Pharyngula

Posted by: jeremiah | November 19, 2009 2:22 PM

Julia Sweeney. I know she is not a scientific mind but she is amazing.

Posted by: Souljacker | November 19, 2009 2:29 PM

Hmmm, this piece isn't up to PZ's usual standards. It must have been ghost authored by a black woman or something.

/sarc

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 19, 2009 2:30 PM

Eugenie Scott

Posted by: Sanction | November 19, 2009 2:31 PM

Hmmm, this piece isn't up to PZ's usual standards. It must have been ghost authored by a black woman or something.

/sarc

Humor fail.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 19, 2009 2:33 PM

Julia Sweeney, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Eugenie Scott, Ophelia Benson, Rebecca Watson. . . .

Posted by: Islander | November 19, 2009 2:34 PM

I can't get the article from richarddawkins.net to load. Is anybody else having this problem?

Posted by: Islander | November 19, 2009 2:36 PM

Ah, I see, it's the comments from the readers of the article... wow, what a bunch of assholes.

Posted by: kmeson | November 19, 2009 2:37 PM

Nica Lalli

Posted by: kopd | November 19, 2009 2:40 PM

Annie Laurie Gaylor

Posted by: Carlie | November 19, 2009 2:40 PM

I would like to point out that women are more likely to be religious and men are more likely to be in charge of said religion.

That is because the men in charge tell the women that their job is to keep the family going to church all the time and that they're bad women who won't go to heaven if they don't.

SkepChicks had a thread last year that had dozens of great suggestions of atheists who are overlooked even though they have fabulous credentials who just coincidentally happen to also be women and/or minorities.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 19, 2009 2:41 PM

Never you guys, of course.

no no noooooooooo, never here..

Posted by: truth machine, OM | November 19, 2009 2:42 PM

Skeptifem's characterization of those comments is frankly dishonest; most of them engage what Ms. Hutchinson actually wrote, which is riddled with po-mo BS and race and gender stereotyping. And others do a much better job of dealing with the issue than does Ms. Hutchinson; e.g.,

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3966#389406

Posted by: PixelFish | November 19, 2009 2:47 PM

Ditto Greta Christina.

Posted by: Sarah from Chicago | November 19, 2009 2:49 PM

I just wanted to say hear hear to Glen D at #8, very well put.

The thing is, merely 'replacing' or adding to' the current crop of white male individual leaders with a different crop of non-white, non-male individuals doesn't really get to the crux of the problem.

The problem is the very way our society is structured creates these inequalities. It's no coincidence nor accident that whenever a group gains existence, those that conform to the privileged groups tend to be the ones that end up leading such. The acts of individuals, no matter how skilled and wonderful the individuals are, do not address such, because they are singular units, not the system.

To put it another way, it's like bailing out a boat with a cup when you've got a football-sized hole in the bottom; you're not really addressing the root cause.

This is not to say that including leaders of less privileged groups isn't a good thing, nor is to say that individual everyday actions aren't important and crucial either. Individual oppressions are a part of the problem too.

But rather, it is to say that merely seeing this as the acts of "slightly pro feminist" atheist men not being pro feminist enough isn't going to work as a solution in the long run. To do so only ignores the systemic oppressions, and just ensures we keep on having to do the same things over and over again.

Posted by: Diane G. | November 19, 2009 2:51 PM

Posted by: Lana | November 19, 2009 2:38 PM

I think that part of the problem is the nature of the Internet. The anonymity has contributed to a frat boy atmosphere on some sites where writers feel free to reduce women to their body parts while dismissing their intelligence.

Never you guys, of course.

It's a double-edged sword...Where an effort is made to keep things fairly non-sexist (basically, fairly civil in general), the internet is one of the best places to be heard, if you're female, minority, not extroverted, etc.

And the frat boy atmosphere is certainly appearing more & more on TV & other media...

Posted by: Irene Delse | November 19, 2009 2:53 PM

Antother name to add to the list of important female and POC who are atheists: Taslima Nasreen. A courageous person and a great thinker. PZ should have the opportunity to meet her at the global atheist convention in Australia next year.

Posted by: Brock | November 19, 2009 2:58 PM

Rebecca Watson and Eugenie Scott are the two that I would expect a *whole lot* of people to recognize.

Locally? Patricia Princehouse.

Posted by: hollugolightly | November 19, 2009 2:59 PM

Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I truly love listening to her because she has seen things from such drastically different perspectives than the usual voices that we hear from in the skeptical community.

Posted by: James Sweet | November 19, 2009 3:02 PM

Hey, I heard of this great female atheist speaker by the name of Sunsara Taylor....

(dives for cover)

Posted by: Anon | November 19, 2009 3:05 PM

Well, PZed, when you visit Oz for the 2010 Global Atheist Convention, you'll have Taslima Nasrin, Catherine Deveny, Sue-Ann Post, Kylie Sturgess, Lyn Allison, Leslie Cannold, Maggie Millar, Jano Caro, and Tanya Levin sharing the stage with you. Lots of men, too, I hear.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | November 19, 2009 3:06 PM

the women of atheism seem to be semi-invisible.

Not to me. My humanist society -- the membership of which is half female, has had Wendy Kaminer, Jennifer Hecht, and other women of atheism as speakers. None of them said much about the consequences of being a woman -- it doesn't seem to be an issue for them. In my town, which is 1/3 Latino, I would like to see more Latino speakers and members, but that's a problem across the board here, it isn't specific to the freethought community.

Why aren't we reaching out to, for instance, Susan Jacoby, and making her a more prominent face in atheism?

There are various reasons that Richard Dawkins is better known that Susan Jacoby, none of which are that he is a man and she is a woman, just as the fact that Madalyn Murray O'Hair is better known than Robert Ingersoll is not due to their gender.

Posted by: Nepenthe | November 19, 2009 3:09 PM

@36 I was wondering how long it would take for someone to bring up the old "addressing inequality is racist/sexist" gambit.

Posted by: Daniel | November 19, 2009 3:10 PM

I actually googled the term female atheists to get some ideas and the top link, of course, was about the top ten sexiest atheist females, so yeah, there's a problem. I've also noticed it in group dynamics. Although the president of our campus atheist group is female, the group is predominantly male and there is a striking lack of sensitivity among them. They (and myself as well at times) frequently talk over the women in our discussions. That's typical of men who are often instructed and socialized to speak up for themselves, to be heard, and to not take shit from anybody. I was raised that way, but my sisters were taught a totally different way of interacting with people. They were taught to mind their manners, to not interrupt, to be "lady-like," etc.

It's a difficult problem to correct, but it begins with men being willing to step back from time to time to allow marginalized voices to be heard, otherwise the imbalance will persist. The same could be said for people of color, although there are obviously other factors involved there. In the South, where I'm from, the black community is deeply religious, so even those among them who are skeptical are often reluctant to criticize an important social network that they're involved with. There are notable exceptions in both cases, of course, but we shouldn't hesitate to try to reach out to these groups.

As far as female atheists go, my first thought is Eugenie Scott. I don't agree with her on everything, but she's obviously brilliant and has done some terrific work. I also enjoyed Susan Neiman's talk from the first Beyond Belief conference. There are others, but they don't come to mind right now. I'm not sure my selections can really be categorized as "new atheists," but I'm not sure that matters much anyway.

As for people of color. I'd suggest Hemant Mehta over at friendlyatheist, V. S. Ramachandran, and Neil deGrasse Tyson.

I'm only scratching the surface though, so I apologize if I've left any important figures out.

Posted by: Sanguinity | November 19, 2009 3:16 PM

The problem isn't dismissal. It's casual disregard.

And how, precisely, is this not dismissal of skeptifem's criticism? How is this not a dismissal of Sikivu Hutchinson's criticism of privilege in the atheist community?

Posted by: truth machine, OM | November 19, 2009 3:21 PM

And how, precisely, is this not dismissal of skeptifem's criticism?

The burden is on you to explain how two different phrases, with different semantics, are identical.

Posted by: Kenbo | November 19, 2009 3:22 PM

While I agree with skeptifem's analysis and criticism of Bill Maher, I think perhaps her critique of those opposing his winning the Richard Dawkins award might be a bit off base.

The blogs that I read criticizing Mr. Maher's award were written by doctors and anti-antivaxers. None of the blogs seemed to indicate that Mr. Maher's anti-vaccination stance was the ONLY problem with his receiving the award, it was just within their field of expertise. If skeptifem has other issues with Mr. Maher (which she rightly does), she could (an did) posit her ideas on the same type of forum.

As far as the interview, I thought it was a good read and certainly shows that everyone has their own path to tread when escaping the bonds of religion. Some of the comments were defensive and judgmental, but I expect those types of comments on almost any blog I read.

I think Ms. Hutchinson might be putting the cart before the horse when it comes to the "continued privileging of the usual "authorial" white suspects", though. As far as I know, the atheist community did not seek out nominations for a public spokesperson or author...these people (Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, et al.) wrote their books, gave their speeches, and became vocal advocates of atheism based on their own initiative. Their "authority" is derived from their willingness to step up and take on the religious institutions directly. That said, I, too, would like to see MORE PEOPLE (regardless of color, sex, etc.) step up and make their voices heard.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 19, 2009 3:22 PM

I am going to start emailing PZ meyers and Richard Dawkins directly about this to see if perhaps they will change their minds. Probably some of the more feministy bloggers at scienceblogs as well. It is worth a shot!

I'm confused: what is Skeptifem asking you to change your minds about? Posting anything Hitchens-related or posting anything Hitchens-related without a disclaimer denouncing his sexism? Or, has PZ and Dawkins po

What's always bothered me however is the excess of bad language, especially over at rd.net.

Don't get me wrong, it has its place when directed at deserving targets like creationists who only want to copy and paste the same old nonsense, but is best when used sparingly. I gave up reading or writing posts over there because of all the juvenile potty-mouthing that goes on whether called for or not.

As a nerd living in a primarily non-nerd world, I consciously adopted profanity to be more inclusive rather than the opposite. My natural voice has a slight lisp and I tend more towards Standard Canadian English than many of my peers and the vast majority of my community. In conversation, I am going to talk about science and science-related things. Peppering my speech with the occasional "Seriously, is that fucking awesome or what?" goes a long way in ensuring I'm received as someone who's sharing information because he's excited about it and wants his co-conversationalists to be interested in it as well, rather than an uppity know-it-all who is talking down to people. It's not always a function of style-shifting however--and right after a bit of jargon is when a little sailor-talk gets best results--I generally enjoy the humourous and emotive possibilities profanity employs.

Besides, fuck trolls. If the creobots (or others) want a world in which they can blather on with impunity free from the risk of encountering four-letter words, they can pray harder for it.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 19, 2009 3:25 PM

FUCKIN' A, BROWNIAN

Posted by: truth machine, OM | November 19, 2009 3:27 PM

the top link, of course, was about the top ten sexiest atheist females, so yeah, there's a problem

It's not a problem that has anything to do with atheism or the atheist community -- as is obvious from your "of course".

And the first google hit for female+atheists is http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2006/02/24/a-shout-out-to-female-atheists/
which isn't about who is sexiest

Posted by: llewelly | November 19, 2009 3:29 PM

I think another stereotype we need to break is that atheists are all scientists.

Posted by: Alexis | November 19, 2009 3:31 PM

Margaret Downey, Elizabeth Loftus, Norm Allen Neil de Grasse Tyson

Posted by: truth machine, OM | November 19, 2009 3:33 PM

P.S. The thirfh google hit for "female atheists" is http://www.atheistnation.net/video/?video/02384/atheist/black-female-atheists/ (which says "an error occurred" when I try to load it).

Posted by: mengbomin.wordpress.com | November 19, 2009 3:39 PM

I think that the problem you have is simply that there are multiple dimensions of idea-space and if you choose to organize according to one dimension (skepticism), you are bound to find some spread along other dimensions (such as feminism).

It is not the role of skeptical organizations to police attitudes toward women, just as it is not the role of feminist organizations to police levels of skeptical inquiry.

Of course, one of the organizing benefits of a religion is that the idea space is constrained so that it is easier to police otherwise unrelated or marginally related ideas, which means that a group of the same religious affiliation will be much more closely knit ideologically than a group organized around a single principle.

This makes it difficult for a skeptical group to move into areas beyond skepticism in their critiques, which is probably why, at least in part, skeptical organizations have not criticized Bill Maher's attitudes toward women. Now, a group united around both skepticism and feminism would be more apt to do that, as would individuals who fit as both skeptics and feminists, but realize that you are dealing with a smaller subset of skeptics once you add the added ideological conditions to your group.

There is an added complication that if a group is perceived to have more than one loyalty, it may shed members who disagree with the additional loyalty, thus weakening its efficacy on both fronts. That said, if one can find enough of a following for a more constrained ideological set, one has power to make multifaceted arguments for or against a set of ideas, rather than focusing on one dimension.

So in summary, ideological discipline is more difficult for atheists and skeptics, because as well as being minorities, atheists and skeptics are ideologically diffuse minorities and attempts to unite around issues orthogonal to the existence of God or the treatment of evidence will fall flat unless there are overwhelming demographic correlations between views...and I'm not sure there is in the case of skepticism and feminism.

Posted by: J | November 19, 2009 3:43 PM

None of the blogs seemed to indicate that Mr. Maher's anti-vaccination stance was the ONLY problem with his receiving the award, it was just within their field of expertise.

Not trying to get in an argument here, but objecting to misogyny should probably be in everyone's field of expertise.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | November 19, 2009 3:44 PM

I gave up reading or writing posts over there because of all the juvenile potty-mouthing that goes on whether called for or not.

"potty-mouthed" is a juvenile term for "vulgar" or "profane". Think about those words for a minute ...

Posted by: Alexis | November 19, 2009 3:48 PM

In the blogosphere, we often do not know if the comments are from a man or a a woman, from a black, white or asian.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 19, 2009 3:49 PM

who are the deserving voices of the godless community who should be heard as much as the heterogametic ones who get all the press?

Sastra.

I mean, duh.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | November 19, 2009 3:55 PM

So tell me in the comments: who are the deserving voices of the godless community who should be heard as much as the heterogametic ones who get all the press?

There seems to be an implication here that none of the voices who deserve to be heard but aren't being heard are heterogametic, which assumes the conclusion that it's a matter of gender bias. Also, Ms. Hutchinson spoke about atheists in the black community and blacks in the atheist community, but that has taken a back seat to gender in the discussion.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 19, 2009 3:55 PM

They few obviously girl atheists on youtube that I found always have comments about their looks.

That said, nobody with an IQ above 80 has ever commented on a YouTube video.

Posted by: Ashley F. Miller | November 19, 2009 3:57 PM

I would say it is, in my experience, difficult to be a female atheist because culturally you're expected to be spiritual and submissive.

When a boy says they're an atheist, the family ignores it and figures it's just that they don't want to go to church. When a girl says they're an atheist, it's a major threat. After all, they're going to raise the kids to be atheist too! Because fathers clearly have no influence there.

I'm not saying it's easy for anyone to be atheist in a religious world, but I think women internalize the feeling that they don't want to offend their family, they learn to just not say anything or to be apologetic. I feel like white men have less fear on that front.

But, I think it's changing. I think my generation (born 1984) is a lot louder and more open about their beliefs. It's probably a time thing.

But I do think some of it is that more women need to grow a pair.

Posted by: nolsen01 | November 19, 2009 4:00 PM

#43 It isn't addressing inequality that is racist/sexist

it is addressing sexism/racism with more sexism/racism that is sexist/racist.

Posted by: MadScientist | November 19, 2009 4:02 PM

"Quick to shrug off .." blah blah blah? Sounds like someone's got a problem with selection bias. So it would seem that even people who claim to be skeptics employ non-skeptical schemes similar to those used by the creationists with their persecution complex. Get over it and don't be a patronizing cow by telling the rest of the world that they support Bill Maher's anti-whatever view.

Posted by: Siveambrai | November 19, 2009 4:04 PM

Greta Christina and Rebecca Watson.

@#36 Wow.. why not just preface that whole statement with I'm not sexist but... and save us the time. I've never seen such total BS about the goals and point of the feminist movement in a long time.

Overall, I would like to say that congrats to all the dissenters in this thread you've managed to come up with a couple of anecdotal stories or examples of a couple of women that are popular. Yes we are not surprised that in a thread explicitly about women in skepticism that you could come up with names, you're prepared to think of them now. However, I bet that if this thread were just about "famous" names in skepitcism there would be almost no female names in the list, maybe 1 in 5. A few data points does not make a trend and does not mean there isn't a pervasive and systemic problem within the community.

Glen D. I agree with your original comment about changing the system. But saying that putting some women and POC up in the spotlight doesn't achieve this undercuts the goal. One of the strongest attractions and encouragements to under represented groups is to put faces like theirs in the spotlight. It doesn't have to be either or. Get the faces up there to encourage others and work on the system also, nothing is better to encourage change then seeing an embodiment of that change in action frequently. As PZ mentioned this isn't necessarily purposeful it just falls by the wayside. Having women and POC up on stages and speaking frequently in high profile sessions gives a constant reminder that we as a community need to work on it.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | November 19, 2009 4:09 PM

We just don't listen to women/minorities the way we listen to anglo males.

Speak for yourself.

It's worth noting that Dawkins and Dennett were already established academics and intellectuals in their fields, as well as being popularizing writers in those fields (Dawkins is the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford) before writing their books on religion that landed on the NY Times bestseller list -- there are specific reasons for how famous each individual is (it so happens that Dennett has written at some length on the subject of fame, using it as an analogy to explain the content of consciousness), and it is grossly simplistic to boil it down to gender.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | November 19, 2009 4:09 PM

Oh, for fuck's sake! I can't really be the only straight white atheist male on the planet who really doesn't give an elephant's dump about someone's ethnicity, sex or what their goddamn net worth is or their social class or how many diplomas they have hanging over their mantle?

For that matter, I couldn't give a rat's ass if they're an albino Asian with three tits two cocks and a split pussy and they happen to be attracted to straight black men with a fetish for lesbian blonds.

If such "PERSON" treats me with respect and gives me the benefit of the doubt I assure you I will absolutely return the favor! If they have something to contribute by all means I want to hear what they have to say.

BTW I'm pretty sure my monogamous heterosexual female companion thinks the same way...

So can we all just fucking get over ourselves and move on to solving some of the "REAL" problems facing the world?!!

/rant off

Posted by: twirlgrl | November 19, 2009 4:11 PM

I'll vote for Eugenie C. Scott.

@ Meko #28 I agree completely. My family started attending a local atheist meet-up at a nearby restaurant but some people freaked out that we brought our son (he's 5 and has good restaurant manners) so we stopped going. There are no groups for secular families. At least I have online support!

Posted by: Sarah Trachtenberg | November 19, 2009 4:13 PM

I don't like the term "people of color." I'm a festive pink. We're all a color.
As a woman who is conscious of sexism, skepticism as a movement must overcome its (probably subconscious) marginalization of women. Sure, women are underrepresented in the sciences, where most skeptics come from... because we simply aren't encouraged to have such interests.
When I went to the Amazing Meeting 7, an announcer said it had the highest percentage of women of any TAM so far: a third.
It's not "ladylike" to be a skeptic. Men, please realize that it's harder for us. As in most other areas of life, there are skeptics, and then there are female skeptics (such as Skepchick). Skepchick advertised at TAM that it's purpose was to keep TAM sexy. I love Skepchick, but I think you see my point.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | November 19, 2009 4:15 PM

@#36 Wow.. why not just preface that whole statement with I'm not sexist but... and save us the time. I've never seen such total BS about the goals and point of the feminist movement in a long time.

I'd say that your comments underscore what nolsen01 said.

Yes we are not surprised that in a thread explicitly about women in skepticism that you could come up with names, you're prepared to think of them now. However, I bet that if this thread were just about "famous" names in skepitcism there would be almost no female names in the list, maybe 1 in 5.

Assume your conclusion much?

Posted by: Jacqueline | November 19, 2009 4:18 PM

Posted by: Ric | November 19, 2009 2:24 PM

"Although this post will probably get me torn up, I agree with Maher about one thing: people do act as if having children is somehow something extraordinary and that their children are amazing, and they are amazing for having them. He's right; it's something animals do, and nothing special."

Well duh, of course we're animals too. As for Maher he's really a sheep in atheists clothing.

Posted by: TGAP Dad | November 19, 2009 4:20 PM

I totally heart Susan Jacoby, Wendy Kaminer, and Barbara Ehrenreich. Also Molly Ivins, who sadly left us a couple years ago. I'm currently reading Jacoby's The Age of American Unreason. It's fabulous so far.

Skeptical women ROCK!

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 19, 2009 4:22 PM

Overall, I would like to say that congrats to all the dissenters in this thread you've managed to come up with a couple of anecdotal stories or examples of a couple of women that are popular. Yes we are not surprised that in a thread explicitly about women in skepticism that you could come up with names, you're prepared to think of them now. However, I bet that if this thread were just about "famous" names in skepitcism there would be almost no female names in the list, maybe 1 in 5. A few data points does not make a trend and does not mean there isn't a pervasive and systemic problem within the community.

While I think you're right that the existence of some well-known visible minorities isn't evidence a problem doesn't exist, I fail to see how the list of people provided in this thread so far constitutes sufficient evidence for you to say, "Yeah, well, sure you can come up with a list when prompted, but you're all still a bunch of sexist bigots!"

Posted by: truth machine, OM | November 19, 2009 4:24 PM

Here's a good piece on women and "skeptic communities":

http://community.feministing.com/2009/02/women-skeptics.html

Posted by: Endor | November 19, 2009 4:26 PM

"So can we all just fucking get over ourselves and move on to solving some of the "REAL" problems facing the world?!!"

Ah, yes. Because racism/sexism/homophobia aren't REAL problems, you know cuz they don't concern YOU. You're not a bigot, nor a target, so it's just not that big a deal and we should all get over it cuz there are so many MORE IMPORTANT things to address. And by that you mean things that do personally concern you.

is this how you show how much you "respect" others?

Bang up job. Really. LOL.

(what is it about the clueless & privileged that is so damn amusing?)

Posted by: mythusmage | November 19, 2009 4:33 PM

In June of 1775 General George Washington would visit Philadelphia to report on the war effort and encourage further support for the rebellion's efforts. The story goes that one day Jefferson asked him to read a new document Thomas was penning at the time, a declaration of independence.

Washington agree with the aim, and with the rationales for pursuing it. But there was one thing he did not agree with, and he advised Tom to remove it. He said, as near as I can recall, that this assertion that all men are created equal would come to cause trouble for the new nation in the course of time.

Tom replied that the assertion was only a legal fiction, it's intent to help create a system of governance where all were treated equally under the law. George's response to that was, pretty much, "If it is possible for somebody to take something literally, they will."

Today we see people taking "All men are created equal" literally indeed, including a fair number of folks you'd think would know better. The Theory of Evolution shows us that we evolved to be as we are. Work in many fields has shown as that we are a social animal who organizes into groups with a well defined social structure. Any sized group, even as few as two people, will end up with a leader and followers. That's what we're comfortable with. One person will end up in charge, the rest will follow his lead unless he (sometimes she) shows that he doesn't know what he's doing. It's the primate way.

The problem with this system arises when people insist they deserve to be leader, or that other people deserve to be followers. There will always be challenges to the status quo, and those looking to run the show.

So you get tyrants and bullies; people using their advantage in position to keep their followers down. Those who don't push it too far, or who have the power to act as they wish, will stay in power up to the day of their death. Those who don't have the power, and who push it too far, get overthrown and disposed of.

A wise leader listens to his followers. He backs off when protests get too loud and learns how to compromise. Unfortunately we don't seem to spend much time teaching people how to be effective leaders, relying instead on old traditions established when leadership and ruler ship was seen differently and applied differently.

My problem with certain people is their insistence that certain people need to be controlled, need to be led. That other people are not worth listening to, and so can be ignored. It is my philosophy that all should be listened to, at least to the point where you can learn what they are talking about and its validity. Do they speak from wisdom, and can you engage in a meaningful dialogue with them.

Then you have people who are, well, followers. As long as things run smoothly, and their lives are stable and secure, they're happy. They see their leaders as doing a good job, they're not about to rise up in opposition. However, we tend to vary in a philosophies of society, leadership, and governance; so the leader some support is the same leader others oppose. The same policies that make Citizen A happy can piss Citizen B off.

My point is, there will always be those who speak up as a matter of course, and those who prefer to stay in the background. You can encourage people to be more assertive, but that's the most you can do. You can't make somebody assertive who doesn't want to be.

At the same time, to deny somebody the right to express themselves is just as wrong. It comes down to a matter of making people behave as you think they should behave. Some people want to be part of running the show, I say let them. Some people don't want to be part of the show, I say leave them alone. Solicit their opinion, ask for their advice, but other wise let them be.

To sum up, by all means encourage people to participate in the atheist and skeptical communities, but don't demand it of them. Keep the lines of communication open for when people wish to speak, but never make speaking out an absolutely requirement for being a part of the group.

Posted by: mythusmage | November 19, 2009 4:36 PM

Oops, that would be June of 1776.

Posted by: Diane G. | November 19, 2009 4:39 PM

#87Posted by: truth machine, OM | November 19, 2009 4:09 PM

"We just don't listen to women/minorities the way we listen to anglo males."

Speak for yourself.

It's worth noting that Dawkins and Dennett were already established academics and intellectuals in their fields, as well as being popularizing writers in those fields (Dawkins is the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford) before writing their books on religion that landed on the NY Times bestseller list -- there are specific reasons for how famous each individual is (it so happens that Dennett has written at some length on the subject of fame, using it as an analogy to explain the content of consciousness), and it is grossly simplistic to boil it down to gender.

Note--there are REASONS why established academics & intellectuals" "happen" to be male.
My mother was born before US women had the right to vote. The Ivies only went co-ed in my lifetime. This is not ancient history...

Dawkins is retired, BTW.

Posted by: R-Tam | November 19, 2009 4:41 PM

Curses. I actually meant to write:

"and challenging the unconcious biases of otherwise thinking people"

Rushed typing. I doez it.

Posted by: MadScientist | November 19, 2009 4:42 PM

@Brownian #101:

Don't step into that "sure you can come up with a list, BUT you can't prove" fallacy. The burden of proof lies with whoever makes accusations of things like white dude-ism. It should in fact be trivial to support a claim of white dude-ism - if there were any evidence at all for it. For example, just one skeptic/godless (insert whatever minority description you want) doing something like writing an article and being told "we don't publish articles by your kind". The fact is that stuff just doesn't happen. Some people are imagining that there is a problem and succumbing to confirmation bias rather than identifying and addressing substantive issues.

skeptifem is way off the mark whining about how skeptics/godless don't attack people for being anti-female. Well, she can go on that crusade then, but why the hell should she even expect the rest of any skeptical/godless community to join her? Other people have other interests. Bill Maher is a major dipshit - is that a surprise to anyone? I don't think he's funny at all, but I'm not whining about the skeptical community being all too willing to not tell him he's not funny. I also think skeptifem has absolutely no respect for potential readers; the website is a goddamned eyesore - is there some sort of competition on the web for "most illegible website"?

Short story: skeptifem is obsessed with Bill Maher - FSM knows why. Maher's been called out for promoting woo-woo but skeptifem whines that the same people are not complaining about what a mysogynist asshole Maher is. Well, most of us don't have that fixation with Maher. Can you imagine how stupid and whiny we'd look if we said "Maher is an idiot and is promoting dangerous woo-woo. And by the way, he hates women too." You know the best way to fix that? Women should write to his producers/publishers to complain about what an asshole he is and they should get their male friends to do the same. Whining about how everyone else isn't complaining about every single one of Maher's goddamned faults is neither useful nor sensible.

Posted by: isaac | November 19, 2009 4:46 PM

Although I'm not well known for my atheism, I did make a bit of a name for myself with my political writing in the days preceding blogs and then later as a print journalist.

Oh, yeah--and I'm a black guy.

My work was well-received, both on the 'net and in print, but some people never seemed to be able to get past the 'black' thing. I was called 'an outstanding black writer,' and a 'distinctive African American voice'--even though I rarely wrote about racial issues. I only referred to my race when it had anything to do with the topic about which I was writing, and sometimes a photo of me would run with something I had composed (usually not after asking me though--someone found a photo of me on the internet and people started running it with my work--also usually without asking me).

I was often treated as if people thought it was a minor miracle that black men can write and speak properly. Some seemed to be offended that I can.

And then others, when they find out I am an atheist as well...

Blacks are supposedly among the most religious of Americans. Well, I am not and have never been, religious. Not for one minute. So I imagine that makes me a minority within a minority.

And that seems to creep out some non-whites who outwardly take pride in not being racist or prejudiced, but still don't how to react to a literate and articulate black guy (who can also play classical and rock guitar).

Watch a network television profile of a black person who has become noteworthy in some way. I'm talking 60 Minutes or Dateline, that kind of thing. Odds are very good that at some point there will be a clip of that person singing with their church choir. It seems gratuitous to me to include that, but I have seen it more times than I care to think about. (I would very much doubt that if my day comes they'd be very interested in footage of a guy sleeping in on Sunday morning, then watching cartoons in bed).

And some of the more well meaning comments to me over the years:
"You sure talk good [sic] for a black guy."
"You sure are a good writer for a black guy."
"You're a real good guitar player for a black guy."
"You're not like all the others at all."
"You're so smart...it's almost like you're an honorary white guy."

But back to the atheism.

While many people seem to think it's strange and remarkable, I have very rarely been asked *why* I am an atheist. I would like to be asked that at some time.

I don't expect to get any speaking engagements or anything, but you'd think I'd at least get asked on a personal level, instead of the muted horror that I've often encountered.

Anyway, I'm going long and although I could keep going, I should wrap it up.

First, though, I don't want to leave anyone feeling I'm an "angry black man." I'm not, at least not in the way that term usually connotes. I'm as angry about the Bu$h era as anyone else, or at Fox News, or the amount of attention Sarah Palin or Carrie Prejean receives as anyone else, and much of it I can laugh off and joke about it. I prefer to live my life focused on what we all have in common rather than what makes us different (although the variety that comes from those differences can also be a source of great pleasure and enrichment to our lives).

Please excuse the rambling, stream-of-conscious tone. I really am a writer, but for once I am not proofreading this before I submit it, because I want it to be the way I thought it, from my head right to the keyboard.

I can only just hope I've said something useful along the way.

Posted by: samuel black | November 19, 2009 4:49 PM

Skeptics are influenced by evidence, and so they are disproportionately against religion and alternative medicine. That explains the outcry against Maher's *admitted* support of evidence-free medicine.

But few -- whether skeptic or not -- *admit* to being sexist or racist, even if they are. It is the purview of all who claim to support equality -- whether skeptic or not -- to object to prejudice, where it rears its head. Such objection, not being specific to skepticism, should not necessarily be expected to be argued in the context of skepticism.

And even if it is the unanimous opinion of Hitchens watchers, that he needs to change his haircut, it doesn't need to be argued in skeptic's blog.

Posted by: Haley | November 19, 2009 4:49 PM

This post makes me so happy, seeing as I identify as a godless feminist. I've struggled with my feminism (which came after my conclusion that there is almost certainly no god) precisely because I've tended to look upon women as less rational. Obviously, this is not true of all women, but it has seemed to me that as a whole women are less rational and thus more prone to being religious. I'm not content with the answer that my gender is simply naturally less rational. I need to see if it's true, and if so, why.

I think its very important to look at why there tend to be more white male atheists than female or people of color from either gender. I think it might have to do with the fact that religion is a form of oppression that is useful for keeping people "in their place", but I would love to see scientific studies on the matter.

A few examples of women leaders who happen to be godless is not really an answer to the problem. We need to figure out why women are more likely to believe in the first place. It's especially infuriating for me to see religious women when most of the world's religions are so hostile to women. Why are we being so damn masochistic?!

I'm not always happy with the feminist community. I'm in a gender studies class now, and it's driving me crazy just reading about critical theory. I want to see facts, I want to see science, I want to see statistics that prove their points. I want more reason.

Posted by: Cujo359 | November 19, 2009 4:51 PM

Glen D. @ 36 - Like Siveambrai, I agree that much of what needs to be done needs to be done at the individual level, there is certainly a need for people to see people who look like them doing the things they want to do. African-American astronaut Mae Jemison, who grew up in the Sixties and Seventies, counted Lt. Uhura (of Star Trek) as one of her inspirations at a time when nearly all astronauts were still white men. Uhura wasn't even a real astronaut. But it helps to imagine oneself doing something if there are other people like you doing it.

On some levels that's sad and a little bit wrong, but it's true. People shouldn't feel alone when they're the only woman (or man), or the only non-white person in a group of like-minded people, but I think most of us do. Having some mental images in one's own emotional background that say you really do belong there can help.

Posted by: Warren | November 19, 2009 4:52 PM

I'm going to have to be a bit of a prat here. If we're going to use terms like "persons of color", shouldn't we start referring to women as "persons of vagina"?

Posted by: Diane G. | November 19, 2009 4:54 PM

#100Posted by: spondee | November 19, 2009 4:21 PM

Hey everybody! Don't worry about it. Sexism and racism are no longer a problem in the world because Fred The Hun @89 is a white male who doesn't care about race or gender.

You can all go about your sexism/racism-free lives. Congratulations!

FTW!! LOL.

Salutes to Endor, R-TAM as well.

Posted by: Sven DIMilo | November 19, 2009 4:55 PM

oblivious about what?

Posted by: truth machine, OM | November 19, 2009 4:56 PM

But I have to say that we Brits find the term "people of color" absolutely horrible and really, really patronising. Obviously a cultural thing, but really... it's a classic example of trying to be overly and unnecessarily "delicate".

This shows that you misunderstand, because the term comes from the PoC community, it is not something that others use to "delicately" talk about them.

Posted by: Amit Joshi | November 19, 2009 4:57 PM

Here's why:

SH: Oftentimes white folk engage with the issue of people of color and religious observance in a very paternalistic way -- musing about the "backwardness" of people of color, particularly African Americans, who subscribe to Christian and Muslim dogma despite their histories of colonialism, terrorism and slavery. Although religious observance among African Americans is paradoxical for these very reasons, the white critique of said world view is narrow and lacking in consciousness of the cultural context that informs black adoption of Judeo- Christian mores and values. Hence, the European- American atheist community can't be truly inclusive unless there is some recognition of how privilege and positionality undergird the very articulation of atheism as an ideological space that empowers white folk to deconstruct the cultural tethers of organized religion, without having their authorial right to do so be questioned.

Huh? I think she's saying that the privilege of being white allows people like Dawkins and Hitchens to be declared atheists. But it's not clear to me who, in her opinion, "questions" black atheists "authorial" rights?

And couldn't she say this stuff in a simpler way?

Posted by: Sili | November 19, 2009 5:02 PM

Oh!

Pam Spaulding

Now. I have no clue whether all of these people are atheists, and I don't actually care. They're pretty damn good on science, equality and critical thinking.

What I do care about is that I had to think about who I knew of that might be good, and the fact that I personally only know pasty, straight guys.

Posted by: MadScientist | November 19, 2009 5:03 PM

@Haley #121:

Congratulations for not accepting what "everyone knows". Personally I would not believe the "women are less rational" because I see no good evidence for it.

What I have observed over decades is how various communities train women to be a certain way. 50 years ago women were taught to be "good homemakers", but through the ages there have always been some women didn't care to fit into the community's expectations. These days there are all the girly-mags and obnoxious TV shows and I observe the teens banding together and actually developing their behavior based on that rubbish - not surprisingly the people who embrace that rubbish are indeed less rational. Many women in my family (and this is going back even 90 years) have established their own very successful businesses (I wish I were as successful as some of them) and were extremely intolerant of bullshit. So is there a propensity to be "less rational"? At this point in time no one can give a sensible explanation in favor of such an assertion and it would be impossible to separate the social influence from what we observe in society today. Coming up with an ethical experiment to test such a hypothesis would be quite a challenge I imagine. At any rate it's a good start not to believe such unsupported assertions since you'll be less inclined to act it out.

Posted by: Sili | November 19, 2009 5:06 PM

Teddydeedodu,

I did think about her and then forgot her when typing.

Shame on me.

I thought of SC too.

(And Lynna and aratina cage and holydust and pixelfish and Bride of Shrek, OM and Janine, OM.)

Posted by: Cujo359 | November 19, 2009 5:09 PM

Amit Joshi @ 133 - The basic problem with that article is that the woman being interviewed was a lousy writer. As someone noted earlier, she also made quite a few claims for which she never provided any evidence. That sort of thing usually doesn't go over well at rd.net.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 19, 2009 5:16 PM

"You sure talk good [sic] for a black guy." "You sure are a good writer for a black guy." "You're a real good guitar player for a black guy." "You're not like all the others at all." "You're so smart...it's almost like you're an honorary white guy."

You're a pretty good atheist for a black guy

wait, that makes about as much sense as the others.

Posted by: faithless | November 19, 2009 5:21 PM

Well, I'll tell you one thing. I don't pay attention to articles that read like this:

"Hence, the European-American atheist community can't be truly inclusive unless there is some recognition of how privilege and positionality undergird the very articulation of atheism as an ideological space that empowers white folk to deconstruct the cultural tethers of organized religion, without having their authorial right to do so be questioned."

...and that is the case whoever the writer is and whatever sector of society they come from.

Can we say "Alan Sokal"?

Posted by: Diane G. | November 19, 2009 5:22 PM

Posted by: mythusmage | November 19, 2009 4:33 PM Today we see people taking "All men are created equal" literally indeed, including a fair number of folks you'd think would know better. The Theory of Evolution shows us that we evolved to be as we are. Work in many fields has shown as that we are a social animal who organizes into groups with a well defined social structure. Any sized group, even as few as two people, will end up with a leader and followers. That's what we're comfortable with. One person will end up in charge, the rest will follow his lead unless he (sometimes she) shows that he doesn't know what he's doing. It's the primate way.

One of my favorite Dawkins quotes involves him saying that personally he’d never want to live in a society in which natural selection determined everything...

The problem with this system arises when people insist they deserve to be leader, or that other people deserve to be followers. There will always be challenges to the status quo, and those looking to run the show.

A wise leader listens to his followers. He backs off when protests get too loud and learns how to compromise.

My point is, there will always be those who speak up as a matter of course, and those who prefer to stay in the background. You can encourage people to be more assertive, but that's the most you can do. You can't make somebody assertive who doesn't want to be.

Posted by: Paul Fidalgo | November 19, 2009 5:28 PM

Without question, Jennifer Michael Hecht is overdue for "big catch" club membership -- her books are easily better than Dawkins' for example. She's a real luminary who ought to be a bigger name with us by now.

Posted by: Steven Mading | November 19, 2009 5:41 PM

Posted by: Daniel | November 19, 2009 3:10 PM

I actually googled the term female atheists to get some ideas and the top link, of course, was about the top ten sexiest atheist females, so yeah, there's a problem.

There's two huge problems with that assertion:

Problem 1:

Did you do the honest thing and also make the same test for a search on "male atheists" and compare the results to each other?

I just did and although the top link was this Pharyngula article itself (no surprise since the subject really is a better textual match to a search with the word "male" than a search with the word "female"), the second highest hit was this: "Atheist Mind's Top 11 Sexiest Male Atheists".

So, what's the sexist difference this allegedly shows again? I suspected the word "male" and "female" are more likely to hit on sites talking about sexual characteristics than "men" and "women" are.

Problem 2:

When using google search (or any search engine) to gauge the popular zietgeist, it's vitally important that you do it from a machine that does not have any cookies from Google on it and isn't used to access things like Gmail. Google tends to factor your interests into the scoring algorithm a little bit if it can remember who you are and remember some of your past browsing history. Your top 10 hits won't necessarily be identical to someone else's top 10 hits unless you both start from a "bare" browser with no history and no cookies.

Posted by: akshelby | November 19, 2009 5:44 PM

What about Amanda Marcotte of the blog Pandagon? Feminist and atheist and a very good writer.

Posted by: jemand | November 19, 2009 5:48 PM

Greta Christina! We *really* need to hear more from her, from what I can tell, I'm not sure if she's ever been invited to a big skeptics meeting. She needs to be!

Posted by: jemand | November 19, 2009 5:51 PM

also, Sikivu Hutchinson, of http://blackfemlens.org/

Vyckie Garrison is ex-quiverful, currently calls herself agnostic, but I think she would be a very good speaker as well. Has a blog at No Longer Quivering, and is writing a book about her quiverful life.

The Skepchicks are also always good as is Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Posted by: Glen L | November 19, 2009 5:56 PM

Great comments above, but one glaring omission in this list is Margaret Downey. Just a few of Margaret's credentials are: Immediate past president of Atheist Alliance International, Founder and current President of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, she founded the Anti-Discrimination Support Network and the Thomas Paine Memorial Committee.

Margaret has given lectures at universities and many public venues in the U.S. and world-wide. She's a great public speaker, mixing humor into her presentations.

Posted by: Chuck V | November 19, 2009 5:58 PM

Margaret Downey, who has been president of Atheist Alliance International and the Freethough Society of Greater Philadelphia.

She has turned AAi conventions into major events and she's has put up with significant harassment due to lawsuits she has brought as an atheist.

I look up to her.

Posted by: Hypatia's Girl | November 19, 2009 6:00 PM

All right.
As a philosopher of oppression as well as someone who has spent so much time following the skeptical movement that I approach boorishness on a regular basis if people even seem to have any sympathy to the woo of any kind, allow me to step in with some feminism and race studies 101.

Fact - there is sex/gender and race/ethnicity discrimination. Everybody does it. For those of you who was to play the "but I'm post-racial/color-blind/living in a pure meritocracy" card - you are engaging in the invisible dominance of the privileged culture. How fucking nice for you that you can blithely disregard the facts of oppression, however, people of color (and to the person who rejected that phrase - would you rather I list all of the myriad races and ethnicities that are discriminated against? or does "people of color" just translate as "black people" to you?) and women, transgendered and intersex people simply do not have the privilege. You might think that you are super enlightened - but if you ignore the realities of the embedded structural, institutional and cultural oppression that is faced by less dominant groups, all you are doing is assuming that those "other types" are just as capable of acting like your white guy culture as you are.

That post-racial, post-feminist privileged bullshit is what Charles Mills calls the epistemology of ignorance. And celebrating a knowledge of the world that is founded upon not having to know about the world seems like a funny epistemology for skeptics to take.

Privilege and racism/sexism/heterosexism isn't all about consciously trying to take the rights and liberties away from particular classes of people. It's also about not having to pay attention to what is actually happening, to the consequences of your actions, to the underlying assumptions that you wield going into the society. Our social structures are profoundly unjust, despite the fact that many people do want to believe that they're good, non-bigoted people. However, our government is predominately white men, our pop culture is starlets and men accomplishing things. Why should skeptics be so arrogant and small-minded as to think that the skeptical movement is somehow exempt from the sexism and racism that pervades our daily life?

For those of you who don't get that sex/gender/race/ethnic oppression is intimately tied to the skeptical movement, I can only assume that your largest concerns are with the ufoers. The anti-vax movement is a deeply sexist movement tied intimately with opinions about what a good mother is, irrespective of the prominence of Jenny McCarthy, sCAM preys upon women and PoC who have traditionally been fucked over by the (largely white male) medical community (let us never forget Tuskegee or Mississippi appendectomies), the religious right wing (whichever religion you choose) is motivated largely by a deep and abiding fear/loathing of women's sexuality. A movement that has a bunch of white guys trying their best to be "sensitive" is going to miss some nuance and interconnection.

I would apologize for ranting, but that's not my style. The privilege of the skeptical movement depresses me, because I expect more critical self-questioning here. But systems of privilege are hard to give up.

[and incidentally, to those of you complaining about pomo/crit studies - seriously? just because it's hard to read doesn't mean it's impossible)

Rant over, I will do PZ's research for him as well and recommend Susan Haack, Amanda Marcotte (from Pandagon and RHrealitycheck), Susan Blackmore for sure, Taslima Nasrin (aka Nasreen) to begin with.

Posted by: Comrade Bill | November 19, 2009 6:06 PM

Clyde Young

Religion, Atheism, and Black People: A Panel Discussion

Posted by: Diane G. | November 19, 2009 6:11 PM

#138Posted by: daveau | November 19, 2009 5:06 PM

Isaac@117-

You need to comment here more often.

+ 1

Isaac, as I'm sure you know, much of what you relate is valid if "woman" is substituted for "black." I shudder to think what black women have to listen to.

I try to be where you are, i.e., more interested in concentrating on our commonalities than differences; but ran into trouble when I had kids. Suddenly I couldn't choose to overlook the daily racist & sexist messages they were exposed to. At least they got a dissenting view at home.

But meanwhile the more traditional, exclusionary voices are still monopolizing the institutions that matter--politics, corporations, & academia, for a few. Pointing to the occasional black or female CEO doesn't usually amount to much more than tokenism, especially since they still have to be paragons to succeed, unlike those who come up through the old-boy network. There do seem to be more & more female & minority college heads, though--hopefully a good omen.

Posted by: ZenMonkey | November 19, 2009 6:13 PM

Desiree Schell of the Skeptically Speaking radio show/podcast.

Posted by: JulietEcho | November 19, 2009 6:15 PM

More Hemant Mehta, please :-)

I've had the pleasure of seeing him speak before, at a megachurch where he had a discussion and then a Q and A with a pastor there. It was mostly about debunking myths about atheists and it was excellent.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 19, 2009 6:19 PM

Desiree Schell of the Skeptically Speaking radio show/podcast.

Am adding the link to her show in hopes this will prevent her from killing me for not mentioning her sooner in the post.

She's also a feminist and has been working stridently to repair the gender imbalance among skeptical communities.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 19, 2009 6:24 PM

Your mythus is too agricultural

Bullshit. The villages in the NG highland are agricultural, and have been that way for ten thousand years, longer than just about anyone else.

Maybe I shouldn't really comment when I'm ill and can hardly sleep because of too much production in my nose. :-(

Posted by: Shinken | November 19, 2009 6:26 PM

As an Afro-Latino atheist, I am aware of certain differences in outlooks. Not racism but a certain unawareness of racial and sexual differences. I hesitate to even type that because it's almost nonexistent. I am the only person of color in my Free Thinking group but it's not that big of a deal.Skeptics tend to be well skeptical of racial and sexual things (and do you blame us?)

Posted by: Hope Knutsson in Iceland | November 19, 2009 6:33 PM

Margaret Downey is a major mover and shaker in the Freethought, Humanist, skeptic, atheist community. I am surprised that nobody mentioned her until comments # 159 and 161. She helped my group put together a fabulous atheist conference in Reykjavik, Iceland in 2006 with an all-star line-up of prominent speakers. People are still talking about it.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | November 19, 2009 6:37 PM

Sure, there is not stratification into classes, but it is absurd to suggest that bands do not have individuals who are more influential than others. There are always individuals in any group who are more knowledgeable, convincing, venerable, or assertive than others. These individuals are disproportionally powerful in decision-making, even without any formal status difference.

Are you claiming this because you have specific knowledge of these cultures to dispute David's point, or because it just seems absurd?

While elders in foraging societies are accorded a level of veneration commensurate with their age/experience, these cultures often have practices that seem specifically tailored to remove most of the interpersonal inequities the rest of us accept without a second thought.

While undoubtedly some hunter-gatherer somewhere isn't being given a fair shake, the level of egalitarianism among groups like the !Kung--at least, those still practicing traditional lifestyles--is far beyond anything we're likely to see in the next few generations.

David Marjanović, was there a blockquote fail at some point, or did you just vehemently refute your own comment?

Posted by: Greta Christina | November 19, 2009 6:40 PM

Another voice for Sikivu Hutchinson. She kicked ass at the AAI conference. (Am trying to find the names of the other people of color who spoke at AAI, but I can't seem to find a schedule. There was a gentleman who spoke about the history of secularism in African-American culture, and another who spoke about the experience of being an Arab atheist. Both were excellent.)

Zee Harrison of the excellent "Black Woman Thinks" blog, http://blackwomanthinks.blogspot.com/ . Wrath James White. Hemant Mehta, obviously. Neil DeGrasse Tyson (is he an out atheist? I'm not sure). The Skepchick chicks. The Chaplain, of An Apostate's Chapel. Sarah Braasch, who just wrote that excellent piece on her experiences as an ex Jehovah's Witness on Daylight Atheism. C.L. Hanson, of Letters from a Broad.

If you want to shake things up, you might try Nina Hartley (yes, the porn star -- very smart and articulate, and a long-time atheist), and/or Susie Bright.

And, of course, Julia Sweeney.

Oh, and thanks to the folks who mentioned my name. I'm touched. And I am, in fact, a kick-ass public speaker.

Posted by: Sili | November 19, 2009 6:42 PM

I wouldn't have mentioned Blackmore if I hadn't heard her, myself, at one of the Millenium Lectures in Bath.

She isn't really my cuppa tea, but she's sure as Hell smart (and at the risk of being sexist, she has good taste in husbands).

Posted by: MadScientist | November 19, 2009 6:45 PM

@Shinken: I think from principles many skeptics don't see any real division. No one cares about gender or ethnicity; some would even get angry if you ever mentioned "race" because it's entirely a societal fabrication. However, it is a historical fabrication which is still extant; we certainly can't expect all such labeled minorities to be on par with the majority of a population when historically they have been deprived of opportunities to learn etc. However, blaming others for some perceived problem, as skeptifem does, is certainly not useful. If there is a problem it should be identified and others should be convinced of this problem. Cries of "they're ignoring this problem" will dutifully be ignored, as will ranting about there being a problem without actually identifying any specific issues; people are busy with other things; skeptics don't exist to push the agenda of any particular individual alleged skeptic no matter how important they believe they or their cause are.

Posted by: milton. | November 19, 2009 6:50 PM

i read this blog everyday, and this is the first time i've ever felt the need to comment. i thank PZ for pointing this out, as i've noticed the alarming antifeminist trend in atheist/skeptic posts, particularly on youtube. i won't name names, not out of fear of reprisal (i don't care what internet "stars" think of me), but because the list is disturbingly long! i get my share of grief from "enlightened" men who should really know better for my feminist stance, but for me it's part and parcel of the whole. as a man or not, when i ditched irrational thinking, i ditched all notions of racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia. we have to take a stand on this, because we're right and they're wrong.

Posted by: PixelFish | November 19, 2009 6:58 PM

Bravo to Hypatia's Girl for pointing out some of the intersectionality between atheism and some race and gender issues.

It's true we've had progress. But these points of progress aren't the endpoint indicating equality. They can be viewed as signposts indicating that we're moving in roughly the right direction--but for those who deal with lack of privilege this movement can feel glacially slow.

I do have to say that it is frustrating to say, "Yes, I've experienced sexism in the atheist/skeptic/freethinking communities," and to have somebody pipe up and point out those signposts as if that somehow negates my experience. (And I imagine that PoC experience similar frustration when denial of racism goes down.)

....

Takma'rierah @ 164: I think there's two different types of name dropping going on here. PZed did ask for a list of folks who we should perhaps hear more from, in the interest of sharing his large megaphone and soapbox. So folks are sharing the names of those folks they feel are under-represented here, as it is true we do hear a lot from Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens here.

However, there is the occasional name dropped along with the "This is why skeptifem is wrong--look at so-and-so." I believe Madelyn Murray O'Hare was referenced on several occasions. I feel this was kinda disingenuous, since MMO is dead and not currently producing new things to draw in the crowds, nor is she usually referenced in the same way that dead male atheists are. Carl Sagan and Bertrand Russell get invoked with more regularity than MMO does, and usually not cast in the same light. (My exposure to MMO's fame has always been associated with discussions about how problematic she was as a face of atheism and her title "Most Hated Woman in America", which incidentally focuses on her femininity, and not her atheism.)

....

I'll admit that Skeptifem's article could be better written, but I'm betting that it was spawned by personal experience in trying to get people to care about Maher's OTHER problematic stances and being shut down. I've seen Maher's misogynist tripe raised for discussion here and other places and seen other skeptics laughed it off as "irrelevant" or "just a joke."

Bill Maher's sexism is pertinent to a discussion of his skeptic bonafides because he engages in sloppy thinking, hasty generalisations, and gives only lipservice to the rational ideals of equality between sexes. And while skeptifem overstates the case when she asks "Why hasn't this been discussed before?" she's not far shy from the mark. Because a lot of people were willing to overlook those remarks EVEN AFTER THEY WERE BROUGHT UP because Maher is who he is. Whether this is because Maher is a comedian, male, famous, atheist, whatever...it doesn't change the fact that people were willing to let the misogynist tripe flow. Ergo....women and the feelings of women were less important than letting this person spew irrational BS.

Skeptifem's point was that including these guys without criticism leads to more entrenchment of sexism and racism. Stuff that is the antithesis of the ideals of the community.

We're not saying Bill Maher or Christopher Hitchens don't make valid points. Just that the valid points they do make don't make their invalid ones any less invalid.

Posted by: Allienne Goddard | November 19, 2009 7:00 PM

While elders in foraging societies are accorded a level of veneration commensurate with their age/experience, these cultures often have practices that seem specifically tailored to remove most of the interpersonal inequities the rest of us accept without a second thought.

While undoubtedly some hunter-gatherer somewhere isn't being given a fair shake, the level of egalitarianism among groups like the !Kung--at least, those still practicing traditional lifestyles--is far beyond anything we're likely to see in the next few generations.

I agree with all of the above, but if you go back to David's post, he implied that because bands are quite egalitarian in social status terms, there are no interpersonal power differences. This is certainly untrue, according to ethnographers of the !Kung, Yanomami, and everything else I've read. I guess I could email references once I get home, if you want.

Posted by: MadScientist | November 19, 2009 7:04 PM

@J. Quinton #182: Thanks for your comments. Those circumstances certainly aren't limited to your situation. I've seen it around the planet and you still see it a lot even in the USA - some people just never travel more than 200 miles from where they're born. Most religions pressure people to conform and even in the absence of religion society often pressures people to conform to some nonsense or other. There is often a lot of pressure from families to stick together as well. Some people conform, some decide to head out on their own and see what the world is like.

I suspect it's more a case that it may be harder for some groups at the present time, but it was certainly no easier for any particular group in previous generations. Understanding why that may be so could be helpful, but the only people who would have much of a clue of the reasons or possible actions to take would be the people in that situation, not the old white dudes. The old white dudes realize that some people are underrepresented but for the most part haven't got a clue what to do and largely just go about their business and hope that other people will join eventually.

Posted by: kamaka | November 19, 2009 7:11 PM

Not that I'd suggest she should have the podium, but the young woman who posts vids on Youtube, GoGreen18, I find quite entertaining. I hope she finds her (stronger) voice as she matures.

J. Quinton @ 182

Anyway, this is my observation/anecdote from growing up so take it for what it's worth.

I was trying to find a way to articulate the points you made... I think you summed it up very well.

Posted by: 1984 | November 19, 2009 7:18 PM

Carolyn Porco examines how science and scientists are portrayed in the film industry. She also explains how she interprets some of the stunning imagery taken by the Cassini mission to Saturn and the outer planets, which she oversees.

http://www.atheistmedia.com/2009/11/science-in-hollywood-by-carolyn-porco.html

Posted by: Carlie | November 19, 2009 7:21 PM

Is there anybody mentioned here yet - except maybe Julia Sweeney - who is seen as positive by everyone???

I guess you're right; I was basing my opinion about it on the fact that the issues around her are particularly with regard to racism (I was thinking of the dustups with her book cover and the attribution of the writings of POC bloggers), so could specifically alienate some of the same people we're trying to attract.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 19, 2009 7:23 PM

huh?
what?
Oblivious? Me?
to what, again?

Posted by: Nancy | November 19, 2009 7:24 PM

I've had my share of arguments with Amanda Marcotte, but she's no racist, and I have no idea what you are talking about on "the attribution of writings..."

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 19, 2009 7:31 PM

And BTW people, Richard Dawkins buys into all the just-so stories of evolutionary psychology - he said on this very blog that women are more monogamous than men by nature - and evolutionary psychology is what people turn to in order to justify male dominance and patriarchal cultural practices when "because God said so" will no longer suffice.

Aw, jeez, you again? The last time I called you out on this kind of bullshit it ended up costing me a couple of days of vehement argument with some of my favorite cyber-people, and I do not wish to go there again, but this kind of broad-brushed crap is nothing but ignorant sloganeering. Sorry. Propping up the patriarchy is most emphatically not a goal of evolutionary psychologists.

Posted by: Sili | November 19, 2009 7:37 PM

Thanks, aratina. I think agnostic is good enough for most people - it certainly was in the case of The 2009 recipient of the Richard Dawkins Award.

More worrying is the fact that I'm now agonising over whether I've been nominating you for a Molly solely on the evidence of your posts, or if it played a significant role that I thought you were female. Argh! I hate being too introspective.

And anyone mention Ann Druyan yet? She's done a lot more than just having been married to Carl.

Posted by: Sili | November 19, 2009 7:39 PM

GUH!

PATRICIA!

Now if anyone can teach atheists to suck eggs it's her.

Posted by: Shinken | November 19, 2009 7:40 PM

Excuse me but I am looking hard at Evolutionary Psychology as one of my majors. what is so wrong with it?

Posted by: Jacqueline S. Homan | November 19, 2009 7:50 PM

Alot of the posts already covered the aspects of our socialization. But here's another dimension not previously examined. I knew I was not a "rare breed" as far as being female and atheist is concerned. I've been an atheist since I was about 8, but I first began to doubt the existence of God when I was younger — when my grandmother read from the Torah to me. The creation/fall of man story screamed "shell game" at every synapse in my brain. My questions of "why" this and "why that" were brushed aside with "you just have to believe", "ask the rabbi", etc...A girl who asks too many questions is viewed as challenging authority or rebelling, and that's highly frowned upon in society. So girl atheists who grow up into women atheists are a lot less "out of the closet" about it. We usually have bigger things to worry about, simply because we're women.

Secondly, many women atheists feel that there are more important issues that directly impact them and their lives and families that they need to be "out and vocal" about. Owing to persistent discrimination in the job market and access to affordable healthcare in the wake of post-welfare reform America, women are 41% more likely to be poor than men.

Being poor means going hungry, losing your teeth prematurely lack of dental care (especially while pregnant!), being homeless, or having to live in substandard housing. Women are far more likely to be denied employment because of their age, their weight and looks than men. Older men are "distinguished looking" while older women are "hags" or "crones."

Women are the majority of rape victims and 100% of the population that has to fear unwanted pregnancies in the face of 30 years of assaults on women's rights to bodily autonomy.

With all these issues and very few allies, women are shown over and over and over that we are on our own — our needs, our human rights, our concerns don't matter. Our problems take second fiddle to everyone else's. Few other "causes" or "movements" take our problems into consideration, and the minute we speak up we're told "shut up, you whiner — no one wants to hear it." Or we're silenced with the cudgel of "you're expecting special treatment." Women are criticized or dismissed as less intelligent, irrational, and illogical because everyone knows women can't do math and women aren't funny and there's plenty of "studies" to support that view.

Given all that, many women atheists are more concerned with the causes that will help them as women, as the half of the human race that has historically been, and continues to be, beaten down by the other half. So if you want to find out where all the other absentee women atheists are, it's because we're having to deal with other issues that are more impacting on our lives.

Want to find women atheists? Look at the family planning clinic escorts. Look at the professors in the Womens' Studies Departments at any given university. Look at La Leche, the group that's fighting for breastfeeding mothers' rights to NOT be ejected from venues where women and children are normally allowed to be. Look at the secular poverty advocacy groups such as the Welfare Rights Union. And look at the young "tomboy" who refuses to sit down and shut up. We're out there, and those of us who can afford Internet are in here (A|N community) participating...when we're not too damn busy struggling just to sruvive and devoting our time and efforts to fight loss of reproductive choice, loss of social programs that help the poor, and loss of what little voice we have that's even taken with a bare minimum shred of seriousness.

Posted by: ContainsCaffeine | November 19, 2009 7:52 PM

Thanks for posting this...after TAM several women expressed issues that were swiftly disregarded. I think it's an issue we all just need to work at.

As for women I'd love to see more of, Carolyn Porco comes to mind. I just watched the video of her speaking about the portrayal of scientists in the movies, and she was very inspiring.

And of course Ayaan Hirsi Ali is just an amazing woman and person of color.

Posted by: Shinken | November 19, 2009 7:59 PM

@Jacqueline S. Homan

I never had it presented to me that way. Wow, that was a zeitgeist for me. Thank you and that is not sarcasm my mind is truly opened

Posted by: Nancy | November 19, 2009 8:03 PM

Excuse me but I am looking hard at Evolutionary Psychology as one of my majors. what is so wrong with it?

I just tried to post something with lots of links to debates, reviews etc. but got stuck in moderation purgatory for the moment...

Posted by: Lola | November 19, 2009 8:13 PM

I guess I had not noticed any anti-woman sentiment in this blog. I'm currently reading "The Greatest Show on Earth" and haven't detected any bias. I have never considered males to be superior to females. We just differ in our purpose. After 58 years of "field" work, I do admire many men, particularly those in the sciences. But I acknowledge these are the top 1% of the male population. That is also true for women. The sad truth is that 99% of the population constructed our society as it is now, and by sheer numbers, they prevail. These biases, as well as prejudices, are meaningless when you realize we are all here for one purpose: to reproduce just like any other animal or plant species. It's too bad we are so good at it.

Posted by: Nancy | November 19, 2009 8:16 PM

These biases, as well as prejudices, are meaningless when you realize we are all here for one purpose: to reproduce just like any other animal or plant species. It's too bad we are so good at it.

"purpose"? Says who?

Posted by: Diane G. | November 19, 2009 8:21 PM

#213Posted by: Shinken | November 19, 2009 7:40 PM

Excuse me but I am looking hard at Evolutionary Psychology as one of my majors. what is so wrong with it?

A paucity of female POVs, IMO.

A "meme" I'm particularly unfond of: "males seek "healthy-looking" (read: beautiful) women because they will bear healthy children..."

Ever see any data on that "relationship?"

B.S. If successful child-bearing were the goal, stretch marks would be sexy. Beauty translates into things like evenness of features, proportionately large eyes, etc., all of which indicate youth. Males seek exclusionary sexual rights to women; youth & dependence tend to go together.

Males & females have competing strategies in many cases...happily some of this is starting to emerge in ev-psych, genetics, & various other fields.

Theorists long had assumed that while males maximized their reproductive potential by siring many offspring with various partners, females favored/required exclusivity for support & protection. It was only when genetic analyses could be performed that it became obvious that females frequently have more than one partner themselves...they're just more clandestine about it. (Initial work in birds, IIRC.)

Etc.

In short--much of ev-psych is hypothesizing, thus vulnerable to the prevailing world view of the hypothesizers.

Posted by: Shaun | November 19, 2009 8:29 PM

I think that one point that might be made without being shot down too hard is that, as a writer or speaker who focuses heavily on a personalised of very population-specific subject, one should not be wholly surprised if people for whom the subject matter is not of enormous PERSONAL importance are not wholly engaged or even all that interested by those writings or talks.

To put a rather blunt case forward, a writer whose primary output is on the subject of "feminist scepticism" should not be all that disappointed or angry that they find a limited audience outside female sceptics. If Dawkins mainly wrote about 'evolution and its implications for old white guys' he would lack audience.. but his writings are general to the subject and thus more accessible/relevant to more people. This is a pattern among those who are dominant.. their writings are less personal and more general.

That is NOT to say demographic-specific issues are not important, but they will always have smaller audiences by their very nature.

It is also not to say that all or most female writers and speakers focus wholly on "women's issues" but those who do will not be seen as leaders widely by those outside the demographic of "Those with specific concerns about gender bias"

I hope to see many more prominent female participants in this community.. not because they have more value but because they have the same value. Any community without broadly demographically distibuted membership and structure has issues.

Posted by: Shinken | November 19, 2009 8:30 PM

I have to say that memes make a lot of sense (and Susan Blackmore gave a brilliant talk on memes at Poptech 2005) however some people can surely let their imaginations get the best of them. This shouldn't necessarily cast down on the hypothesis itself but make one weary to who is using it to explain certain phenomena.

Posted by: PixelFish | November 19, 2009 8:38 PM

Shaun: Women are half the population of the world. Over half, actually. It's hardly a matter of PERSONAL importance that there is systemic bias against them and that pervades through all power structures. Similarly, white people are not a majority of the world EITHER, and yet, strangely, have a lot of power considering their percentage. Is it a PERSONAL concern to examine this disproportionate power dynamic?

I wasn't aware that injustice was such a PERSONAL issue.

Posted by: Nancy | November 19, 2009 8:39 PM

B.S. If successful child-bearing were the goal, stretch marks would be sexy. Beauty translates into things like evenness of features, proportionately large eyes, etc., all of which indicate youth. Males seek exclusionary sexual rights to women; youth & dependence tend to go together.

It isn't just that - the flip side is that EP theories claim that women don't care about appearance, but prefer wealth and dominance in males. This is supposed to be an evolutionarily evolved preference rather than the result of a situation in which males have most of the money and power in the world. Because even though EPs give lip service to the idea that culture matters, in practice they always dismiss culture as a controlling force in human behavior as can be seen by the idiotic "do you want to have sex with me" experiment trumpeted by that idiot Helena Cronin (can't find a link for it just yet...) to David Buss mistaking female sexual slavery for female sexual preference:

http://www.mcclernan.com/bookreport.asp

And on and on and on...

Posted by: Diane G. | November 19, 2009 8:48 PM

Jacqueline S. Homan--well said.

Want to find women atheists?...Look at the professors in the Womens' Studies Departments at any given university.

Would that that were universal. My daughter is in a Women's & Gender Studies class at a MI university. Her professors bend over backwards to acknowledge religious diversity & decry religious discrimination, and never mention the possibility of non-belief. Sigh.

Carol @ # 216: thanks for those links. (Heh--as always, appreciated most by someone already in agreement...)

Posted by: oldfeminist | November 19, 2009 8:53 PM

pixelfish:

I have no problem pointing out Amanda as an atheist, but where she presents problematic ideas, she should be subjected to the same critique as Dawkins, Hitchens, et all.

I'd say her transgressions are not on the level of Hitchens'.

Anyway, Marcotte having apparently imperfect credentials on the basis of race shouldn't bar her from joining the discussion, since it doesn't bar Hitchens or Dawkins. If Marcotte brings up something racist, we can whack at her just as we can whack at Dawkins or Hitchens for sexist statements.

I got to know her (virtually) years ago on alt.folklore.urban, a good skeptic birthing ground. Urban folklore study is useful for skeptics because it's not focused mainly on science, but on social factors such as why people believe bullshit even in the face of obvious contradictory evidence.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 19, 2009 9:06 PM

PZ Myers,
Maybe you should take a leaf from Mr Dawkins...

FEMALE Atheists are far more numerous than most people realize. COME OUT of the closet! You'll feel liberated, and your example will encourage others to COME OUT too. (Don't "out" anybody else, wait for them to OUT themselves when they are ready to do so).

The OUT Campaign allows individuals to let FEMALE atheists know they are not alone. It can also be a nice way of opening a conversation and help to demolish the negative stereotypes of FEMALE atheists. Let the world know that we are not about to go away and that we are not going to allow those that would condemn us to push us into the shadows.

As more and more FEMALE ATHEISTS join the OUT Campaign, fewer and fewer people will feel intimidated by religion. We can help others understand that FEMALE atheists come in all shapes, sizes, colours and personalities. We are labourers and professionals. We are mothers, daughters, sisters and grandmothers. We are FEMALE atheist humans (we are FEMALE atheist primates) and we are good friends and good citizens. We are good people who have no need to cling to the supernatural. But most of all we are FEMALE ATHEISTS

It is time to let our FEMALE atheist voices be heard regarding the intrusion of religion in our schools and politics. FEMALE Atheists along with millions of others are tired of being bullied by those who would force their own religious agenda down the throats of our FEMALE children and our respective governments. We need to KEEP OUT the supernatural from our moral principles and public policies.

It is time to step up and.....um….err…oh yeah!...I remember now... free thinking beacons of enlightenment who don’t need anyone to tell them how to think. Lest of all atheist men.

Lion (IRC)

Posted by: Russell Blackford | November 19, 2009 9:14 PM

Why has no one mentioned Christine Overall, who is a very vocal atheist philosopher and a leading feminist thinker? Or Adele Mercier?

Posted by: BMS | November 19, 2009 9:18 PM

Another vote for each: Amanda Marcotte, Melissa McEwan, and Julia Sweeney.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | November 19, 2009 9:33 PM

Hannah - What atheist men are you interacting with? I've never encountered the tendencies you mention within the skeptical community.

Posted by: Nancy | November 19, 2009 9:40 PM

The consensus among the commenters seemed to believe it's because women are biologically less rational than men.

Yep. Because "God says so" isn't sufficient, so now it's - "it ain't sexism - it's pure science. Evolution made women biologically inferior"

Biological inferiority is exactly the argument that Steven Pinker makes, and it was echoed by Lawrence Summers in his infamous statement at Harvard. Clear, based on the Summers example, biologically-justified sexism does NOT hurt your career.

I have not specifically heard an EP say women are biologically less rational - but if one did I would not be a BIT surprised.

Posted by: Nancy | November 19, 2009 9:47 PM

BTW since you don't know me I guess you will just either have to take my word for the fact that I'm reasonably clued in or just dismiss me out of hand.

Dismissed.

Posted by: BMS | November 19, 2009 10:12 PM

Patricia,

Please accept my sincerest condolences. Janine just filled me in (I've been mostly away from the blog).

I'm so very sorry.

BMS

Posted by: Diane G. | November 19, 2009 10:15 PM

Biological inferiority is exactly the argument that Steven Pinker makes...

Nancy, the masochist in me wants to know what Pinker says--got a post or url anywhere?

I certainly agree RE Summers.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 19, 2009 10:20 PM

Not a gator, if you listen to the testimony of atheists about their deconversions, the reading of the bible and figuring out that it is a myth rates very high. Then one looks for true evidence for a deity, which isn't there. One doesn't need to study a bunch of faiths to reach that conclusion.

Posted by: Nancy | November 19, 2009 10:28 PM

Diane G -

You have to read several chapters of "The Blank Slate" to get the full effect

For the short easy-to-digest version check out this review of "The Blank Slate" from the New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2002/11/25/021125crbo_books

And you can read Elizabeth Spelke smiting him with science here:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html

Posted by: kamaka | November 19, 2009 10:43 PM

"The Problem of the Oblivious White Male Atheist..."

Well, I'm not oblivious. My way of dealing with racism/sexism is to be fair in my day-to-day dealings with people in real-time.

I do understand the advantages afforded me by male/blue eyes, but i must say, it gets tired having to "prove myself". The presupposition that I own "unconscious prejudice" is a charge that has no defense.

Posted by: Diane G. | November 19, 2009 10:44 PM

Thank you very much, Nancy. This is gonna take me a while... :D

Posted by: Ermine | November 19, 2009 11:28 PM

Nancy:

Richard Dawkins buys into all the just-so stories of evolutionary psychology

*Citation needed*

he said on this very blog that women are more monogamous than men by nature

*Citation needed*
- Not saying he didn't say it, (though I can't find it via searching so far), but I'd really like to be sure he did, as well as seeing in what context he might have made such a statement. Is this the only statement you've got from him to base the previous claim on? If so, well.. I can only suggest that that doesn't appear to be either a sceptical or even a rational view of the man.

- and evolutionary psychology is what people turn to in order to justify male dominance and patriarchal cultural practices when "because God said so" will no longer suffice.

*Citation needed*

While I'm sure that SOME people may do this, I'd like to see some evidence that any appreciable fraction of the people involved in the field of Evolutionary Psychology have 'turn[ed] to [EP] in order to justify male dominance and patriarchal cultural practices'. Somehow I can't help thinking that there are a lot of other reasons to get into the field, and a lot of other questions that it can shed light on that have nothing to do with white male privilege.

This looks more like an attempt to poison the well than to actually deal any issues, and just to make an ad hominem stab at Dawkins at that.

Can you please try to do a little better? I've got nothing against your ultimate goals, - I'm all for them in fact, - but I certainly don't think the post I'm quoting does anything to further them. I'm all for seeing more women and minorities in the limelight as sceptics, scientists, and atheists, but I don't see attacking the top names in your own movement(s) as a good way of accomplishing it. Certainly not without a better foundation than your post presented!

Posted by: Spooky | November 19, 2009 11:47 PM

Simon Singh

Posted by: Fred The Hun | November 19, 2009 11:55 PM

kamaka @ 261,

The presupposition that I own "unconscious prejudice" is a charge that has no defense.

I'm sure someone out there will correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know we all have "unconscious prejudices" but it is possible to educate one's self about them and their manifestations and therefore consciously counteract act them.

It seems to me to be of the highest form of arrogance to presume that someone that you do not know is unaware of the fact that they may harbor unconscious prejudices and has not therefore made a serious attempt at conscious modification of their own behavior.

While I'm generally not much of a fan of anything found in the Bible I believe there is still some merit to to the concept behind this:

"Hypocrite, first take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to remove the splinter from your brother's eye"

And guess what, some of us white atheist males have never even considered the need to stop beating our wives or significant others...

Do you think you can figure out why not?

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 20, 2009 12:11 AM

Does anybody here know about Rachel Maddow's beliefs? If so - spill!

Posted by: Hieronymus Braintree | November 20, 2009 12:21 AM

1) Maher is a comedian who visciouly skewers what he considers to be human folly. It is clear that he wasn't targeting women in general but targeting what he considered to be obnoxious individuals and behavior through satiric exaggeration. Apparantly it is too much to ask certain liberals to distinguish between a wisecrack and a sincere statement of belief. It is also worth noting that his liberal, sophisticated audience was cracking up at his remarks. At least they have that ability. If you want to condemn Maher for sarcastically talking about strangling a female publicity whore then you also have to condemn Wanda Sykes for wishing Rush Limbaugh dead. Frankly, I thought both remarks were funny but then again, I don't care as much as you guys do about fighting prejudice.

2) Maher's comments are weak tea compared to the appalling hatred of men evinced by feminists. Feminists have stereotyped men as violent, rapey, even murderous oppressors who are endlessly conspiring to keep women down. Andrea Dworkin, who was one of the most celebrated feminist of the 20th century was notorious for saying things such as in order to make the world a better place all men will have to become impotent. She became one of the most popular feminists in the entire history of the movement spouting this bile and, unlike Maher, was not in the habit of employoing exaggeration in order to make satiric points. Dworkin was, to all appearances completely serious when she claimed, to use one example, that the preferred form of male pornographic entertainment are films where women are litterally killed on screen. So, boo-fucking-hoo about Maher wising off over stupid behavior he doesn't like.

(And anyone who wants to claim that Andrea Dworkin doesn't represent feminists; bull shit. She became famous only because feminists insisted on making her famous. She counts against feminists exactly the same way Ann Coulter or Rushbo count against Republicans. Deal with it. Andrea Dworkin is also hardly alone. Nothing is easier than coming up with a feminist slander against men. They're famous for it and it's one of the reasons feminists are so unpopular even among their own supposed constiuency.)

3) Unsupported generalizations that claim that Bill Maher is particularly hard on women and minorities prove nothing because, as any good critical thinker--including Prof. Myers in his less self-righteously sloppy moments--can tall you, mere assertion is not proof. Last I checked Bill Maher was hard on everybody. What makes Bill Maher different is his fearlessness. He'll go after sacred cows of the left the same way he'll acknowledge, in the face of massive bullshit to the contrary, that the 9/11 hijackers were, in fact, physically courageous and not cowards even if they were heinous assholes. He lost his job for that perfectly accurate statement. Prof. Myers on the other hand has a nice little tenured sinicure at a liberal college where challenging feminism's massive stupidity is not good for the health of one's career.

4) Bill Maher has done far more to popularize atheism in this country today than anyone else you can name. He's certainly done far more than PZ Myers. Meow!

Posted by: Nancy | November 20, 2009 12:44 AM

Andrea Dworkin, who was one of the most celebrated feminist of the 20th century was notorious for saying things such as in order to make the world a better place all men will have to become impotent.

Yeah, and remember how she had her own TV show on HBO for years?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 20, 2009 1:38 AM

*sigh*

I can't believe the ignorance infesting this blog. It's quite simple, really. A normal human being has only so much energy to spend on swimming against the current. When you're a straight white male, you will predominantly have to defend your atheism only. when you're female, gay, and/or non-white, you have other battles to fight besides those for our right to non-belief. Here's a sample oft the awesome things I got to deal with this week alone:

"A key that opens many locks is a masterkey; a lock that can be opened by many keys is a shitty lock"

"yeah, but you're a girl!"

(discussing Mad Men) "Everybody always says it's the men trying to get their co-workers into bed, but see? the women do it too"

and those are only the ones I remember just now; and these are the arguments I'm supposed to fight in ADDITION to dealing with the fact that I'm an atheist in a sea of theists. How the fuck is it surprising that I (and others like me) have less time and energy to fight atheist-specific battles? especially when the sexism-battles happen even within the atheist movement?

This shit is exhausting :-(

Posted by: PixelFish | November 20, 2009 1:47 AM

Oh, goody, here's Hieronymous Braintree@ 273 to tell us how we've got it all wrong.

1- The sense of humour argument. Can't count the number of times this gets levied at feminists. Of course, I tend to go with Molly Ivins (I think) who said there was no humour or honour in attacking the oppressed and the powerless.

Because I mean, we know its so humourous and edgy to turn a problem like domestic violence into a punchline. Or generalising about women always crying. Yeah, that was just a wisecrack. About somebody obnoxious.

You were right about him viciously skewering. Can't say much for the humour aspects of those particular quips though--Maher is a smart man, we expect better of him than stupid rape jokes. (Oh, hey, look, it's Melissa McEwan, feminist AND atheist calling out Bill.)

And if you need a primer on why rape jokes and other jokes making light of violence that disproportionately effects women, here's one.

2 - The appalling hatred evinced by feminists? Of course you were going to evoke Dworkin--she's everybody's favourite feminist punching bag. Hate to break it to you, but as mentioned upthread, feminists aren't a monolith. There are plenty of modern feminists who are sex-positive and oppose Dworkin's alignment with those she thought would uphold her anti-porn, anti-man crusades. Furthermore, there are lots of feminists who have a far better view of men than say, oh, any evangelist who thinks women need to cover up because the menfolk can't be trusted to control themselves. If you'd spent more than a nano-second questioning the "man-hating" you could probably google up lots of feminist discussions about how the kyriarchy and strict gender roles harm men as much as they harm women. You could find people like Amanda from Pandagon (again an atheist feminist) explaining how anti-feminists perpetuate the man-hating mythos while having a very low opinion of men themselves.

Feminism has changed a lot since Dworkin's day. It's almost as if the leading minds of feminism revisited bad ideas and discarded them for better ones. It's almost as if they had a multitude of opinions, not all handily swept under one banner nor one unifying leader. It's almost as if they were, dare I say, like atheists in that respect.

3- Well, I don't know how fearless Bill is. But he certainly feels it's okay to make fun of not just the famous and fame-seekers, but innocent and non-famous victims of rape. So he had some good and accurate moments. Again, as we point out upthread, being accurate on one count doesn't excuse you from douchebaggery or sloppy thinking on another.

4- Even if that were true, and how you go about quantifying it anyway, what would it matter? Again, good behaviour or good effects in one area don't mean you get a free pass in others.

Posted by: CatBallou | November 20, 2009 1:54 AM

Natalie Angier! She's brilliant, funny, and an excellent writer.

Posted by: latsot | November 20, 2009 2:13 AM

Perhaps we've fallen into the trap of having de facto 'leaders' and 'spokespeople' through the normal rich-get-richer semantics of human attention spans. It seems likely enough that we'd all benefit from encouraging other voices and I'm not averse to giving those voices an elevated platform for a while. Once they've become more of a fixture in the community, they're on their own, but I'm all for encouraging and helping talent, whatever kind of body it comes in.

I'm instinctively wary of positive discrimination, but I think there's a strong case for encouraging groups we don't tend to hear much from because we might learn something.

Posted by: Julie | November 20, 2009 2:32 AM

I really don`t like the idea of forced "including the non-privileged" (what does that even mean?), as people suggested here.

It`s like patting a child on its head and saying "yeah, yeah, now you can say a few words too, sweety"

You`re implying that we`re not as capable as you are and thus need help. This is worse than being openly anti-woman.

Hey feminists, feminism (at least in Germany) is obsolete, get over it and stop whining! -_-

I´m a (female) graduate student in biology, most of my colleges are women and as far as I know all of them are atheists or "at least" agnostic, including myself. Women are catching up in science (biolgy was "conquered" first, the trend is clearly visible in chemistry, physics, engineering..) and other fields, all by THEIRSELVES!

What about the underrepresentation of men in school education, medicine, "domestic work" and even SCIENCE?

Maleists, get out of the closet!

phew...

Posted by: Curious | November 20, 2009 3:17 AM

funny, I was just discussing with a friend that feminism is the last truly uncriticised irrational position.

saying men and women are equal is a nonsense statement. equal in what? because there are many areas where the mean female will perform differently to the mean male, whether better or worse.

so it makes sense that in a free market system that not every position in society will have an equal distribution of males and females.

so why do feminist expect it to?

PZ have you ever considered that maybe no female has yet wrote a good enough book for everyone to buy it or that Dawkins et al simply give better speeches?

you may not think so but that's your opinion, no one else is or should be obliged to buy books or see people speak if they don't think they're worth it. especially just because some feminist kicks up a fuss.

accepting that men and women are different is not sexist and you're not a misogynist for pointing it out.

And hell if you are then i guess i'm a sexist. (yes, there's no plea that many of my friends are female)

for example the article by hitches "Why Women Aren't Funny" might actually be true. I would certainly expect it if humour was a sexually selected trait. Now I'm not saying it is because I haven't bothered looking up the science.

However, that's not the point, it might be and Hitches might be talking about something he's legitimately observed. Now what would happen if it was somehow confirmed by science. Something tells me the feminist will be crying foul.

Rationality is above political correctness.

peace people

(btw, I do not believe that women should not have equal rights under the law, so please don't stawman my arguments with that)

Posted by: latsot | November 20, 2009 3:19 AM

It`s like patting a child on its head and saying "yeah, yeah, now you can say a few words too, sweety"

Not necessarily and that's clearly not the position PZ advocates. There's a difference between encouraging someone and patronising them. Helping to provide an environment everyone feels comfortable participating in doesn't in any way devalue anyone's individual achievements or the collective achievements of any arbitrarily defined group.

Quite the reverse: it recognises those achievements and regrets the fact that members of some groups sometimes need to fight the tide because of the way history happens to have panned out.

I think we can all stand to reevaluate our collective and personal prejudices from time to time. It's hard to imagine that we don't benefit from that. It's hard to imagine that we can't also benefit from making it easier to hear people who have valuable things to say.

Posted by: latsot | November 20, 2009 3:27 AM

(btw, I do not believe that women should not have equal rights under the law, so please don't stawman my arguments with that)

You're the one who seems to be creating the strawman. Feminism doesn't demand that men and women should be equivalent, it demands that they should be treated equally: given equal opportunities, receive equal respect and have equal rights in both principle and practice. This is not an irrational stance.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 20, 2009 4:15 AM

David Marjanović, was there a blockquote fail at some point, or did you just vehemently refute your own comment?

No, no, I did. Forgetting the awesome agriculture of the NG highlands is just <headdesk>. Alan Kellogg's mythus is too similar to the societies he's most used to, sure, but it's by no means too agricultural.

Is there anybody mentioned here yet - except maybe Julia Sweeney - who is seen as positive by everyone???

Sastra? :o)

Excuse me but I am looking hard at Evolutionary Psychology as one of my majors. what is so wrong with it?

Its protagonists tend to consider way too few possibilities, and regularly try to explain things that may not even exist.

I just tried to post something with lots of links to debates, reviews etc. but got stuck in moderation purgatory for the moment...

Not "for the moment". PZ has said he gets so much spam here that anything that triggers moderation is dead and will never be posted. Post it again in two or three parts or something.

we are all here for one purpose: to reproduce just like any other animal or plant species

That's not a purpose. It's just what happens: those of us who reproduce will have descendants in the next generation, and those who don't won't. :-|

It's a funny thing, though. I am always interested, despite my rabid feminism, whether a poster is male or female. If the nickname is neutral I find myself puzzling which one, so I can decide whether to approve or not.

One reason is certainly that the English language forces you to choose between "he" and "she".

It's also interesting how I tend to infer this from the grammatical gender a name would have in languages I'm familiar with. If it ends in -a, my default assumption is female (see aratina cage above), and I didn't guess that the thalarctos (masculine in the original Greek, and in Scientific – Thalarctos maritimus) is female.

Posted by: John Morales | November 20, 2009 4:39 AM

Ashley @82,

Are any of those ladies particularly snarky? I'm always in search of snark...

I've been following B&W for years, and I think you might enjoy Ophelia Benson¹. I think her snark is delicate, yet devastating.

--

¹ note: that's her blog, but the site is most worthwhile too.

Posted by: Curious | November 20, 2009 4:46 AM

"You're the one who seems to be creating the strawman. Feminism doesn't demand that men and women should be equivalent, it demands that they should be treated equally: given equal opportunities, receive equal respect and have equal rights in both principle and practice. This is not an irrational stance."

I don't see how I am

The outrage by the author Skeptifem at Hitchens belief that "Women Aren't Funny" seems to suggest s/he [Skeptifem] believes that both men and women are equally funny and that all who don't are sexist.

How is that not demanding equivalence?

Furthermore the crux of my argument was actually on why feminists expect that all positions in society should be equally distributed between males and females?

You may not hold this view but many feminist do (especially the ones who get media attention) and PZ certainly seems to expect it in this case.

So i think my portrayal is fair and accurate.

Posted by: OurSally | November 20, 2009 4:47 AM

@Carlie #292

You know, things really getting better (as far as we female engineers are concerned).

I read engineering from 1976. Teachers and parents had no understanding of why we should want to be there; the same in hard sciences. We were 13 women in 300 students, and the lecturers always said "gentlemen ... AND ladies" in a most slimy manner. They told us were only there to marry money. Well, we showed them. My sister had it much worse at a plate-glass uni. She got wolf-whistled out of lectures. She showed them by getting a 2.1 and doing a PhD.

30 years later my daughter is studying computer science (in Germany). About 40% of the course are women. No-one is bothered by their presence at all. If you go next door to mech eng you see not just women but women in headscarves, chatting away about gear ratios.

It was hard to start with. The generation before mine had it worse, one lady I know was the only one in her year, and in industry she earned less than the men for the same job. Things do get better. We just had to prove we do it all just as well as the men, and as the old duffers die out people forget there was ever a question.

We managed without positive discrimination then, in fact it made us stronger.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | November 20, 2009 5:03 AM

Rationality is above political correctness.

Too high for you to reach, apparently.

Posted by: Curious | November 20, 2009 5:11 AM

@ maureen brian

"Most of the feminists I know are far enough on with their writing skills to have put the past participle "written" into that fifth paragraph."

There's always someone who thinks they're clever by attacking grammar rather than argument.

If you had actually read my post you would have noticed that I actually wasn't making any claims as to which sex is better than which, just the the sexes are different.

Therefore you would expected that the mean female would have a different level of proficiency than the mean male while performing various tasks.

So females on average may well have better grammar, while males on average may well be better at articulating atheistic arguments that readers find enjoyable or vice versa.

Or they may well be the same, but we shouldn't [I]expect[/I] them to be.

Posted by: mythusmage | November 20, 2009 5:16 AM

Diane G, #147

Got bad news for you, you are not immune to natural selection. How fit you are within your environment determines how successful you're going to be in reproducing.

Fitness may be physical, it may be mental, it may be social, but fitness still limits who can and will breed. You establish the criteria that determines who you will breed with, who is best suited to fathering your children.

Where the matter of leaders and followers are concerned, it would behoove you to not simplify what I say. Yes, in every group you will find people who think they can be better leaders than the leader they now have. There will always be people who think the current leader is doing it wrong, and that they would do a better job. But, don't mistake the desire to become leader with some dream of a society without leaders, where all share equally in the power and the responsibility.

On the matter of inclusive language it would help you to remember that I am of an earlier generation. When I was growing up gender inclusive words included such neologism as "s/he" and "hesh". The third person singular "they" is a rather recent usage. Please do not assume that just because I use the word "he" I'm always referring to men. You have the desire and the ability, then give it a shot. You never know how you'll do until you try.

Last, but certainly not least, on the Internet nobody can tell you're intersexed with a micropenis undergoing hormone therapy preparatory to gender correction surgery. Just as anonymity can encourage boorish behavior, so can that same anonymity encourage assertiveness in somebody who would be too intimidated to speak out. More later in this thread.

Posted by: R-Tam | November 20, 2009 5:30 AM

Hey, curious asshole.

Equality does not mean sameness. And yes, you are a fucking sexist. And qualifying that with "I have female friends BUT" doesn't obscure it.

"PZ have you ever considered that maybe no female has yet wrote a good enough book for everyone to buy it or that Dawkins et al simply give better speeches?"

Yes. After hundreds of comments nominating great women atheists, you've reached the conclusion that LOL Gurls just can't write!

Posted by: maureen brian | November 20, 2009 5:48 AM

Yes, Curious, I probably knit better than you do. The way society is structured gave me far more opportunities to learn, to practice and - I'm human - and to be praised for what I've made.

None of that means my brain is structured differently, is of a different quality or that my life in total is less productive than yours.

(To further confuse you I've also been published in law journals and designed a very complex computer system.)

Whence comes your urge to divide people? Could it be a defence mechanism when competing with the entire human race - for education, for resources, whatever - is more than you can handle?

Interesting, isn't it? Bill Maher does a one-liner no funnier than that but he's sharp and can be forgiven the many lacunae in his wonderfully rational approach to life.

Meanwhile, I'm a bitch!

quod erat demonstrandum

Posted by: mythusmage | November 20, 2009 5:50 AM

Now about this whole "deserve to be heard" stuff. You don't earn the right to be heard, you have the right to be heard. At least and until such time as you demonstrate you're not worth listening to.

So should you decide to express yourself here or in another venue, speak out. I may not agree with what you say, but I will listen as best I can

Posted by: John Morales | November 20, 2009 6:03 AM

mythusmage #213, :)

And let's not forget the female and male modes...

Posted by: Cimourdain | November 20, 2009 6:26 AM

Jacqueline,,

Sorry, not good enough. You'd have to say that Naomi "Burkas are cool" Klein isn't a Western feminist, and the same about Germaine "Female Genital Mutilation is cool" Greer. This riff-raff is right at the heart of "Western feminism".

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 20, 2009 6:40 AM

The third person singular "they" is a rather recent usage.

Wrong. It goes back to Chaucer at the very least and has been in common usage ever since.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 20, 2009 7:01 AM

But, no matter how much the people get to have their say there will always been one person who takes responsibility for what the group does. Even when the people come to agreements among themselves, there is always one go-to guy.

Not in the cultures I mentioned.

Frustrates the government of Papua New Guinea to no end. They'd love to have a go-to guy, but there just isn't one.

Posted by: Carlie | November 20, 2009 7:03 AM

And in any case, the overall issue of women in science is a bit of a derail from the main topic of women and minorities as public faces of atheism. Greta Christina has done a fabulous job of outlining reasons it's important to have a variety of people seen in the forefront of atheism, for anyone who thinks it's important for atheism to have such a movement (understanding that a lot of people don't). When talking about marketing of an idea, there are other considerations as well such as showing inclusivity, appealing to people in those minority groups, etc.

Posted by: Feynmaniac, OM | November 20, 2009 7:41 AM

Also the idea that woman and black people aren't treated seriously within the scientific community, is complete rubbish. Ever heard of Eugenie Scott and Neil deGrasse Tyson? Not taken seriously? Are you fucking kidding me!

I don't think anyone is saying that women or minorities aren't taken seriously in the sciences. What is true however is that women and minorities face certain institutional challenges, not just in the sciences but in many sectors of society. You mentioned Neil deGrasse Tyson, well here he is discussing the hurdles he had to overcome to get where he is.

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | November 20, 2009 7:58 AM

Heh, re my #324 post, I just remembered that in fact PZ did intervene. He asked me, and my attackers, to drop the whole matter :)
Wonder how I forgot that? Post Traumatic Stress probably :)

Posted by: Carlie | November 20, 2009 8:15 AM

Ring Tailed Lemurian - was that the one with the quote by 'Tis Himself that used a racist term? IIRC, he did apologize for that.

Posted by: dk | November 20, 2009 8:30 AM

More Ophelia Benson, please!

Posted by: Kristian Käll | November 20, 2009 8:42 AM

I don't think most people notice the misogyny as much as they notice that bad science.

Two reasons.
1. Most of us are keeping our radar trimmed for spotting bad science.

2. The Genus perspective is something we've been struggling with for a long time. And we keep struggling with it. Men and women alike make different distinctions and act differently depending on another person being male or female. It's not something we think about at all.
I'm currently reading about this in UV, where even the scientists that research the phenomena catch themselves with treating boys and girls distinctively different. Without ever thinking about it at the time of doing it.
I'm not excusing Maher or Hitchens. I don't agree with either of them on with much other than their stance on religion. But I also don't think they are themselves aware of that they are treating women and men differently.
I can bet that everyone in this comment thread do it too, but you are unlikely aware of it. And if you are, you are probably not aware of to what degree you do it. I've been looking at myself a lot the last few months and how I act. And what I find is that I look differently on boys and girls. I've found that I simply got more patience for the girls than for the boys.
This is obviously something I try and work on, to diminish and to as an great extent I can, eradicate any different treatment of the children based on gender. But I doubt I'll ever get the entire way there.

Anyway, I think it's great that this has been brought out in the open and up for discussion. I think only good can come from it. But I hope everyone who take part in the discussion keep in mind that this is to a great extent something we're not even aware of that we are doing.

Posted by: sjk | November 20, 2009 8:51 AM

Carlie #322:
Exactly!

When I wanted to take advanced calculus in high school, my mom discouraged me (because she had always been bad at math, so she was afraid I might fail and she also thought I would never need that stuff again in my life). Most of my friends actually made a point of being bad at math - nothing for girls to worry about.

So when I started studying computer science, I knew I was making a statement. With only about 8 percent of women in my first year at university, I always felt I had work harder than my male friends. I had to prove that I had the right to be there. So I did.

People who think that some exceptional successful women / non-white people prove that there is no discrimination just don't get it. My mom certainly doesn't think less of me because I'm not a boy, but she still took it for granted that girls and math don't go together. It takes some determination to fight this very subtle form of discrimination. Not everybody is willing to do that.

I've read somewhere that the goal of feminism must be that mediocre women earn the same average money as mediocre men. We're far away from that yet.

Posted by: Carlie | November 20, 2009 8:55 AM

The one thing that bothers me about these type of discussions is that I haven't seen any real difference between white men and white women in being racist, and white women's racism always seem to be ignored.

Citation please? Or is it just that people use "he" and "him" as default pronouns, since English acts as though humanity is in general male?

Posted by: dk | November 20, 2009 9:00 AM

@ MadScientist

"The burden of proof lies with whoever makes accusations of things like white dude-ism."

Wrong. Trivially wrong. White dude-ism has run the world for the last few centuries. Any evidence to the contrary (and there's precious little of it) is all from the last couple of decades.

Posted by: Carlie | November 20, 2009 9:08 AM

FlameDuck - look up Kathy Sierra before you keep claiming that IT isn't hostile to women and make more of an ass of yourself.

Posted by: Hyperon | November 20, 2009 9:29 AM

I don't want to step on any taboos here -- well, actually, I do. Isn't it at least worth entertaining the possibility that the most prominent figures of the atheist community are predominantly male simply because the most interesting atheists tend to be male? Can you really blame anyone for being more intrigued about Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris than Eugenie Scott, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Greta Christina, etc.? I don't know about you, but it's pretty clear to me that the first four are quite simply more original thinkers than the last three.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in particular, isn't nearly as well-known as I would like, and is doubtless a wonderful person. It's worth understanding why she is so special, however: not because she's such an original thinker (even though she's clearly intelligent), but because she's one of the few ex-Muslim apostates with the incredible bravery to come publicly forward and tell the world about her harrowing experiences.

As for people of colour: Neil Tyson and V.S. Ramachandran are at least as brilliant as the Four Horsemen, in my opinion. As it happens, they haven't written any substantial books on atheism. If they do, and still aren't seen as "leaders" (whatever that may mean), only then can we speculate about racism.

Posted by: Takma'rierah | November 20, 2009 9:48 AM

To repeat: People get popular for a reason. They must be promoted by other people to get more attention. The people doing the promoting will usually have biases. It's not necessarily a matter of who's interesting or boring or what-have-you.

Hmm, I see several people here have clearly never had women's studies or read any feminist material. I'll have you know that modern feminism--at least the fairly large branch that I follow--is very concerned with race, class, and men's problems, as well as women's, and that there is indeed a long way to go. You just have to follow the discussion instead of glancing around, sticking out your finger to test the wind, and pronouncing that women are doing just fine now. Yes, we're doing better. We still have a long way to go yet. For one thing, if I can be walking around outside at night, see a man, and not reflexively tense up it will be a victory, and I'm a black belt with confidence in my ability to be stubbornly vicious. When other women, less self-confident, can walk outside alone and have no fear of men, it will be a significant victory, to say nothing of various other important issues.

Implying that men and women have fundamentally different ways of viewing the world, outside of societal influence, is bull. I've lived a life relatively secluded from the demands of society and I've found that few of my choices really have to do with my gender, outside of some deliberate contrariness. I have seen that my interests therefore fall somewhere in the middle of what is traditionally "male" and "female." I was of course unsurprised.

Posted by: TDF | November 20, 2009 9:57 AM

Ophelia Benson! Her combination of penetrating insight, sharp wit, and forceful prose make her one of the most compelling voices out there.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 20, 2009 10:09 AM

OurSally @ # 284: Once I applied for a job in the USA and I had to write something in a box called "race". I wrote "human". I never heard from them again.

Ever heard of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"?

Lots of people write that in such boxes. A few even get called back.

The key words in your statement are "job" and "USA". There ain't much overlap between those categories.

By the way, I've read interviews with Andrea Dworkin - by male journalists - in which she came across as friendly and easy-going. While not agreeing with everything she said, I still would argue that (gee, whoda thunkit?) she's been systematically misrepresented. Her pal Catherine MacKinnon, now... :-P

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | November 20, 2009 10:30 AM

@ Carlie
I really, really wish you hadn't mentioned any names in your reply to me. As far as I am concerned that episode is finished, and forgotten as far as it relates to any particular person, who as I said, I respect in all other matters.
I'm sure that I too am guilty at times of similar unthinking, unreflected lapses (probably sexism in my case). Sometimes we need other people to point out our own failings. I'm sure I could have handled it better.
Being the parent of non "white" (and non male) children I'm probably more aware of, more on the lookout for, and more likely to react to, that sort of thing (as anyone would be when they have experienced morons throwing stones and screaming "Fuck off Paki!" at their children). I have also worked in Australia with Aborigines and seen the appalling racism they suffer, so am also particularily sensitive to any slurs about them. Of course it shouldn't need personal experience or the witnessing of prejudice to make one opposed to it, but it certainly helps fine-tune the detectors :)
I only mentioned the matter in a general fashion because it seemed relevant to this topic. At the time I was very disappointed in PZ's reaction, but he's now initiated this important discussion, and so that's now forgotten too.

Posted by: Carlie | November 20, 2009 10:39 AM

Ring Tailed Lemurian - I'm sorry; I should have realized you were purposely avoiding the details, and I was kind of fuzzy on which one you were referring to. I didn't mean to bring it back up specifically, and I hope that it doesn't turn into another huge side topic since it was completely resolved in the prior thread.

Posted by: Recursive Paradox | November 20, 2009 10:56 AM

I find it remarkable (and boggling) that some folk (like MadScientist) seem to think that racism/sexism/transphobia/homophobia and etc being present in our society and endemic to every subculture therein is the new assertion.

These things have been historically established. The new assertion, the challenge to this long established concept of systemic oppression being endemic to our society (slowly improving but not enough to justify using that trend to claim it's gone here) enabled by apathy of those not actively engaged in it, is that certain groups have risen above it. No group has risen above it. Even rights movements have shown historically that same trend of oppression towards other groups. Feminist racism, ableism and transphobia. Trans racism and ableism, racial civil rights groups showing transphobia, ableism and homophibia. Etc etc etc.

The burden of proof lies upon you to establish that the skeptic and godless communities have risen above racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism and etcetera. You are the ones challenging the established historical data.

The laziness is just astounding. Stop passing the buck. Establish skeptics are different and break the trend. Or shut your mouth.

Posted by: Dianne | November 20, 2009 11:13 AM

Is this really representative of how the majority of women react when they see any men?

Yep.

Posted by: Vicki | November 20, 2009 11:16 AM

Because apparently it needs saying: when someone points out that a field, such as IT, is hostile to women or non-whites, we don't mean that the subject matter is hostile. We mean that the people working in the field are, actively and passively, hostile to women. The Python code may not care about your gender, but the person evaluating it often does. An equation won't judge you for your skin color, but someone deciding who to call on in class, or selecting a post-doc, may.

Posted by: FlameDuck | November 20, 2009 11:22 AM

FlameDuck - look up Kathy Sierra before you keep claiming that IT isn't hostile to women and make more of an ass of yourself.

Even if there are bigger hurdles for other groups it's still wrong that women and minorities face a social stigma, and it isn't going to go away by pretending it doesn't exist.

Ok, here's some anecdotal evidence that women who manage to make it in science and engineering

If a woman should happen to let her guard down?

Posted by: Fred The Hun | November 20, 2009 11:34 AM

Carlie, from your link:

So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this man rape me?

Do you think I’m overreacting? One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime.

Yes I absolutely think so! According to http://www.rapehelp.com/rape-statistics.html most women are *NOT* raped by random strangers in dark alleys. They are raped by people they know!

So your fears are unfounded to say the least, completely irrational and not backed up by any empirical evidence.

"Zombies are at an all time low level, but the *FEAR* of Zombies could be incredibly high! Doesn't mean we need government policies to deal with the fear of Zombies!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIaV8swc-fo

Get in the Feckin Sack!

Posted by: Lisa Smith | November 20, 2009 11:37 AM

I just think it's really sad that we lost Lori Lipman Brown at Secular, Ellen Johnson at American Atheist and Margaret Downey from Atheist Alliance almost at once. I'm not talking conspiracy, just an unfortunate happenstance. We had 3 very strong women who were getting a lot of press and creating some really interesting events and none of them were replaced with women. So as people say we're doing better, but we ain't there yet.

Posted by: Carlie | November 20, 2009 11:42 AM

I don't really know who taught you rape prevention tips, but that's entirely bullshit. It is never okay to "blame the victim", regardless of gender, ethnicity and creed.

And that means it never happens. Riiiiiight. You never hear "she asked for it" or "she shouldn't have been dressed like that" or "she shouldn't have been walking around alone at night" or "she shouldn't have been drinking". And nobody at all has said, for instance, that Roman Polanski wasn't at fault for raping a 13 year-old girl because she went over to his house and didn't fight back hard enough and so he shouldn't be prosecuted. What world do you live in? Oh, right, the one where you never have to pay attention to things like that.

Read, please.

And then can I request that this particular derail stop? Because once again, people are being made to run around stomping out the fires of basic ignorance of what it's like to not be white and male while the main freaking point of the post falls entirely by the wayside, conveniently forgotten. Carol already linked to Derailing for Dummies, but some people seem to have taken it as an actual how-to manual here.

Posted by: Lost Left Coaster | November 20, 2009 11:44 AM

I've read this entire discussion. I just wanted to direct a comment to Fred the Hun -- stop digging! After all your various blasts of sexism and utter obliviousness, you're now telling women that they have no reason to fear being raped, that it is irrational.

You need to learn empathy and step outside of the narrow confines of your point of view as a male.

Posted by: Timothy (TRiG) | November 20, 2009 11:55 AM

My comment should be somewhere in the 170s, but it isn't. Could you please check your spam filter?

TRiG.

PS. I have an OpenID account. Is there any way I can use that to sign in but have it display here as my username, not my url?

Posted by: Anomic Entropy | November 20, 2009 12:00 PM

Does anyone else remember this Pharyngula entry, from over a year ago? Care!

The comments are very telling. Like Ol' George, I prefer a gender neutral pseudonym for posting on the internet. It's made a huge difference in how I'm treated. People more articulate than I have already pointed out crucial details of history and current inequalities that I don't feel I can add much to that. I did think it might be helpful, however, to point out that, absent the race issue, this has come up before.

Posted by: Dave | November 20, 2009 12:13 PM

RE: Women in IT. As a Senior Exec in an IT firm, perhaps I can offer a few insights: One of the first things I notice is the difference between the Admin and the Development sides of the field. I havent done a formal study, but of the resumes I see for developers, Id guess about 40-50% are from women, and at least in my firm, our staffing reflects that. For SA positions, less than 10%, and those that I do see are rarely qualified. Helpdesk positions fall somewhere inbetween and ProjectManagers are similar to Devel. I dunno what that says about either women or the IT industry or even my geographic area.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 20, 2009 12:17 PM

IT is a field overtly hostile to women? That's just absurd. Why? Are you saying woman are illogical? There was one girl across 7 semesters of IT (engineering) at my University. Diametrically opposed to the 1 guy studying integrated design. Your argument is that in the field of engineering IT is hostile to women, and integrated design is hostile to men? Or might it just be that one holds greater appeal to one or the other.

*headdesk*

because being repeatedly told that "girls don't do math" and being actively discouraged from pursuing it can't possibly be a reason fewer women go to college to pursue Computer Science and the physical sciences.

and then there's also the choice you get to make between having 98% male classmates, half or more primarily or solely interested in your reproductive organs; or a major where your classmates are treating you like a person rather than something to stick their dick into. or as a commenter on pandagon recently said:

When people wanting to have sex with you feels inherently dangerous and degrading, then people actively trying to not have sex with you starts to look like the wonderfullest thing ever.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | November 20, 2009 12:20 PM

Lost Left Coaster and Carlie,

I've read this entire discussion. I just wanted to direct a comment to Fred the Hun -- stop digging! After all your various blasts of sexism and utter obliviousness, you're now telling women that they have no reason to fear being raped, that it is irrational.

You need to learn empathy and step outside of the narrow confines of your point of view as a male.

I need to learn empathy? My point of view is biased and narrow because I'm a male? Ok, if you say so! I'm now telling women they have no reason to fear being raped and that it is irrational? Oh, really? Interesting, and you base that on what exactly?

So Fred, you're saying that you'd be happier if women were more afraid of the men they know?

No, I'm saying I'd be happier of all people were more capable of critical thinking.

But you only further prove my point trying to put those words in my mouth.

Posted by: Endor | November 20, 2009 12:26 PM

"Is this really representative of how the majority of women react when they see any men?"

Yes. I am a petite woman and one constantly subjected to street harassment from men. They make it a point to deliberately show me I an unsafe in public, that I have no right to privacy or to be left alone. So yes, this is the way I am internally reacting to men.

++

"However I also don't think that too many of the people who comment on this blog are part of the so called underclass either."

*You* do not make that determination. I freely admit I am wildly privileged in a lot of areas - i'm white, educated, suburban, raised christian, thin, able-bodied, straight, etc.

This does not mean, however, that I am never subjected to sexism.

In fact, I'm pretty much constantly subjected to it, so it's made me desire to be an ally to those who do suffer bigotry far more egregiously then I do.

"Most here are by any global standard are quite the opposite. so, this comment,"(what is it about the clueless & privileged that is so damn amusing?)" is the epitome of "the pot calling the kettle black"."

Lol. I just figured out what's funny about the clueless and privileged - their never-ending desire to stay that way and accuse everyone else of being just like them.

"BTW since you don't know me I guess you will just either have to take my word for the fact that I'm reasonably clued in or just dismiss me out of hand."

Consider yourself dismissed.

"It just seems to me that there are indeed much more pressing issues that if not resolved will indeed make moot whether or not the so called rational skeptical humanists are tuned in to the nuances of their personal biases."

Of course you feel that way. Because the problem being addressed in this post doesn't directly affect or interest you, therefore you've decided it's not important.

Once again, *YOU* do not make that determination for everyone else.

"To be clear I highly doubt that there are many closet racists or overtly bigoted misogynists in this crowd."

Not overtly such, at least not frequently. There are more than a few suffering from privileged, self-righteous blindness, but I have hope for them. Being skeptics and all.

"So except for the occasional troll you are all in an echo chamber preaching to the choir here."

Don't visit here much, huh.

"Democracy and human rights in this country will not survive into the next century if we continue to head down our current path."

So, in your opinion, bigotry and its results is not a human rights issue? Has it really not occurred to you who is being hit hardest by the problems you listed?

Don't worry about it being taken personally, at least not by me. I've long ago stopped taking personally what drivel the blind and clueless have to say. I argue because, as I said, I aim to be an ally to those who have it worse than I do, who don't deserve your self-centered, dismissive treatment.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 20, 2009 12:35 PM

Endor, <blockquote>this</blockquote> will make your comments easier to read, like...

this.

Posted by: earthling | November 20, 2009 12:37 PM

In answer to your question PZ, I think Annie Laurie Gaylor (apols if someone has already mentioned her) should be getting way more props.

She's written a fantastic book about religion and women ('Woe To The Women: The Bible Tells Me So') and has compiled and edited a massive (1000 pages approx) anthology of female freethought writing entitled 'Women Without Superstition'. She also co-founded the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

As such she should be (imo) just as famous as Dawkins, Harris etc.

For what it's worth I have experienced sexism and anti-feminism in the skeptic/atheist community. Not good.

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | November 20, 2009 12:42 PM

@ Ol'Greg & Anomic Entropy
When I used to play multi-player online games I used to switch IDs between male and female sounding names just to see what happened. Fascinating. I was shocked, but not really suprised, at the different treatment I got.
When I was assumed to be female I would have lots of people wanting to talk to me, trying to chat me up, and totally ignoring any tactical advice I gave. Other players would absolutely hate being killed by me.
When I was assumed to be male people would always listen to my opinions and I would have to fight off being elected leader. And it was almost a badge of honour to be killed by an "ace" like me.
I did notice though that as the years passed things got better and the treatment got more equal.

Posted by: SC, OM | November 20, 2009 1:02 PM

[OT]

Rev.,

I just sent you a business-related email.

[/OT, with apologies]

Posted by: Anomic Entropy | November 20, 2009 1:07 PM

@PixelFish
Your post reminded me of some of my own experiences, growing up. First was being told by my father, out of the blue, that he knew what my problem was. (I think this is probably a reference to my tendency to be a bit depressive, but I'm still not sure.) My problem was that, "for a girl" I think too much. The sad thing is that, considering my family's little subculture (mormonism), he was probably right. Thinking so much almost inevitably made it impossible to be happy in that system. Fortunately for me, I finally came to the conclusion that mormonism was the thing to go - not the thinking. ;) Another little stroll down memory lane was being the youngest girl in the history of my school to take Trig - and then Calculus. Unfortunately my Calc teacher had stated in the classroom on numerous occasions that girls did not belong in Calculus. When I placed (3rd, IIRC) at the local college math contest that year, he accused me of cheating. Fortunately for my reputation, he created a separate test for me to take in the classroom and I was able to solve all problems correctly. He never said anything else about the supposed cheating. I had kind of hoped for an apology. Ah... memories... and no, this wasn't all that long ago.

@Ring Tailed Lemurian
OT, but you just reminded me of this xkcd comic. Like I said, definitely OT, but gives me the giggles every time.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 20, 2009 1:22 PM

Flameduck,

Lots of people receive death threats on the Internet, regardless of gender, ethnicity or creed.

Posted by: L.Minnik | November 20, 2009 1:34 PM

Fred:

most women are *NOT* raped by random strangers in dark alleys. They are raped by people they know!
So your fears are unfounded to say the least, completely irrational and not backed up by any empirical evidence.

Posted by: isaac | November 20, 2009 1:41 PM

#138

Posted by: daveau

Isaac@117-

"I've been told I play the blues pretty well for a white guy."

It's like people have never heard of Jimmy or Stevie Ray Vaughn, or any number of thousands of people of all colors who can play blues like they invented it.

It's a shame because, the way I see it, if there is any force on the planet with the power to bring people together, it's music. Music doesn't "belong" to any one person or color. Music *belongs* to us all.

"You need to comment here more often."

Okay. If you will. I will dedicate a blistering blues run to you next time I plug in, in the meantime.

#167

Posted by: Diane G.

#138Posted by: daveau | November 19, 2009 5:06 PM

Isaac@117-

You need to comment here more often.

+ 1

"Isaac, as I'm sure you know, much of what you relate is valid if "woman" is substituted for "black..."

I completely agree and always have. I have a tendency to regard most of us who are not wealthy white males as being in much the same boat in so many ways. There is so much that those of us who don't fit into that category have in common in so many ways...If only more people could see the bars of the cages we make for ourselves and that most times, our enemies aren't who we think they are and that a lot of those we oppose should be our natural allies if only we could see past the surface differences...

There is a shared reality among more of us than many people seem to realize. We all have our bear to cross, and when we stop griping about our own for a minute and look around, more often than not we find the next person is trying to cross the same bear. Or something.

"I shudder to think what black women have to listen to."

Aside from having to listen to me, it's hard for me to say what black women (white or Asian or red or brown ones either) listen to, not being one myself. I can only vouch for my experience as a black man, and it doesn't seem to be the experience of very many other black men I've run into in my life. I don't try to speak for anyone else, but as far as understanding what women go through, all I can do is do my best to listen,try to understand, not be part of the problem, and make my shoulder available for crying on. I've had lots of tears shed on my shoulders.

"I try to be where you are, i.e., more interested in concentrating on our commonalities than differences; but ran into trouble when I had kids. Suddenly I couldn't choose to overlook the daily racist & sexist messages they were exposed to. At least they got a dissenting view at home."

I've never fathered any children, but I have experienced some of what you talk about. In 1992, the then five year old daughter of a white female friend decided that since her absentee, deadbeat dad was a complete snake, she was going to adopt me as her father, no matter what I had to say about it. That responsibility hit me like a semi truck and all of a sudden my life was different.

I had to be aware of the messages she was getting and counter those as well as feed her positive messages and images. [Some of those messages deleted for space reasons]

I must have done okay. She is almost 23 years old now, is a very confident and capable young free thinking woman, is assertive in what I think is a positive way, doesn't allow herself to be victimized by typical male bullshit, has her own mind complete with some (to me) impressive critical thinking skills, etc. I feel that having to try to help her prepare for the world, she made me a better man than I would have been otherwise. We love each other to death to this day and for always.

Posted by: Aquaria

isaac: While many people seem to think it's strange and remarkable, I have very rarely been asked *why* I am an atheist. I would like to be asked that at some time.

"Am I really the first person to ask it?

Isaac, why are you an atheist?"

You're not the first, but you are one of the rare ones who has asked.

Simply put, from my first remembrance of being exposed to religion, I can't remember thinking it was anything but bullshit and a waste of time.

My mother and grandmother used to drag me to this church with people fainting and speaking in tongues and all kinds of scary crap for a kid. Then they'd talk about how they'd experienced god's love and other crap that was just bullshit to me. Didn't make sense; school made sense.

I was always an inquisitive, curious kid and was always driven to learn, both on my own and in class. I noticed that when I asked questions in school, I got answers. I had the greatest second grade teacher in the history of teachers, Mrs. Pennisten. Every day I would ask Mrs. Pennisten a question. When she knew the answer, she would take great pains to patiently explain the answer. When she didn't know, she always had the same response: "Isaac, I don't know, but I will find out the answer tonight and I will explain it to you." And she always did.

I remember two questions that got that reply. Once I asked her why spiders had the ability to spin webs and other creatures didn't. Another time I asked her how it was possible for videotape to contain both sound and picture. I always went to school eager because I was going to learn something.

Not so with church, where I felt the kids in my Sunday school were morons or zombies and would just swallow the Kool Aid. I never learned anything useful and it all just had the feel of full blown, weapons grade bullshit. The comic books I read made more sense that religion. I started referring to the bible as the greatest comic book story ever told.

The things I learned in school were things I could see in the world around me. I could sit in my backyard and watch an anthill for hours and see the ants behave in exactly the way I was taught in school. A praying mantis caught bugs exactly the way I was told they did in school. I noticed that a softball had one side sunlit and the other dark the same way they told me it worked with the moon and the planets. *Nothing* I was told in church or Sunday school seemed to have any relevance to the world that I could see or any world I, as a sane young boy, would want any part of.

School opened up the world to me. Religion tried to close it off. I was encouraged to think and see things for myself in school. I was encouraged to take someone else's word for it in church. The difference was literally the difference between black and white.

I had other good teachers, but Mrs. Pennisten was the one that influenced me more than any other teacher did or than any religious figure could ever hope to. She convinced me when I was seven years old that I was college material and I decided at that age I was going to become college educated. I am preparing for law school now and I thank Mrs. Pennisten every day of my life.

She doesn't know how much she did to help me resist religion, and I never got the chance to thank her for what she did in that and other ways to influence my development and my life--my dad was in the Air Force, and the day after second grade ended, we were shipped away from Omaha where he had been stationed.

There is, of course, much more, but let's just say that schooling encouraged me to keep my eyes and my mind open, while church wanted me to keep it locked down tight. Religion just never took root.

Thanks for asking.

Why are you an atheist?

Posted by: Lynna | November 20, 2009 1:47 PM

PixelFish, great post @384. I've had similar experiences. One point you made really stuck home.

Dealing with this on a daily basis is TIRING.

It's particularly annoying when males do not even notice that they are granting other males automatic respect, while making it difficult for a female to join the conversation. I was once head of IT for a small company, but whenever we had company meetings, the big wigs would ask my assistant (male, of course) what he thought. I had to push my way into the conversation. It was ridiculous because I really was the organizer, problem-solver and true head of my two-person department.

I notice that when I am particularly snarky on Pharyngula the trolls mistake me for a male. Usually a teenage male, which also says something about my personality ... let's not think about that too much.

Posted by: leepicton | November 20, 2009 1:58 PM

There were certain areas of IT where women were not discrimintated against - programming and software development. You could either make the machines sing and dance, or you couldn't. So the incompetent were weeded out pretty quickly. I worked for many years for the same boss through several companies, and had to hand it to him - he hired mostly women, and a large majority at that. He recognized somehow that the sexism that women had to put up with made the competent ones more industrious than their male equivalents, and their productivity was higher. To his great credit, he paid them what they were worth and built a loyal workforce.

Posted by: PixelFish | November 20, 2009 2:07 PM

Er. It's occuring to me that this conversation is detouring into Feminism 101 and that's not what it was meant to be about. Carol@216 posted links to Derailing for Dummies, and Feminism 101, if folks are looking for more information.

Also, as this discussion shifts more to gender discrimination, we get further afield from the axis of experience that atheists of colour experience, basically shutting them out. This could easily have turned into a discussion of racial dynamics as well, to the detriment of the feminist side. So let's see if we can make an effort to get back to the topic at hand which was roughly "Which non-white-male voices could stand to have greater exposure in the atheist community?"

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 20, 2009 2:08 PM

Walton #320,

I just had to say, well said.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 20, 2009 2:12 PM

The presence of rape in society owes its origin chiefly to two things: (1) many men are sex-hungry, and (2) they tend to be a lot physically stronger than most women.

And you're off your rocker if you think that rape is primarily about sex.

As a man, I stand the very real risk of being assaulted, and even killed, should I ever venture to insult the wrong person. If somebody spills his drink over me, and I complain, he had better not be a certain type of character; otherwise violence could ensue. As a result of the widespread assumption that it isn't "macho" to hit women, this wouldn't apply to anywhere near the same extent if I had no Y chromosome. This is perhaps worse than the risk of rape, yet I never see anyone mention it when the discussion turns to social injustice.

um wow

/slowly backs away from the insane person

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 20, 2009 2:14 PM

The presence of rape in society owes its origin chiefly to two things: (1) many men are sex-hungry, and (2) they tend to be a lot physically stronger than most women. Essentially then, the inevitability of male rapists follows from human biology.

of course. because men, unlike dogs, cannot learn to control their aggressive urges.

doesn't really surprise me that on top of racism and sexism, you're also a rape apologist and completely oblivious to rape culture right here in the gloriously non-islamic west.

Posted by: Hyperon | November 20, 2009 2:18 PM

of course. because men, unlike dogs, cannot learn to control their aggressive urges.

doesn't really surprise me that on top of racism and sexism, you're also a rape apologist and completely oblivious to rape culture right here in the gloriously non-islamic west.

Posted by: Steve Caldwell | November 20, 2009 2:21 PM

To abolish the possibility of rape, we'll require genetic engineering or a very interesting set of cultural circumstances indeed.

I don't know if you've seen this article:

"Sexual assault prevention tips guaranteed to work" -- A modest proposal for avoiding rape
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2009/09/23/guaranteed_rape_prevention/index.html

If implemented, the prevention tips in this article would stop most rapes and sexual assaults.

Posted by: Jacqueline | November 20, 2009 2:22 PM

Cimourdain posted:

"Jacqueline,
sorry, not good enough. You'd have to say that Naomi "Burkas are cool" Klein isn't a Western feminist, and the same about Germaine "Female Genital Mutilation is cool" Greer. This riff-raff is right at the heart of "Western feminism"."

Not ALL feminists are as stupidly authority loving as these examples.

"To put it at its bluntest, I regard the majority of Western feminists as somewhere between cockroach and the crud behind my fridge. The reason for this is straightforward: during my time being involved with that brave band who are trying to fight Islamic oppression of women, we have found Western feminists to be about as useful as the Pope's balls. Witness Naomi Klein, or Germaine Greer supporting FGM.."

If the majority of feminists support shariah, burkas, genital mutilation, and stoning rape victims to death (because it was their fault), then I wholeheartedly agree with your comment on them being "betweeen cockroachs and crud".

As a feminist I, and many other feminists I know, don't support patriarchal, or matriarchal religions. We don't support religious (or otherwise) opression by males or females. Unfortunately we don't have much access to the media to share our views, like that dizzy old bat Germaine Greer does.
Those who do not support her crazy views, or Naomi Klein's have to get lumped in with these authoritarian nitwits in your perception.
Which is exactly like taking every tyrant or murderer who was an atheist and then saying " All atheists are power hungry homicidal maniacs!"
Like I said earlier, not all feminists are authoritarians. Please don't lump feminists of vastly differing views into one big homogenous lump of morally questionable authoritarians. It is a creotard tactic.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 20, 2009 2:27 PM

A fatuous strawman. I need not explain why.

Rape apologist? Incredible. What a lunatic.

you're a truly horrible person.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 20, 2009 2:30 PM

erm, that was supposed to be "much less bad", not "much worse".

Posted by: Lost Left Coaster | November 20, 2009 2:36 PM

@PixelFish: I totally agree that this thread has mainly gotten off topic and that it needs to be steered back. But then Hyperon comes along with an absolutely stunning array of pro-rape comments that we just cannot ignore.

@Hyperon: Yes, you are a rape apologist. You make the absolutely fact-free assertion that rape happens simply because men cannot control their sexual urges. That is a grotesque anti-woman and anti-man statement (we'll call it anti-humanity). Simply grotesque. I shudder to think of how you must treat women, if you think it is okay to simply excuse rape in that manner. And you say that rape may be biologically adaptive? And that the risk that a guy might punch you in the face because you made him mad is worse than if a woman gets raped? This is pure misogyny.

I can't even put into words how much you disgust me. I won't respond to you further, because those comments are clearly of the troll variety, but I had to register my objection. You illustrate the very sexism that allows rape to persist in a society. You sicken me.

Posted by: Hyperon | November 20, 2009 2:43 PM

@Hyperon: Yes, you are a rape apologist. You make the absolutely fact-free assertion that rape happens simply because men cannot control their sexual urges.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 20, 2009 2:46 PM

It isn't too inconvenient to minimize chances of rape. Just don't go around alone late at night. That happens to be good policy anyway, for both sexes. It's rather more difficult to eliminate the phenomenon of men killing other men over wounded macho pride.

I did not make that assertion. What I did was claim that the existence of male rapists is inevitable given certain facts about human biology. I went on to say that a special set of cultural circumstances could in principle remove the possibility of rape. Clearly your reading cannot be defended, so you should apologize for misrepresenting me.

your grasp on sociology, biology, and humanity in general is as tenuous as ever.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 20, 2009 2:53 PM

It isn't too inconvenient to minimize chances of rape. Just don't go around alone late at night. That happens to be good policy anyway, for both sexes. It's rather more difficult to eliminate the phenomenon of men killing other men over wounded macho pride.

Want a shovel?

Posted by: PixelFish | November 20, 2009 2:56 PM

....must....resist....derailment....

Argh.

Okay.

Do you park your car to be close to the office door if you know you are going to have to work late?

Do you walk quickly, keys clenched in hand, head up and alert, as you walk to your car?

Do you automatically check your car's back seat when you get in the car?

Do you lock the doors right away once you get in the car?

Do you automatically look for security cameras in parking garages and elevators and subway platforms?

Do you walk an extra few blocks out of the way even in the early evening because there are more stores and lights two blocks up?

Have you ever chosen to walk down another street, because you know you'll have to deal with the group of men who always hang out on Corner X?

And when you have passed Corner X, have you ever had comments made about how small you are?

Have you ever had somebody break off from the group of men on Corner X and follow you because you didn't smile or laugh when they "complimented your ass"?

Have you ever had a man take your picture with his camera phone on the subway?

Have you ever had a man start masturbating while you and he are the only people on the train car/in the park?

Have you ever had somebody moved between you and the door and lean toward you and tell you that you're a "real nice girl, not some stuck up bitch?"

Have you ever refused a drink at a bar and gotten a tirade from the person offering?

Have you ever refused to give somebody your phone number and had them keep on asking?

Do you worry that your apartment door doesn't have a peephole?

Did it take you twice as long as your ex to find a nice apartment and nice roommates because there are some neighbourhoods and situations you don't feel safe in?

Do you worry about leaving your cell phone at work or at home accidentally?

Speaking of which, have you ever whipped out your cell phone and started calling your SO because somebody was following you?

Have you ever been forced to take refuge in a store because of somebody harrassing you?

Were you able to walk down streets as a teenager without hearing remarks about your body parts?

How many emails do you get forwarded by elderly relatives about date-rape drug of the week or other rape scenarios?

Do you ever get nervous working alone late at night?

Have you ever had to tell a coworker to stop giving you shoulder rubs? Have you ever had to tell the same coworker that remarks about your body were inappropriate? Have you had to deal with this coworker "accidentally" bumping his genitalia against your butt repeatedly when he'd follow you down the hall or into other people's office?

Have you had to lend your emergency supply of the Morning After pill to a girlfriend who had just been raped?

Do you even worry about having an emergency supply of the Morning After pill, even though you were single?

Have you ever heard one of your girl friends tell you about how a friend they trusted didn't stop when they asked them to?

Have you ever felt relieved that your SO is back from their out-of-town trip because you subliminally feel a tiny bit safer not sleeping alone?

Do you tense up slightly when dealing with unknown repair people and delivery guys?

This is a tiny segment of how my brain filters for safety on a daily basis. All the harrassment incidents have happened to me. I'm lucky, because I have not been raped, but a good percentage of my girl friends have not been so lucky. (And those are just the ones who are brave enough to share. God knows how many haven't said anything.)

Posted by: co | November 20, 2009 2:58 PM

Hyperon, #426:

You think that being punched in the gut, perhaps having a nose or hand broken, and some contusions is a *better* prospect than having all those things happen *AND* being sexually violated?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 20, 2009 3:00 PM

Ooh, Hyperon is afraid. We should be tell him to grow a pair and become a man. Because he is obviously a child. Real men don't connect their chances of getting beaten up to that of women getting raped. Either Hyperon is mentally ill, or he is a child. He is no man.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | November 20, 2009 3:01 PM

It isn't too inconvenient to minimize chances of rape. Just don't go around alone late at night have a vagina or anus.

There. That would minimize the chances much more I think.

Posted by: PixelFish | November 20, 2009 3:04 PM

Hyperon spews: It's quite simple: Because I'm a man, I suffer the increased probability of being assaulted by violent men. I would trade this any day for the increased probability of being raped incurred by women.

So, we know that there is a systemic discrimination against women, which many men condone. What makes you think that women are fucking immune from the treatment you describe as well? It's not TRADING. It's plus. If a violent man would beat you up without blinking an eye, he'd do the same to us.

(And sorry, I don't believe that he'd stop at hitting a woman. Chris Brown beat Rihanna up repeatedly and some folks were STILL trying defend his behaviour when it first came out.)

If he's violent enough to go all apeshit on your ass, what would he do to somebody he deems less powerful?

This is my last response to Hyperon. It is increasingly obvious he is all about the Derail.

Posted by: Hyperon | November 20, 2009 3:14 PM

You think that being punched in the gut, perhaps having a nose or hand broken, and some contusions is a *better* prospect than having all those things happen *AND* being sexually violated?

Almost every week in the UK there is a story about someone (infallibly men) being assaulted by thugs and beaten to death. Stories of women being raped and killed are not nearly as ubiquitous.

Posted by: nejishiki | November 20, 2009 3:16 PM

@276
My point about 'real' academic feminists is that there exist real feminists who concern themselves with these issues and think about women's issues in an abstract way (statistically and such). No more radical than that. I tend to favor these methods of research and tend not to draw grand conclusions from single anecdotes. This doesn't mean I distrust individual experiences, but the answer to the general question "do women experience significant discrimination in atheist society?" is not to be answered by asking one or even ten women. We know discrimination exists. Even one case is sufficient to show that. The question is how bad it is and what is causing it.
At the local level, however, lived experience becomes more important. If you belong to an atheist group and there are allegations of sexist treatment, it doesn't matter whether women in general are discriminated against by atheist groups in general: you have a concrete case to deal with, and an opportunity to sort the problem out.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 20, 2009 3:18 PM

Almost every week in the UK there is a story about someone (infallibly men) being assaulted by thugs and beaten to death. Stories of women being raped and killed are not nearly as ubiquitous.

Posted by: Carlie | November 20, 2009 3:19 PM

It isn't too inconvenient to minimize chances of rape. Just don't go around alone late at night.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....gasp...Oh, that's too good. Once again, Hyperon, since you've obviously read nothing in this thread, the REAL tips to prevent rape have been linked to TWICE in this thread, once from the original blog post and once from its repost in Salon. And funny thing, the only way to really prevent rape is for men not to rape. You've just engaged in the classic "blame the victim" game, thanks for playing.

And of course it's not too inconvenient to go around alone late at night. Silly women, you should know better than to try and do anything outside your house after dark! You are only allowed to go outside your house during daylight hours, and then only to public places with lots of people and better yet security cameras. Of course, being in your house doesn't help either, unless you have a Brinks security system (thanks for the Haskins link, I love her). So, I'm not sure where you're supposed to be. Oh, that's right, not alone! If you don't have a big man around at all times to act as your escort and protector, it's your own damned fault if anything happens to you.

AND AGAIN CAN WE GO BACK TO TALKING ABOUT MINORITY REPRESENTATION IN ATHEISM? Yeah, I know, I'm doing it too. It's just so hard not to respond to such obvious displays of whatthefuckery, and I am so weak (being a girl and all).

Posted by: Fred The Hun | November 20, 2009 3:20 PM

L.Minnik @393,

It never ceases to amaze me how people manage to to twist reality into whatever they wish it to be.

When someone claims that one out of six American women are raped during their lifetimes but conveniently neglects to mention that those rapes are more often then not, perpetrated by people they actually know and *NOT* by random strangers and then goes on to brandish that very statistic as justification for being afraid of strange men, do you perhaps see a bit of a problem with that? I guess not.

I call that BS and characterize it as what it is, an irrational fear.

So then I'm asked if I'd be happier if women were more afraid of the men they know rather than of strangers? WTF?!
By what twisted leap of logic does one get to that conclusion?

So let's see if I get this straight, when I say that the fear of being raped by strange men is not justified based on a particular set of data, I'm not empathetic to women?! I guess I could categorically assert that driving is safer than flying because despite the statistics I'm deathly afraid of flying. Maybe that would be mean and show lack of empathy towards airline pilots.

I have a suggestion when using statistics to underscore a point, first look at the data, then look at the data again and do it one more time, now analyze the data and come to a conclusion. If you start with a belief and try to twist the evidence to support your it you end up coming across as irrational and divorced from reality.

So take your sarcasm and put it in your spreadsheet.

As for making assumptions about people you have absolutely no information about except for what you want to believe about them, you never know, I guess some people be might really be psychic.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 20, 2009 3:22 PM

Almost every week in the UK there is a story about someone (infallibly men) being assaulted by thugs and beaten to death. Stories of women being raped and killed are not nearly as ubiquitous.

Holy shit. Are you really that fucking stupid?

I think you used this type of argument when defending your racism. It didn't work then and it doesn't work now.

Want to know why?

Because it is fucking stupid and exposes a certain type or arrogant ignorance on your part.

"If I don't know about it, it didn't happen". Or in your case

"What I know encapsulates the human experience".

You really are a sad, stupid individual.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 20, 2009 3:31 PM

Is that your thinking process about this issue?

I'm afraid that Hyper-one has displayed that he has no thinking process, just guttural emotional reaction to his perception of the poor male persecution.

Posted by: PixelFish | November 20, 2009 3:32 PM

Hyperon is again derailing, by playing his own version of the Oppression Olympics. With inaccurate facts, no less.

To quote Carlie: AGAIN CAN WE GO BACK TO TALKING ABOUT MINORITY REPRESENTATION IN ATHEISM?

Let's stop feeding Monsieur Troll. He's obviously living in his own little world. Empathetic folks h

So, how about that Neil deGrasse Tyson? And Susan Jacoby? Based on the recommendations of people in this thread, I think I'll try picking up their books the next time I'm in the B&N. For deGrasse Tyson, I'm thinking about Origins, and for Jacoby, The Age of American Unreason.

Posted by: Endor | November 20, 2009 3:33 PM

"All men? Just some? Whats the ratio?"

No, it's not every. single. man. I see daily – I encounter a lot of good men too. As for ratio, I've actually been asked this before and, until now, it always seemed like the person was attempting to suggest that, if the ratio proves to be less men harass me than I come in contact with during any given day, that this somehow lessens the effect. Isn't just ONE to many? (just to be clear, I don't think that's where you were going with that question)

"And how are they doing so?"

Street harassment comes in countless forms, but for me it's generally: having some random guy say something disgusting or outright threatening (i.e. from yesterday morning: "You walk awful fast for a little thing. Ten minutes with me and I'll make sure you won't be able to walk at all.") being followed; I've been grabbed multiple times; had various pervs stroke themselves while staring at me. One memorable one was the young businessman who ran down the street screaming "fucking bitch!" at me because I declined to give him my number upon demand. Etc ad nauseum.

There's also the intrusive guys. I ride the bus for work and, in an effort to make it clear I wish to be left alone, wear headphones and read or knit etc. There are far too many guys, however, who don't take the hint and will do whatever they can to get my attention, up to and including taking things out of my hands.

"its possible that I have for other reasons adopted mannerisms that are having that affect."

I don't doubt this is true, because a great deal of men to this out of conditioning. I think the trick is to not be angry at the woman for reacting to it. You may not mean any harm, but we have no way of knowing that.

"And (2) to compare to my own experience. Its not just women: perhaps the reasons for it are different, but I will, not infrequently, find other males attempting to intimidate me when walking down the street. And I am a fairly large guy."

I have always wondered if the more egregious assholes I've encountered aren't the same exact guy who pick fights for no reason. Our respective sizes might be part of the issue – I'm very small, ergo presumably easy intimidate and physically injure. You're not, and therefore represent a challenge to be conquered.

Posted by: Renee | November 20, 2009 3:39 PM

Duh. Because being a feminist is not anymore compatible with being an atheist than being a misogynist.

Seriously. In fact, if you only believe in evolution as a creation story, it's virtually impossible for men and women to be equal. After all, there are clear biological differences between the sexes in all species, including humans, including those related to cognition. The only reason humans could be an exception is if we were created by God...

Posted by: Endor | November 20, 2009 3:41 PM

"what I said is that it's not too inconvenient to minimize chances of being raped. "

Which is completely and entirely fucking FALSE, as has already been pointed out to you multiple times.

__

"Because being a feminist is not anymore compatible with being an atheist than being a misogynist."

LOL. good one.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 20, 2009 3:42 PM

Hyperon,

When I was raped I was not out alone at night. I was sleeping in bed with my boyfriend. I woke up and he was on top of me, raping me, in my bed. We had been dating for over a year at that point.

It wasn't on the news and I never pressed charges because I was young and stupid and thought that because I was his girlfriend it was my fault for not having sex with him when he wanted to the night before.

A friend of mine was raped by a guy she met through friends. When she went to the police they told her they couldn't do anything about it because she was drunk when he raped her. In my state a drunk woman cannot legally consent to sex. It should have been a slam dunk case, but society doesn't see it that way. No, her rape wasn't reported in the news either.

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 20, 2009 3:46 PM

Hmmm... I guess where I'm going is this:

I think it may actually be a little easier to get away with discrimination in a field that's perceived to be more equal.

For instance:
"How does this reflect your *culture* as a black person" is something I heard a lot said straight faced to a person with no irony at all. There's that exotification of the American of African decent, which is a mixed bag at best.

Everyone knows IT is sort of a boys game, but in a weird way there's a way to badger your way in without falling on exotification too much. I'm not delusional, there's problems. I just tend to think that perhaps in the "safe" fields people have a tendency to pretend they're above the problem when they aren't.

I tend to think skepticism falls into this category. It's safely academic for the most part, and we all know that women are in control of the ivory towers.

Or at least that seems to be the feeling.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 20, 2009 3:52 PM

Implying that men and women have fundamentally different ways of viewing the world, outside of societal influence, is bull.

I've lived a life relatively secluded from the demands of society and I've found that few of my choices really have to do with my gender, outside of some deliberate contrariness.

Posted by: Hyperon | November 20, 2009 3:53 PM

Somehow I don't think the temporary inconvenience of being raped by your boyfriend can compare with being pounced on by thugs (for no reason at all), who proceed to beat you within one inch of your life, breaking various bones, and knocking your teeth out in the process. Didn't happen to me, but it happened to someone I know, and occurs in the north of England on a daily basis. Always to men (it isn't "macho" for these thugs to assault women).

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 20, 2009 3:55 PM

Hyperon, shut the fuck up. Your attempt to threadjack should earn you a trip to the dungeon. You aren't a man. You are just a shadow of one. Become more of a man by stopping your threadjack.

Posted by: Sanction | November 20, 2009 3:57 PM

temporary inconvenience of being raped by your boyfriend

Fuck you.

Posted by: Carlie | November 20, 2009 3:58 PM

Somehow I don't think the temporary inconvenience of being raped by your boyfriend can compare with being pounced on by thugs

Wow. WOW. I'm entirely speechless. That's definitely the worst comment I've ever read on this site, ever, and is quite near the top of the worst comments I've ever read anywhere. And I frequent a lot of feminist blogs that attract guys who have some primal need to piss all over everything. That's just... wow.

Posted by: PixelFish | November 20, 2009 4:00 PM

"the temporary inconvenience of being raped"

........holy shit........

Seriously. Dungeon please? Counts of inspidity, slagging, trolling, stupidity, and psychopathy.

Posted by: PixelFish | November 20, 2009 4:02 PM

Thanks, Magnum. Hoyden is an awesome blog.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 20, 2009 4:06 PM

I don't understand.

Posted by: co | November 20, 2009 4:07 PM

Often, Hyperon, I'm disappointed that trolls are plonked around here. They're often amusing, at least.

You're not. You're a fucking idiot for posting what you have, and despite my sick sense of humor, and ability to find irony in almost anything, your latest comment will prove to be nothing but an inconvenience to you, and a great relief to the rest of us. Fuck off.

Posted by: kopd | November 20, 2009 4:14 PM

Is getting beaten to a pulp and sent to the emergency room just OBVIOUSLY nowhere near as painful as being raped?
You expect me to believe that you think people complain about rape just because it hurts?

I should say "raped" -- we only have her word for it, and it might not have lasted more than 20 seconds.
How long does it have to last to be "real" rape?

Posted by: Sili | November 20, 2009 4:15 PM

Well, I know I shouldn't rest on my laurels, because I am really an oblivious white male atheist.

But for all my faults and 'issues' with women, at least I'm no Hyperon.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 20, 2009 4:21 PM

Hyperon,

You are what's wrong with humanity. You are the person that I fear.

The "temporary inconvenience of being raped" means that I feel in jeopardy from men all the time. If a man I had been intimate with for a year could assault me, what would stop a man I had met just a few hours ago? It took me a long time to be comfortable alone with any man, and to recognize the warning signs my ex-boyfriend gave me that he didn't consider me to be a person. There are so many men I know that I won't be left alone with because they exhibit the same warning signs. It makes my life more difficult and my life will remain this way because I will not be raped again.

The physically brutal act of rape is not a temporary inconvenience.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 20, 2009 4:26 PM

Hyperon, you have nothing going but a threadjack. Time for you to shut the fuck up. But you knew that ten posts ago. This is not your blog. You don't get to determine what is discussed. So, act like a real human being and stop posting. Your opinion is the only irrelevant one being expressed at this time. If you can't deal with that, seek professional help for your paranoia.

Posted by: Dave | November 20, 2009 4:33 PM

Isn't just ONE to many? Yes, one is too many. I ask to try to understand the scope of the problem, and to try and guage how much is actually deliberate. Youre examples are all obviously deliberate, but when my first thought when you posted is of a habit of mine that my wife had pointed out to me: When walking, if someone comes near us, I stand up straighter, put my shoulders back and take my hands out of my pockets. I never realized that I did this, and Im sure when Im alone, it is seen as intimidating by others, despite ultimately being a defensive gesture.

I don't doubt this is true, because a great deal of men to this out of conditioning. I think the trick is to not be angry at the woman for reacting to it. You may not mean any harm, but we have no way of knowing that. After reading your examples, my first thought is,"Yikes!" But frankly, its not just conditioning, its sucess. As hard as it my be for you to believe, I have seen some of those approaches suceed. I have seen women give thier numbers to and subsequently date guys whose first interaction was a catcall. I have seen the insistent approach pay-off for a guy. Personally, I think your reaction makes far more sense than the women who responded positively to these things, but I bring this up because its going to be hard to get men to stop doing things that work for them.

I have always wondered if the more egregious assholes I've encountered aren't the same exact guy who pick fights for no reason. Our respective sizes might be part of the issue – I'm very small, ergo presumably easy intimidate and physically injure. You're not, and therefore represent a challenge to be conquered. I suspect you are correct.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 20, 2009 4:35 PM

I'm sorry guys for contributing to threadjacking.

I do love Barbara Ehrenreich, Susan Jacoby, and Amanda Marcotte.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 20, 2009 4:39 PM

For the record, I did not start the derail.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 20, 2009 4:40 PM

Hyperon... I think it's time you left this thread... and I suggest you stay away for a while (unless that choice is taken from you, which I have a strong feeling it may be).

I am of the firm opinion that you are being intentionally and willfully objectionable in a way that would make even Glenn Beck uncomfortable.

I suspect there are ego driven reasons why you may be doing it, but I for one could care less what they are. I think it's best if you kindly fuck off at this point.

This will be the last post I ever make in your direction. You are not worth the energy it takes to even craft the thought in any further response.

God riddance.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | November 20, 2009 4:42 PM

ummm... make that good riddance.

What an unfortunate typo...

Posted by: pablo | November 20, 2009 4:46 PM

I don't know if Mary Roach is an atheist, but her books are certainly sceptical, they're also smart and very funny.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_0_10?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=mary+roach&x=0&y=0&sprefix=mary+roach

Posted by: SC, OM | November 20, 2009 4:48 PM

Go to hell, Hyperon, you loathsome little toadstool. I will dance with joy when you're no longer able to post at this site.

It is amazing that Hyperon doesn't recognize that he's arguing against himself with every despicable post. Everything he says points to a culture of machismo that is harmful to everyone. The feminism I know isn't about attacking men, but about changing (and in the meantime minimizing the effects of) this culture - a mutable human creation. It is disastrous for women who are threatened, abused, assaulted, discriminated against, and have to fight stereotypes and assumptions; for men - especially those who don't fit the cultural mold - who are likewise attacked and belittled; and for men who in general are unable to express and live their full humanity and who are sometimes driven to commit monstrous acts.

Anyway, like I said, I'll be happy to see the idiot gone. With the provision that he may return if he signs the following statement: "I, Hyperon, being of sound mi...[OK, never mind that part] agree to, at some undecided point in the next six months, be raped by an unknown number of individuals for an unknown period of time, with any and all possibilities of other accompanying violence. I will never speak of or write about this incident, here or elsewhere. I understand that if I do, commenting privileges will again be revoked."

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | November 20, 2009 4:51 PM

Wow. During the long, lazy hours it took me to compose #492, this thread took a seriously dark turn that makes my cheeky theorizing seem hugely out of place. I beg everyone's pardon.

Wait, there was one more thing I needed to say. What was that...? Oh yeah: Fuck off, Hyperon, you worthless maggot!

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 20, 2009 4:54 PM

Ol'Greg,

Thank you for sharing your life with us. I try to tell people what happened to me so that there is a human face on rape and abuse.

Hyperon,

Too little, too late. Maybe you shouldn't assume people are lying when they say they've been raped or abused. For any woman that you meet there's a damn good chance she's been the victim of rape, probably by someone she knows.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 20, 2009 4:56 PM

Hyperon,
You are what's wrong with humanity. You are the person that I fear.

QFT.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 20, 2009 4:57 PM

Horrible story! I felt my stomach turn more than once. It disgusts me that we have such people in our world. But I just have to ask, what's wrong with tattoos? ditto... that was seriously, gutwrenchingly painful to read. but I also have to say that the tattoo thing doesn't really explain anything... I don't think such cruelty has a particular look to be easily identified by :-(

Posted by: kopd | November 20, 2009 5:05 PM

I don't think such cruelty has a particular look to be easily identified by

Tell me 'bout it. Sometimes the worst people in the world look like they couldn't or wouldn't hurt a fly. On the other hand, I know I'm a bit intimidating to some (despite my short stature), due to my hairstyle, beard, and build. But I'm a really easy-going non-violent person. I just try to avoid eye contact where possible or smile when I fail to avoid it so people don't think I'm liable to hurt them. :-\

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 20, 2009 5:10 PM

Well Jadehawk and KOPD I'm sorry if I offended you. I should have explained that better but it was already destined to be such a long post.

No I didn't mean to suggest that tattoos are a sign of anything. If anything that kind of visual discrimination is a part of the problem in my mind.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 20, 2009 5:16 PM

Well Jadehawk and KOPD I'm sorry if I offended you. I should have explained that better but it was already destined to be such a long post.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 20, 2009 5:21 PM

I don't understand. Is getting beaten to a pulp and sent to the emergency room just OBVIOUSLY nowhere near as painful as being raped? (I should say "raped" -- we only have her word for it, and it might not have lasted more than 20 seconds.) Does suggesting otherwise amount to the worst comment ever on this site?

There isn't anything objectionable in my above comments, apart from that I should have said 10 seconds instead of 20 seconds. Compared with getting your bones crushed, reduced to a bloody mess, and nearly put into a coma, being raped IS merely a temporary inconvenience, in my opinion.

I'm not sure I've read a more disgusting, ignorant and wildly moronic thing in a long while.

You are not only a vile human (and I use that word loosely) but like most of the things you've posted here you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

Somewhere in that hardly used gray matter flopping about in your skull the thing that says, I should think about this before I type it, doesn't exist.

I blame that on some chemical dysfunction in your brain beyond your control.

The actual thing you said I put the blame solidly on your utter stupidity, lack of empathy and sociopathic tendencies.

Women who know you or live near you should be afraid.

Posted by: Carlie | November 20, 2009 5:22 PM

I want to apologize for participating in the rape derail - I hope no one who divulged really personal information felt like they had to in order to rebut the sociopathic assholes who showed up. I didn't realize it was barreling down that track, or I'd have tried harder to redirect instead of feeding into it.
And Hyperon, Fred, and anyone reading along nodding their heads along at them - go read the fucking links in this thread. All of them. And then go sit and think about it awhile. And shut the hell up.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 20, 2009 5:26 PM

Looks like we can resume previous programming. Proceed to bash the MCP's in atheism and science.

Posted by: Takma'rierah | November 20, 2009 5:30 PM

Erm, so, yeah. Susan Jacoby. I liked her when she came to our campus. She can't spell my name but I think she was part of my realization that, as an atheist, I was considered less of a person than a person with any sort of faith. It was also slightly before I joined the atheist community and started calling myself one.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | November 20, 2009 5:31 PM

L.Minnik @486,

Fred, Assuming you really did not understand those rather obvious posts, here's trying to make you imagine what the fact that rape is so commonplace could possibly have to do with women treating strange men with apprehension.

Yes, I absolutely do understand since I was personally abused as a preadolescent boy.
BTW rape isn't about sex, it's about power. Yet it is you who seem not to be able to separate the fact that I can perfectly understand why women or men might feel apprehension when encountering strangers. I'm actually human and have experienced this feeling myself but still know that this feeling is irrational.

However my being able to understand this and yes,even empathize with women or anyone who has such feelings doesn't in any way make me less critical of people who engage in shoddy reasoning and being disingenuous with statistics. Cold hard numbers don't care, reality is what it is. It doesn't make any difference what your gut tells you. It is still safer to fly than to drive and if you claim you don't want to fly because it is too dangerous and you'd rather drive then I really can't argue with you, because you are being irrational.

So then I'm asked if I'd be happier if women were more afraid of the men they know rather than of strangers? WTF?!

Well, do you think that if women were to treat men they know with all the precautions that they take with men they don't know, then they would be raped less? Do you think that this is something women should really try to do?

Talk about missing the whole damn point.

Maybe if women would not take all these precautions with men that they don't know they would be raped more often by them? Did you consider that?

Huh? Sorry your logic totally escapes me here.

Did you ever stop to think about the possibility that maybe some men rape women they know because that is easier than raping a stranger? Hm?

Just something for you to chew on and hopefully understand why women may feel/act as they do.

Here's somthing for you to chew on, just because it is possible for someone to understand why someone acts irrationally as a consequence of their emotions doesn't make it any less irrational. However if someone deliberately leaves out crucial information when presenting data which they are using as the basis for their argument, I must consider that as being dishonest.

Perhaps they even believe their own story but I'm going to call a spade a spade and I don't have much empathy for people who deliberately distort the truth even if the objective is to gain sympathy for those that legitimately deserve it.
You actually undermine your position by doing so!

Posted by: Samantha | November 20, 2009 5:45 PM

Hyperon:

My rape lasted maybe five minutes. It's been two years and I still can't even have a normal friendship with a guy, never mind a sexual relationship. I trusted this man (I was dating him at the time) and when I told him no, he just rolled me over and climbed on top of me. He didn't even have to hold me down, I was in so much shock. I trusted him, he seemed so sweet but thought that because I was dating him, my saying no didn't matter. I still don't know how I can ever trust another man again. The worst part is? I can't trust them not to rape me but I also can't trust them to believe me. It wasn't rape because we were dating, he must not have heard me say no, I didn't fight, he didn't hurt me... the list goes on. There's also the "I was asking for it" excuses, where because we had had a romantic dinner and been kissing or because I'd had two glasses of wine or because I'd invited him to stay over rather than drive, I let him think that sex was inevitable and he had the right to take it from me.

I've had guy friends who stopped being my friends because I was jumpy, I have had some stop talking to me because they "can't believe I'd spread rumours about him like that", I've had some that started joking about it and then got offended that it upset me. I've had guys who tried to use their comforting of me to get in my pants and then throw things in rage when I won't let them and I've had guys who say that I owe it to them because they've put up with my issues for more than a couple of weeks. I've almost been raped a few more times because guys seem to sense the weakness and it's only because I start screaming that they end up backing off. I haven't dared live alone since that night and if my roommates are gone, I stay over at a girlfriend's or family friend's place. I'm too afraid that one of those guys is going to come back for me and take advantage of my weakness and I need someone there to hear if I scream.

All this is still going on and still an issue to me two years after "only" five minutes of being raped. The physical act is almost always the least important part of a rape. Even the strongest women have issues adapting. I'm lucky; I've got a few very close friends of both sexes who have stood by me and my school has an excellent free counselling program, but it's still not easy. Even if it had only been for twenty seconds, the severe blow to my world view and ability to trust would still have happened.

Posted by: PixelFish | November 20, 2009 5:46 PM

Eva @526: Not at all. We've been attempting to return this post to its original point, but the Derail Which Will Not End is thwarting us. Which Judith Hayes book? Maybe you could share what captivated you?

(BTW, I totally don't blame folks for responding to the Derail, because some outrageous shit has been spewed. And I think it's totally brave of Pygmy Loris to share details. The person I blame is H, who keeps saying the same things over and over, only trying to figure out how much offensively he can say it with every new iteration.)

Posted by: Ol'Greg | November 20, 2009 5:55 PM

About the derailment:

I think it applies in a way. It does illustrate just how much ground there is to be covered even in a skeptical community. I'm pretty sure the poster who said more women speakers = more women atheist speakers was on the right track.

I just started reading a book called Women Without Superstition. It's mostly historical biographies, not people speaking today. But it's interesting to see just how many women have had a presence.

Posted by: PennyBright | November 20, 2009 6:05 PM

Arghh. I normally wouldn't care about accidentally truncating my nick, but damn it, I want to own this comment. I am Penny @532.

Posted by: Qwerty | November 20, 2009 7:03 PM

Back to the topic: I remember reading a glbt history in which lesbians complained during the early organization of glbt groups of male sexism and/or male domination. Just as sexist gay males were still sexist after coming out of the closet in the 60s and 70s; sexist believers can still be sexist after they've become atheists or skeptics.

Back to the off-topic topic:
As a gay male I do remember an attempted rape that I avoided. It would have been a bad situation if I'd been bloodied because I was in Vietnam at the time and there'd been no way I could have complained without drawing attention to myself. Nowadays it's women who have to face this problem in the military. If they are raped; they are also forced to live through the repercussions of it whether or not they bring charges.

And I am sure that there is still some lesbian baiting which is "have sex with me or I'll tell the command you are a lesbian."

Posted by: Chris | November 20, 2009 7:12 PM

I run into one problem in particular with a lot of skeptical/atheist outlets. When women ARE featured, what's the title of their article? "Skeptical Women." "Atheist Women." "Sexism and Science," etc. That isn't to say that those aren't extremely important subjects. It's just that they seem to be the ONLY subjects. That's not the fault of the authors, generally, but rather the editors.

Focusing on the "woman-ness" of the authors doesn't help. What needs to happen, IMHO, is more advertising for the other articles. That's why I like Rebecca Watson, Eugenie Scott, Susan Jacoby, and other female skeptics and atheists. They're INTERESTING. I like how they write, or speak. I like their ideas. I don't give myself a brownie point for reading a female's work. As important as it is, I can only read so much about sexism. Face it, I'm a white man, and it doesn't personally affect me a great deal. That's not to say I'm unconcerned with sexism, or racism, but at the end of the day I will read what I'm interested in. In my case, creationism, atheism, and alt meds.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | November 20, 2009 7:18 PM

Carol (@516 and 520... near as I can tell, the same content with different formatting?):

The issue of of women's objectification is not solved by objectifying men as well and it's infuriating that you would say that it should be - even as a joke.

I hope you'll forgive me for not being infuriated by ever other paragraph in your comment; I have in mind a somewhat less angry — though no less serious for that — conversation in mind.

Having said that, I'm... bemused... that you have so completely missed my point, which was never to defend objectification, nor to promote some sort of two-wrongs-make-a-right version of gender equality, but rather to question why we so readily assume that sexy is an inherently objectifying adjective. If it had been a list of the 10 funniest female atheists, or the 10 smartest, nobody would've thought anything of it, but since it was 10 sexiest, it was presumed to be sexist, without even requiring a pro-forma argument in support of that presumption.

Why is sexy automatically a tool of oppression? My comment about a list of males hints at one answer: Sexy is, unless you're reading People magazine (or similar), applied disproportionately to women rather than to men. But I think there's something even more fundamental at work, and that's what I was getting at: I think we react the way we do to appreciation of people's sexual appeal because of the pervasive hypermorality of our culture around issues of sexuality, and I think that, in turn, is fundamentally and inescapably linked to religion. We think it's degrading to comment on someone's sexual appeal because our culture thinks sex itself is degrading (and even those of us who don't think that personally live in a cultural "soup" of that concept)... and we think sex is degrading because religion tells us that God hates the pleasures of the flesh.

Admittedly, it's somewhat tangential to a mainline discussion of sexism, but I think this religion-inspired ill feeling about sexuality is part of the deep structure of sexism in human culture. And even if it isn't, it's certainly a pet peeve of mine.

My comment was emphatically not pro-sexism; it was pro-sex.

By the way, It is also infuriating to see men debating the semantics of "overt sexism/racism/-ism" versus "passive -ism" or "casual disregard". The results are THE SAME regardless of your intent and people are judged on actions not intent.

Dang, I just can't stop infuriating you, can I? As it happens, I'm not sure I agree that even the results truly are the same, but I'll stipulate the point for the sake of argument. Regardless, the cure is not the same.

Do you really mean to suggest that the conscious, institutionalized sexism of, say, a Taliban leader or a Mormon patriarch or a "pro-life" evangelical activist is the same kind of challenge as the well-meaning atheist organizer who scratches his (or even her) head and says "gee, I never noticed the speakers list was all male 'til you mentioned it"?

I think there's a qualitative difference between men whose whole lives are devoted to the deliberate oppression of women and those who fail to notice instances of oppression, especially when said failure is rooted in the fact that it would never occur to them to oppress anyone based on gender (i.e., see my original comments about self-normalization). Without meaning to put words in his mouth, I think this is what PZ was getting at when he called white male atheists "oblivious."

Certainly the remedies are different, and that's why the distinction is worth discussing: You can reason with the oblivious man; the ideological antifeminist you must defeat.

Skeptics are raised and socialized in the same grand culture as everyone else.... Being skeptical about god is does not provide immunity from all forms of fuzzy, irrational thoughts and beliefs. This community is no more resistant to the -isms than any other.

You'll notice that I couched my argument mostly in terms of rationalists or skeptics, rather than atheists, per se. Being skeptical does, in fact, imply a certain degree of "immunity from all forms of fuzzy, irrational thoughts and beliefs"; that's practically a definition of skepticism. Of course, nobody's a perfect rationalist, but in general, I would expect a rationalist to be less susceptible to fundamentally irrational positions such as gender bias. And, more to my actual point, a rationalist is more likely to be willing to give up the irrational beliefs he or she has received through enculturation, once the irrationality of those beliefs is pointed out.

But even further, as my earlier argument hints, I believe that the specific "fuzzy, irrational thoughts and beliefs" at play in this discussion are directly linked to the culture of god-belief... so yes, I assert that the atheist community is more resistant to this particular "-ism" than others.

We may have inherited the biases of our culture just like everyone else, but we're better equipped than average to throw them off.

Posted by: L.Minnik | November 20, 2009 7:25 PM

Fred:

If you think that the incidence of rape by an unknown male--after of course taking all the precautions that women do take in encountering strange men--is negligible and feeling apprehensive in such a situation is irrational, so be it. I don't agree.

As for being apprehensive because of one's personal experience, maybe the difference is in the degree to which one feels fear of similar situations. Because obviously it would not make sense to avoid people altogether, but in my opinion it does make sense to be apprehensive of real harm to some degree. And some individuals, especially among women and children, are more at risk. I am making an effort to reduce the amount of abuse because I won't accept the current state of things. But I would never say to anyone, "Don't be afraid, you have nothing to fear!"

BTW rape isn't about sex, it's about power.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 20, 2009 7:34 PM

I think there's something even more fundamental at work, and that's what I was getting at: I think we react the way we do to appreciation of people's sexual appeal because of the pervasive hypermorality of our culture around issues of sexuality, and I think that, in turn, is fundamentally and inescapably linked to religion.

*context matters: when I'm going on a date, or for a night out dancing and I've clearly dressed up for that occasion, then being complemented on it is ok and warranted; when I'm debating politics, and someone complements me on my outfit as a reply, my first thought is "did you even listen what I just said, or were you just staring at my boobs the whole time I was talking?"

Posted by: Ol' Greg | November 20, 2009 7:54 PM

I think we react the way we do to appreciation of people's sexual appeal because of the pervasive hypermorality of our culture around issues of sexuality

I may not get this out just right, but I disagree with you because to me the reason that sexy is sexist is that women are disproportionally burdened with "sexy" as their main attribute, the main value system. You see, it's that objectification thing. Women are valuable if they are sexy, so a list of sexy women is a list of women being ranked for the only "real" reason we appreciate women.

Now if that imbalance, the gaze, I guess, were different it wouldn't inherently be sexist. But that's not how it is.

I for instance hate being told I'm religious, repressed, need to loosen up because I don't want to dress sexy. I feel uncomfortable when people comment on my body. Give what I talked about on this thread it might not be surprising, but before all that happened and after I worked as a model. So looking sexy is in some ways the "one thing" I've ever had to offer.

Now would you want to feel that way?

Would you want to feel that way if you'd put 15 years into research on science and religion... to have all that condensed on whether you were fuckable or not?

No, it is sexism.

Until the world changes it will be, and it doesn't have anything to do with those "repressed" types needing to get over their moral objections to sex.

I like sex just fine, but that doesn't mean I want every man I pass sticking his hand down my pants either.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 20, 2009 8:29 PM

I've been doing some thinking on the process that tends to lead to someone becoming a called upon speaker at the national level.

The first thing needed is a story to tell. Many women here at Pharyngula have interesting stories, and appear to be able to tell them. The women on the OM list are a start, but those capable of telling their stories doesn't stop there. Once a story is ready to be told, and one has a few slides to illustrate the talk, then one has to tell it to a group of people. Around college campuses, there are groups that would welcome even a new speaker for a short talk. But one has to be able to get in front of a group of strangers and give this talk. A fair number of people never get started because of this. This is probably why many speakers are academics. They are used to getting in front of relative strangers and talking.

If the talk is successful, then one needs to tell it at other groups within driving distance. So a speaker may give a talk every other month. Meanwhile, the talk is evolving, and most likely lengthening. Other topics or subjects may be worked in and the number of speaking engagements goes up. When the students graduate, and want a speaker for a group they join, they may think of the speakers previous experience. They may pay for a plane ticket for you one to come and speak.

This is the point where a person can be traveling every other week, or every week, like PZ appears to do. One has to be ready to be on road, and what is at home has to fend without the speaker. I think this takes away some names, as some might be willing to speak every other month, but not every other week. And they need to be single or have a tolerant partner. And this tends to be the group that are invited to speak at national meetings.

Getting that name recognition means doing speaking engagements for a period of time over a constantly expanding geographical area. It isn't easy. I'm not really surprised that middle aged white males in academia may predominate.

I'm not sure what can be done to kick some of the major roadblocks out of the way. Blogging appears to be one way to attract attention without traveling. But one can be a successful blogger, but be afraid to speak in front of a large number of strangers.

I've prattled long enough. Rip the above to shreds.

Posted by: Samantha | November 20, 2009 9:17 PM

Jadehawk @ 543:

EXACTLY. I've never been able to explain it to people in a way such that they understand, but you've got it just right. It's not that people finding other humans sexy is wrong, because we all do it. It's the fact that it is considered a compliment to listen to a woman give an intelligent speech and then comment only on her physical appearance. It just speaks to how we judge the sexes differently on an almost instinctual level. Women are judged primarily by physical appearance and although a woman who is not "typically" physically attractive can succeed, there's always the whispering about how "unfortunate" it is that she isn't attractive or how she should get some work done. Men can make themselves into physical idols, but they can also be valued for their intelligence, wit, charisma, business sense and many other things without their appearance being mentioned at all or in a way that makes it more important than their actual talents. Men do face their own challenges (being discouraged from expressing themselves is one I hear often), but there is less resistance to accepting that these challenges are indeed challenges, even while there remains some. It's rare for people to admit that someone calling a woman presenter "sexy" is a challenge that she has to overcome in order to express her intelligence.

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 20, 2009 10:08 PM

Glen D is right. I'm a relatively short, demure, skinny white guy. Where's my support among those clamoring for "equality?" I'm sick of the oppression I suffer every day, while tallish, aggressive, obnoxiously loud "black" females get all the attention and privilege. What do you call the bigotry directed at my demographic, and how do we put a stop to it?

Seriously, hearing exceptionally entitled people crying "racism" and "misogyny" over the fact that some group they identify with isn't "represented" among some other "privileged" group they'd like to be a part of just smacks of jealousy to me. I've heard of the majority of the female authors suggested here. I've heard them talk (so has PZ) in lectures and interviews, and some of them have published wonderfully received and popular books. They have made names (and money) for themselves, and they deserve every bit of it. Because they earned it, by doing what it takes--just like the other people who are (in some cases) being faintly denigrated for apparently not being "black" enough or female enough. This isn't rational--it's just petty. So is the suggestion that a failure to gush over the fact that someone self-identifies in a certain way (without even knowing ahead of time that they do), or that someone is female, somehow qualifies as bigotry.

Since when did being an atheist or a skeptic imply that one must also be a PC dogmatist? Contrary to what these bloggers would have you believe, atheism is the non-belief in gods and skepticism is systematic doubt. By contrast, what they're talking about here is the *political doctrine* of a *mass movement*. That spells "stupid" to me. Let's stop agreeing so much, huh?

Posted by: jemand | November 20, 2009 10:19 PM

I just hope hyperon didn't stop posting because now he has a bunch of new rape stories he can masturbate to. I'm fairly certain guys with his mentality actually will use it as fantasy material.

Not that I'm saying it was a bad idea to tell the story, I think you got lots of other people to think... but I'm posting this because I do think that phenomenon exists, and given statistics on rape, I think we should be able to ASSUME that there are women reading who have experienced horrible assaults. We shouldn't be *required* to titillate abusers with details in order to gain recognition and a safe atmosphere.

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 20, 2009 11:12 PM

"...accusing atheists of being insufficiently feminist is rather like accusing feminists of being insufficiently atheist---you do your job, we'll do ours."

Well put.

Posted by: Anon | November 20, 2009 11:36 PM

To get back on topic, I'll also add an anecdote that I've never experienced sexism or racism in my local atheist group. There are roughly an equal number of males and females; but except for a few, everyone is white.

Anyway, I would guess that atheists and skeptics are less prone to sexism and racism than the general population, but admittedly that is mostly based on my personal experience. That's not really the point though, I suppose. The question will always be: what can we do to improve?

Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | November 20, 2009 11:49 PM

Nancy:

And BTW people, Richard Dawkins buys into all the just-so stories of evolutionary psychology - he said on this very blog that women are more monogamous than men by nature - and evolutionary psychology is what people turn to in order to justify male dominance and patriarchal cultural practices when "because God said so" will no longer suffice.

Multiple layers of Logic fail, on top of the implicit but unsupported assertion that women are not more monogamous than men by nature [citation needed]. Dawkins wrote in 1976: "We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators", while you - in 2009 - appear to fall completely for the naturalistic fallacy (ought-from-is).

Did you miss the bit where we actually practice critical thinking?

I just tried to post something with lots of links to debates, reviews etc. but got stuck in moderation purgatory for the moment...

As PZ mentioned recently, he's doesn't have time to check all the spam posts and that means it will almost certainly not be appearing. Got a single link that's actually worth clicking?

Diane G. #227, excellent examples of evolutionary theory making testable predictions; of course it would be naive to assume that what works for one species applies to all, and that's not what theory actually predicts.

much of ev-psych is hypothesizing, thus vulnerable to the prevailing world view of the hypothesizers

There has certainly been some sensationalist junk-science in this field. In real science, hypotheses are vulnerable to data.

Nancy again:

Biological inferiority is exactly the argument that Steven Pinker makes

I've read The Blank Slate only twice and may have missed his raving misogyny if it was subtle enough: I didn't get the 'full effect', so perhaps you need to be more specific. The New Yorker review you link for Diane G. actually doesn't seem to contain anything at all relevant to your claim, but does include a similar assumption of the naturalistic fallacy:

why do Darwin's followers in evolutionary psychology want to make what people have most in common into a social good?

Is there a reality-based refutation anywhere of the hypothesis that, on just about any measure of phenotype, human males have higher variance than females? You can't blame anybody for a variance. When Nature cuts off and throws away the bottom of the curve, and the 'top' percentile (in a ranking that is socially determined from moment to moment and place to place) gets the most money, the best sex and the majority of everyone's attention, the results could be mistaken for gender inequality. It ain't necessarily so.

Posted by: Nancy | November 21, 2009 12:07 AM

I don't think the Hyperon-related posts are off-topic at all, since the topic is "the problem of the oblivious white male atheist" - Hyperon is simply more oblivious than most.

Although several others on this thread have certainly done their best to demonstrate the thread's title.

Posted by: Nancy | November 21, 2009 12:45 AM

Well John Scanlon, you are clearly a gigantic douchebag and I am going to enjoy taking you down. But you haven't really given me anything to grab onto yet. Jumping in with random insults and screaming "logic fail" is just you having a hissy fit because I dared to suggest that your hero Steven Pinker is fallible.

Pinker lists women he considers feminists, and at least two of them - Camille Paglia and Christian Hoff Sommers are actually well known as anti-feminists.

He completely supports the Thornhill-Palmer rape-as-adaptation claims - the same study that was handily debunked by Jerry Coyne and Andrew Berry:

http://www.eurowrc.org/06.contributions/1.contrib_en/11.contrib.en.htm

Hyperon, in post #402, clearly indicates that he buys into the theory of rape as adaptation too. Interesting, isn't it?

Posted by: Nancy | November 21, 2009 12:54 AM

Pinker and other EPs point to female test scores in math/science as indicating an innate biological inferiority in those areas.

Unfortunately for them, girls test scores have improved since The Blank Slate came out - seven years to the point where there is virtually no difference:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/science/03discrim.html?_r=1&hpw

More related to this in Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2194486/entry/2194525/

Posted by: Nancy | November 21, 2009 1:26 AM

Pinker is a bigot in the way that all EPs might be said to be bigots - he isn't saying that it's a happy fact that women are intellectually inferior - only that it is an evolutionarily-endowed fact.

And he considers obvious right-wing shills whose main job is to attack feminists to be actual feminists.

Just as those who buy into the inferiority of non-whites can justify their beliefs - ala Charles Murray, through "science" - certainly it's not bigotry.

Pinker also believes that Stephen Jay Gould's opinion on the subject if EP should be discounted because, Pinker claims, Gould was a Marxist.

Clearly only left-wing political views make your scientific expertise invalid, as far as EPs are concerned.

Posted by: Tybo | November 21, 2009 1:31 AM

Re: Truth seeker @ #48:

"Who is better known and more sought after, philosopher of mind Patricia Churchland or her husband, philosopher of mind Paul Churchland? How would skeptifem or PZ explain that?"

(I'm afraid I don't know the command for block-quote)

I don't quite get your meaning there. Are you implying that Patricia Churchland is less prominent than Paul Churchland?

As far as I was aware the former had more general public works and appearances, whereas the latter is more likely to hardly see the light of day. Is that not the case?

Posted by: Mr T | November 21, 2009 1:48 AM

Pinker is a bigot in the way that all EPs might be said to be bigots - he isn't saying that it's a happy fact that women are intellectually inferior - only that it is an evolutionarily-endowed fact.

Posted by: Nancy | November 21, 2009 2:05 AM

Whether or not that is "an evolutionarily-endowed fact", or is accepted as true by EPs, has no moral relevance and is not sufficient reason to call them bigots.

It is likely that their inability to conceive of a world in which the present state of things - males behaving less monogamously, females getting worser test scores in math/science - is NOT due to biological factors contributes to their readiness to accept the just-so stories floated by EP. I don't know if that's bigotry or not, and I never said anything directly about bigotry anyway - you inserted that into the discussion.

What is clear, however, is the hostility of EPs - as demonstrated by Cronin and Pinker among many other EPs - to any feminists who don't automatically accept any and all just-so stories and "Darwinian logic" as the ultimate reason why women have lesser careers in math/science. Pinker's belief that anti-feminists are feminists, and Cronin's constant caricatures of feminists make that absolutely clear.

What the EPs engage in, in the phrase of anthropologist Marvin Harris is the "biologizing of inequality."

Posted by: Diane G. | November 21, 2009 2:13 AM

JeffreyD, isaac, & all the other feminist guys here, your posts are more supportive than you can ever know. They also indicate that perhaps there's still a bigger-tent meaning of the word feminism that doesn't necessarily embrace all the dogma of some of the present-day (pomo, I suppose) feminism. (Which is not a discussion I want to start--suffice it to say that I'm uncomfortable with much of post-modernism for all the reasons Sokal has already explained so well...).

#305
Posted by: mythusmage | November 20, 2009 5:16 AM
Diane G, #147
Got bad news for you, you are not immune to natural selection. How fit you are within your environment determines how successful you're going to be in reproducing.
Fitness may be physical, it may be mental, it may be social, but fitness still limits who can and will breed. You establish the criteria that determines who you will breed with, who is best suited to fathering your children.

Far from being the most selfish, exploitative species,
Homo Sapiens is the only species that has at least the possibility of rebelling against the
otherwise universally selfish Darwinian impulse.

If any species in the history of life has the possibility of breaking away from short-term selfishness and of long-term planning for the distant future, it’s our species.

And the answer lies in the fact that brains, although they are themselves the natural product of natural selection, follow their own rules, which can rise above the rules of natural selection. This is obvious in the case of the example of contraception. Contraception is clearly anti-Darwinian.

So my conclusion is that the natural, at least the natural of natural selection, has few virtues that we would wish to import into our human political life at least. It has been a part of our life for most of our ancestry, but we’d be well advised to in event mistrust it, even fight against it. I said that although I am a passionate Darwinian in the academic sense that I believe that Darwinism is the main ingredient in our understanding of our own existence and that of all life, I am a passionate Darwinian in that sense, yet I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to human social and political affairs and political planning for the world.

[mythusmage again] Where the matter of leaders and followers are concerned, it would behoove you to not simplify what I say. Yes, in every group you will find people who think they can be better leaders than the leader they now have. There will always be people who think the current leader is doing it wrong, and that they would do a better job. But, don't mistake the desire to become leader with some dream of a society without leaders, where all share equally in the power and the responsibility.

[mythusmage] On the matter of inclusive language it would help you to remember that I am of an earlier generation. When I was growing up gender inclusive words included such neologism as "s/he" and "hesh". The third person singular "they" is a rather recent usage. Please do not assume that just because I use the word "he" I'm always referring to men. You have the desire and the ability, then give it a shot. You never know how you'll do until you try.

[mythusmage] Last, but certainly not least, on the Internet nobody can tell you're intersexed with a micropenis undergoing hormone therapy preparatory to gender correction surgery. Just as anonymity can encourage boorish behavior, so can that same anonymity encourage assertiveness in somebody who would be too intimidated to speak out. More later in this thread.,

There has certainly been some sensationalist junk-science in this field. In real science, hypotheses are vulnerable to data.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 21, 2009 2:28 AM

Diane G,

I would suggest that since psychology is very hard to study through traditional biological measurements (genetics, population dynamics, fossil record, etc., etc.), it is more prone to speculation errors than "harder" fields...

This is why I have major issues with psychology as a field. One of the actual useful points of post-modernism is sociocultural anthropology was the idea that we can never be truly objective in the study of the human condition. Our culturally ingrained biases affect not only the conclusions we make from a given group of data, but also the data we choose to collect and the perspective from which we view that data.

One of the most amazing things about bioanthropology (IMHO) is the biocultural interaction. It's not limited to the evolutionary timescale. From the moment of conception biology and culture are interacting with both influencing the life outcomes for individuals. EP is terribly reductionist, and dismissive of the overwhelming influence of culture on the development of everything from height to careers for members of a culture. I just love it when they cite studies of small children as though those children are immune to the pervasive cultural influences they experience everyday.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | November 21, 2009 2:46 AM

Ol' Greg (and this is obliquely a response to Jadehawk and Samantha and others I'm sure I'm missing):

First, let me add mine to the list of voices thanking you and Pygmy Loris and Samantha for your courage in sharing your stories.

That said, on to the substance:

to me the reason that sexy is sexist is that women are disproportionally burdened with "sexy"...

I agree with this, as far as it goes, and said as much in the sentence immediately preceding the passage you quoted. However, this...

...as their main attribute, the main value system. You see, it's that objectification thing. Women are valuable if they are sexy, so a list of sexy women is a list of women being ranked for the only "real" reason we appreciate women.

...doesn't strike me as quite so obvious. It's inarguably true that women are more often described as sexy than men; it does not follow that describing a woman as sexy always, or even usually, implies that's her "main attribute." We humans are perfectly capable of focusing on one attribute of a person without forgetting about, or denying the existence of, all that person's other attributes. In fact, it seems to me that sexy is one of the very few (if not the only) attribution that is regularly presumed to be so reductive.

Suppose you are, in fact, funny and smart and tough and athletic: I could call you any one of those things, or even put your name on a list of funny or smart or tough or athletic people, and you would never think I was reducing you to only that characteristic.

In my experience, we're just inherently list-makers and categorizers, which implicitly means focusing on one attribute to the temporary, situational exclusion of others. This is always, in some strict sense, "objectification," but it isn't generally considered invidious... except when the attribute in question is related to sexuality. In part, this is due to genuine gender inequity — nothing I have said or will say in this conversation is any sort of attempt to debunk the existence of, or minimize the problem of, true sexism — but I believe it's also in part due to the fact that we have some seriously fucked up notions about the morality of sex in this culture. What I've been trying to say is that the latter condition complicates and often frustrates our ability to think and talk sensibly about the former.

Far too often I've observed conversations about sexism between intelligent, well-meaning, ostensibly like-minded people devolve into nasty fights because the men end up thinking the women are sex-hating prudes and the women end up thinking the men just want to shove their hands down girls' pants. Of course, it's sometimes the case that people on one side or the other (or both) are just jerks... but more often I think it's a matter of the conversation turning into a microcosm of our collective cultural insanity around sexuality.

Now if that imbalance, the gaze, I guess, were different it wouldn't inherently be sexist. But that's not how it is.

This is sorta' what I was getting at with my original point about a "10 sexiest male atheists" list: Not the sort of two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy Carol attributed to me; instead, I was trying to say that listing sexy people wouldn't be wrong in the first place, if it weren't for the imbalance.

I for instance hate being told I'm religious, repressed, need to loosen up because I don't want to dress sexy...

Jebus, I hope you didn't think I meant to be laying that sort of rap on you! I was talking on the societal level, not about individuals; if I wasn't clear about that, I'm terribly sorry.

...it doesn't have anything to do with those "repressed" types needing to get over their moral objections to sex.

I wasn't talking about sexually repressed groups or "types," either. I was talking about something much deeper and more fundamental than people's or groups' behaviors.

It seems to me that woven into the very fabric of our culture is a sort of universal self-loathing, born of the distinction essentially every religion I'm familiar with makes between the inherent corruption and depravity of mortal flesh and the immutable, incorruptible perfection of the immortal divine. Since the flesh is corrupt, everything that is of the flesh is necessarily corruption... and what could be more powerfully of the flesh than sexuality?

Even those of us who consciously throw off religion can't really escaped this broad, low-level fucked-upness about sex. It's a sort of cosmic background radiation of human culture: nearly indetectable, but always there, in any direction you choose to look; it irradiates nearly every aspect of our lives.

I confess, this notion of religion-born cultural insanity about sex is a particular hobbyhorse of mine. I see it as exacerbating, if not outright causing, a whole host of social problems... including sexism.

But in addition to being a contributing cause of sexism, I think it also messes with our ability to diagnose and treat sexism, because it becomes difficult to sort out the evil of gender inequality from the culturally determined sense that sex itself is evil.

So I haven't been meaning to deny or minimize sexism in favor of this idea; I've just been trying to apply my pet line of thinking to the problem of sexism.

If that doesn't strike you as a useful approach, then I beg your pardon.

...before all that happened and after I worked as a model. So looking sexy is in some ways the "one thing" I've ever had to offer.

Now would you want to feel that way?

Well, I doubt that looking sexy was ever truly the "one thing" you had to offer... but yes, actually, I would like to feel, occasionally, that in the moment, me looking sexy was the only thing someone could see about me. I've never felt that. To the best of my knowledge, I have never been looked at with unfiltered lust. Hell, to the best of my knowledge, I've never been looked at with filtered lust. I regret it.

Mind you, this is not some pathetic loser whining about how homely he is: I'm a perfectly normal-looking guy, possibly bordering on cute. I'd probably be actively attractive (for my age) if I lost 20 pounds. I'm fine about my looks.

But average-looking men, in my experience, don't get ogled the way even average-looking women do. That's sexism, I suppose, but I'm not always sure which way the arrow of blame should be pointing.

Would you want to feel that way if you'd put 15 years into research on science and religion... to have all that condensed on whether you were fuckable or not?

Well, of course I wouldn't want my whole life's accomplishments to be ignored... but I emphatically would like to know what it feels like to occasionally have someone look at me and think of absolutely nothing beyond how fuckable I was. I don't accept the assertion that the former is a prerequisite for the latter.

I have, in my time, been admired as witty and intelligent and articulate and diligent and committed and caring... but (AFAIK) never as fuckable. Because I take sexuality seriously as a wonder of nature and an important good in human life, I would be as proud of fuckable as of any of those other praiseworthy attributes.

If we — not just as individuals, but as a culture... as a species — could throw off our superstitious denigration of our own bodies, sexy would be just another compliment, and not the confounding and inflammatory word it currently seems to be.

Sadly, I'm afraid I wouldn't feel confident waiting underwater for that day to come.

Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | November 21, 2009 2:57 AM

Like Hyperon:

Because I'm a man, I suffer the increased probability of being assaulted by violent men. I would trade this any day for the increased probability of being raped incurred by women.

Sorry, what's the tag for comic sans?

Posted by: Nancy | November 21, 2009 3:06 AM

apart from #180 which had that drive-by, evidence-free ad hominem thing going on

Do you understand the meaning of the term "ad hominem"?

Here is what #180 says:

And BTW people, Richard Dawkins buys into all the just-so stories of evolutionary psychology - he said on this very blog that women are more monogamous than men by nature - and evolutionary psychology is what people turn to in order to justify male dominance and patriarchal cultural practices when "because God said so" will no longer suffice.

Explain where the ad hominem comes in.

And it is not evidence-free - I didn't fetch Dawkins' statements about women and monogamy, but I did give a reference: "this very blog" - you could have Googled it or asked for further details.

Instead, you attacked me personally and said I committed a logic fail.

Hence the awarding of the title "douchebag."

Posted by: Nancy | November 21, 2009 3:14 AM

I don't have the Pinker statements handy, but he does say that - but you don't seem to think it matters anyway:

Actually, Pinker does say those things in the debate with Spelke I already linked to. Read that. He soft-pedals it in this case, but that's what he is saying, no mistake.

And then Spelke knocks down his claims for innate gender differences one after the other with empirical data. It's truly a thing of beauty.

And since that debate, as I noted earlier, girls scores have improved to the point of parity with boys.

Why are facts so hostile to evolutionary psychology theories????

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 21, 2009 3:31 AM

Diane G.,

In my experience, sociocultural anthropology as it is practiced now is distinct from the other social sciences (including biological anthropology, which in many cases is way more biology than anthropology) in that there is an explicit rejection of the scientific method as the primary means of studying the human condition.

I should add that anthropologists do see the utility of the scientific method, but also the necessity of self-reflection with regards to data collection and analysis. It's the reflexive aspect of anthropology that sets it apart from psychology in particular, and also sociology. There is the common joke: The anthropologist in the field says to their informant "Enough about you, let's talk about me."

Posted by: Diane G. | November 21, 2009 3:46 AM

& BTW, your joke reminds me of New Yorker cartoon from ages ago with its own sexist commentary...

A well-dressed man & woman are sitting in one of those semi-circle restaurant booths (which name escapes me ATM...). He's looking meaningfully at her, and saying, "Enough about me. Let's talk about the Mets."

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 21, 2009 3:54 AM

Diane G.,

That doesn't mean I don't think that well-meaning people can't come to good conclusions...it's more the fact that any discipline rewards success, be that measured in publications, citations, speaking invitations, or whatever, and that these sorts of incentives can lead to the demand to devise unique schools of thought in which to prevail. I know I'm saying this very clumsily--hope some meaning comes through.

I get what you're saying and we do have our share of nutty schools of thought in anthropology, but we try to actually talk about why they're nutty.

One of the things anthropologists, both socioculturalists and bioanthropologists, used to do was try to prove there were innate, inherited differences between biological races of human beings. Then some of us started looking at why our objective, scientific data always seemed to say white males were the greatest EVAH! White people had the greatest civilizations because we built all these fancy buildings and colonized those inferior peoples who don't even have the ambition to develop writing, and we're inherently smarter 'cause the IQ test says the average Ethiopian is mildly retarded. Turns out things like IQ tests were inherently culturally biased along with the view that white, European culture was superior in providing the necessities of life. It took a little reflexivity to see that even if you think you're being objective, when you're thinking in the back of you head "my culture is so awesome and clearly superior to this one" your data (observations) are going to be flawed.

One of the things I always mention in introductory courses is that hunter-gatherers have more free-time than agriculturalists including us. It gets the students to thinking that just because our society is, for lack of a better word, complex, it isn't superior to other societies without that complexity.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 21, 2009 4:18 AM

sure, you can use it :-)

and something else just occurred to me, too. namely that just because Bill hasn't ever been told that he's being lusted at, doesn't mean it never happened. And here I think we can squarely blame sexism, prudery and patriarchy. why? because I have often had moments where the first thought upon seeing a guy was "want!", but I would never go up to them and let them know any such thing. because if I did let any man I've ever suddenly had the hots for know about it, I'd get myself a pretty solid reputation as an emotional ditz at best, or a slut who can't control herself at worst; regardless of whether any compliments on a man's hotness would be followed by actual sex. plus, it would help if compliments on a guy's sexiness weren't automatically interpreted as invitation (mixed messages, oh noes!).

Posted by: Rorschach | November 21, 2009 4:24 AM

Uhoh, it's Nancy the cultural materialist of "Baby Bear" thread fame !

What I want, as a woman and a human being, is to be seen as a person before someone considers whether or not they'd have sex with me

LOL. Would it be ok to just see you as a person and not consider having sex with you at all, even if you are pleasing to the eye? Because I dont't think that is what most men do.I certainly don't.
Anyway, I thought the wording was interesting..;)

Posted by: Rorschach | November 21, 2009 5:05 AM

I don't know what you imagine it says.

To me it seemed to say that I have no choice whether to think about a woman's fuckability or not, just whether I do it before or after considering her a human being and person.
Never mind, just nitpicking anyway, gtg to work...

Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | November 21, 2009 6:34 AM

Give up windy, you'll never unpack all the logical difficulties implicit in that one short post, and even if you did its author would claim never to have written any such thing. If I'd read the Baby Bear thread before, I'd have known what to expect. That's all from me on that poster.

Posted by: Ol' Greg | November 21, 2009 7:54 AM

Jadehawk pretty much summed up what I would have said to Bill. It's not about not wanting anyone ever to find me sexy, but rather it's about how awful it feels from age 2 and up to be constantly reminded of whether I'm sexy or not. Not just that, but to have my life molded around it "Don't give that little birthday girl another piece of cake she's going to get fat!!!" and "Well I'd still tap that" as daily reminders that yes, all that *does* matter is sexy. Now on an abstract level maybe that does play into larger ideas of sex, morality, and religion... but on the ground floor the effect is the same. You wind up feeling like nothing you do matters, you're just a fucking glory hole.

Bill hasn't ever been told that he's being lusted at, doesn't mean it never happened. And here I think we can squarely blame sexism, prudery and patriarchy.

I'm with Jadehawk 100 percent on this. Now the fact that you don't *know* that you have been lusted after (because I guarantee you have, although as is often the case with men and women who knows if it was some one you would have had mutual feelings for :P). But yeah, a lot of women won't say anything about that because they don't want the backlash, or worse yet for the guy you like to treat you like a cumdumpster because you hit on him. Girls aren't *supposed* to be like that, and you can definitely blame that on the obnoxious moralizing and the religious bull.

I think you can also see the effects of that moral stigma on guys. There are, sadly, guys who would just rather be approached then do the approaching. Sucks to be them right now, unless the luck out and bump into a girl who doesn't mind bucking the system.

Posted by: Carlie | November 21, 2009 8:12 AM

Rorschach, she's talking about society in general. She's talking about how, as has already been mentioned, that women are forced into being measured by fuckability before they are taken seriously in any other way in the majority of arenas, even those for which appearance shouldn't be the primary concern. The comment about news anchors was quite apt: how many women have you seen on major network news shows who are the size of Al Roker, or even local news, even though meteorology has nothing to do with appearance? How often are women politicians described as surly or angry or looking like a harpy simply for not smiling and giving off approachability signals often enough? How often are women told randomly, by strangers and acquaintances, "Whatzza matter? Smile!"
And even when her ideas are so brilliant that she's taken seriously to start with, the fuckability aspect is very, very close behind, as witnessed on the entire Care thread linked to earlier. If she's an ace car driver, the endorsement gigs she's offered involve being half-naked for GoDaddy. If she's a star soccer player who has just won an Olympic game, the focus isn't on the win, it's on how she took off her shirt in exuberance the way many male players do and exposed (the horrors!) a sports halter top. If she's the Secretary of State, no report on a speech can go without comment on whether what she was wearing was too frumpy. If she's the goddamned First Lady, no one talks about anything other than why she's wearing sleeveless shirts.
It's exhausting, and it's relentless.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 21, 2009 8:27 AM

It's worth noting that Dawkins and Dennett were already established academics and intellectuals in their fields, as well as being popularizing writers in those fields (Dawkins is the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford) before writing their books on religion that landed on the NY Times bestseller list -- there are specific reasons for how famous each individual is (it so happens that Dennett has written at some length on the subject of fame, using it as an analogy to explain the content of consciousness), and it is grossly simplistic to boil it down to gender.

And I don't see anyone suggesting that gender or race explains everything. But as Tyson points out in the video Feynmaniac posted, there are racial barriers to achievement in science, and likely gender barriers too.

So while questions of "why this individual man instead of this individual woman" are very complex, discrimination does play a role in the aggregate, in the question of "why so many men and comparatively few women".

Posted by: Carlie | November 21, 2009 8:43 AM

And another thing...(now I'm on a roll)

It's not as if diversity issues are only being lobbed at white males, much as it might seem from this discussion. Feminism is undergoing a big shift of a similar nature, as the vast majority of known names in feminism are upper middle class white women. In fact, there's been enough concern about it that a somewhat separate movement, "womanism", has arisen because some women feel so disenfranchised by the feminist movement. Not just disenfranchised by oblivious omission, but that even though they've been complaining about being ignored and overlooked for a long time, the situation still hasn't changed much. It's not clear yet whether feminists will adapt enough to combine back again, or whether it will continue to develop into a separate entity. So it's not just picking on guys.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 21, 2009 9:05 AM

I think its very important to look at why there tend to be more white male atheists than female or people of color from either gender. I think it might have to do with the fact that religion is a form of oppression that is useful for keeping people "in their place", but I would love to see scientific studies on the matter.

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/why_are_women_slightly_more_religious/

I'm not always happy with the feminist community. I'm in a gender studies class now, and it's driving me crazy just reading about critical theory. I want to see facts, I want to see science, I want to see statistics that prove their points. I want more reason.

http://google.com/

Posted by: EHorsley | November 21, 2009 9:50 AM

Dear Pharyngula community,
I am working on the curriculum for America's first Pre-K - 12 school for atheists, brights, agnostics, skeptics, secular humanists, secular feminists, freethinkers, etc. The school will offer a strong science and technology program coupled with progressive humanities. I need help and would welcome any suggestions or thoughts for the project. Also needed is a good name for the school. I like ICI because it's simple and easy to remember. (Invent, Create, Imagine) It also describes our project based approach to learning. Though Paul Geisert and Michael Shermer have provided some valuable guidelines, the more input, the merrier. When it comes to education, what does this community want and expect?
Many thanks,
E.Horsley

Posted by: Ol' Greg | November 21, 2009 10:46 AM

Oh Sastra for sure. I'd be surprised if she doesn't give at least some lectures or whatnot at conferences?

I don't really know what field she's in, I always assumed she was a philosophy prof for some reason :P

Posted by: bastion of sass | November 21, 2009 11:54 AM

The comments have been growing in number faster than I've had time to read them until yesterday and today, but I'm all caught up now.

A lot of responses to the comments, especially the more clueless ones, went through my mind, but they've mostly been addressed by others.

One thing that I haven't read is: I really don't know what bothers--no infuriates--me more: being judged on my looks when I was young and "hot," or being invisible to people (mostly to men, but to women too to some extent) now that I'm in my late 50s.

Having your looks factor into your employment qualifications is bad, but add to that being seen as "an old woman" when applying for jobs, well, that simply sucks no end. :-(

Posted by: freethinking mom | November 21, 2009 12:23 PM

@28 and @91

We call the Unitarian Church, "Atheists with Children."

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 21, 2009 1:13 PM

Rorshach,

Uhoh, it's Nancy the cultural materialist of "Baby Bear" thread fame !

That quote was from me not Nancy. Anyway, I'm perfectly fine with men (and women) never considering whether they'd have sex with me. However, many on the men I run into on a regular basis have, at some point, told me that I am "sexy," "fuckable," that they'd "do me" if they had a chance. Some of my male friends have said in front of me that they aren't friends with women they don't want to have sex with. It's infuriating that I can know someone for years and find out the deciding factor in our relationship was that he thought I was hot when he met me.

Like Jadehawk, OM said, I rarely tell men that I think they are hot. Certainly I don't say to a man I just met "I'm thinking nothing but lustful thoughts about you." One of the prime reasons is that I don't want to be seen as "leading them on." I was chatting with some friends at the Student Center a couple of years ago when a friend of theirs came up. That person (a man) and I started talking about politics and after five minutes I said something like "yeah, my boyfriend and I saw Sicko and it pissed us off." This man actually got mad at me because I hadn't mentioned that I had a boyfriend when we started talking, and accused me of leading him on. True story. Apparently I'm supposed to announce to any man I meet, regardless of whether I know he's attached or not, that I have a boyfriend and am therefore off the market. That's infuriating.

Posted by: PixelFish | November 21, 2009 1:27 PM

I don't think I ever really discussed with my guyfriends if I found them attractive or not, unless it was in the context of them asking advice so they could clean up for another girl, or if they asked me point blank.

Pygmy@619: I had that happen a couple of times too, although not in the first five minutes. But I'd meet a guy in school or work or somewhere, and think we were becoming friends. Eventually I would get around to mentioning my boyfriend, and suddenly, whooosh, guy would evaporate. There was ALSO the case of a guy friend from high school who ditched me and all his other single female friends once he got engaged. I knew his fiance--we'd gone to school together and were friends--so it wasn't just a case of "my fiance is jealous of my female friends" but literally he didn't see a reason to have us in his life any more once he'd figured out which one of us he was going to marry. For a while I was pretty reflexive about mentioning my boyfriend in the first ten minutes or so of meeting a guy, because I got tired of the disappearing act from guys I thought were friends.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 21, 2009 1:36 PM

PL @ 619,

That quote was from me not Nancy

No it's from her own website.

Nice to see that Rorschach still has the same agenda and ideology fueled commenting pattern. :)

My agenda, is that an agenda just like atheism is a religion, not-stamp collecting is a hobby and all that? Still the silly maker of remote character diagnoses over the net, strange gods...:-)

Posted by: InfuriatedSciTeacher | November 21, 2009 1:50 PM

Interesting that people automatically dismiss evo-psych claims, regardless of the evidence out there...
Admittedly, Pinker doesn't do a lick of empirical work himself, but comparing some of the learning claims to evidence from ed/anthropology/psych research merits considering some of those hypotheses as plausible at least. Atran's work in folk bio and Brannon and Cantlon's work in number sense come immediately to mind. Just-so-stories are exactly that, until there's some corroboration of the predictions that they create, then the shoe's on the other foot in terms of irrationality.
Nancy> So Spelke trashed Pinker's gender difference comments with the evidence, well done... so why, then, do ed programs insist on discussing gender differences in math/science education as if we need to make fundamental changes in math and science to encourage women to take part? Belenky and "women's ways of knowing", for example... I find that as offensive as Pinker's "biologically inferior" comments, with the added bonus that it isn't even considered to be based in evidence.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 21, 2009 1:54 PM

Rorshach,

I'm impressed that I somehow managed to type

What I want, as a woman and a human being, is to be seen as a person before someone considers whether or not they'd have sex with me.

Posted by: Nancy | November 21, 2009 2:06 PM

Uhoh, it's Nancy the cultural materialist of "Baby Bear" thread fame !

What I want, as a woman and a human being, is to be seen as a person before someone considers whether or not they'd have sex with me

Wow - "fame"? From a thread from 2 months ago, which I had to let go because I had to work the following 3 weekends?

Would that it was so easy to become famous in the theater world.

PL @ 619,

That quote was from me not Nancy

No it's from her own website.

When somebody tells you they said something, you might want to take their world for it. I have several web sites and blog daily, and say lots of stuff - but the words you attribute to me don't sound like anything I've said online. How about providing a link to this alleged website?

Posted by: Sili | November 21, 2009 2:13 PM

At some point while at uni I noticed that women seemed to mention their boyfriends within five minutes of being introduced to me. I took it as a sign that I was exuding desperation.

I have recently ruined a good friendship with a woman, because I stopped thinking of her as a person and made her a girl after she 'came out'.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 21, 2009 2:14 PM

If she's the goddamned First Lady, no one talks about anything other than why she's wearing sleeveless shirts.

In this case, though, a lot has been made of the clothing style of the equally goddamned President himself.

Evolutionary psychology faces inferential problems greater than most other sciences in that 1) as a historical science, appropriate evidence for testing hypotheses isn't necessarily forthcoming

Nothing against your second point, but this one is rather empty, as shown by the rest of evolutionary biology, not to mention paleontology, geology, and astrophysics.

Some of my male friends have said in front of me that they aren't friends with women they don't want to have sex with.

<headdesk>

I was chatting with some friends at the Student Center a couple of years ago when a friend of theirs came up. That person (a man) and I started talking about politics and after five minutes I said something like "yeah, my boyfriend and I saw Sicko and it pissed us off." This man actually got mad at me because I hadn't mentioned that I had a boyfriend when we started talking, and accused me of leading him on. True story.

<dramatic removal of glasses>

<facepalm>

Posted by: Mariano | November 21, 2009 2:18 PM

To FatherNature,
This is merely more atheist propaganda as Richard Dawkins wonders whether there is occasion for “society stepping in” and hopes that such efforts “might lead children to choose no religion at all.” Dawkins also supports the atheist summer camp “Camp Quest.”

Phillip Pullman states the following about his “fictional” books for children, “I don't think I'm writing fantasy. I think I'm writing realism. My books are psychologically real.” But what does he really write about? As he has admitted, “My books are about killing God” and “I'm trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief.”

More evidence here:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/11/deceptive-manipulative-propagandist.html

Yet again, atheists are collecting “amazing sums” during a time of worldwide recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to attempt to demonstrate just how clever they consider themselves to be—while actually loudly, proudly and expensively demonstrating their ignorance and arrogance—need any more be said?

Posted by: PixelFish | November 21, 2009 2:23 PM

@MAJeff, OM #628 & Anomic Entropy @634:

Lee did not include food preparation time in his study, arguing that "work" should be defined as the time spent gathering enough food for subsistence. In other words, labor traditionally undertaken by women was left out of the analysis.

One of my favourite bits from Lois Bujold’s story, Ethan of Athos, is about "women's work". For a little backstory, Ethan is an obstetrician from a planet where only men live, and where all reproduction and birth is made possible through uterine replicators. (The uterine replicators show up in other stories of Bujold’s, and on some planets, make it possible for women to live longer healthier lives.) Ethan has to go off-planet to collect new genetic strains to reinforce their older, senescing strains, and in the process runs afoul of some particularly nasty folks. He is aided along the way by a female mercenary and they have this conversation:

“What kind of genetics project?” he asked suddenly. “Millisor’s thing, I mean. Don’t you know any more about it than that?”

She spared him a thoughtful glance. “Human genetics. And in truth, I know very little more than that. Some names, a few code words. God only knows what they were up to. Making monsters, maybe. Or raising supermen. The Cetagandans have always been a bunch of aggressive militarists. Maybe they meant to raise battalions of mutant super-soldiers in vats like you Athosians and take over the universe or something.”

“Not likely,” remarked Ethan. “Not battalions, anyway.”

“Why not? Why not clone as many as you want, once you’ve made the mold?”

“Oh, certainly, you could produce quantities of infants—although it would take enormous resources to do so. Highly trained techs, as well as equipment and supplies. But don’t you see, that’s just the beginning. It’s nothing, compared to what it takes to raise a child. Why, on Athos it absorbs most of the planet’s economic resources. Food of course—housing— education, clothing, medical care—it takes nearly all our efforts just to maintain population replacement, let alone to increase. No government could possibly afford to raise such a specialized, non-productive army.”

Elli Quinn quirked an eyebrow. “How odd. On other worlds, people seem to come in floods, and they’re not necessarily impoverished, either.”

Ethan, diverted, said “Really? I don’t see how that can be. Why, the labor costs alone of bringing a child to maturity are astronomical. There must be something wrong with your accounting.”

Her eyes screwed up in an expression of sudden ironic insight. “Ah, but on other worlds the labor costs aren’t added in. They’re counted as free.”

Ethan stared. “What an absurd bit of double thinking! Athosians would never sit still for such a hidden labor tax! Don’t the primary nurturers even get social duty credits?”

“I believe,” her voice was edged with a peculiar dryness, “they call it women’s work.”

Posted by: Nancy | November 21, 2009 2:24 PM

Interesting that people automatically dismiss evo-psych claims, regardless of the evidence out there...

I don't know which people you have in mind there, but that certainly doesn't describe me. I've been studying evolutionary psychology since it changed its name from sociobiology, since I was introduced to sociobiology in Marvin Harris's "Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture"

And since Harris I've read critiques of sociobiology/evolutionary psychology by Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Jerry Coyne, Elizabeth Spelke, David Buller, R. Brian Ferguson and Richard Lewontin, to name the first off the top of my head. And I've argued with Steven Pinker about it by email.

However, it is standard practice, as illustrated so consistently by Helena Cronin, for proponents of evolutionary psychology to claim its critics object to EP "automatically" out of misguided political correctness and anti-science ignorance. Reading the work of EP proponents like Cronin, you would never know that many well-respected prominent scientists, philosophers, anthropologists etc. have serious science-base objections to EP, that starts with the disagreement over strict adaptationism.

Posted by: Mr T | November 21, 2009 2:31 PM

Nancy:
The Pinker-Spelke debate you linked to earlier does not support the extreme claims you've been making. Pinker is describing evidence that any differences between sexes may not be entirely based on "nurture", but could also be a product of "nature". He also makes it very clearly he does not support discrimination, nor would that fact support discrimination.

Consider this excerpt from Pinker:

Okay, so what are the similarities and differences between the sexes? There certainly are many similarities. Men and women show no differences in general intelligence or g — on average, they are exactly the same, right on the money. Also, when it comes to the basic categories of cognition — how we negotiate the world and live our lives; our concept of objects, of numbers, of people, of living things, and so on — there are no differences.

Indeed, in cases where there are differences, there are as many instances in which women do slightly better than men as ones in which men do slightly better than women. For example, men are better at throwing, but women are more dexterous. Men are better at mentally rotating shapes; women are better at visual memory. Men are better at mathematical problem-solving; women are better at mathematical calculation. And so on.

I can not make any claim about the degree to which biology and culture affect differences between any two individuals. That is an open empirical question. To shift it into a moral, emotional, or political question is the wrong way to go about it.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 21, 2009 2:34 PM

In other words, labor traditionally undertaken by women was left out of the analysis.

Perhaps, but what about the rest of the paragraph?

When work is seen as all life-sustaining activity, the !Kung will be observed as working for more than forty hours a week (about as much as a Westerner spends at their job alone)^[4]. However, if cooking, bathing and all life-sustaining activity were counted in addition to employment in Western societies, the average person in a Western society would spend far more than 40 hours per week "sustaining" themselves.

Of course, then there's another entire paragraph...

But I'm really surprised to learn that nobody seems to have tried to put a number to how much time an agricultural society, like 19^th-century rural Europe, needs for work. Isn't that the most interesting question here? I grew up thinking this was all about the Neolithic Revolution. ~:-|

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 21, 2009 2:38 PM

PixelFish #637,

That is truly awesome! I'm going to have to go find this story now. Thanks for mentioning it.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | November 21, 2009 2:45 PM

David,

It's my opinion that the most important aspect of the Neolithic Revolution was that it raised the carrying capacity of a particular land area. As cultural adaptations enable the population to grow, so-called "women's work" grows disproportionately. For example, birth rates tend to go up with the adoption of agriculture resulting in a greater amount of labor investment by women in child-rearing.

Posted by: alex.asolis.net | November 21, 2009 2:50 PM

"One thing that would really help, I think, is if the grassroots spoke out a little bit more to remind us. Tell us who you want to hear who isn't pale-skinned and full of testosterone"

Speak for yourself. Unlike you, not all people who happen to have certain physical attributes identify with them. While you might see males of European descent as merely "pale-skinned and full of testosterone," that's simply not the case. I see them as individuals, just like everyone else. So, PZ Myers: Fuck you.

Posted by: Nancy | November 21, 2009 3:03 PM

that flies in the face of available evidence is another.

WHAT evidence???

My point is that EP claims need to be examined rationally, not simply have Gould's label slapped on them.

But GOULD examined the claims rationally - why wouldn't anybody want to mention that?

What the EPs usually try to do with Gould is claim that since he had socialist leanings, his opinions on EP/sociobiology are not really worth considering.

And what else could they do? He slapped them down so hard all over the pages of the New York Review of Books that not even they could pretend it was a victory for them.

Posted by: Mr T | November 21, 2009 3:08 PM

Nancy sez:

Pinker is certainly less blatant than Cronin or Lawrence Summers in his statements - but it's all there if you follow through on his arguments.

So right away a number of public statements that have been made last couple of months can be seen as red herrings, and should never have been made by anyone who understands the nature of statistical distributions. This includes the accusation that President Summers implied that "50% of the brightest minds in America do not have the right aptitude for science," that "women just can't cut it," and so on. These statements are statistically illiterate, and have nothing to do with the phenomena we are discussing.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 21, 2009 3:09 PM

My agenda, is that an agenda just like atheism is a religion, not-stamp collecting is a hobby and all that?

Oblivious.

Still the silly maker of remote character diagnoses over the net, strange gods...:-)

Hilarious! I actually repeat to you exactly what you said to me, and you complain that I'm making a remote character diagnosis. Get a sense of humor, Rorschach, you fucking hypocrite. :)

Posted by: Hyperon | November 21, 2009 3:13 PM

...casually relevant

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 21, 2009 3:17 PM

Me @207: The last time I called you out on this kind of bullshit...
Nancy @210: I don't remember you at all.

Yes, right, I should have recalled that you abandoned that thread after contributing your stinky little turds of party-line sloganeering.
Here was my reaction to your crap back then, and after reading through your contributions to this thread, it goes double now.

Nancy @ 210: And I said "evolutionary psychology is what people turn to in order to justify male dominance and patriarchal cultural practices." Not what you just said I said. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

That's it; bring the attitude. Read my August comment linked above (and then Mr. T's #641 above) and then come back to talk to me about "reading comprehension."
But I'm happy to address the actual words you typed: It's a completely unsupported assertion. I know this kind of thing goes over great over at Pandagon when everyone's patting each other on the back about their mutually agreeable right-thinking progressivism, but here among scientists we require that people support assertions. Or else we don't believe them. Especially if "they" are demonstrably ignorant.

Nancy @ 180, 235, 249, 563, 565, 567, 568, 571, 573, 574, 578, 585: [more broad-brushed misinterpretations and simplistic caricatures of what [all of?] those eeeevil "EPs" think, say, theorize, and claim, all right off the top of Nancy's obsessed head and none of it referenced in any way.]

one example: "Biological inferiority is exactly the argument that Steven Pinker makes, and it was echoed by Lawrence Summers in his infamous statement at Harvard."
Wrong re Summers; he said nothing about "biological inferiority," as I tried to make plain in the August thread. Do you know what he actually said? I'd bet money the answer is no. Citation required for Pinker.
Tip: Assertions about "what Pinker says" are insufficient, especially coming from a dogmatic, obsessive source like you. Cite or shut up; thanks.

Nancy @ 251, 561, 563, 572, 583, 651: Pure, smug, superior and completely unearned unjustified attitude. Do you know or care how obnoxiously you come across? ("Gigantic douchebag"? *painfully intense eyeroll*) Hey, Nancy, there are people here who know stuff. Stuff that you don't. Try to stay (appropriately) humble.

Nancy @ 259, 565: Thanks for those links. I look forward to reading them.

Nancy @629: "How about providing a link to this alleged website?" is delicious irony.

Nancy @639: More irony. You have educated yourself by specifically reading people who you already know share your presupposed conclusions. Note that noplace do you brag about reading the works of actual "EPs." You dismiss the "proponents" a priori because they are (perceived by you as) proponents, and you seemingly work hard to collect arguments that you already agree with. And if you won't acknowledge the explicit political agendas of people like Gould and Lewontin, then I guess it's unlikely that you'd be forthcoming about your own.
Your knowledge of "sociobiology" comes from a book entitled "Cultural Materialism"? You don't see a wee problem there in the objectivity department? Have you ever read Wilson's Chapter 26? Did you know that the other 25 chapters are also "sociobiology"?
In short, you show every sign of being politically and not scientifically motivated. And then to turn around and impart political motivations to honest scientists? Hypocrisy and irony.
You know nothing of science, and your snide attitude toward those who do speaks far louder than your half-understood slogans of The Left.

Also: "many well-respected prominent scientists, philosophers, anthropologists etc. have serious science-base objections to EP, that starts with the disagreement over strict adaptationism."
You have done a very poor job of making those arguments, Nancy. I conclude (again) that you don't really know what you're talking about.

Ermine @265, Scanlon @559 @580 @599, Mr.T @576 @641, windy @598, ICT @625 @644: What I said.

Posted by: Hyperon | November 21, 2009 3:24 PM

You said at #504 you were going to leave voluntarily.

No surprise that in addition to being a racist and a misogynist, you are a liar.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 21, 2009 3:29 PM

No surprise that in addition to being a racist and a misogynist, you are a liar.

Posted by: Ol' Greg | November 21, 2009 3:34 PM

Hyperon:

Why did you make those remarks? Is that how you really feel?

Is there a reason for that?

You seem like you're trying to defend yourself, but you apologized, so why the attempt to save face?

As far as being banished, if that's what makes you feel better but your "insensitive" remarks were pretty stunning. Did they really not seem so to you at the time?

It's so easy to downplay the experiences of others. But most of the people I've heard these things from are fragile at best themselves.

Wolf by the ears I guess, but I'm curious if you'll answer me.

Posted by: Carlie | November 21, 2009 3:50 PM

Hyperon, stop whining. You haven't been banned, as your ability to still post indicates. You've been found to add absolutely nothing of value. I'd say that's worse, but be sure to be clear about that, eh?
And if you can still characterize what you said as "some clumsily insensitive comments", then you really still have no idea what you did. You have no concept of just how vile your comparisons were, how much of a direct insult and attack they were to women who have been raped, how offensive they were to anyone who cares about women who have been raped. You are still entirely clueless, and entirely irrelevant.

Posted by: Ol' Greg | November 21, 2009 3:56 PM

There is no explanation for you still hanging around where you know you aren't wanted, except that you are a troll.

Meh... I have a persistent problem with taking people too seriously I suppose.

Posted by: InfuriatedSciTeacher | November 21, 2009 4:08 PM

Nancy> did you look at what I cited in #625, or just snort "What evidence" because that's your standard response?
Gould's label was an examination of strict adaptationism in general, unless you have something else to present... thus the whole discussion of spandrels and just-so-stories. Something need not be adaptive to be inherited, but that doesn't make it not inherited. Gould's criticism is valid if and only if there's nothing to support a trait being adaptive, and that still doesn't remove the possibility that it's a human universal.
References:
Folk physics: Lilliam NcDermott, amongst many others
Folk biology: Scott Atran (1998) and then some
Innate number sense: Jennifer Cantlon and Elizabeth Brannon for neuroscience data on number sense in non-human primates, and a wealth of math ed literature for the same in humans.
I've spent the last month pulling data from sources outside EP to evaluate those and other claims (Blank Slate Chapter 6), would you like a copy of the lit review when I've finished it?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 21, 2009 4:09 PM

Hyperon, we don't give a shit about your paranoia, and we won't discuss it. You answered the question. Now fuck off and stay away. You offer nothing whatsoever to this blog except paranoia, arrogance, and just plain stupidity.

Posted by: Ol' Greg | November 21, 2009 4:12 PM

I'm sorry guys. If hyperon is a known troll then I won't clog the boards anymore with discussion. I don't want to be repeating a discussion that has happened over and over again.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 21, 2009 4:16 PM

I just like to disagree with consensus.

Actually studying a topic before you open your stupid mouth would be a lot more productive than congratulating yourself for being an ignorant bigot.

Posted by: Hyperon | November 21, 2009 4:19 PM

It's not a competition. I have a friend, male friend, who got stabbed in the side. It was awful. So was the way he was treated after.

Posted by: Ol' Greg | November 21, 2009 4:25 PM