this one) tend to like aggressive men that find sexism as vile as the women do around here.
Posted by: Dr.FabulousShoes | May 20, 2009 10:28 AM
Civility oftentimes seems to be a codeword for "this issue annoys me, and I prefer that you discuss it in a way that neither implicates me in its causes nor implies that I ought to do anything about it". In some cases, it seems to be used to impede any discussion at all.
When people have hurt one another, it is going to be hard to keep that hurt out of discussions. It would be helpful not to do more hurt in discussing it, but sometimes it's part of the package (if I am hurt by the fact that I have hurt my wife, for example, it's a consequence of what I've done and avoiding it while dealing with what I've done isn't possible without ignoring its substance.) If I know what I'm talking about (with the caveat that I don't know everything and certainly haven't experienced everything - someone elses might know more than me), and acknowledge that the people who disagree with me are people and worthy of consideration in their own right, that's all that one can reasonably ask in discussion. If you discuss things worthy of deep emotions and righteous anger, expecting those things not to appear in the discussion is not reasonable. Anger isn't sufficient to solve a problem, either.
I think I'll save my worry about the number of girls driving boys out of science for a time when that appears to have a substantive effect on the number of women scientists actually appearing at the end of the pipeline. I still don't know how to distinguish socially imposed biases on people from expressions of self. I don't know what to do about that.
Posted by: Hap | May 20, 2009 10:45 AM
I think Dr. Isis may have summed up the crux of the disconnect right here. A male showing up in a feminist discussion and blathering about how the discourse affects him only just doesn't get it. It's not about him or his development. It reminds me of the too-common response to discussions of ethnic diversity where the white guy, thinking himself witty and reasonable, asks "But how does Diversity benefit me!?" It doesn't and it's not supposed to, get over yourself. Same with discussions of this kind.
If you'll be so kind as to allow me to ask: is the best place for pro-feminist men in these settings to be in a supportive role? A role where we do not assume to know better than you, nor presume to be defenders or saviors, but more as allies who are there to listen, help, and act as needed.
Posted by: Toaster | May 20, 2009 10:55 AM
Hope I haven't contributed to your feeling negative about the blogosphere this week. Loved this post. You go, girl.
Posted by: msphd | May 20, 2009 12:51 PM
"If you'll be so kind as to allow me to ask: is the best place for pro-feminist men in these settings to be in a supportive role? A role where we do not assume to know better than you, nor presume to be defenders or saviors, but more as allies who are there to listen, help, and act as needed."
If you'll be so kind as to allow me to answer, Toaster: This is a blog where the owner sounds her opinion and the commenters sound theirs. Why your comment has to be supportive or in defense of the blogger just because she is a feminist? Sure, if you agree with her post, support her and defend her position. However, just because it is a feminist blog, doesn't mean that you have to agree with everything she writes. And not agreeing with what she writes doesn't mean that you are a troll, Becca. But of course, Toaster, if it's important for your own image to appear as a profeminist man then, yes, by all means, you better be supportive all the time, defend everything that said feminist blogger says, in short, kiss ass big time.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | May 20, 2009 2:43 PM
Because certain people or institutions have treated a person badly, that person has free reign to be uncivil toward any random person? That's a stupid conclusion.
Save the "fuck you" for the people who earn it, or for situational rants if that's your style, but when dealing with a new person about whom you know nothing, civil is the only appropriate default.
That's got nothing to do with gender equity or feminism or any other issue, it's just part of living among other people.
Basically what #9 said.
Posted by: Spaulding | May 20, 2009 2:57 PM
Sometimes I think that the whole, "you should be more civil" thing is not very far away from the emphasis on nice-ness as a hallmark of femininity.
Posted by: Robin | May 20, 2009 3:07 PM
What I am saying, Dave, is that it is easy to request civility when you have not experienced the shame associated with some of these events. I don't offer anyone carte blanche to be an asshat in every situation, simply because they choose to be. Spaulding in #10 is absurd. Of course acting like an ass in every situation is ridiculous. That said, I think the blanket requirement that civility need always be the norm is also ridiculous and is often requested by people who lack the frame of reference.
I simply offer this as a frame of reference.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | May 20, 2009 3:14 PM
And sometimes it's tactical advice on marketing your position.
Ask yourself the question of who you would want representing your position at a legislative hearing: Eugenie Scott or CPP?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | May 20, 2009 3:35 PM
"Sometimes I think that the whole, "you should be more civil" thing is not very far away from the emphasis on nice-ness as a hallmark of femininity."
There is much truth to that statement. However, there are other factors that contribute to the "less civil" tone in these type of exchanges. Among them are psuedonymity and the decline in women's nice-ness in the general population and especially, among young women. Some old asshats cannot adjust to this change and thus complain about women being uncivil these days. For others, lack of civility in a public forum is simply a distraction.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | May 20, 2009 3:41 PM
Alright, Sol. Now I know you're just being a troll.
I can't imagine how sad your life must be that you continue to come back to a place where you are so unwelcome. Now, knock it off or I'll go back to disemvoweling you for my own amusement.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | May 20, 2009 3:48 PM
"nice-ness as a hallmark of femininity"
*cough* submissive-ness.
DC, how exactly do you "market" calling bullshit on racism? sex harrassment? pay and promotion inequality? lack of childcare options? a white Supreme Court of 8 men + 1 woman?
Posted by: jc | May 20, 2009 4:02 PM
I am always amused to meet scientists who say they think this blog is great, they just wish Isis would clean up her language.
Now, some of these folks truly do watch what they say carefully. I respect them, even though my own vocabulary brings to mind the saying, "Fleet's In!" I try not to use too many offensive terms in their presence, although it is difficult.
What I hate are those who use various 4 letter (and longer) epithets yet think it is wrong, nay uncivil, for a woman to do so. They are hypocritical asshats. I will tell them they are fuckwits, as will the goddess. It is what they need to hear.
Of course, they then just think we're bitches... but I've said enough about that!
Bottom line: if you don't enjoy the heated discussion, don't visit the blog! Don't comment if you don't want someone to call you on your thoughts. And don't tell women we don't understand feminism if you have a penis!
Posted by: Pascale | May 20, 2009 4:18 PM
It reminds me of the too-common response to discussions of ethnic diversity where the white guy, thinking himself witty and reasonable, asks "But how does Diversity benefit me!?" It doesn't and it's not supposed to, get over yourself. Same with discussions of this kind.
Actually, Toaster, diversity *does* benefit the white guy, and feminism is about you, too. Not in the same way that it’s about women, of course, but you should be a part of the conversation. And not just in a supporting role – as yourself. That’s why I think that civility should be the default, until someone proves themselves unworthy of it. This must be the case for any blog that attempts to be more than just a space for women to rant/vent. Whether this is such a blog … well, I have my doubts.
Posted by: Hope | May 20, 2009 4:23 PM
"Alright, Sol. Now I know you're just being a troll."
ss,
ws srs whn sttd my pnn n ths lst cmmnt f mn. Y my nt lk my pnn, y my nt lk m. Nvrthlss, strngly blv n wht hv sttd, whch s tht wmn n gnrl r lss nc thn thy sd t b nd spclly yng wmn. Thr r mny rsns fr t, nt th lst f whch s th fct tht wmn tdy hv mr pwr nd nflnc nd frdm thn thy vr hd bfr. dd nt cmpln bt tht fct, nly sttd t. Ppl n th ntrnt d tk dvntg f thr nnymty t b lss cvl (tht bsrvtn s n n wy ws md t y nd y knw t) nd blv t t b tr. Wht d nt ndrstnd s why y s strngly bjct t my pnns. Y dsgr wth thm, pls rbt thm. Hwvr, smply by sttng tht 'm trll nd by thrtnng t &qt;dsmvwl&qt; m, y'r xhbtng lck f cnfdnc n yr wn mssg. Thr r, n gnrl, mr cmmntrs n yr blg wh dsgr wth my cmmnts thn ths wh d gr wth thm. f th cndtn t b bl t cmmnt n yr blg s t sy nly thngs tht y lk t hr r, s Tstr hs sggstd, t sk y wht rl y wnt m t ply n yr cs d jr thn, fn, 'll stp cmmntng hr.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | May 20, 2009 4:23 PM
Now I am picturing an antiquated grandmother saying "Now Sweetie, you'll catch more flys with honey, so just agree and smile that pretty smile." In a marketing context, I think it might be false advertising.
Posted by: Robin | May 20, 2009 4:26 PM
Trolling, Sol. You're just being a troll.
Now, get back to Drugmonkey's place. He tolerates you there. I have no interest in having you here.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | May 20, 2009 4:28 PM
"Nevertheless, I strongly believe in what I have stated, which is that women in general are less nice than they used to be and especially young women."
Awww. How sweet.
I'm so proud of my generation.
"
And sometimes it's tactical advice on marketing your position."
And sometimes it's both, thus complicating the analysis.
Posted by: becca | May 20, 2009 4:48 PM
"Trolling, Sol. You're just being a troll.
Now, get back to Drugmonkey's place. He tolerates you there. I have no interest in having you here."
Ptfl, jst ptfl.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | May 20, 2009 4:50 PM
Word, Isis.
D00ds, you can't expect to wander into a feminist discussion of gender and science without getting a little puke on your shoes now and then. Even if it's only collateral splatter from that aimed at someone else's shoes. Deal.
Posted by: Zuska | May 20, 2009 4:54 PM
Nature just published an editorial about sexism with a 130+ page article looking into the problem of sexism in research funding in Europe.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7245/full/459299a.html
Posted by: Moses | May 20, 2009 4:55 PM
Nevertheless, I strongly believe in what I have stated, which is that women in general are less nice than they used to be and especially young women.
Works for me. I for one welcome this neuvo brand of women, especially young women. One of the myriad things I love about my sweetheart, is her ability to be almost as much of an asshole as I am.
The notion of a women smiling demurely when some wad says something blatantly offensive, because that's just what's expected of her makes me want to vomit a little in my mouth. Sometimes - often times, a great big "go fuck yourself with sandpaper" is the only appropriate response.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 20, 2009 5:01 PM
Z, FTW!
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | May 20, 2009 5:03 PM
test
Posted by: Danimal | May 20, 2009 5:37 PM
By building sympathy for the victims. MLK wisely held the young men back in the march on Selma, so that when the vanguard reached the police lines it was women and children, holding hands, approaching an armed and armored line of men -- who then beat the shit out of peaceful, nonthreatening people doing nothing remotely illegal, all with the cameras rolling.
Don't give them a chance to spin things their way. Make sure that you define the terms of engagement: "Framing." If you define the questions wisely, it doesn't matter which answers people come up with.
Just about every powerful male has a mother, sister, wife, daughter, etc. Put the question in terms of "would you want this to happen to her?" and you have a potential ally.
You don't have to sleep with your allies; washing your hands after you have to shake theirs may be necessary. Puking on their shoes is best reserved until after they're no further use to you.
Be sympathetic while they bitch about something that they see as unfair to them or those they care about. Nudge the topic closer to yours, add some topics that they already agree are unfair, smile and nod, then add yours.
Basic rule of selling: get the customer in the habit of saying yes, then bring up the subject you want them to agree with. Part two: once they agree that something is unfair, they'll be resistant to change -- but this time, that resistance works for you.
A lot of those children have fathers. Find examples of colleagues (male, if necessary) who have had child-care problems that affect them. Around here, lack of decent child care options has meant that several female and even two of my male cow-orkers have missed time when we're in crunch mode.
That comes out of my deliverables. It comes out of the Management's bottom line -- it's just good business to avoid problems like that.
You might want to check the stats again. They aren't all white -- which should suggest a marketing maxim: don't get caught overstating your position, because it causes listeners to doubt everything you tell them.
And then you vote, and you write to the gasbags you voted against, and you get your butt in gear at the local Party level so that the next round of candidates don't suck so bad.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | May 20, 2009 6:02 PM
Society is only willing to support a certain amount of science. This amount is independent of the gender ratio of the people conducting the science. This makes this a zero-sum game. If you want more female scientists, you have to have fewer male ones. It's as simple as that. To whatever extent science is a meritocracy, the ones to go will be the mediocre/unproductive male scientists.
Why should male scientists, who hold all the power, give up their livelihoods? Because it is the right thing to do? How many people do something because it is right, if there is no self-interest involved? Very, very few.
This problem will never be solved by convincing white males that in the interest of fairness and social justice, they need to find something else to do so that more female and black scientists who are smarter can take their positions. Slavery and segregation weren't solved by convincing people that it is the right thing to do. They were solved by the use of warfare and force. The only way to have gender equality in science is by having strong affirmative action laws that restrict federal funding unless the gender ratio is close to 50-50 at all levels, including the highest levels of power in academia.
Posted by: NIM | May 20, 2009 6:31 PM
The Animal awakens from his slumber sees Zukas's shoes and hurls. Remembering CPP d00dz rules lying next to him takes out his lighter for his morning cigarette and sets them in flames. Puffing his cigarette he steps into the shit.
Had ass grabbed or boobs rubbed against me by colleagues. Check.
Been called "young lady." Nope but have been called “young man”, but not in a long while.
Have been ask about reproduction. Nope, but having one influenced my career.
Lets see, I grew up in two most misogynistic patriarchal organizations there are, the Catholic Church and the Army. You see I am a military brat from a Catholic family and currently work for the military as a civilian scientist (actually engineer is my title, but scientist is more accurate).
In my family none of us had any say, when my father spoke, we were expected the say "yes sir, how high." My mother always complied and I hated her for that. I hated my father more, because I was the black sheep that questioned everything from his religion to his authority. I am not a feminist, but vowed never to be like him. He thought it was unimportant for my sister to get an education simply because she was a woman.
I use to be an alter boy in the Catholic Church, until I stopped believing in the religion due to my interest in science. Being a military brad, when I was in the forth grade, a charismatic military priest ask me to stroke his penis. I refused. I wonder if this counts as harassment?
I have been discriminated against at least twice in my life. The first was after my father's first tour in Vietnam, we had stayed with my grandmother (both grandmothers were German and we were stationed in Germany for the first 15 years of my life) and while my first language was English I forgot who to speak it while he was at war. When I repeated Kindergarten in a military school, because I could not speak English, I got called grout and Nazi. This ended when I threw a rock upside a bullies head and got called to the principal's office. As punishment, I had to write my name 100 times. I haven't forgotten how to write my name sense.
The second time was when I was in college. None of the women or guys on my dorm floor of would have anything to do with my roommate and me. With my second roommate I found out why, I was not Jewish like everyone else on the floor. My second roommate was a complete asshole and called me names and made me feel inferior. I should point out that I eventually did make friends and do not think all Jews think like that asshole. Yet none of the women would date my simply because I was not Jewish.
Our dorm was coed but with separate showers for boys and girls. One night when I was the only boy in the bathroom all the girls came in and ripped open the shower curtain causing embarrassment for me. Was that sexual harassment?
I currently face discrimination simply because I am a smoker (thanks to my first girl friend).
In the 20+ years that I have worked as a civilian Army scientist things have changed a lot. The white male scientist is becoming a thing of the past. Most new PhD hires are people that were are considered minorities and most were not born in the USA. My ultimate boss is our President (if from the USA). In my chain of command is our first female 4 star general. My lab director is a women and my secretary is a male. I am not a feminist, but I hate discrimination in all it forms.
The Animal completes his rant, closes his eyes, and wonders why Mr. Isis isn't doing Figure 1, for Dr. Isis spending close to $400 on a pair of shoes.
Posted by: Danimal | May 20, 2009 6:45 PM
DuWayne,
I never said that women being less nice than they used to be is something I complain about. This was simply an observation of mine based on a comment by Robin ("Sometimes I think that the whole, "you should be more civil" thing is not very far away from the emphasis on nice-ness as a hallmark of femininity."). Being nice and civil is a choice each must make for one self. Nevertheless, when someone is uncivil towards me, it is my right to complain about it. Not that it ever happened to me in the bloggosphere. Everyone is very nice and civil to me.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | May 20, 2009 7:48 PM
That's better, Sol. You can come out of time out now.
And, Danimal, Dr. Isis spends her money as she pleases.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | May 20, 2009 7:53 PM
Danimal, I have a confession to make: I discriminate against people whose first significant other caused them to drink and drive. I try to restict their ability to make that choice. This, despite the discrimination I have faced ever since I chose to have a uterus and associated organs.
Posted by: Robin | May 20, 2009 8:20 PM
Because certain people or institutions have treated a person badly, that person has free reign to be uncivil toward any random person? That's a stupid conclusion.
Of course you can't go around being rude to random people! That's not what I meant.
What I am talking about is how when, say for example, a blogger expresses themselves in strong terms about something that's happened to them (not necessarily abusive or using bad language) and someone will inevitably say what amounts to, 'well maybe they'd listen if you're nicer about it.' That is what I mean re:civility.
If someone is having a problem, and express themselves vehemently, you want to be listened to, not told that you need to be politer about it and have the issue ignored which is what often happens.
Posted by: Ace | May 20, 2009 8:37 PM
"Sometimes I think that the whole, "you should be more civil" thing is not very far away from the emphasis on nice-ness as a hallmark of femininity."
Exactly. Even if you're well-mannered about it, there are some people who will respond to asssertiveness from women with complaints that you are being 'uncivil.' (And I do mean assertiveness, not aggression. That's totally different.)
Granted, it happens less often these days, but it doers still happen.
Posted by: Ace | May 20, 2009 8:42 PM
Danimal, two whole instances of discrimination? You must really understand what it's like to grow up with every social, corporate, and government institution set up to systematically put you at a disadvantage.
DC, you're doing exactly what the post asks you not to do. WTF? Maybe the satire of that Onion article will get through to you. And then please, stop lecturing the little ladies on how they should be running things. We can fucking handle it.
I mean FFS, women are allowed to be pissed off at how they're treated, and having a man come along and tell them they're too angry to accomplish anything is equivalent to being patted on the head and told, "Let me tell you how to do this."
Haha, Toaster, you reminded me of my favorite fake ad from Better Off Ted this season. And fwiw, I agree that although it's off topic to bring it up in a discussion of how an oppressive system hurts those it oppresses, it's certainly true that that same system also hurts those it overall privileges, because it requires they play a role that they may not fit into. Men actually DO benefit overall from reducing sexism, because they would no longer be so required to fill the "male" role. Social justice is in everyone's interest. Though those men who earned their positions through unfair advantages of opportunity, despite being less intelligent than more disadvantaged women, do indeed consider it oppressive to have their unearned status threatened.
And yes, I think in a discussion about feminism and sexism in a feminist space, men who are interested in the issues and who think they might want to support those women are really in the position of allies. Asking questions and offering ideas in discussion can be totally okay (though if they ask you to go look stuff up yourself, don't take it personally. Because it's not personal). The main thing to remember is that getting defensive isn't helpful, because you're making it about you when it's not, and what it accomplishes is once again silencing the silly women by drawing attention to yourself. And that they don't need you to tell them how to do things. We've got it under control.
Posted by: volcanista | May 21, 2009 4:22 PM
Posted by: Danimal | May 21, 2009 5:21 PM
Volcanista:
It's called answering a direct question from jc:
If answering is inappropriate, don't ask the question. And, yes, I realize you weren't the one who did. In which case, it might be a good idea to instruct people in the courtesy of not asking questions of people who are forbidden to answer.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | May 21, 2009 6:22 PM
DC, it was ironic to read your oh-so-thoughtful reply, especially in light of volcanista's Onion link. Thanks for reminding the non-d00dz that we'z doin' it wrongz. We need some heavy lifting marketing schemes like those pink cutsy ribbons and peace buttons.
Check your privilege.
Posted by: jc | May 21, 2009 7:54 PM
Or a few copies of The Prince. Whatever works for you; you asked how I would do something so I answered the best I could. I'm certainly not Saul Alinsky, so the advice is at best worth what you paid for it.
Perhaps better advice might be available from Sandra Day O'Connor, Senator Hillary Clinton, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, or other women who have found ways to make progress in the face of a very stacked deck.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | May 21, 2009 9:38 PM
What's the subtext here? "See, they did it! That means the rest of you girls are just whiners who can't hack it"?
D.C., I have been trying for days to stifle my dislike of you to consider what you have to say without rancor. But you repeatedly address women here with such condescension and malice that I'm losing the battle with myself. The nastiness of this particular retort took my breath away.
This is Dr. Isis's blog. She decided to make it a safe space for women who don't feel like being nice about their unsavory experiences amidst men. Frankly? I understand, because I remember when I was so angry about my numerous unsavory interactions with white people-- for which I had blamed myself for years-- that I developed an unapologetic racism toward all of them.
All racism is evil. But not all of my anger was unjustified. It's complicated like that. And, in the end, what helped (and is helping) was finding forums in which I could undiplomatically tell my side of the story. "Shut up! Stop whining! You're a loser!" was definitely not the key to my rehabilitation.
You don't have to be here. There are eighty jillion billionteen blogs in existence. You could frequent the blogs of feminists (or of anyone!) whose views on sexism more closely mirror yours. Instead, you choose to frequent this blog and insult every woman who dares to be angry. It makes me shudder. It literally sends a chill of revulsion down my spine.
Of course, you're free to believe that women and minorities can't voice their anger and advance at the same time. Meanwhile, I have Private Killfile for Firefox; I don't even know why I'm bothering to write this comment when it won't reach you and it took every ounce of self-control not to tell you to go fuck yourself. Maybe so every reader who shares my reaction knows he or she is not alone.
Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | May 22, 2009 3:21 AM
It certainly is odd that creepy misogynist sleazebags like Sessions, Rivlin, and Danimal choose to spend so much time and effort engaging with a group of people who despise them. Maybe a lifetime of being a slimy asshole that no one wants to be around has caused them to forget the sensation of associating with people who actually like them?
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | May 22, 2009 6:37 AM
I hate to jump on the bandwagon, but I'm really getting fed up with D.C. Session's antics. At first I thought he was sincere but very confused and I could understand that. I can understand wanting to be an ally to women, but stumbling because you've been socialized in a patriarchy. That makes sense to me and is fine as long as you actually try to check you privilege and not repeat you mistakes over and over (and over x 10) again. After reading his comments for a while, I get the impression that all he cares about is saying that he's a good guy to the women in his life and therefore he can't be participating in the oppression of women. That's it. He hasn't listened to the experiences of the women around here. When he attempts he ends up with interjections of "Well, that's happened to me too" or complete non-sequiturs like "I think I'll go and meditate on how fortunate I am in the women I'm close to"*.
It always ends up being about him and about how good he and his ideas are, and if we just listened to him for a second we'd do a lot of good for the feminist movement. God forbid for a second he stop acting like a patronizing old guy and listen and maybe even attempt to understand why we're angry about these things. But it's much better to tell us that we should quite down and try to market these ideas to him. And if we just did that he'd become a great ally because he's already a really nice guy who loves the women in his life.
* I'm still trying to figure out how that makes any sense in the context of the post he's replying to.
Posted by: LostMarbles | May 22, 2009 7:45 AM
a) Why you're angry is abundantly obvious, even though I'm sure that my understanding is incomplete.
b) Fortunately, it's not nearly as necessary for me to understand as to accept.
c) I'm crappy at online sympathy, so I stick to pragmatics. As noted elsewhere, pragmatics are inappropriate in a sympathy session, but especially online it's possible to have multiple conversations ongoing, with one person discussing pragmatics and another doing sympathy. Without being clear about their individual agendas, it's a crossfire.
Nope -- I'm not your employer (or anyone else with direct input to your life.) If you want to have better working conditions, community environment, etc. marketing to me is doubly pointless.
Besides which, if you go back upthread you'll find that I wasn't offering that as advice. I was commenting on someone else's advice of that nature.
Because, as that comment started, it's depressing to be reminded of how badly needed the "advice to girls" messages really are. Thus, it's comforting to remind myself of how the women I'm close to take them as "well, duh!" Selfish of me, but then again we feel the way we feel.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | May 22, 2009 11:25 AM
"I'm crappy at online sympathy,"
You're actually pretty good at it(at least you weren't over at the intersection; and other places, I seem to remember).
Sometimes, even when you are really, really, really impatient for change, even if you have good things to contribute to the problem-solving side of things, you have to address the emotional side of things first.
If you don't do the sympathy bit, you won't have built up the trust necessary to change anybody. (not that doing the sympathy bit is unrewarding in it's own right)
Not to mention that you have to be willing to change yourself to avoid coming off as a "patronizing old guy".
Posted by: becca | May 22, 2009 12:36 PM
Do please bear in mind that the "D. C." you perceive is words on a webpage -- whoever I am is being filtered through a very narrow channel, and that channel is in part composed of rhetorical styles that I learned a long, long time ago. If I were a better writer, I might be able to convey emotion better in this medium -- as it is, no matter what I think or feel, I'm going to come across as distant and I very much doubt that I'm able to change that at this point in my life.
Sometimes it works to the better, sometimes not. If you met me in person you might form a different impression, or you might just have an irresistable urge to shoot me on the spot. However, none of that really matters since you don't know the IRL me, just words on a computer screen. The words are what they are, take them for what they're worth without bothering too much to peek through the keyhole at the author behind them.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | May 22, 2009 1:27 PM
The Animal is once again awakened, but this time to something different. He sniffs the air and finds that it is a stench that he has smelled before. As he looks around, is notices a big stinky turd, laid by no other then CPP. He moves closer, and upon examination discovers:
I must say that I am somewhat disappointed with this post. Let me goes though my CPP checklist.
1. Ad hominem attacks. Check. He is labeling people as assholes and misogynists. No problem there. This is expected.
2. Foul language. Check. This is disappointing, he only uses one expletive. The Animal wonders if CPP is not feeling well today? Usually every sentence has least one or more. The Animal make a note to himself. This would make a great research paper.
3. The post contributes something. Nope it does not appear that CPP post contributes, what should I say? Nothing. Again CPP does not disappoint.
Let examine what he is really saying. That certain people are sleazy misogynists that everyone hates and why do they not go elsewhere to find friends.
This is somewhat problematic for me. You see, I might be an Animal, but unfortunately I do not have CPP mystical powers of knowing what everyone else thinks. Also, I lack the ability to get everyone on SBs to automatically agree with me. CPP does and I am impressed.
CPP labels me a misogynist. It is true, that I do not label myself as a feminist. That is because I use other labels for myself such as father, brother, friend, engineer, etc. However, I do hold views that others might find feminist. Such as I believe a woman should be able to be Pope. A woman should with her male counterpart have to register for the draft, and be able to get combat assignments. A woman should be able to go topless or if that is offensive, men should also not be able to go topless. It did grow up in Europe where nudity is viewed as no big deal. In addition, to clicking like a mad fool to help Dr. Isis raise money for the APS award supporting future women scientists, I put my money where my clicks were and provide a donation. Creepy misogynist indeed.
Now, let's look more closely at CPP. He calls Phil Plait (The Bad Astronomer) a misogynist. Now that is a laugh to anyone that knows Phil. He maintains a web site that tries to get school age kids into science, is the president of the James Randi Educational Foundation, is a frequent poster on Rebecca Watson's site (of Skepchick fame) and appeared nude in he annual skepchick calender to help the feminist skepchick cause. Because, CPP used foul language, and Phil's site filters foul language a CPP post was put in moderation, CPP accused Phil of censorship. Again, the site is meant to get kids and adults into science, and having a typical CPP post in not acceptable. He does not seem to get that.
Let look at CPP using his mystic powers of mind reading saying that I am not welcome here. I have never been told that I am not welcome here by anyone other than CPP. I may have been told I am full of shit on some positions I take. For the most part, I visit this page because I like Dr. Isis' sense of humor. She frequently causes me to laugh. My posts often really contribute nothing either. A good post would be short and sweet and hopeful get someone to a least chuckle. But for the most part they are meant to tell Dr. Isis, that I like reading what she says and to say that I read what she says. She has more then once said that I'm "growing on her".
Having said his piece, The Animal becomes drowsy and wants to return to his slumber. He walks next to CPP and lifts his hind leg. Having taken care of business he returns to a peaceful slumber.
Posted by: Danimal | May 22, 2009 1:27 PM
CPP writes: "It certainly is odd that creepy misogynist sleazebags like Sessions, Rivlin, and Danimal choose to spend so much time and effort engaging with a group of people who despise them. Maybe a lifetime of being a slimy asshole that no one wants to be around has caused them to forget the sensation of associating with people who actually like them?"
I'm not a fan of the comments of the gentlemen listed in the above quotation. At all. But this kind of personal nastiness is too much. It's why I avoid any comments thread where CPP is commenting or is likely to do so. I've had some very bad experiences with angry men in my life. I don't need that kind of abuse just because someone disagrees with me. I assume Isis moderates the comments and she can ban people she doesn't want here. She is apparently not doing what CPP wants in this regard, so maybe she will be the next target of his excoriation. Or maybe, probably, I will be for writing this. This is my first and last comment here, so CPP please do not feel you need to drive me away too.
Posted by: Reese | May 22, 2009 9:49 PM
Re civil discourse --
Having experimented a great deal, I have learned that civil discourse does not work on an abusive person / bully / sexual harasser / etc.
You can remain civil, but you cannot engage in serious, cooperative, civil conversation the way you can with someone who actually wants to communicate and come to an understanding.
Abusive people aren't like that -- their goal is to oppress and destroy, not to understand.
Kind and civil explanations of your position will work on people who are merely ignorant / have blind spots / have done something insensitive (but are not out and out jerks) / etc.
However, the idea that an abuser is abusive because you have not "educated" him well enough yet or have not yet "drawn a better boundary" for him is an idea promoted by the ALLIES of these abusers. When you try to reason with abusers and be civil and so on, all you do is waste time and energy while giving them yet more material to pick at.
You have to be very firm and repetitive with these people and sometimes that has to mean "calling them out" (by which I don't mean swearing at them or anything). And they WILL say that *that* is uncivil. So to put the burden of civility upon victims doesn't really help.
*
Partly I learned this from working in academia, but partly I learned it from an abusive love relationship. No matter how I worded my requests for the abuse to stop, the response I always got was that I hadn't put it right.
Even when I finally broke up, the response I got was that I couldn't because I hadn't put it right, hadn't chosen the right moment, etc., not to have me would not be convenient at this time, I should have waited another week, I should not have talked with my friends, I should not have joined a support group, all of this was "uncivil."
Posted by: Professor Zero | May 28, 2009 9:21 AM